By Jennifer A. Riley and Michael L. DeMarino
Seyfarth Synopsis: The ABA’s “anti-contact” rule prohibits attorneys from communicating with represented parties concerning the subject matter of the case. In Moore, et al., v. Club Exploria, LLC, No. 19-CV-2504, 2021 WL 260227 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2021), the court sanctioned defense counsel for calling plaintiff’ s cell number as part
Continue Reading Primer On The Line Between Proper And Improper Communications With Parties In A Class Action
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a class action lawsuit alleging multiple fraud claims, a federal court in Illinois granted the plaintiff’s motion to sanction the defendants for interfering with the class notice process by encouraging class members to opt-out, and sanctioned their attorney for communicating directly with a represented party.
For employers
Continue Reading Class Notice Interference On The Defense: Court Penalizes Defendants And Attorney
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In an EEOC lawsuit alleging that an employer failed to reasonably accommodate its Muslim employees’ requests for prayer breaks, a federal court in Colorado granted the EEOC’s motion for sanctions — as a result of the employer’s failure to preserve and produce various records — and barred the
Continue Reading EEOC’s Motion For Sanctions Granted Over Employer’s Failure To Preserve And Produce Records
Seyfarth Synopsis: Governmental enforcement litigation was a mixed bag in 2016. The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) continued their aggressive enforcement programs, but their effectiveness was down “by the numbers” as compared to previous years. What does this mean for 2017? In the 6th and final installment in our series of blog postings
Continue Reading What 2016 Governmental Enforcement Litigation Trends Suggest For Employers In 2017
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christina M. Janice, and Alex W. Karasik
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a landmark case for EEOC litigation involving fee sanctions, while employer CRST successfully argued that a ruling “on-the-merits” is not necessary to be a prevailing party, the SCOTUS remanded the case back down to the Eighth Circuit to determine whether a preclusive
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Rejects The Government’s Position In The Largest EEOC Fee Sanction Case Ever
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Alexis P. Robertson
On January 8, 2015, in S37 Management, Inc. v. Advance Refrigeration Co., No. 06 CH 20999 (Ill. Cir Ct. Jan 8, 2015), an Illinois Circuit Court, located in Cook County’s Chancery Division, denied a Defendant’s motion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal regarding the application of the crime-fraud exception
Continue Reading Illinois Court Orders Disclosure Of Defendant’s Communications With Counsel After Allegations Of Improper Contact With Class Members
By Christopher J. DeGroff, Matthew J. Gagnon, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
As we reported in our recent Annual EEOC Report (found here), the EEOC prides itself on its aggressive litigation theories and strategies. But just one week into 2015, the EEOC’s envelope-pushing tactics have already been shot down twice. In EEOC v. Performance Food Group, Inc.
Continue Reading Year-Starting Stumbles: The EEOC’s Aggressive Tactics Shot Down Twice In The First Week Of 2015
By Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Howard M. Wexler, and Nadia Bandukda
In a case we previously blogged about (here and here), EEOC v. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, 13-CV-46 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2014), Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld held the EEOC liable for spoliation sanctions based on the “negligence, if not gross negligence” exhibited by
Continue Reading Court Rejects EEOC’s Objections To $22,900 Spoliation Sanction Award
By Christopher DeGroff, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Lily M. Strumwasser
This week the Fourth Circuit put its foot down on a decision almost eleven years in the making, ordering the government to pay Propack Logistics $189,113.50 in attorneys’ fees. This welcome news brings the EEOC’s long battle in EEOC v. Propak Logistics Inc., Case No. 13-CV-1687
Continue Reading Victory At Last: Fourth Circuit Orders EEOC To Pay Up On Hefty Attorneys’ Fees Award
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Howard M. Wexler
In a case we previously blogged about, EEOC v. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, 13-CV-46 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2014), Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld held the EEOC liable for spoliation sanctions based on the “negligence, if not gross negligence” exhibited by the charging party it brought suit on behalf
Continue Reading Court Issues $22,900 Sanction Award Against The EEOC For Spoliation