The class certification brings fired probationary employees one step closer to potential reinstatement and sets back the Trump administration’s efforts to gut the federal workforce

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In what is believed to be a first since the Trump administration issued government-wide layoffs, the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) today granted class certification to fired probationary employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The decision allows fired probationary employees at the agency to join this class action and seek reinstatement.

Though federal courts have slowed the Trump administration’s push to cut down the federal workforce overall, this move marks a major victory for fired probationary workers, who lack many of the protections that other federal workers enjoy, at the MSPB.

“This is heartening news for the scores of probationary workers whose rights have been trampled on and whose lives were turned upside down by what we believe were illegal reductions in force,” said Christopher Bonk, partner at Gilbert Employment Law. “We’re looking forward to continuing our fight to get these employees back to serving the mission they joined the civil service to pursue.”

Leading employment and civil rights attorneys representing federal workers say that the widespread probationary employee layoffs violated at least a dozen laws, regulations, and constitutional protections. The workers argue that the mass terminations constituted a constructive reduction in force (RIF), which require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions. Regulations also typically require 60 days advance notice of termination in a RIF. Instead, public servants were abruptly terminated, with total disregard for these key protections.

The probationary DHS employees are represented by Brown Goldstein Levy, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Gilbert Employment Law and James & Hoffman.

###

About Brown Goldstein Levy
For almost four decades, Brown, Goldstein & Levy has been recognized as Maryland’s leading private law firm for high impact, public interest cases. Our attorneys have handled these challenges in the Supreme Court and most of the federal appellate circuits, as well as in state courts throughout Maryland and around the country. The attorneys at Brown, Goldstein & Levy devise creative and practical solutions to workplace issues. And when negotiated solutions are not possible, we provide effective and tenacious representation. Whether you are a top executive or an hourly wage worker, we can help you understand your rights at work, negotiate fair deals, and litigate aggressively when your rights have been violated. Our lawyers provide counseling and advice about employee rights under state and federal employment laws. We help executives negotiate contract and severance terms, file large wage and hour cases to protect employees’ rights to overtime and equal pay, and advocate for employees in whistleblower, discrimination, contract, non-competition, and compensation matters.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. It has litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continues to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.

About Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.

Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., is the worker’s voice in litigation involving employee rights violations. Gilbert’s attorneys are highly skilled in representing federal employees before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other federal administrative agencies. Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., has also represented employees in county and state courts, as well as U.S. District and Appeals Courts.

About James & Hoffman
James & Hoffman is a law firm that represents workers and labor unions across the country, advancing their interests in critical matters arising in state and federal courts, administrative proceedings, and arbitrations. The firm is a national leader in representation of federal government employees. It is based in Washington, D.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

Winner Announced for 23rd Annual Jerry S. Cohen Award for Antitrust Scholarship

The American Antitrust Institute and Cohen Milstein announce outstanding contributions to antitrust scholarship.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of his outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the author listed below has been selected as recipient of the 23rd Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:

  • Daniel Francis, Assistant Professor of Law, NYU School of Law

The award will be presented during the gala luncheon at the American Antitrust Institute’s 26th Annual Policy Conference on May 29, 2025 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Professor Francis will be honored for his article:

“Monopolizing by Conditioning,” 124 Colum. L. Rev. 1917 (2024). Professor Francis demonstrates that conditional dealing should be recognized as its own, separate form of monopolistic conduct. For too long, courts have attempted to squeeze conditioning into ill-fitting categories in existing monopolization law, leading to poor results. In his article, Professor Francis provides a new analytical framework for evaluating conditional dealing, including a definition of conditioning, as well as standards for gauging its exclusionary impact, contribution to power, and procompetitive justifications. Also, he explains why courts’ current criteria for evaluating claims based on conditional dealing should be jettisoned. Professor Francis’ article meaningfully advances our understanding of the harms that arise from monopolists’ conditional dealing, why the current legal regime has failed to confront those harms, and how to fix the problem

Professor Francis will receive a $12,500 prize and a specially commissioned and inscribed artwork by Lori Milstein, artist and daughter of Herb Milstein, co-founder of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

In addition, this year’s award selection committee conferred nine category awards recognizing numerous other outstanding contributions to antitrust scholarship in 2024:

  • Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Burdens of Proof: Christopher R. Leslie, “False Analogies to Predatory Pricing,” 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 329 (2024)
  • Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Healthcare: Zarek Brot, Zack Cooper, Stuart V. Craig and Lev Klarnet, “Is There Too Little Antitrust Enforcement in the Hospital Sector?,” American Economic Review: Insights 6 (4): 526–42
  • Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Merger Enforcement: Daniel Sokol & Sean Sullivan, “The Decline of Coordinated Effects Enforcement and How to Reverse It,” 76 Fla. L. Rev. 265 (2024)
  • Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Noncompete Agreements: Michael Lipsitz & Mark J. Tremblay, “Noncompete Agreements and the Welfare of Consumers,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 16 (4): 112–53
  • Best Antitrust Publication of 2024 on Non-Price Effects: Christopher R. Leslie, “Pharmacy Deserts and Antitrust Law,” 104 Boston L. Rev. 1593 (2024)
  • Best Publication of 2024 on Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Christopher Buccafusco, Jonathan S. Masur, Mark P. McKenna, “Competition and Congestion in Trademark Law,” 102 Tex. L. Rev. 437 (2024)
  • Best Publication of 2024 on Antitrust Remedies: Ian Ayres, C. Scott Hemphill, Abraham L. Wickelgren, “Shorting Your Rivals: Negative Ownership as an Antitrust Remedy,” 86 Antitrust L.J. 317 (2024)
  • Best Publication of 2024 on Labor Antitrust: Eric Posner, “The New Labor Antitrust,” 86 Antitrust L.J. 503 (2024)
  • Best Antitrust Student Publication of 2024: Frank Schulze, “Old, Not Odd: Running Laches Against the States and the Future of Antitrust After New York v. Meta Platforms,” 123 Mich. L. Rev. 111 (2024)  

This year’s award selection committee consisted of Zachary Caplan, Shareholder at Berger Montague; Warren Grimes, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School; John Kirkwood, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law; Roger Noll, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University; Leslie Marx, Professor of Economics at Duke Fuqua School of Business; Robert Lande, Emeritus Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law; Daniel H. Silverman, Partner at Cohen Milstein; and Daniel A. Small, Of Counsel at Cohen Milstein.

About the Award

The Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award was created through a trust established in memory of Jerry S. Cohen, an outstanding trial lawyer and antitrust scholar. The award is administered by the law firm he founded, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The award honors the best antitrust writing published during the prior year that is consistent with the values that animated Jerry S. Cohen’s professional life – a genuine concern for economic justice, the dispersal of economic power, effective limitations upon economic power, and the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws.

About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

About the American Antitrust Institute

The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to promoting competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society. AAI serves the public through research, education, and advocacy on the benefits of competition and the use of antitrust enforcement as a vital component of national and international competition policy.

LANSING, MI – The Michigan Court of Claims has denied the State of Michigan’s motion for summary disposition, allowing homeowners from Midland and Saginaw Counties to move forward to trial with their mass tort and class action lawsuits seeking to hold the state accountable for the 2020 failure of the Edenville Dam and the resulting widespread flooding and property damage.

Judge James R. Redford noted that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to support their claim that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy was aware of the risk of the Edenville Dam failing yet continued to maintain the reservoir behind the dam at lake levels. This evidence includes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) repeated citations of the dam owner, now-bankrupt Boyce Hydro Power, LLC, for violations of federal regulations, which led FERC to revoke the company’s license to produce electricity. Subsequently, Michigan state agencies assumed regulatory responsibility for the Edenville Dam.

“We are very pleased with the court’s ruling. The evidence is clear. The state of Michigan knew about the Edenville Dam’s safety issues for years before its failure in 2020. Thousands of residents were evacuated throughout Midland and Saginaw Counties due to an avoidable and tragic circumstance. Hundreds of homes were destroyed by the massive flooding that resulted,” said Leslie M. Kroeger, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Complex Tort practice and counsel to the homeowners in the case. “We look forward to pursuing justice on behalf of the residents and homeowners whose homes, businesses, and properties were destroyed.”

Homeowners allege that for decades, the Edenville Dam failed to meet federal and state safety standards, as demonstrated by FERC’s multiple citations, posing a significant risk of catastrophic harm. The violations of federal regulations were so egregious that FERC eventually ordered the dam operators to cease power generation and revoked Boyce Hydro Power’s license to operate the dam.

In 2018, Michigan State agencies assumed regulatory responsibility for the Edenville Dam. Plaintiffs allege that the agencies were aware the dam lacked the necessary capacity to handle a significant flood but failed to take any action to address spillway capacity or to mitigate the risk of dam failure. To the contrary, the state authorized raising the water level of Wixom Lake, the reservoir held back by the Edenville Dam.

Nearly five years ago, on May 19, 2020, following heavy rainfall and flash flooding on the Tittabawassee and Tobacco Rivers, the Edenville Dam failed. This failure caused the downstream Sanford Dam to become overwhelmed and fail as well, resulting in historic flooding throughout Midland, Saginaw, Arenac, Gladwin, and Losco Counties.

Nearly 10,000 residents in Midland County and surrounding areas were evacuated, and lost homes, businesses and other property. The flooding caused millions of dollars in property damage. The dam failure also drained Wixom and Sanford Lakes, significantly reducing the value of surrounding properties and businesses.

Plaintiffs seek damages for property damage and destruction; loss of the use and enjoyment of property; diminished value of real and personal property, residences, and businesses; and loss of future business earnings.

This case is named: Borchard v. Michigan Department of Environment, et. al., Case No. 20-000121-MM, Mich. Crt. Of Claims.

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Today, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of key claims brought on behalf of more than 1,000 homeowners who sued the City of Miramar and its engineering consultant, Kimley-Horn, Inc., for irreversible property damage allegedly caused by improperly treated water from the City’s West Water Treatment Plant. The appellate court determined the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case with prejudice was not warranted and remanded it for further litigation.

Originally filed in 2023, Antezana, et al. v. Kimley Horn, et al. (Cir. Crt. Broward Cnty.) is a high-profile property damage lawsuit brought against the City of Miramar and Kimley-Horn by Miramar homeowners. Filed as a putative class action lawsuit, the homeowners seek to represent other individuals and businesses who suffered property damage as a result of the City’s improperly treated water. They claim that due to the negligence of the City and the professional malpractice and negligence of Kimley Horn, their water supply was not properly treated, resulting in irreversible and costly damage to the copper piping in their homes.

“On behalf of Miramar residents, we are very pleased with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision. This ruling represents significant progress for Miramar residents who have suffered substantial plumbing and property damage. Many homeowners faced expenses in the tens of thousands of dollars, with some forced to completely re-pipe their homes. They shouldn’t bear the financial burden of the City’s failure to properly treat their water supply. We look forward to pursuing a full measure of justice on their behalf,” said Leslie Kroeger, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Complex Tort practice and lead plaintiffs’ counsel in Antezana, et al. v. Kimley Horn, et al.

The City of Miramar owns and operates its own water treatment plants. Miramar’s West Water Treatment Plant supplies water to thousands of residents and businesses throughout the central and western portions of the City of Miramar. Plaintiffs allege that from 2016 to 2022, the City’s water treatment process at this plant removed essential minerals but failed to properly restore them—particularly calcium carbonate. This deficiency, combined with improper alkalinity and hardness levels, allegedly rendered the water corrosive to copper pipes.

The complaint further alleges that after residents reported premature plumbing failures, the City contracted with Kimley-Horn to evaluate the situation, but the consultant failed to recommend appropriate remedial measures, instead suggesting that non-water-related factors were to blame. Rather than addressing the underlying issue, the City allegedly advised homeowners to replace their plumbing at their own expense and offered a program for residents to borrow up to $10,000 from the City to pay for their new pipes.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Romano Law Group, and Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.

States must fill enforcement vacuum being left by federal regulators who are abandoning these cases under Trump administration

Attorney General Dan Rayfield today filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency trading platforms in the United States, for violating the Oregon Securities Law. The lawsuit claims that Coinbase has both encouraged and helped the sale of unregistered cryptocurrencies to people in Oregon. In doing so, Coinbase has reaped millions of dollars in fees as Oregonians have faced huge losses, often devastating, from risky investments in a market that’s stacked against them and hard to navigate.

“After building trust with Oregon consumers, Coinbase sold high risk investments without them being properly vetted to protect consumers,” Rayfield said. “Oregonians lost money, and we believe Coinbase should be held accountable and take steps to protect consumers.”

The complaint filed today in Multnomah County Circuit Court claims that Coinbase created and operated an exchange that drives and supports the sale of unregistered securities – or in other words, risky investments. Coinbase approves the cryptocurrencies listed on its platform, connects buyers and sellers, handles their trades, manages their funds and assets, and actively promotes and encourages Oregonians to buy these digital assets.

As detailed in the complaint, these unregistered securities are vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes and fraud, which often end in devastating losses for investors. Meanwhile, the insiders behind these tokens profit from investors not being able to fully research their investments.

In one example, the cryptocurrency called ICP, short for “Internet Computer Protocol,” which the SEC previously identified as an unregistered security, plummeted in price from $700 to $72 within one month after it was launched for public trading on Coinbase. Today, the coin trades around $7 per share, a price drop of almost 99% that wiped out billions of dollars of investors’ money.

This lawsuit comes as the SEC recently dropped its case against Coinbase and reassigned the lawyer leading the case to the SEC’s IT office. Attorney General Rayfield says the states must fill the enforcement vacuum being left by federal regulators who are giving up under the new administration and abandoning these important cases.

“I am committed to protecting Oregon’s investors so they’re not taken advantage of.”

Employees allege that owners of California’s top design-build multifamily plumbing subcontractor abused the AMPAM’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan in an illegal $247 million transaction

Washington, D.C. – A California federal court certified a class of employees and participants of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). AMPAM Parks Mechanical, one of California’s largest multifamily plumbing subcontractors, employs approximately 1,000 employees throughout Los Angeles, San Diego, and Northern California.

“I am really pleased the judge granted class certification in this important lawsuit against AMPAM Parks Mechanical for violating ERISA,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “The Court correctly found—as dozens of prior decisions previously held—in ERISA fiduciary cases, “Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses are identical to the unnamed class members.””

The plaintiffs allege that the founders of AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks, and Jason Parks (“the Parks brothers”), and Neil Brozen, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly creating the AMPAM ESOP for the sole purpose of selling their interest in AMPAM at an inflated price of $247 million.

To achieve the $247 million purchase price in the ESOP transaction, they hired Neil Brozen, president of Ventura Trust, a trust company doing business in Minnesota. Notably, there are multiple lawsuits pending against Neil Brozen for violations of ERISA, including a lawsuit filed by the Secretary of Labor and other class actions filed by employees of other ESOPs.

The suit further alleges that neither the Parks brothers nor Neil Brozen involved AMPAM employees in negotiating the price the ESOP would pay or the other terms of the transaction. Rather, AMPAM employees found out about the purchase of AMPAM from the Parks brothers only after the ESOP transaction was complete.

Shortly after the sale, AMPAM’s stock held by the ESOP was reported to be valued at $17,821,310, or approximately 7% of what the ESOP had paid for the company. Thereafter, the company’s value plummeted, resulting in a valuation of a mere $2.1 million, less than 1% of what the plan paid. Ultimately, based on public reporting, the ESOP participants sold the stock for less than they paid for it just four years earlier.

The name of the case is Ramirez, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

Los empleados alegan que los propietarios del principal subcontratista de plomería multifamiliar de diseño y construcción de California abusaron del Plan de Propiedad de Acciones para Empleados de AMPAM en una transacción ilegal de $247 millones.

Washington, D.C.- Un tribunal federal de California certificó a un grupo de empleados y participantes del Plan de Participación Social para Empleados (ESOP) de AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, uno de los subcontratistas de plomería multifamiliar más grandes de California, emplea aproximadamente 1000 empleados en Los Ángeles, San Diego y el norte de California.

“Me complace enormemente que el juez haya concedido la certificación de la demanda colectiva en esta importante demanda contra AMPAM Parks Mechanical por violar la ley ERISA”, declaró Michelle C. Yau, presidenta del departamento de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA de Cohen Milstein. “El Tribunal determino correctamente—como se ha sostenido en docenas de decisiones anteriores—en casos fiduciarios bajo la ley ERISA, “que las reclamaciones y defensas de los demandantes son idénticas a la de los miembros de la demanda colectiva no identificados.” ”

Los demandantes alegan que los fundadores de AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks y Jason Parks (“los hermanos Parks”), y Neil Brozen, violaron la Ley de Seguridad de los Ingresos de Jubilación de los Empleados (ERISA) al supuestamente crear el ESOP de AMPAM con el único propósito de vender su participación en AMPAM a un precio inflado de $247 millones de dólares.

Para alcanzar el precio de compra de $247 millones de dólares en la transacción del ESOP, contrataron a Neil Brozen, presidente de Ventura Trust, una compañía fiduciaria que opera en Minnesota. Cabe destacar que existen múltiples demandas pendientes contra Neil Brozen por violaciones de ERISA, incluyendo una demanda interpuesta por el Secretario de Trabajo, y otras demandas colectivas interpuestas por empleados de otros ESOPs.

La demanda alega además que ni los hermanos Parks ni Neil Brozen involucraron a los empleados de AMPAM en la negociación del precio que pagaría el ESOP, ni en los demás términos de la transacción. De hecho, los empleados de AMPAM se enteraron de la compra de AMPAM por medio de los hermanos Parks solo después de que se completara la transacción del ESOP.

Poco después de la venta, se informó que las acciones de AMPAM, en poder del ESOP, estaban valoradas en $17,821,310, o aproximadamente el 7% de lo que el ESOP había pagado a la compañía. Posteriormente, el valor de la compañía se desplomó, resultando en una valoración de tan solo $2.1 millones de dólares., menos del 1% de lo que pagó el plan. Finalmente, según informes públicos, los participantes del ESOP vendieron las acciones por menos de lo que pagaron por ellas tan solo cuatro años antes.

El nombre del casi es  Ramirez, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al.,  Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Central de California.

Sobre Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, un prestigioso bufete estadounidense especializado en litigios, con más de 100 abogados en ocho oficinas, defiende las causas de personas reales- trabajadores, consumidores, proprietario,s de pequeñas empresas, inversores y denunciantes- que trabajan para impulsar reformas corporativas y mercados justos para el beneficio del bien común.

Prioritizing Lucrative Investment Banking Clients and Putting Workers Second

A new class action lawsuit filed alleges that JPMorgan mismanaged its employee health and prescription benefits program resulting in its current and former employees vastly overpaying for premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

The case alleges that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, and other executives who claimed to be personally involved in the employee health plan, abandoned efforts at prudent management under pressure from lucrative investment banking clients of JPMorgan in the health industry.

The complaint further alleges that JPMorgan mismanaged its prescription drug plan in a number of ways that would have been obvious to any prudent manager. Other smaller companies avoided these costly mistakes, which JPMorgan’s own industry trade groups specifically warned against. These mistakes include:

  • Using a flawed process to select CVS Caremark to administer its employee prescription benefits plan while CVS was a major investment banking client of JPMorgan’s, resulting in employees overpaying for prescriptions
  • Overcharging employees for generic prescriptions available at vastly lower prices, including for some who went to a pharmacy without insurance.
  • Allowing Caremark to list its own overpriced Humira biosimilar as the only option on the employee health plan formulary

The 97-page complaint was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. The three class representatives are current or former JPMorgan employees from across the country. The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Fairmark Partners, LLP.

“This case alleges that JPMorgan executives put lucrative investment banking revenue ahead of their fiduciary obligations to their employees, resulting in higher premiums and health care prices for employees and their families,” said Michael Lieberman of Fairmark Partners, LLP. “As one of the most powerful corporations in the world, JPMorgan has no excuse for allowing PBMs and Big Pharma to overcharge its employees for prescription drugs and healthcare.”

“We look forward to prosecuting this important case on behalf of our clients. The stakes are high for JPMorgan’s employees, and JPMorgan has an obligation to put them first – not the company – when managing its health plan and prescription drug benefit program,” added Michelle Yau of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (cohenmilstein.com) is a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, that champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – and works to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

Fairmark Partners, LLP (fairmarklaw.com) is a Washington, DC law firm that specializes in complex antitrust and healthcare litigation to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing.

Together, Cohen Milstein and Fairmark are prosecuting three cutting-edge ERISA cases against JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the companies breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to terms with their PBM that caused employees to overpay for prescription drugs.

Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

San Diego, CA – Four Indonesian villagers who worked on fishing vessels in Bumble Bee Foods, LLC’s supply chain accused the seafood company of knowingly benefitting from forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It is believed to be the first such forced labor at sea case brought against an American seafood company.

The men were lured by promises of good jobs that would support their families but life on board vessels in Bumble Bee’s supply chain was rife with abuse, according to filings. The villagers allege they endured violence daily, did not get enough to eat, and were denied medical care even when seriously injured and forced to keep working.

Trapped by predatory contracts, the men would owe insurmountably steep fines if they quit – a form of forced labor known as debt bondage. According to the complaint, the wages they were promised shrank as funds were withheld to repay bogus fees, deductions and penalties. The men returned home to find they had earned little to no money from months of hard labor. Bumble Bee earns over $1 billion in revenue annually.

“These men were looking for good jobs so they could provide for their families and build a future. Instead, they allege, they were trapped – isolated at sea, beaten with metal hooks, not getting enough food, working around the clock – and facing financial penalties if they tried to leave. The complaint outlines how each of them asked to be released but were kept on board against their will – and in some cases didn’t take home a single penny for their labor,” said Agnieszka Fryszman, partner at Cohen Milstein and chair of its Human Rights practice. “As part of its effort to stamp out human trafficking and forced labor, U.S. law authorizes survivors to bring claims in the United States against the persons who benefitted from those abuses, recognizing that forced labor overseas harms U.S. companies that obey the law. Our clients are seeking justice not only for themselves but to implement changes that will protect other fishers, including men at sea right now on the same boats.”

“One time, the rope holding the weighing gear broke and dropped a load of fish on me, cutting my leg open from thigh to shin. The captain ordered me to keep working.  I thought there was water filling my boot, but I realized it was my own blood. I could see the bone in my leg,” said Akhmad, one of the Indonesian villagers bringing the lawsuit. “I was left to clean and bandage my leg myself, without sterile medical supplies, and I kept bleeding for two weeks. They made me keep working. It still hurts and probably always will. One of the other fishers and I asked to leave the ship, but the captain refused.”

Once on board, the fishers were not allowed to leave the boats and the ships never sailed to port. Vessels in Bumble Bee’s fleet transfer their catches to refrigerated cargo vessels, and receive supplies of fuel, food and water at sea. This practice, called transshipment, enables fishing vessels to remain at sea for months or even years at a time.

For decades, governments, international organizations, non-government organizations, academic researchers, labor rights advocates and the media have raised alarms about the prevalence of forced labor on distant-water fishing vessels, as well as about risk factors such as the use of transshipment. As a leader in the seafood industry, Bumble Bee is aware of these issues. Since 2016, Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace East Asia and Greenpeace Southeast Asia have issued multiple reports highlighting the use of forced labor on vessels in Bumble Bee’s supply chain. When Greenpeace USA emailed a link to one such report directly to Bumble Bee’s then-CEO Chris Lischewski, he replied, “As for the report on Taiwan, I have printed it but have not yet taken the time to read it. It is not high on my priority list.”

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act authorizes a survivor of human trafficking, regardless of their citizenship, to take legal action against companies that knew or should have known that they were benefiting from participation in a venture that used forced labor. Bumble Bee Foods is headquartered in San Diego, California.

The plaintiffs are represented by Agnieszka Fryszman and Nicholas Jacques of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Other counsel include Paul Hoffman and Helen Zeldes of Shonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP and Asia Arminio of GREENPEACE, INC.

###

Douglas J. McNamara named to four-person leadership team in high-profile consolidated fintech consumer protection class action.

WASHINGTON, DC – The Honorable Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Douglas J. McNamara, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice, as one of four Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel, to oversee In re: Capital One Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation. This high-profile consolidated class action represents more than 40 online community creators across the United States. They include influencers, YouTubers, website operators, and online publications, among others, who work hand-in-hand with online merchants to market and sell specific products and services.

The plaintiffs allege that the Capital One Shopping browser extension, that an estimated 10 million people in the United States download and use on their laptops and mobile devices for online shopping at a discounted price, is designed to steal their commissions. Specifically, they claim that when a consumer makes a purchase via the Capital One Shopping browser extension, instead of crediting the creator’s affiliate marketing identify code, it automatically substitutes its own affiliate marketing identity code to receive the commission – even if the consumer made the purchase directly from the creator’s affiliate web link.

“I’m incredibly honored by Judge Trenga’s appointment. He had many highly qualified attorneys to choose from and selected some fantastic litigators to represent the impacted plaintiffs,” said Doug McNamara, of Cohen Milstein. “I look forward to representing the creators and influencers in this case against Capital One, that, on its face appears to be an egregious theft of their hard-earned compensation.”

McNamara is widely recognized for his class action experience involving data breach and false advertising. He currently serves as co-lead class counsel in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, In Re: Data Breach Security Litigation Against Caesars Entertainment, Inc, and In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation. He is also on the steering committee and leadership teams ofIn re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation and In re Marriott International Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.  

The four-member court-appointed leadership team also includes the law firms of Hausfeld LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.