Co-authored by Christopher J. DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
Joining a growing line of cases reflecting judicial intolerance for questionable litigation tactics, the recent ruling in EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc. (W.D. Mich. Mar 31, 2011), represents solid support for employers targeted by questionable government-initiated litigation.
In EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., the EEOC alleged that the staffing company’s…
Continue Reading EEOC’s “Shoot-First, Aim Later” Tactics Result In $751,942 Sanction
Co-authored by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura Maechtlen
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
For those who enjoy reading the tea leaves from the intensely combative questioning during the argument, the hearing transcript makes for fascinating reading [link to transcript].
The stakes in the case are enormous and the…
Continue Reading Analysis Of The Supreme Court Argument In Dukes
Co-authored by Alex S. Drummond and Brandon L. Spurlock
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), the use of arbitration agreements to resolve employment disputes has been hotly debated, both in federal courts and elsewhere. A federal district court in Virginia – in Bennett et al.
Co-authored by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura J. Maechtlen
Briefing is now complete in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart. The defense filed its reply brief late last week ahead of its scheduled due date [link to reply brief].
The papers filed by the parties and their supporting amici likely constitute a new modern record in Supreme…
Continue Reading Last Briefing Filed In Dukes – Oral Argument Is Next
Challenges are on the increase over the use of credit checks by employers. One of the first private party class actions of this ilk – entitled Appolon, et al. v. University of Miami, Case No. 1:01-CV-24166 (S.D. Fla.) – asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging disparate impact discrimination…
Co-authored by Alex S. Drummond and Brandon L. Spurlock
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), constituted a “game-changer” in the field of class arbitration, the scope and breadth of this ruling continues to be a hotly debated topic in class action litigation.
In 2009, the…
Co-authored by Brandon L. Spurlock and Alex S. Drummond
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010), the battle lines are being drawn in federal courts over the extent to which employers can use workplace arbitration agreements to stay out of court proceedings and/or class actions.
Sutherland…
Continue Reading The On-Going Judicial Debate Over Class Arbitration Of Employment Claims
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and David B. Ross
On March 1, 2011, multiple groups supporting Plaintiffs filed 14 amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Given the upcoming oral argument of the case on March 29, 2011, interest in the parties’ arguments – and those of their supporting amici – is…
Continue Reading Amicus Briefs In Support Of Plaintiffs Filed In Dukes
Co-authored by Edward Cerasia II and Ian H. Morrison
The accrual date for the statute of limitations in pension benefits and other denial of benefits cases under ERISA continues to be a critically important issue in ERISA class action litigation. On February 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Sorokin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a favorable…
Co-authored by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and David B. Ross
As readers of our Blog know, Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores is one of the most closely watched cases in years given the stakes for employers in employment discrimination class actions. The oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is set for March 29, 2011. As the argument date…
