By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex S. Oxyer, Andrew D. Welker

Seyfarth Synopsis: After over a decade of litigation between the EEOC and trucking company CRST Van Expedited, the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a federal district court’s order requiring the EEOC to pay $3.3 million in attorneys’ fees to CRST for pursuing claims that

250px-US-CourtOfAppeals-8thCircuit-SealBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Michael L. DeMarino

Seyfarth Synopsis:  After thirty-three former employees who signed release agreements requiring individual arbitration of ADEA claims collectively sued their employer for age discrimination, the employer moved to compel individual arbitration. The District Court denied the company’s motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

supreme courtSeyfarth Synopsis: As profiled in our recent publication of the 13th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings have a profound impact on employers and the tools they may utilize to defend high-stakes litigation. Rulings by the Supreme Court in 2016 were no exception.

Is The Supreme Court Pro-Worker Or

moneybagBy Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Christopher DeGroff, Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik

As we recently blogged here, EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. is an important case on the Supreme Court’s docket that employers absolutely need to monitor.  At issue is whether attorneys’ fees are appropriate in instances where

By Gerald L Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler

In a highly anticipated decision issued yesterday in one of the EEOC’s most high profile cases, Chief Judge Linda R. Reade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa ordered the EEOC to pay $4,694,442.14 in attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in the

Thumbnail image for SupremeCourt.jpgBy Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Today, in its first significant class action ruling of 2013, Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the reach of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) when it unanimously rejected plaintiff’s attempt to keep a