The Virginia federal judge set to preside over the criminal prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey is a fair jurist who has dedicated his career to public service and isn’t likely to become rattled amid the widespread public attention to the case, say those who know him.

And while Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff is relatively new to the Eastern District of Virginia district court bench, he already has some experience handling politically sensitive — though less high-profile — cases.

Judge Nachmanoff was nominated to his seat in that district by President Joe Biden in 2021 after serving as a magistrate judge for the same court.

Since then, he’s dismissed several lawsuits involving the performance of the 401(k) plans of Capital One Financial Corp. and Booz Allen Hamilton employees. He also nixed claims from parents alleging Gerber Products Co. allowed dangerous amounts of heavy metals to get into baby food, and presided over a suit from Apple Inc. against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over the agency’s rejection of its trademark application for “Smart Keyboard.”

And he approved a $23.5 million deal between healthcare administration services company Evolent Health Inc. and its investors, resolving claims that the company damaged shareholders after it allegedly drove an important client “to the brink of bankruptcy.”

“Judge Nachmanoff is an excellent judge who takes his important role seriously. He is smart, practical, and treats all parties fairly,” said Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC partner Daniel S. Sommers, who also represented the investors in that case.

. . .

“Having been both a practitioner and a magistrate judge in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, he is deeply familiar with its commitment to moving cases in an efficient and expeditious way,” Sommers said.

The U.S. civil rights agency responsible for enforcing worker rights will stop investigating complaints about company policies that don’t explicitly discriminate but may disproportionately harm certain groups, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo, emailed to all area, local and district office directors of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Sept. 15, says that the agency will discharge by Tuesday any complaints based on “disparate impact liability,” a legal concept that argues that even if a policy looks fair on the surface, it can still be discriminatory if it creates unnecessary barriers that make it harder for certain groups of people to succeed.

The move marks a significant shift in EEOC enforcement, and critics say it weakens an effective legal tool used to root out workplace discrimination. That’s especially true when it comes to addressing algorithmic bias as more employers rely on AI in the hiring process.

Since AI draws on large amounts of data to generate results, it can replicate the patterns of inequality even if it’s not programmed to do so. In one infamous example, Amazon developed a resume-scanning tool to recruit top talent, but abandoned it after finding it favored men for technical roles — in part because it was comparing job candidates against the company’s own male-dominated tech workforce.

“As AI is becoming more and more popular, it’s particularly important that we have the disparate impact tools available to be able to police it and make sure it’s not being used to resegregate the workforce,” said civil rights and plaintiff-side employment attorney Christine Webber.

. . .

Webber said the EEOC’s decision not to pursue these investigations “definitely erects an unnecessary hurdle” for workers who filed complaints, and now no longer get the benefit of a publicly-funded investigation, which can be difficult and costly. Unlike private lawyers, the EEOC has the ability to compel employers to provide information early in the process.

Bayer AG shareholders have asked a California federal judge to give final approval of its $38 million settlement with the German multinational to end claims it downplayed litigation risks related to the weedkiller Roundup, saying the deal, which seeks over $10 million in attorney fees, is fair.

A hearing for the motions is set for Oct. 30. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in the case in February, and the deal was preliminarily approved in June, according to the suit’s docket.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the deal appeared to be “fair, reasonable and adequate” when initially approving the deal in June.

. . .

Counsel for the investors declined to comment on the suit Friday.

The investors are represented by Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll, Christopher Lometti and Benjamin F. Jackson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Nicole Lavallee and Alexander S. Vahdat of Berman Tabacco.

Agri Beef, the Indiana Packers Corporation and a proposed class of workers at red meat processing plants have reached settlements totaling $2.5 million in a suit alleging a nationwide conspiracy to suppress wages.

Lead plaintiffs Ron Brown and Minka Garmon asked U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer on Friday to preliminarily approve the settlements with Agri Beef and its unit Washington Beef, along with Indiana Packers, bringing the total settlements in the suit to more than $200 million.

Agri Beef and Washington Beef agreed to a $1.4 million settlement in April, while Indiana Packers reached a $1.1 million settlement with the workers on June 10.

Agri Beef and Indiana Packers are the 11th and 12th parties to settle. Three defendant families are left in the litigation — Smithfield Foods Inc. and Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., Greater Omaha Packing, and Agri Stats.

. . .

The workers are represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce, Abby R. Wolf, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George F. Farah, Rebecca P. Chang, Nicholas J. Jackson, Rachel E. Nadas, Matthew K. Handley, Martha E. Guarnieri and William H. Anderson of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Benjamin D. Brown, Alison S. Deich, Zachary R. Glubiak, Zachary I. Krowitz, Robert A. Braun, Sabrina Merold and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brian D. Clark, Stephen J. Teti and Eura Chang of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Candice J. Enders, Eric L. Cramer and Julia R. McGrath of Berger Montague PC.

As fall kicks into gear, employers should accommodate workers’ requests for time off for religious holidays, seasonal illnesses and voting, and businesses that employ minors should watch for requirements that kick in during the school year, attorneys said.

The new season brings unique compliance issues. Employers could find themselves fielding questions about time off for holidays that tend to impact only certain communities of workers, for example.

. . .

Accommodate Holidays

While employers generally provide time off for federal holidays in autumn, like Thanksgiving, they must also consider how to treat fall holidays for certain communities, such as Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Diwali, attorneys said.

The key is consistency, said Travis Jang-Busby of management-side firm Blank Rome LLP.

“You don’t want it to look like you’re favoring one group over the other,” he said.

Both management- and worker-side attorneys said floating holidays that workers can use as needed can be helpful in such situations, though there are special considerations to keep in mind.

“Best practice here is probably to have a bucket of days of paid leave that workers can use to apply to whichever holidays they observe,” said Rebecca Ojserkis of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who represents workers. “That way, employers aren’t making any judgment calls about trying to distinguish between … religions.”

. . .

Give Time to Vote

Elections are happening in some jurisdictions this fall, including the mayoral race in New York City and statewide elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Employers in those places could get requests from workers for time to go vote.

“It’s great when employers provide time to vote,” Cohen Milstein’s Ojserkis said, adding that it is especially important in places that have restricted early voting and mail-in voting. “We certainly don’t want to be excluding anybody from the voting process simply because they have to earn a living wage.”

A Michigan state judge overseeing litigation against regulatory agencies over a dam that collapsed and caused widespread flooding said he will not bar an expert from testifying that the government ignored risks and took actions that increased the danger of a dam failure.

Court of Claims Judge James Redford on Tuesday rejected the arguments of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy as well as the state’s Department of Natural Resources, which had asked the judge to exclude or limit the testimony of a dam safety regulator at an upcoming trial.

In an opinion, Judge Redford said the expert was qualified to assess the regulatory oversight of the Edenville Dam near Midland, Michigan, which failed in 2020 and unleashed a flood that damaged thousands of properties downstream. The dam, formerly used as a hydropower generating station but idle at the time of the collapse, was owned by a private entity called Boyce Hydro.

Flooding victims have brought inverse condemnation claims against the state agencies that had oversight of the dam, saying they were aware of the risk it would fail and yet took actions that added to the danger.

. . .

The class is represented by David Dubin of Dubin Law PLLC, Elizabeth Fegan of Fegan Scott LLC and Jason J. Thompson of Sommers Schwartz.

The mass tort plaintiffs are represented by attorneys at Johnson Law PLC, Dubin Law PLLC, Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC, Fieger Law, The Miller Law Firm PC, Buckfire Law Firm, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, McAlpine PC, Olsman MacKenzie Peacock, Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys PC, Rasor Law Firm PLLC, Behm & Behm and Stern Law PLLC.

“It comes down to the dogged pursuit of the class’ interests. It’s the Cohen Milstein way,” Michelle Yau, partner at Cohen Milstein and counsel for the class, said.

A Connecticut federal judge approved a $7.9 million class action settlement to resolve claims against hedge fund GWA LLC and its founder, George A. Weiss.

GWA and Weiss allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and misused the employee retirement plan assets to further their own pecuniary interests in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The retirement plan investments, 401(k) assets, were allegedly 100%invested in “The Weiss Funds,” which includes GWA’s flagship hedge fund, Weiss Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd., and the company’s mutual fund, Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund.

“We had never seen a retirement plan 100% invested in this niche investment product,” Michelle Yau, partner at Cohen Milstein and counsel for the class, said. “Every once in a while, you’ll see an alternative fund in a 401(k) plan, but participants have the choice as to what they can invest in.”

The class action was filed in 2023, but during the course of litigation, both defendants filed for bankruptcy in New York and Florida.

“That was not something anyone could predict, but it ultimately left us with no solvent party that could pay judgment,” Yau said. “The action became way more complicated and risky due to the tow bankruptcies.”

However, the parties found a way to settle the case, and each class member will receive around $26,000. Yau said the legal team fought to preserve the class’ rights to the insurance policy, and now, the class does not have to wait for a resolution in the bankruptcy proceedings.

“It comes down to the dogged pursuit of the class’ interests. It’s the Cohen Milstein way,” Yau said.

. . .

“This was a case where the client sought us out,” Yau said. “She was laser-focused on protecting all the employees; she wasn’t in it just for herself. I just had to take it. Every once in a while, you’re asked or presented with the right thing to do. Even if it’s, from a business perspective, substantially riskier, it’s the right thing to do.”

. . .

“This is not a case that would have been brought but for our client pounding the pavement, looking for experienced ERISA counsel to bring to this case,” Yau said.

A District of Columbia Superior Court judge has rejected landlord AvalonBay Communities Inc.’s bid to escape D.C.’s rent-fixing antitrust suit against property management software company RealPage Inc., AvalonBay and several landlords.

. . .

DC is represented in-house by Brian L. Schwalb, Will Stephens, Adam Gitlin, Mehreen Imtiaz and Ashley Walters of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia and Emmy L. Levens, Robert A. Braun, Alison S. Deich, Amanda K. Chuzi, Zachary Krowitz, Laura K. Follansbee, Alexander J. Noronha and Aaron J. Marks of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The suit alleges the portal “tricks” buyers into using a Flex agent, which inflates commissions, and calls its private listing ban a “scheme to defraud buyers.”

The law firms that filed one of the original class-action lawsuits challenging real estate commissions nationwide have a new target: Zillow.

In a draft complaint shared exclusively with Real Estate News, attorneys from Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein allege the home search giant inflated costs for homebuyers through its Zillow Flex referral program, which charges agents up to 40% for a successful transaction. The suit claims Zillow’s referrals to agents, which garnered more than $2 billion in revenue last year, illegally maintain “high and inflexible commissions.”

. . .

‘Tricks’ and a lack of disclosure: The Sept. 19 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges Zillow is a “monopoly” in the U.S. market for residential real estate online search services, stating that it claims 66% of the U.S. real estate audience share.

“Zillow’s ability to monetize this dominance is based on deceptive and illegal conduct,” the complaint says.

“When potential buyers are on Zillow’s website, Zillow tricks them into signing up with a Zillow agent. If the agent is part of Zillow’s ‘Flex’ program, Zillow gets 40% of the agent’s commission — a payment on the back end that is undisclosed to all parties involved” — including the buyer and seller who might want to know that information as they negotiate the sale and close of the listing.

Buyer claims he didn’t have ‘any other option’: The plaintiff, Alucard Taylor, is a resident of Portland, Oregon, who bought a home using a Zillow Flex agent — identified in the suit as “R.H.” — in 2022.

“In [the plaintiff’s] dealings with R.H. prior to and during the purchase of his home, he did not believe he had any other option than to use R.H. to make the purchase,” the complaint says.

The complaint alleges that when buyers press the “Contact Agent” button on a Zillow listing, they believe they are contacting the listing agent, not a Zillow-affiliated buyer agent.

“If buyers were directed to sellers’ agents, they would be better positioned to negotiate a lower purchase price, because the seller would not have to pay commissions to the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent,” the complaint says.

The program “incentivizes Zillow Flex agents to prioritize receiving his/her full commission at all costs,” the complaint alleges, because those agents are netting a lower commission after paying referral fees.

“Sellers are stuck with paying 6% commission (or more) because the buyer Flex agent is receiving such a paltry sum in return, thereby increasing the purchase price of the home.”

Zillow’s listing rules ‘defraud buyers’: The suit also attacks Zillow’s new Listing Access Standards, which bar listings that have been publicly marketed for more than a day but are not widely available via the MLS or syndication.

The complaint alleges the policy is part of Zillow’s “scheme to defraud buyers by effectively forcing home sellers and their agents to post on Zillow.com immediately after advertising the home for sale,” thereby inflating “the unjustly earned profits Zillow receives from its deceptive conduct.”

Listing agents who don’t comply after three warnings will not be able to repost the listing, the filing notes, “effectively forcing the seller to fire her agent and find someone else who will acquiesce to Zillow’s coercive tactics.”

. . .

Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein are two of the major law firms that filed the Moehrl antitrust lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors, Keller Williams, Anywhere, HomeServices of America and RE/MAX. Those entities and others ended up settling for more than $1 billion.

 Zillow (ZG.O), the largest U.S. online real estate portal, is facing a new proposed class action accusing the company of deceptively using property listings to steer home buyers to its network of affiliated agents.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday in Seattle, claims Zillow is misleading prospective buyers into contacting agents working with Zillow and not the agent who listed the home for sale.

The plaintiff, an Oregon resident, alleged Zillow’s practices violate a Washington state consumer protection law and a federal real estate law.

. . .

The plaintiff seeks to represent at least tens of thousands of home buyers who used Zillow-affiliated agents since 2021.

According to the lawsuit, Zillow takes 40% of the commission from some of its agents, a cut that is hidden from the buyer and seller. The complaint said the alleged arrangement incentivizes agents to prioritize their commissions at all costs.

“Zillow’s scheme has the intent and the effect of unlawfully maintaining high and inflexible commissions that drive up the prices that buyers must pay,” the lawsuit said.

. . .

For plaintiff: Steve Berman and Jerrod Patterson of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Douglas McNamara and Theodore Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll