By Rebecca Bjork and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
There seems to be a trend developing in defense strategy in the wake of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). More and more defendants facing class actions alleging that discretionary decision-making in a culture infected with bias causes employment discrimination are moving to dismiss, arguing that such
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Laura J. Maechtlen
We previously blogged about what could have been the final chapter for one of the smaller “rebooted” class actions following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), but a September 21, 2012 ruling by Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District
Continue Reading “Re-Booted” Claims Survive Motion To Dismiss In Dukes Fourth Amended Complaint
By Christopher DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
In an issue of first impression before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Nora B. Fischer in EEOC v. United States Steel Corporation, et al., No. 10-CV-1284 (W.D. Pa. July 23, 2012), granted, in part, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and held that the EEOC must
By Timothy F. Haley and Laura Maechtlen
Antitrust claims are not unknown or uncommon anymore for employers. We have previously blogged about how workplace antitrust claims are coming into vogue for the plaintiffs’ class action bar.
The recent decision in In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55302 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 18, 2012), illustrates this
Continue Reading Plaintiffs’ “No Poaching” Antitrust Class Action Claims Survive Motion To Dismiss