Workplace Class Action Blog

Latest from Workplace Class Action Blog

Ohio Federal Judge Crafts An Unprecedented Class Action Mechanism To Bring Relief To Counties And Cities Struggling To Address Opioid Crisis

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on September 13, 2019

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Christina M. Janice Seyfarth Synopsis: In complex class actions, courts have looked to Rule 23 to authorize class actions either for trial, or for approval of a previously negotiated settlement. Now as thousands of public entities nationwide pursue financial relief from opiate manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel A. Polster has ordered into effect a third and “innovative” type of class action. In the litigation…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Good News For Employers: D.C. Circuit Insists On “Hard Look” At Uninjured Class Members At Class Certification Stage

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on August 20, 2019

By: Gina R. Merrill, David B. Ross, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Seyfarth Synopsis: In a decision with far–reaching implications for workplace class actions, the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed the denial of class certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class on the grounds that the proposed class contained uninjured class members in the case of In Re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Dakota Granite Co, et. al. v. BNSF Railway Co., et. al.…

Workplace Class Action Blog

The Supreme Court of Ohio Rules That Defendants Need Not Plead An Arbitration Defense To Defeat Class Certification

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on August 17, 2019

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Michael L. DeMarino, and Andrew Cockroft Seyfarth Synopsis: Complex class actions often present a scenario in which some or most of the putative class members are subject to arbitration agreements, but the named plaintiff is not. In Gembarski v. PartsSource, Inc., No. 2018-0125, 2019 Ohio LEXIS 1639 (Ohio Aug. 14, 2019), the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that because the defendant could not have raised an arbitration defense against…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Federal Court Rules That Employer Is Not Entitled To EEOC’s Pre-Suit Materials

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on August 7, 2019

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Alex W. Karasik Seyfarth Synopsis: After a federal magistrate judge in California ordered the EEOC to provide written discovery responses relative to the substance its pre-suit investigation of a sex discrimination charge in EEOC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-CV-5382, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129046 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019), the EEOC objected to the order and sought review; thereafter, the district judge granted EEOC’s motion for…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Copy-Cat Class Actions Meet Copy-Cat Legislation: Illinois’ BIPA Spurs New Biometric Privacy Legislation Across The Nation

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on July 11, 2019

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Thomas E. Ahlering and Andrew R. Cockroft Seyfarth Synopsis: While most employers are likely familiar with the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), they should know that Illinois is not the only state with a biometric privacy law and many other states are not far behind from joining that group. In addition to states with existing biometric privacy laws (Illinois, Texas, and Washington), various state legislatures are considering similar…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Biometric Privacy Class Actions By The Numbers: Analyzing Illinois’ Hottest Class Action Trend

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on June 28, 2019

By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Thomas E. Ahlering, and Alex W. Karasik Seyfarth Synopsis: Over the last few years, Illinois companies have quickly become aware of the risks associated with the state’s unique biometric privacy law. Originally passed in 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) made Illinois the first state to enact a policy governing the collection and storage of biometric data resulting in a surge of class action lawsuits filed by…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Google: Demonstrating The Hazards Of Employment Discrimination From Every Angle

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on June 24, 2019

By David J. Rowland, Jennifer A. Riley, Uma Chandrasekaran, and Michael D. Jacobsen Seyfarth Synopsis: Google’s recent travails with simultaneous traditional and “reverse” discrimination claims signal a new era of dynamic employment discrimination risk. Employers will be wise to consider the push and pull legal effect of diversity and inclusion programs, pay equity reviews, and other well-intended efforts. Although employment discrimination claims are a familiar risk to most employers, a growing wave…

Workplace Class Action Blog

What Employers Can Expect With The EEOC

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on June 21, 2019

Seyfarth Synopsis: As we approach the latter portion of the fiscal year, employers are beginning to see a significant spike in EEOC case filings over the last month or so, bringing the EEOC more in line with its relative aggressiveness during the previous couple of fiscal years. This increase in case filings comes on the heels of the May 8th Senate confirmation of the new EEOC Chair, Janet Dhillon. In today’s video, Partner Jerry Maatman…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Conditional Certification Granted In ADEA Collective Action On Behalf Of All Chattanooga Volkswagen Employees Aged 50 And Over

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on June 15, 2019

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Matthew Gagnon Seyfarth Synopsis: On June 11, 2019, in an age discrimination lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee once again demonstrated how the lenient standard that is so often applied at the conditional certification stage of a collective action brought under the procedural rules of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In Manlove v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 18-CV-145 (E.D. Tenn. June 11, 2019), the…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Ninth Circuit Rules That Varying State Laws Do Not Defeat Predominance Requirement In Class Action Settlement Context

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on June 10, 2019

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esther Slater McDonald, and Michael L. DeMarino Seyfarth Synopsis: Satisfying Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement is undoubtedly a challenge when it comes to a nationwide class. Among the many issues that arise is the extent to which varying state laws can impact whether questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. In In Re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,…

Workplace Class Action Blog

Blog Authors

Ohio Federal Judge Crafts An Unprecedented Class Action Mechanism To Bring Relief To Counties And Cities Struggling To Address Opioid Crisis

Good News For Employers: D.C. Circuit Insists On “Hard Look” At Uninjured Class Members At Class Certification Stage

The Supreme Court of Ohio Rules That Defendants Need Not Plead An Arbitration Defense To Defeat Class Certification

Federal Court Rules That Employer Is Not Entitled To EEOC’s Pre-Suit Materials

Copy-Cat Class Actions Meet Copy-Cat Legislation: Illinois’ BIPA Spurs New Biometric Privacy Legislation Across The Nation

Biometric Privacy Class Actions By The Numbers: Analyzing Illinois’ Hottest Class Action Trend

Google: Demonstrating The Hazards Of Employment Discrimination From Every Angle

What Employers Can Expect With The EEOC

Conditional Certification Granted In ADEA Collective Action On Behalf Of All Chattanooga Volkswagen Employees Aged 50 And Over

Ninth Circuit Rules That Varying State Laws Do Not Defeat Predominance Requirement In Class Action Settlement Context

Company

Support

New to the Network