Ryan Wheeler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has recovered millions of dollars for his clients in benefits cases, like one claiming that Citgo shorted retirees in pension payments, and another saying that an Illinois casino used an employee stock ownership plan to craft a shady company sale, earning him a spot among the benefits law practitioners under age 40 honored by Law360 as Rising Stars.

The biggest case of his career:

Wheeler served as the lead associate in a case claiming that Citgo shorted workers through their pension payments by using outdated mortality data to calculate their benefits, resulting in a $14 million settlement for his clients. He said the deal, finalized by an Illinois federal court in January, is one of the largest settlements secured in this relatively new area of law — cases challenging the use of antiquated mortality data began popping up in 2019, and none have yet gone to trial.

Wheeler said he and his team secured key wins in the case that ultimately led his clients to clinch a settlement by defeating most of Citgo’s arguments that attempted to derail the case on motions for summary judgment. He said the judge sided with his team’s argument that the statute of limitations should not be limited to a four-year window for a certain class of participants, allowing them to recover benefits dating to 1995.

“I think the reason we were able to get a really spectacular result like that was because Citgo didn’t have much of a defense,” Wheeler said, adding that the company had been using decades-old mortality data to actuarially determine how much retirees were owed.

“I think they saw the writing on the wall and didn’t want to take that to trial,” Wheeler said.

His most interesting recent case:

Wheeler pointed to a proposed class action claiming that Argent Trust Co. sold inflated shares of a barbecue chain to an employee stock ownership plan, allowing the owners to make off with millions in profit as well as tax benefits, while workers were shortchanged.

In January, the Second Circuit knocked down the wealth management company’s bid to reverse a lower court’s order denying arbitration in the case.

“This has been a really gratifying case, because our clients are folks who worked as wait staff for close to minimum wage, and they’re standing up in court for themselves against the former owners, who made off with almost $100 million,” Wheeler said.

Wheeler has successfully litigated other cases aiming to tamp down on abuse through an employee stock ownership plan. In February, a federal judge gave final approval to a $7.1 million deal resolving a class action claiming that Illinois’ Casino Queen created an ESOP so it could buy company stock at an inflated price of $170 million. A year later, in 2019, the value of the stock dropped 95%.

Johnson & Johnson workers are urging a New Jersey federal court to maintain their proposed class claims that the company botched the management of prescription drug costs in its employee healthcare plan by allowing excessive pharmacy costs, asserting that company mismanagement resulted in concrete harm.

Doubling down on their allegations, named plaintiffs Ann Lewandowski and Robert Gregory filed a brief Monday opposing a motion from J&J to dismiss an amended complaint asserting violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

“This case presents a textbook example of fiduciary neglect: Defendants — Johnson & Johnson and its Pension & Benefits Committee — handed control of the plan’s prescription-drug program to Express Scripts with virtually no oversight, enabling Express Scripts to extract staggering markups that forced participants to pay inflated costs for essential medications while enriching the very service provider defendants were duty-bound to monitor,” the brief states.

In 2023, Lewandowski overpaid by about $210 for two prescription drugs, compared with retail prices, the brief says. She alleges she was unable to use manufacturer co-pay assistance cards that would have reduced her out-of-pocket expenses, which created a financial injury from J&J’s fiduciary breaches.

Because J&J maintained a fixed ratio between employer and employee contributions to the healthcare plan, increases in plan costs resulted in higher premiums for the workers, the brief says.

Lewandowski, who left J&J in April 2024, and Gregory, who retired in September 2020, paid triple the retail price for generic drugs, the brief says.

The named plaintiffs said they have standing to sue on behalf of tens of thousands of J&J employees under the Third Circuit’s 2024 decision in Knudsen v. MetLife Group Inc. , arguing that the court there held that plaintiffs have Article III standing if their complaint alleges they have or will pay more in premiums or other out-of-pocket costs as a result of a defendant’s ERISA violations.

The Summer 2025 issue of the Shareholder Advocate, our quarterly securities litigation and investor protection newsletter, features articles on:

• Managing corporate risk in the AI boom
• UFC fighters’ $375 million antitrust settlement
• The role of an amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s to dismiss an appellate review of class certification as improvidently granted
• Initial approval of investors’ $27 million settlement with InnovAge
• An interview with Fiduciary Focus columnist Suzanne Dugan on her new role as president of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys

Harini Srinivasan of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC secured a $45 million settlement on behalf of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers who claimed pregnancy discrimination and also challenged AT&T’s attendance point system, earning her a spot among the employment law practitioners under age 40 honored by Law360 as Rising Stars.

Her biggest case:

Srinivasan noted that one of her largest cases is Cynthia Allen et al. v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC , which she has been litigating in a Georgia federal court for six years since joining the firm.

In that case, two women lodged a suit challenging AT&T’s automated attendance policy that would assign employees points for every time they were absent or late, and once a certain number of points were reached, they would face termination, Srinivasan said.

Srinivasan explained that the system would not assign points if employees were late for certain reasons, but those reasons excluded pregnancy and morning sickness, resulting in the two lead plaintiffs being eventually terminated.

The case has been “the most rewarding client-relationship I have ever had,” Srinivasan said.

“These are women who are often just so excited about being at the beginning of starting their families and then it turns into sheer terror that they’re about to lose their jobs, lose the livelihood that’s going to support that family,” Srinivasan said.

While the two lead plaintiffs have reached a confidential settlement with AT&T, an intervening plaintiff is proceeding with her claims, Srinivasan explained.

Other notable cases:

The administrative case at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that led to a $45 million settlement for U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers who claimed the agency forced them to light duty once they became pregnant was a remarkable one, Srinivasan said.

She explained that in that case, a group of women claimed that once they made it known they were pregnant, not only would their duty change, their bosses would tell them that “they were a liability and … made to feel like their pregnancy was a barrier [for] them being able to do a job they had trained hard for.”

The settlement also led to CBP changing its employment policies, allowing women to decide if and when they wanted to go on light duty while pregnant, Srinivasan noted.

“There’s no requirement that you have to stay in active duty all the way up until the day you give birth, but it really should be up to them and their doctor to be making that determination, not their boss,” Srinivasan added.

Srinivasan said that another case that she has found particularly meaningful is a lawsuit lodged against the Salvation Army in Illinois federal court in 2022. There, five adults who enrolled in the Salvation Army’s rehabilitation centers are claiming they worked 40 hours a week, usually for the benefit of the organization’s thrift store, without getting paid minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“It’s just such an interesting and important case because these are incredibly vulnerable people, people on the brink of houselessness, or who’ve been in and out of incarceration, … and have been marginalized in so many ways,” Srinivasan said.

Her proudest moment:

For Srinivasan, her proudest moment happened in 2023, when the Seventh Circuit denied a group of staffing agencies’ bid to dismantle a class of about 13,500 Black workers who claimed they were not hired because of their race.

“There’s really nothing like the moment when the law catches up to the harm,” Srinivasan said, adding that she still remembers when the appeals court decision came in.

“It really affirmed that the discrimination happening through these staffing agencies is no less real or unlawful than if it was happening from a direct employer,” Srinivasan said.

The case eventually headed back to an Illinois federal court, which signed off on a $6 million settlement in April 2024, court records indicate.

They say you can get anything in New York City — and that includes wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) through taxi companies and rideshare apps. Uber’s and Lyft’s New York fleets include WAVs that enable people with disabilities to get a ride on demand, just as many other busy commuters do.

However, this ridesharing access is not common, according to New York-based attorney and disability rights advocate Aaron Marks. Aaron is an associate in the antitrust practice of Cohen Milstein, a plaintiff-side law firm representing disability rights organizations in a class-action lawsuit over rideshare companies’ lack of services for disabled passengers.

“There are jurisdictions and cities that have taken the initiative to force rideshare companies to stop blocking wheelchair users from their services, and New York City is one of them,” Aaron says. “We see in those jurisdictions that WAVs are available to people who need them.”

Accessible taxis and rideshares don’t exist everywhere. In cities like New York where they do, however, they’re a powerful reminder of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the opportunities that unfold when people with disabilities have the same access to transportation as their non-disabled friends and neighbors.

“Right now, there is a patchwork of local and state regulations, which leads to varying outcomes for people depending on where they happen to live,” Aaron says. “Somebody living in one city may have access to WAVs in their ridesharing app, but they could move to an apartment building across the street and no longer have access to the same vehicles because now they’re living in a different city. It’s an inconsistent experience.”

It’s important to understand that you have rights as a rideshare consumer with a disability. If you feel you’ve been discriminated against, you can file a complaint with Uber, Lyft, or whichever company you’re using.

You can also seek support from your state’s protection and advocacy agency (find a state protection agency) or file a complaint with the US Department of Justice (file a complaint).

• Rhode Island is suing 13 companies involved in the Washington Bridge’s design, inspection, and repair.
• The state’s lawyers are questioning what the companies knew about the bridge’s deterioration before its emergency closure.
• The questions focus on the bridge’s post-tensioning design and the discovered corrosion and voids.

The state’s lawyers have filed the questions they are asking contractors who inspected or worked on the doomed westbound span of the Washington Bridge as part of their far-reaching lawsuit against those who may have known about the bridge’s condition.

The Rhode Island attorney general’s office filed a series of “interrogatories” in Superior Court that, in effect, ask each of the 13 companies the state is suing what they knew about the potentially catastrophic deterioration of the westbound span in the decade preceding its emergency closure on Dec. 11, 2023.

By their very nature, the questions revolve around the way the bridge was constructed, with pre-stressed concrete bolstered by an internal web of steel rods and cables to add strength – a design called “post-tensioning.”

In post-tensioning, tendon cables are run through ducts in the concrete, pulled tight and anchored, squeezing the beams into compression to make them more resistant to bending or cracking under heavy loads. The ducts are filled with grout to secure and protect them.

When experts looked closely at the bridge, they found active corrosion of exposed tendon anchors, voids within the ducts, soft grout, corroded tendons and cracked, unsound concrete, according to a February 2024 report from VN Engineers.

 What did the AG’s office ask the Washington Bridge contractors?

These were among the questions that Attorney General Peter Neronha, lawyer Jonathan Savage and a team of lawyers from the Palm Beach, Florida-based Cohen Milstein law firm, posed to AECOM Technical Services and the other companies involved in the design, repair and inspection of the westbound Washington Bridge:

• “How does the presence of voids in the grout surrounding the post-tensioning cables impact the Washington Bridge’s structural integrity?”
• “What are the potential consequences of corrosion in the post-tensioning cables, and how does this affect the Washington Bridge’s safety?”
• “Which descriptions of deterioration in the February 26, 2024 VN Engineers Report, if any, were you and your subconsultants aware of during your respective involvement with the Washington Bridge?”
• “Identify all steps taken by you in evaluating the Washington Bridge’s fracture critical elements.”
• “What methods should have been employed to properly assess the condition of the post-tensioned cables and grout during your work on the Washington Bridge?”
• And for AECOM and several other companies, this question: “Based on AECOM’s 2014 inspection and design plans, what critical issues should have been addressed in the proposed rehabilitation?”
• “During the rehabilitation design project … was any strengthening in the form of external post-tensioning considered? Why did you not recommend it?”
• Along with the interrogatories, the state’s lawyers also asked the defendants for a potential mountain of documents, including:
• “All internal memoranda, emails, reports, meeting minutes, and other communications documenting your concerns about the Washington Bridge’s structural integrity at any point in time.”
• “All inspection reports, engineering analyses, test results, and other documents that identify, describe, or evaluate the presence of voids in the concrete grout surrounding the post-tensioning cables, including any documents that assess how these voids impact the Washington Bridge’s structural integrity.”
• “All supporting data used for any reports you prepared during the work you performed on the Washington Bridge, including test data, inspection data, internal notes, and records.”
• “All internal memoranda, emails, reports, meeting minutes, and other communications documenting your concerns about the Washington Bridge’s structural integrity at any point in time.”

A little more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court eased the requirements for bringing workplace bias claims in Muldrow v. St. Louis, it’s clear that the ruling is helping more workers keep discrimination cases alive.

In the Muldrow   ruling, handed down in April 2024, the justices unanimously disavowed the heightened legal hurdles that some lower courts had imposed to block workplace bias cases over employment actions considered to have less serious consequences. Under the new standard, employees need not show they faced “significant” harm, but rather “some harm,” to move their suit ahead.

While the ruling marked a win for employees suing over discrimination, questions remained over whether the new precedent, which arose in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, could be invoked in cases under other anti-discrimination laws.

Additionally, the decision only addressed an unwanted job transfer, so it was not clear in Muldrow’s immediate wake whether a broader scope of workplace decisions could now sustain a legal claim.

In the 15 months since the decree came down — during which Muldrow has been cited by courts more than 540 times — the judiciary has yielded some early answers, and experts said they’ve largely been more good news for employees.

. . .

Worker-side attorney Harini Srinivasan, a partner in Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC’s civil rights and employment litigation practice, said Muldrow has given workers a stronger chance of addressing the more insidious forms of bias that can pervade workplaces.

“I’m seeing Muldrow being advanced as a possible tool to get at more subtle forms of discrimination, and holding employers to a standard that is still within the bounds of well-established case law, but is more nuanced,” she said. “It allows for more of these narrative-rich stories to prevail.”

The Merit Systems Protection Board approved a class of probationary employees who claim the U.S. Department of the Interior unlawfully terminated them under the Trump administration, saying proceeding as a class is the most efficient way to move the case forward.

MSPB Chief Administrative Judge Sara K. Snyder granted Thursday the workers’ bid to certify a class of probationary or trial employees who were fired in response to a Jan. 20 Office of Personnel Management guidance memo, which led to several cases challenging the firings of probationary workers.

Judge Snyder said that even though some workers have been reinstated, resigned or enrolled in a deferred resignation program and thus waived their appeal rights, “the class is still sufficiently numerous that individual adjudication would be inefficient, if not unfeasible.”

“Having considered the parties’ submissions and the circumstances here, I find that a class appeal is the fairest and most efficient way to adjudicate the appeal and that the putative class counsel and named appellants will adequately represent the interests of the parties,” Judge Snyder said.

According to the order, the agency started reinstating some putative class members March 13.

Overall, 986 workers have been reinstated, 269 resigned, 323 enrolled in the deferred resignation program and 274 are still on administrative leave, Judge Snyder said.

. . .

The workers are represented by James & Hoffman PC, Gilbert Employment Law PC and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Counsel for two classes of purchasers of polyvinyl chloride pipe urged an Illinois federal judge Tuesday to grant preliminary approval to two $3 million settlements resolving their antitrust claims against an analytics service allegedly used in a conspiracy by PVC pipe makers to inflate the price of their products.

Oil Price Information Service LLC, a reporting service that provided pricing and market information to the converter defendants for a fee, has agreed to pay $6 million total and provide “extensive cooperation” to the plaintiffs in their pursuit of antitrust claims against the remaining defendants.

Under the terms of the deals, OPIS will pay $3 million to a class of direct purchasers and the other $3 million to a class of purchasers from non-converter sellers of PVC pipe.

. . .

The plaintiffs are represented by Pearson Warshaw LLP, Kirby McInerney LLP, Fegan Scott LLC, Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Sperling Kenny Nachwalter, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Douglas & London PC, Zelle LLP, Mark K. Wasvary PC and The Saunders Law Firm.

Constellation Energy (CEG.O), opens new tab, Duke Energy (DUK.N), opens new tab, Pacific Gas & Electric and all other operators of the country’s commercial nuclear power plants have been accused in a new lawsuit of conspiring to suppress pay for thousands of workers since 2003.

Two power generation workers filed the proposed class action on July 11 in Maryland federal court, accusing 26 nuclear plant operators and two consulting firms of illegally sharing wage information with each other in a conspiracy to keep compensation artificially low.

The lawsuit said the alleged information-sharing scheme violated antitrust law.

The defendants, a group that also includes Dominion Energy (D.N), opens new tab and Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab, produce all the nuclear-generated electricity sold to consumers in the U.S., according to the 129-page complaint, opens new tab.

In a statement, Duke Energy on Monday called its compensation competitive and said it was “market-based, performance-oriented and aligned with the company’s business priorities.”

Constellation, Pacific Gas & Electric, Dominion and Entergy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Attorneys for the two plaintiffs – former employees at Dominion and Entergy – in a statement said they “are eager to fight for workers at nuclear power plants who have been victimized by a conspiracy to depress their wages.”

A former human resources executive in the industry said nuclear power companies exchanged compensation information “all the time,” according to the lawsuit. Nuclear plants allegedly exchanged pay data for “compensation comparison reports” that showed current wages and future increases, allowing companies to illegally coordinate.

The proposed class of nuclear plant workers contains at least tens of thousands of people, the lawsuit said.

. . .

For plaintiffs: Matthew Handley and George Farah of Handley Farah & Anderson; Shana Scarlett and Steve Berman of Hagens Berman; Brent Johnson and Daniel Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll