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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of their outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the authors listed below have been selected as recipients of the 24th Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:

• Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor, Stanford Law School
• Rory Van Loo, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School
• Lane Miles, J.D. 2025, Stanford Law School

The award will be presented during the gala luncheon at the American Antitrust Institute’s 27th Annual Policy Conference on June 4, 2026 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Professor Lemley, Professor Van Loo, and Mr. Miles will be honored for their article:

“Anticompetitive Directors,” 125 Colum. L. Rev. 1939 (2025). The authors demonstrate that large numbers of companies are directly violating the antitrust laws prohibiting competing corporations from sharing board members. The authors provide the first analysis of board members on both public and private companies—rather than just public companies—and find 2,309 instances of individuals sitting on the boards of two companies that are direct competitors. And they show why the problem of interlocking boards is more concerning than previously realized: (1) many interlocking board members are controlled by investors with strong financial incentives to promote anticompetitive conduct in the industry, (2) investment funds themselves identify the relevant companies as competitors, and (3) the problem of interlocking boards extends well beyond indi­vidual directors serving on competitors’ boards because the practice of investors having two or more employees serving on competitors’ boards is widespread throughout the economy. The article meaningfully advances our understanding of the extent of the problem of and harm caused by interlocking board members, and proposes legal and structural reforms to fix the problem.

Professor Lemley, Professor Van Loo, and Mr. Miles will receive a $15,000 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 2025:

• Best Antitrust Publication of 2025 on the Clayton Act: Robert H. Lande, John M. Newman, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, “The Forgotten Anti-Monopoly Law: The Second Half of Clayton Act Section 7,” 103 Tex. L. Rev. 785 (2025)

• Best Publication of 2025 on Antitrust and Contract Law: William Friedman, “Are Anticompetitive Contracts Enforceable? The Illegality Defense and Modern Anticompetitive Contracts,” 110 Cornell L. Rev. 335 (2025)

• Best Publication of 2025 on Antitrust and Patent Law: Talha Syed, “Does Pharma Need Patents?,” 134 Yale L.J. 2038 (2025)

• Best Antitrust Publication of 2025 on Collusion: Amanda Starc, Thomas G. Wollmann, “Does Entry Remedy Collusion?,” 115 Am. Econ. Rev. 1400 (2025)

• Best Publication of 2025 on Antitrust in Regulated Industries: Erika M. Douglas, “Antitrust Abandonment,” 42 Yale J. on Reg. 1 (2025)

• Best Publication of 2025 on Merger Retrospectives: Germain Gaudin, Niklas Nagel, “Merger of Complements: Empirical Evidence from the Eyewear Industry,” 103 Int’l J. Indus. Org. 103114 (2025)

• Best Publication of 2025 on Unilateral Effects in Merger Analysis: Peter Caradonna, Nathan H. Miller, Gloria Sheu, “Mergers, Entry, and Consumer Welfare,” 17 Am. Econ. J.: Microeconomics 103 (2025)

• Best Antitrust Publication of 2025 on Remedies: Francesco Decarolis, Muxin Li, Filippo Paternollo, “Competition and Defaults in Online Search,” 17 Am. Econ. J.: Microeconomics 369 (2025)

• Best Antitrust Student Publication of 2025: Joshua L. Rojas, “Forcing Divestiture Dynamics: Solving the Cartel Conundrum by Structural Remedy,” 92 Tenn. L. Rev. 933 (2025)

This year’s award selection committee consisted of Aslihan Asil, Assistant Professor at Duke University School of Law; 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.

Since at least 2018, the State Department has illegally charged Americans an inflated fee of $60 for expedited passport processing.

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal court in California has certified a class action on behalf of tens of millions of American citizens challenging the U.S. Department of State’s long-standing expedited passport fee.

The lawsuit alleges that since at least 2018, the State Department has illegally charged $60 for expedited passport processing without adequately explaining or justifying the cost. Plaintiffs contend that the fee is unlawfully inflated because it exceeds the cost of providing expedited passport processing and therefore violates Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952, which limits federal agencies to charging fees that reflect the actual cost of services provided.

According to the complaint, the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously and exceeded its legal authority when it set the expedited processing fee at $60. Plaintiffs argue that the fee is not in accordance with law and goes beyond what the agency is permitted to charge under 31 U.S.C. § 9701.

“On behalf of Americans across the country, I’m pleased with the court’s decision,” said Geoffrey Graber, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice. “Plaintiffs allege that the State Department’s $60 fee is excessive and illegal; we look forward to holding the government accountable for imposing it.”

The State Department’s Office of the Inspector General, through its independent auditor Kearney & Company, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, had previously raised concerns that some consular fees, like the expedited passport processing fee, could not be justified based on an acceptable, cost-recovery basis.

On February 10, 2025, the same court appointed Geoffrey Graber of Cohen Milstein Interim Class Counsel.

The case name is styled: Bourque, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994 (N.D. Cal.)

###

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, announced today that it has opened its application portal for candidates interested in its 2027 Summer Associate Program, alongside important updates to its recruiting timeline designed to best serve law students. 

A Plaintiff-Side Summer Program That Stands Apart 

Cohen Milstein’s Summer Associate Program offers law students the opportunity to gain hands-on experience at one of the largest and most diversified plaintiffs’ litigation firms in the country. Summer associates work closely with attorneys across a range of practices, gaining meaningful exposure to complex litigation that advances the common good. 

While some firms are pushing recruiting earlier into students’ 1L year, Cohen Milstein is intentionally not participating in that race. Instead, the firm’s updated timeline reflects its belief that recruiting decisions should be based on complete information, not rushed judgments made before students have had the opportunity to complete their first year of law school. 

“Cohen Milstein is committed to recruiting in a way that considers both the reality of accelerated recruiting timelines in the legal market and the needs of law students,” said Benjamin Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “Our timeline ensures students can focus first on their academic success and that both the firm and candidates are able to make informed, thoughtful decisions about the future.” 

Cohen Milstein’s Updated Recruiting Timeline 

• Application window: May 4 through June 30, 2026 

• Application review: Applications will be reviewed after June 30, 2026 

• Interviews and offers: Conducted on a rolling basis, with all positions expected to be filled by September 2026 

The Summer Associate Program is designed as a ten-week experience that provides broad, hands-on exposure to Cohen Milstein’s diverse practice areas. At the same time, the firm offers flexibility for students who wish to spend part of the summer with another law firm, government agency, or public interest organization to explore multiple career paths. 

Interested candidates can learn more and apply by visiting Cohen Milstein’s Careers page.

NEW YORK, NY – Today, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement worth over $22.5 million to Dallas BBQ restaurant workers and retirees in a hotly contested certified class action against Argent Trust Company as well as former Dallas BBQ restaurant owners Herbert Wetanson, Gregor Wetanson, and Stuart Wetanson for mismanaging the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The parties signed a term sheet on March 9 – days before a bench trial was due to begin. 

Under the terms of the settlement, $10 million in cash, Defendants will eliminate debt owed to them from the ESOP Transaction worth approximately $12.5 million, which will increase the restaurant’s stock value held by class members. Finally, former Dallas BBQ restaurant workers will have the opportunity to cash out the stock from ESOP accounts over a period of 5 years.

“This is a tremendous recovery for participants in the W BBQ ESOP, especially given the many obstacles they had to overcome in pursuit of financial restitution and justice,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s ERISA & Employee Benefits practice.“I commend the class representatives for stepping forward to serve the ESOP and their fellow participants in bringing these ERISA violations.”

Plaintiffs alleged that the W BBQ ESOP acquired 400,000 shares of Dallas BBQ common stock from the former owners in July 2016 for an aggregate price of $98,887,309 – significantly more than fair market value of those shares.

Plaintiffs argued that under ERISA, Argent, as the trustee of the W BBQ ESOP had a fiduciary duty to act prudently and in the sole interest of the ESOP’s participants and prevent the ESOP from engaging in prohibited transactions. Similarly, the seller defendants had a fiduciary duty to prudently appoint and monitor Argent, which was required to act in the sole interest of participants, and to refrain from engaging in prohibited transactions with the ESOP.

The case, Lloyd, et al. v. Argent Trust Company, et al., was filed on May 20, 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class was certified on October 31, 2025.

###

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

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:

• Visit: www.BeefPorkWages.com
• Email: info@BeefPorkWages.com
• Call: 1-877-411-4775   
• Write to: Beef Pork Wages Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173052, Milwaukee, WI 53217

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.