visaSeyfarth Synopsis:  Hispanic employees of a poultry processing plant alleged harassment and abuse on the job. The company claimed that the employees’ allegations were fabricated in order to obtain U visas, which are available to immigrant abuse victims who assist in government investigations. Over the plaintiffs’ objections, the district court allowed the company discovery

flag-28562_640By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Howard M. Wexler

We’ve previously blogged about the impact the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015), most recently here and here. As we predicted, the true impact of Mach Mining will not be known until federal courts around the

gavel on white backgroundBy Christopher M. Cascino and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

In EEOC v. DolGenCorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General, No. 13-CV-4307 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2015), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decided several discovery issues that have become increasingly common in EEOC-initiated disparate impact litigation.  In

By Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler

Discovery battles in high-stakes employment discrimination class actions are costly, contentious, and oftentimes can serve as a “game changer” that alters the entire landscape of a case.  A recent decision from Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV in Chen-Oster, et al., v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

By Laura J. Maechtlen and Brian Wong

 As the EEOC trains its focus on systemic enforcement actions, discovery battles over probative claimant information will continue to grow in importance proportionally with the claimant class size. Employer access to specific types of claimant information can make a critical difference in mounting key defenses, testing claimant credibility,