Certification establishes precedent for two other cases against The Salvation Army, pending in New York and Georgia.

CHICAGO – A federal court in Illinois granted class certification to thousands of participants in Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Centers (“ARC workers”) in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. ARC workers claim The Salvation Army has not been paying them minimum wage for work they do on behalf of the organization, in violation of federal and state laws. In the same ruling, the court also certified a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for ARC workers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wisconsin.

Clancy, et al. v. The Salvation Army is one of three class and collective actions filed against The Salvation Army for failing to pay ARC participants the minimum wage for their work. Two are presently stayed before federal courts in Georgia and New York, pending a decision on class certification in Clancy. In total, the lawsuits encompass 38 states in which The Salvation Army has ARCs.

As alleged in the complaints, thousands of ARC workers, who are often unhoused and struggle with addiction, enroll in The Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Centers each year. As a condition of their enrollment, workers must partake in 40 hours of “work therapy” a week, which typically involves working at The Salvation Army’s lucrative thrift stores. In exchange, ARC workers receive wages starting as low as $3 a week, capping out at $20-$30 per week, as well as communal housing, and food. If, however, they are unable to work or cannot meet The Salvation Army’s work expectations, they are expelled from the ARC program and associated housing.

The court order will allow the claims of ARC workers in Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin to proceed on a class basis.  These large classes—more than 3500 ARC workers in Michigan, more than 3000 in Illinois, more than 650 in Wisconsin, and nearly 1000 in the other states covered by this case—will now be able to litigate their minimum wage claims collectively.  The minimum wages in Illinois and Michigan are currently $15.00 and $13.73 per hour, respectively.  The federal minimum wage, which applies to ARC workers in the other states, is $7.25 per hour. Where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages. 

“On behalf of ARC workers across the country, I’m pleased with the court’s ruling. Being denied minimum wage for required, full‑time labor undermines the dignity and autonomy of people seeking stability and support,” said Harini Srinivasan, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Civil Rights & Employment practice. “Class certification allows the issues to be considered on a meaningful scale.”

“We welcome the court’s decision to certify the class, recognizing that the issues raised in this case affect thousands of vulnerable individuals. We remain optimistic about holding The Salvation Army accountable for complying with minimum wage laws,” said Michael Freedman, senior counsel at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.

“Today’s ruling marks an important milestone for worker rights. We have much more work to do – federally and at the state level, but this is a crucial and necessary step in the right direction,” said Jessica Riggin, a partner at Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP.

In a separate minute order issued yesterday, the court indicated that, in the next week, it was likely to rule on The Salvation Army’s motion for summary judgment.

The cases are styled: Clancy, et al. v. The Salvation Army, Case No. 1:22–cv–01250 (N.D. Ill.); Massey v. The Salvation Army, 1:22-cv-00979, (N.D. Ga.); and Acker v. The Salvation Army, 1:22-cv-01968, (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, and Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP. All three firms are court-appointed Class Counsel in Clancy. The plaintiffs in the case filed in Georgia are also represented by Radford & Keebaugh.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

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. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.

About Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, founded in San Francisco in 1990, is a nationally recognized civil rights firm and litigation boutique, with extensive experience in employment law, complex litigation, and class actions. RBGG counsels and represents clients across the nation and handles disputes in federal and state trial and appellate courts throughout California and nationwide.

About Rukin Hyland & Riggin

Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP is one of the leading employment law firms in the San Francisco Bay Area. Our attorneys represent clients in a wide range of employment law cases, including claims for job discrimination, sexual harassment, disability accommodation, privacy rights, family and medical leave, whistleblower retaliation, and breach of employment contracts. A large part of our practice is representing employees in class actions and collective actions challenging unlawful pay practices, including wage and hour violations.

SEATTLE and BERKELEY, Calif., March 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — The following is being released by the law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC about the lawsuit Brown v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 1:22-cv-02946 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Settlements totaling $202.7 million have been reached in a lawsuit that says that some beef and pork companies agreed with each other to keep wages low for their beef and pork processing plant workers. It says that is against the law and caused workers to make less money than they should have.

The Defendant beef and pork companies in this lawsuit are: Agri Beef Co.; American Foods Group, LLC; Cargill, Inc.; Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation; Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc.; Hormel Foods Corp.; Indiana Packers Corp.; Iowa Premium, LLC; JBS USA Food Company; National Beef Packing Co., LLC; Nebraska Beef, Ltd.; Perdue Farms, Inc.; Quality Pork Processors, Inc.; Rochelle Foods, LLC; Seaboard Foods, LLC; Smithfield Foods, Inc.; Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.; Triumph Foods, LLC; Tyson Foods, Inc.; and Washington Beef, LLC. Two companies who helped the beef and pork companies exchange information who are also Defendants in this lawsuit are: Agri Stats, Inc. and Webber, Meng, Sahl, and Company, Inc.

Defendants deny these claims. Some Defendants have agreed to settlements to stop the lawsuit against them and avoid further costs and risks. The lawsuit continues against Agri Stats, Inc.; Greater Omaha Packing Company, Inc.; Smithfield Foods, Inc.; and Smithfield Packaged Meats Corporation.

Individuals are included in the main “Class” if they worked at any Defendant’s beef or pork processing plants in the United States between January 1, 2000, and February 27, 2024. Anyone in the main Class is eligible for payment from settlements with nine Defendants that total $191.45 million.

Individuals may also be included in an additional smaller “Subclass” if they worked at any Defendant’s beef or pork processing plants in the United States between January 1, 2014, and February 27, 2024.  Anyone in the Subclass is also eligible for payment from settlements with two additional Defendants that total $11.25 million.

The settlements will be used to pay included individuals, lawsuit costs, attorneys’ fees, notice and administration costs, and Class Representative awards. Defendants who are settling also agreed to provide cooperation.

Important Information and Dates:

  • If individuals received a notice with a compensation amount, they do not need to do anything to get money, but they should update and add their contact, employment, and earnings information at the website, www.BeefPorkWages.com, by February 4, 2027.

If individuals received a notice saying that their earnings information is not available or is incomplete, they should go to www.BeefPorkWages.com and select “Update Your Information” to provide their earnings information. They can also correct their earnings information. To get money, they must update their information by February 4, 2027.

  • If included individuals did not receive a notice, they must submit a Participation Form online at www.BeefPorkWages.com or by mail by February 4, 2027, to get money.

Money will be paid proportionally (or pro rata) to individuals in the Class and Subclass and may be subject to tax withholding. Payment amounts will depend on how many people are included, how long individuals worked for the Defendants’ beef or pork processing plants, how much money they earned, and how much money the Court approves for the lawsuit costs, attorneys’ fees, and Class Representative awards.

  • Included individuals who want to keep their right to sue the Defendants on their own about the claims in this lawsuit must opt out by August 10, 2026.
  • Included individuals may object to the settlements by August 10, 2026.

More information about how to opt out or object to the settlements is available at www.BeefPorkWages.com.

  • The Court will hold a hearing on October 2, 2026, to consider if it will approve the settlements and a request for attorneys’ fees up to 33.33% of the settlements ($67,559,910) plus interest earned on that amount, costs up to $6 million, notice and administration costs up to $4 million, and up to a $30,000 award for each Class Representative.

For more information:

SOURCE Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Plaintiffs alleged that anticompetitive scheme forced Tracleer purchasers to pay higher prices and delayed market entry of less-costly generic versions of the drug.

BALTIMORE, MD– Today, the Court granted preliminary approval of a $65 million settlement in a certified antitrust class action alleging that Actelion Pharmaceuticals, now part of Johnson & Johnson, engaged in a scheme to prevent generic drug manufacturers from developing a less expensive generic version of its pulmonary arterial hypertension drug, Tracleer. The settlement was reached less than two weeks before a 25-day jury trial was set to begin on March 2, 2026.

The lawsuit, brought by Government Employees Health Association (GEHA), a not-for-profit provider of health benefits serving federal employees nationwide, claimed that Actelion blocked generic manufacturers from obtaining samples of Tracleer, knowing that the samples were a prerequisite to filing an application to market a generic version of the drug. GEHA alleged that Actelion not only refused to sell samples of Tracleer to generic manufacturers but also contractually blocked its prospective competitors from obtaining Tracleer samples from the only pharmacies that sold the product. As a result, GEHA alleged, Actelion effectively blocked every path generic manufacturers had to obtain samples of Tracleer. The alleged scheme was so successful that no generic product came to market for almost four years after the Tracleer patent expired, during which time Government Employees Health Association and other Third-Party Payors overpaid for the drug by over $100 million.

“On behalf of our client and the certified Class of unions, employers and other entities that pay for prescription benefits on behalf of millions of patients, we are very pleased with this settlement, which represents a substantial recovery — nearly fifty percent of our conservative single damages estimate. If the settlement receives final approval, it will deliver meaningful relief to the Class who purchased Tracleer and generic Tracleer, bringing well-deserved resolution after more than seven years of hard-fought litigation,” said Sharon Robertson, a partner at Cohen Milstein, Co-Lead Counsel for the Class and trial counsel for the plaintiffs.

Tracleer is the brand name for bosentan, a dual endothelin receptor antagonist used to treat pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH).  While PAH is a relatively rare disorder, it is chronic and potentially fatal. Symptoms of PAH include elevated blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs, which causes the heart to work harder than normal. It affects between 10,000 and 20,000 people in the U.S. — most of them women. At the time of the alleged scheme, Actelion was charging $75,000 per patient, per year for Tracleer.

Originally filed in 2018, the U.S. District Court of Maryland dismissed Government Employees Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals LTD the following year, ruling that the claims were barred by the applicable four-year statutes of limitations and that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims in the states in which it had not made purchases. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit revived and remanded the case in 2021. The Fourth Circuit found that GEHA and other end-payor plaintiffs’ claims were not time-barred. The appellate court also held that the question of whether named plaintiffs could represent absent class members in states where they themselves had not made purchases was not a basis for dismissal. On September 6, 2024, the district court granted GEHA’s motion for class certification and denied Actelion’s motion for summary judgment, paving the way for the case to proceed to trial. 

GEHA and the certified Third-Party Payor Class are represented by Sharon K. Robertson of Cohen Milstein and Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLC, as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

###

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. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Equal Rights Center (ERC) today announced a cooperation agreement with JAG Management Company (JAG) to ensure a fair tenant screening process at JAG properties for all applicants, including renters with housing vouchers, past evictions, and criminal records. The agreement resolves ERC’s allegations that the company illegally discriminated against prospective tenants at four D.C. properties: J. Coopers Row, Jefferson MarketPlace, J Linea, and Pinnacle.

ERC Executive Director Kate Scott comments, “We’re excited to reach this agreement with JAG to ensure their tenant screening policies and practices align with the law, so everyone has a fair shot at living in their neighborhood of choice.”

The four-year agreement applies to all multifamily rental properties in D.C. currently owned, leased, or managed by JAG. As part of the agreement, JAG agrees not to apply minimum income and credit score requirements to applicants with a housing voucher or other income-based housing subsidy, and not to consider eviction filings three or more years old or criminal records more than seven years old, in accordance with D.C. law. JAG additionally agrees to:

  • Revise their tenant screening policy, screening criteria, and application form within 60 days;
  • Meet affirmative marketing requirements, including access to the revised tenant screening policy on the subject properties’ websites;
  • Have leasing agents and property management staff at all subject properties attend annual fair housing training provided by the ERC;
  • Establish a “Voucher liaison” for the subject properties to help prospective renters with vouchers navigate the tenancy screening process;
  • Participate in compliance testing conducted by ERC; and,
  • Pay $220,000, including the cost of training and compliance testing, and attorneys’ fees.

Scott continues, “Tenant screening policies matter because they determine who can access which buildings, in which neighborhoods, and ultimately shape the kind of city we live in.” Due to disparities in the criminal justice system, people of color and people with disabilities are more likely to have a record, and so are disproportionately harmed by overly broad criminal record screenings. Similarly, discrimination against renters with housing vouchers disproportionately harms women, Black people, and people with disabilities in the District.

ERC began investigating JAG in 2024 after reviewing the rental application form for J. Coopers Row Apartments. ERC then conducted civil rights testing at JAG’s four D.C. properties. ERC’s lawsuit alleged that JAG imposed numerous unlawful requirements on prospective renters, including minimum income requirements for voucher holders and overly broad eviction record and criminal background screenings, in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Fair Criminal Record Screenings for Housing Act of 2016, D.C. Rental Housing Act, and D.C. Security Deposit Act.

Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Ryan Downer, Mirela Missova, and Rebecca Guterman of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs represented the ERC in this matter.

 “D.C.’s renter protections are some of the strongest in the nation, designed to counteract inequality and promote opportunity. This agreement ensures applicants at JAG properties will be treated fairly, as the law demands, without facing unnecessary and illegal barriers,” said Brian Corman, a Partner at Cohen Milstein.

Mirela Missova, Supervising Attorney at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, comments, “Source of income discrimination and overly broad criminal record screenings are major contributors to racial segregation in D.C. We’re proud to support the ERC in their efforts to stamp out these harmful practices and foster inclusive communities.”

MEDIA CONTACT:

Nick Adjami, Communications and Engagement Manager

Equal Rights Center

nadjami@equalrightscenter.org, (202) 370-3219

###

ABOUT THE EQUAL RIGHTS CENTER: The ERC is a civil rights organization that identifies and seeks to eliminate unlawful and unfair discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations in its home community of Greater Washington D.C. and nationwide. The ERC’s core strategy for identifying unlawful and unfair discrimination is civil rights testing. When the ERC identifies discrimination, it seeks to eliminate it through the use of testing data to educate the public and business community, support policy advocacy, conduct compliance testing and training, and, if necessary, take enforcement action. For more information, please visit equalrightscenter.org.

ABOUT COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL: 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. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.

ABOUT THE WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS: The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, and public accommodations based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. For over 50 years, the Committee has delivered a steady stream of civil rights victories to advance justice in the District and beyond. For more information, please visit washlaw.org.

$398.05M settlement is second-largest financial recovery ever in a U.S. labor antitrust class action. Injunctive relief promises industry change.

BALTIMORE, MD– Today, a federal judge granted final approval of an industry-changing injunctive relief settlement against Agri Stats, Inc., a data vendor for the poultry industry. This approval follows the court granting final approval of $398.05 million in settlements last June and ends a first-of-its kind wage suppression class action against 18 of the nation’s leading poultry producers.

The total settlement is the largest recovery ever in an antitrust class action for low-wage workers in the United States; the second-largest recovery ever in a wage-fixing class action in the United States; and the largest financial recovery ever in an antitrust class action in the Fourth Circuit.

Poultry processing plant workers, who hang, slaughter, and debone chickens and turkeys, claimed that since 2000, the country’s leading poultry producers conspired to lower corporate labor costs by suppressing their wages and benefits. The poultry producers own and operate over 200 processing plants, hatcheries, and feed mills nationwide. The lawsuit alleged that they carried out this scheme by sharing competitively sensitive compensation data through, in part, industry data vendors like Agri Stats.

“For decades, tens of thousands of hard-working poultry plant workers have been exploited by their employers who schemed with competitors to depress their wages below fair market levels,” said Brent Johnson, co-chair of the Antitrust practice group at Cohen Milstein who led the firm’s litigation team. “Our co-lead counsel team is grateful for the opportunity to help these workers achieve long, overdue justice and financial relief for this misconduct and to the Court for approving the settlements. We are also pleased that Agri Stats has agreed to aggregate relevant labor data in broiler chicken reports.”

Specifically, as a part of the injunctive relief settlement, Agri Stats has agreed to eliminate relevant plant-level data fields related to labor costs in its broiler chicken reports that it circulates to subscribers. 

Filed in 2019, the poultry workers claimed that their employers formed, implemented, monitored, and enforced the wage suppression conspiracy in three ways:

  • First, senior executives, including human resources executives and directors of compensation, held recurring “off the books” in-person meetings where worker compensation was discussed and set.
  • Second, on a highly frequent basis, defendants exchanged detailed, non-public wage and benefits information through surveys conducted by data vendors like Agri Stats.
  • Third, managers at the poultry processing plants engaged in bilateral and regional exchanges of wage and benefits information, including future plans.

In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against many of the same poultry producers, alleging a long-running conspiracy to suppress worker pay with the same allegations uncovered by the extensive independent private investigation by co-lead counsel.

Oxfam, a global think tank that fights economic inequality and poverty, has reported that plant workers in the U.S. poultry industry earn wages that put them near or below the poverty line.

The plaintiffs in Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al. were represented by co-lead counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Berger Montague and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

###

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.

Today, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut enjoined Aetna Life Insurance Company’s (Aetna) exclusion of gender-affirming transition-related facial surgeries for two trans women, Jamie Homnick and Gennifer Herley, in Advocates for Trans Equality’s (A4TE) class action lawsuit. Denying Aetna’s motion to dismiss and granting the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the case proceeds.

“In granting the preliminary injunction, the court recognized the serious harms caused by denying access to transition-related health care, blocking Aetna from continuing to enforce its exclusion of transition-related facial surgeries against our clients while the case proceeds. This decision is an important step toward ensuring that trans people are not denied medically necessary care simply because of who they are,” said Kelly Parry-Johnson, Senior Counsel at Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE). “For too long, insurers have relied on outdated and discriminatory policies that put trans people’s health and safety at risk. We are proud to stand with our clients as this case moves forward.”

“Having my transition-related facial surgery would mean so much to me. It’s hard to describe the relief and happiness that I feel now knowing it is possible I could finally receive care my doctors have recommended for years. I hope this decision is a step towards ensuring other trans people can access the same care without facing the same barriers I did,” said Gennifer Herley. “This preliminary injunction sends a clear message: trans people are entitled to the same medically necessary care and insurance protections as everyone else. I’m so happy that we will have our day in court.”

Gender-affirming facial surgeries are essential components of the medical treatment for gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition that arises from the incongruence between a person’s gender identity and their physical sex characteristics. Despite covering similar medically necessary surgeries for cisgender patients, Aetna categorically excludes the same procedures for transgender people, classifying them as categorically cosmetic, in violation of the Affordable Care Act.

In September 2024, Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), Wardenski P.C., and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, filed a federal class action civil rights lawsuit against Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of Binah Gordon, S.N., Alma Avalle, Jamie Homnick, and Gennifer Herley, and other similarly situated trans people denied coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction procedures. The complaint claimed Aetna violated Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded healthcare programs. The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief to end Aetna’s exclusionary policy, and compensatory damages for all policyholders who have had to pay out of pocket for gender-affirming facial surgery because of Aetna’s discriminatory exclusion.

Each of the plaintiffs have been deeply impacted by Aetna’s policy: 

  • Binah Gordon, a 43-year-old resident of Nebraska, was forced to cover the cost of her facial surgery herself, spending approximately $35,000 after Aetna refused to cover the surgery, causing her to experience a long, painful delay in obtaining this medically necessary care. 
  • S.N., a 49-year-old from Pennsylvania, paid over $40,000 out of pocket for gender affirming facial and voice surgeries. Her appeals to Aetna were mostly denied, forcing her to bear the majority of the financial burden for gender-affirming healthcare that her medical providers had deemed medically necessary.  
  • Alma Avalle, a 27-year-old from New York, was denied coverage by Aetna, forcing her to suffer for a protracted period of time without the surgery she needed. These denials have taken a toll on Alma, causing severe depression.
  • Jamie Homnick, a 41-year-old from New York, has been denied coverage for her care by Aetna and was unable to pay for the surgeries out of pocket. Without the care she needs, she suffers from increased anxiety, depression, and symptoms of gender dysphoria. 
  • Gennifer Herley, a 63-year-old from New York, remains unable to obtain the health care she needs and has experienced increased symptoms of depression and anxiety related to her gender dysphoria because of Aetna’s denials. Her transition is incomplete without facial surgery.

“This ruling reflects what the law requires and what medical experts have made clear — gender-affirming care is healthcare,” said Joseph Wardenski of Wardenski P.C. “Our clients followed medical advice, navigated the appeals process, and came to court seeking fairness. Today’s decision allows them to continue that fight.”

“We are very pleased that the court has recognized, as a matter of law, that people with gender dysphoria are entitled to a medical necessity review for their gender affirming care,” said Harini Srinivasan, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. “Transgender people are entitled to the same process used for anyone else seeking coverage for similar procedures.”

In 2021, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), now known as A4TE, and Cohen Milstein worked on behalf of four women denied coverage by Aetna for medically necessary breast augmentation. The insurance company eventually updated its policy and expanded coverage and removed the exclusion to include the procedure.

Plaintiffs in Gordon, et al. v. Aetna are represented by Gabriel Arkles, Ezra Cukor, Kelly Parry-Johnson, Sydney Duncan, Seran Gee, and Fiadh McKenna of Advocates for Trans Equality; Joseph Wardenski  of Wardenski PC; and Christine E. Webber, Harini Srinivasan, Aniko R. Schwarcz, and Elizabeth McDermott of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

 To learn more about the lawsuit or to sign up to potentially participate in the class action lawsuit, see Gordon, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance (D.Conn.)

View the decision.

###

About A4TE

Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) is an organization that fights for the legal and political rights of transgender people in the United States. Introduced in July 2024 after the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund and the National Center for Transgender Equality merged, A4TE is the largest trans-led advocacy organization in the U.S. and brings together experts, advocates, and communities to shift government and society toward an equitable future where trans people live joyful lives without barriers.

About Wardenski P.C.

Wardenski P.C. is a civil rights law firm based in New York. The firm represents plaintiffs in civil rights lawsuits around the country challenging discrimination in education, housing, and health care, with a particular focus on the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. 

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. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.

Commercial real estate giant explicitly acknowledged that climate change poses a material threat to its own business operations and moved to insulate its balance sheet, yet allegedly failed to apply similar risk analysis to its 401(k) plan

SEATTLE, WA — A former employee of Cushman & Wakefield U.S. Inc. filed a first-of-its kind class-action lawsuit alleging that the company breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to protect workers’ 401(k) savings from material climate-related financial risks. If successful, the lawsuit could set a significant precedent, forcing a fundamental shift in how risk is managed across the entire $12 trillion U.S. retirement market.

The complaint alleges that Cushman & Wakefield failed to evaluate, monitor and remove the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund, which exposes retirement savers to dangerous levels of climate-related financial risk while at the same time underperforming and charging unreasonably high fees.

According to the complaint, the Westwood Quality SmallCap Fund expressly disclaims climate risk analysis, while its returns lagged benchmarks by 17% in 2025 and while charging significantly higher fees than comparable funds. By retaining the fund, the lawsuit alleges Cushman & Wakefield exposed workers to inordinate levels of climate-related risk and persistent underperformance compared to available benchmarks.

The complaint also highlights an alleged discrepancy between Cushman & Wakefield’s corporate risk management and its stewardship of employee capital. While the company has explicitly acknowledged that climate change is a financial risk that poses a material threat to its own business operations, has moved to insulate its balance sheet accordingly, and offers expertise to clients on how to manage the risk, the lawsuit claims the company failed to apply similar risk analysis to its 401(k) plan.

The lawsuit also alleges the company failed to guard against conflicts of interest between participants and the financial services firm Fidelity, which both advised and administered the plan.

The case could have profound implications for the $12 trillion in retirement savings held in 401(k)-style plans, potentially establishing a legal precedent that recognizes climate risk management as a mandatory component of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit itself signals to the financial industry that fiduciaries cannot ignore the economic reality of climate change without facing liability.

“When your employer offers you a set of retirement options, you assume they’ve done the work to make sure those options are sound. You pick a fund, you contribute every month, and you trust that someone is paying attention to the risks,” said Renee Kvek, lead plaintiff in this case and former employee for Cushman & Wakefield. “I was disappointed to learn how exposed my savings were to climate-related financial risks, especially when the company clearly understood those risks in its own operations.

“Like most of my colleagues, my ability to retire depends on the growth and safety of my 401(k) account. It’s really important that employers understand what types of investments they are offering through their 401(k) plans and how they can affect their employees’ retirement security.”

“Though often misrepresented as a purely ethical issue, climate risk is actually a severe economic risk,” said Kimberly Blake, attorney at ClientEarth USA. “You cannot claim to be a prudent fiduciary while ignoring the biggest systemic threat to the global economy. Climate risk isn’t just about fossil-fuel stocks and coastal real estate. It’s a broad, interconnected threat that touches huge parts of the economy. What’s striking here is that Cushman & Wakefield understood these risks in its own business operations, but it failed to protect its workers’ retirement savings from the same dangers.”

“This first-of-its-kind legal challenge under ERISA will hopefully show 401(k) plans that the financial risks associated with climate cannot be ignored,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s ERISA & Employee Benefits practice.

The lawsuit, Kvek vs. Cushman & Wakefield U.S. Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington. The plaintiff is represented by environmental legal group ClientEarth USA and plaintiffs’ law firm Cohen Milstein.

About ClientEarth:

ClientEarth is a non-profit organization that uses the law to create systemic change that protects the Earth for – and with – its inhabitants. ClientEarth USA is an independent 501(c)(3) organization that works in strategic partnership with ClientEarth Group, a UK-headquartered international group of entities.

About Cohen Milsten:

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.

Today, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed an amicus brief calling on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to correct an erroneous interpretation of a core civil rights doctrine in National Fair Housing Alliance v. Bank of America. This case comes after 20 fair housing organizations and three homeowners presented evidence that Bank of America discriminated based on race through, among other things, its practice of failing to maintain and market bank-owned homes in Black and Latino neighborhoods in cities across the country.

The amicus brief – on behalf of LDF, the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, the National Housing Law Project, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council – highlights how the District Court decision misapplied disparate impact doctrine. Specifically, it states the court incorrectly concluded that only express policies that cause unjustified discrimination can support claims brought under the Fair Housing Act. Brian Corman, Rebecca Ojserkis, and Dana Busgang of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll appeared on behalf of the four organizations.

“This misinterpretation of long-standing civil rights doctrine cannot go uncorrected,” said Jennifer A. Holmes, Deputy Director of Litigation at LDF. “Treating inaction as a safe harbor would discourage housing providers and employers from taking steps to prevent discrimination or bias from infecting their practices. Years of legal precedent hold that a practice of inaction or omission that leads to unjustified discriminatory effects is subject to legal action. We call on the Fourth Circuit to correct the District Court’s conclusion to the contrary.”

“A company’s lack of a policy on important issues can lead to unchecked discrimination,” said Hayley Hahn, Assistant Counsel at LDF. “And that’s exactly what the plaintiffs allege here – that property management decisions informally deprioritized maintenance in Black and Latino neighborhoods, with no justification or reason why. That’s something that our nation’s civil rights laws don’t allow.”

“Nearly 60 years ago, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act to address the kinds of discriminatory policies and practices alleged in this case against Bank of America,” said Brian Corman, a partner at Cohen Milstein who focuses on Fair Housing Act litigation. “The District Court’s misapplication of the disparate impact doctrine undermines the remedial aims of the Fair Housing Act and similar civil rights laws, threatening to unwind essential civil rights protections that have enabled communities to access housing and build generational wealth. We urge the Fourth Circuit to correct this interpretation of the Fair Housing Act and reaffirm the law’s core protections to ensure that discriminatory and unlawful policies and practices are brought to an end.”

Throughout its history, LDF has challenged public and private policies and practices that deny Black people opportunities and choices in housing and employment. The organization has also spent decades advancing the correct interpretation of the doctrine of disparate impact discrimination, including its representation of the plaintiffs in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, the seminal Title VII disparate impact case that the Supreme Court decided in 1971.

Today’s brief continues this advocacy by highlighting how the district’s court interpretation of disparate impact ignores well-established precedent which holds that informal practices or a failure to act can also violate the Fair Housing Act when, as here, they cause unjustified discriminatory effects on Black and Latino individuals and neighborhoods.

Read the full brief.

Concord, NH – Attorney General John M. Formella today announces that his office has negotiated a settlement with PayPal, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. (collectively PayPal) that includes injunctive relief requiring PayPal to make significant changes to its popular e-payment platforms, PayPal and Venmo, both of which are owned by PayPal, Inc., as well as a monetary payment of $1.75 million.

“Today’s settlement with PayPal sends a strong message that companies who encourage consumers to trust them with their financial resources must be transparent regarding the ability of its customers to freely access their funds,” said Attorney General Formella. “I am proud that this agreement includes meaningful measures to ensure that consumers who depend on these e-payment platforms receive clear, accurate information and that their privacy is protected.”

New Hampshire consumers regularly rely on prominent e-payment platforms PayPal and Venmo to pay for essentials like rent, groceries, and childcare, and receive paychecks and government assistance funds. These platforms are particularly critical to low-income residents who lack access to traditional banking.

A New Hampshire Department of Justice investigation raised serious concerns that PayPal had violated New Hampshire’s consumer protection laws by, among other things:

  • deceptively advertising that customers would be able to access their funds anytime when in fact, many consumers reported difficulty in doing so when PayPal wrongfully froze their accounts;
  • advertising “Purchase Protection” for goods-and-services transactions, but imposing significant hurdles that prevented many consumers from receiving the “protection” they were promised; and
  • implementing inadequate disclosures regarding the privacy of Venmo users’ sensitive financial information.

Under the terms of an assurance of discontinuance filed with the Merrimack County Superior Court, PayPal will make key changes to its marketing and app interfaces on PayPal and Venmo, including:

  • Revising Venmo’s “Purchase Protection” interfaces to remove misleading language and the “shield” icon, accurately define the term “purchase,” and provide direct links to eligibility limitations;
  • Enabling consumers to choose privacy as a default setting during Venmo sign-up, through an improved onboarding flow and notifications to existing Venmo users about how to adjust their privacy settings;
  • Incorporating risk-based scam and fraud warnings on PayPal and Venmo to alert consumers to potential scams and plainly disclose that users may not get their money back if they are scammed; and
  • Providing consumers with clear information about their ability to access funds and steps to lift restrictions when PayPal freezes their PayPal or Venmo accounts.

The New Hampshire Department of Justice Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau investigates unfair, deceptive, or unreasonable practices involving New Hampshire consumers.  To file a complaint with the New Hampshire Department of Justice, call the Consumer Protection Hotline at 1-888-468-4454 or file a complaint online at https://www.doj.nh.gov/consumer/complaints.

HONOLULU – The Hawaiʻi Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Office of Consumer Protection (OCP), on behalf of the state of Hawaiʻi, announced today a settlement with PayPal, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PayPal). The settlement resolves OCP’s lawsuit, filed in December 2022, alleging unfair and deceptive acts or practices through PayPal’s operation of the PayPal and Venmo e-payment platforms. PayPal has denied the claims, but will pay $6 million to OCP to resolve the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged violations of Hawaiʻi’s consumer protection laws, including that, to encourage consumers to make and receive payments on PayPal and Venmo, PayPal deceptively advertises that it provides broad “Purchase Protection” for goods-and-services transactions on Venmo, privacy for Venmo users’ sensitive financial information, consistent and easy access to funds, and platforms safe from scams and fraud.

“Hawaiʻi consumers depend on PayPal and Venmo for critical daily tasks like paying rent, receiving wages and compensating child care providers. This settlement is an important step forward in safeguarding the financial marketplace,” stated Executive Director of the Office of Consumer Protection, Mana Moriarty.

A representative from PayPal added, “PayPal takes our responsibility to our customers very seriously, and we continually enhance our products and communications to improve the customer experience. We share the same goal as the state of Hawaiʻi to empower and protect consumers, and are pleased to have reached an agreement on this matter.”

The Hawaiʻi Office of Consumer Protection was assisted in this action by L. Richard Fried, Jr. and Patrick McTernan of Cronin, Fried, Sekiya, Kekina & Fairbanks and Emmy Levens, Molly Bowen, and Diane Kee of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

# # #

Media Contact:

William Nhieu

Communications Officer

Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, State of Hawaiʻi

Phone: 808-586-7582

Email: wnhieu@dcca.hawaii.gov