Partners Elected in the Consumer Protection and Whistleblower Practices.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has named Karina G. Puttieva and Raymond M. Sarola to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2026.

“Karina and Ray have consistently demonstrated the highest level of skill and judgment, along with the dedication required to succeed in complex, high-stakes litigation,” said Benjamin Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “Their leadership, creativity, and unwavering commitment to our clients and the pursuit of justice exemplify the values that define our firm.”

Karina G. Puttieva, a member of the firm’sConsumer Protection practice, litigates some of the most pressing issues in the digital age—data privacy, cybersecurity breaches, data broker accountability, and other issues that dominate headlines and shape consumer protection law today. She is involved in several of the nation’s most closely watched cybersecurity class actions.

A member of the firm’s Hiring and Diversity Committee, Karina plays an integral role in the firm’s hiring and annual fellowship program. She is also a board member with Public Justice, a national nonprofit legal advocacy organization that uses impact litigation and strategic advocacy to tackle major systemic threats—such as abusive corporate power, predatory practices, civil rights violations, and environmental degradation.

Karina earned her B.A., magna cum laude, at Haverford College in 2011, and her J.D. at University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2017.

Raymond M. Sarola, a member of the firm’s Whistleblower practice, represents whistleblowers in False Claims Act cases and in matters brought under the whistleblower programs of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Internal Revenue Service, and other federal and state agencies. Ray’s experience spans all major industries, with a particular focus on the healthcare, financial services, and asset management sectors.

Ray also litigates cutting-edge securities cases alleging manipulative stock and bond trading. Prior to joining the firm, Ray served as Senior Policy Advisor & Counsel in the New York City Mayor’s Office, where he represented the city on the boards of its pension plans, and he applies that experience as a member of the firm’s Ethics & Fiduciary Counseling practice.

Ray earned his B.A. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2002, and his J.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in 2005.

###

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.

D.C.-based medical driver allegedly terminated for misdemeanor that happened 20 years ago.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (“Washington Lawyers’ Committee”), and the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll LLP, today filed a lawsuit against Medical Transportation Management, Inc. (“MTM”) and one of its contractors, OnTime Transportation, Inc. (“OnTime”), challenging their use of an overly broad and unnecessarily punitive criminal background screening policy that goes far beyond any legitimate public safety concerns, to permanently stigmatize and bar from employment well-qualified individuals, a disproportionate number of whom are African Americans.

Plaintiff James Blakney worked as a medical transportation driver for the defendants for three years without issue. During this time, he disclosed his conviction record during annual criminal background checks. In 2024, Mr. Blakney submitted his regular, and unchanged, background check. MTM’s internal credentialing system disqualified him from transportation services due to a two-decade old arrest, effectively terminating Mr. Blakney.

Today’s lawsuit argues that the policy violates the local antidiscrimination laws as well as guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). MTM’s policy resulted in Mr. Blakney’s termination without the opportunity to appeal, and with no consideration of relevant factors including the amount of time that had passed since the arrest, the relationship of the arrest to the job requirements, and Mr. Blakney’s demonstrated ability to perform in the position. Mr. Blakney argues that MTM’s policy disparately impacts Black individuals.

“I was floored that MTM fired me. I’ve been driving for them for years and loved helping the patients they serve throughout the District,” said James Blakney, the former MTM driver and plaintiff in this case. “Each year MTM conducts its background check, I’ve been forthcoming about the misdemeanor I got 20 years ago. It’s important to be honest, and it’s never been an issue. Plus, I had a successful driving record, and the patients really liked me. So, I was floored that MTM’s policy just terminated me. No discussion. Done. Just like that.”

Mr. Blakney began working as a full-time van driver for MTM and OnTime in 2021. In this role, he transported clients – typically dialysis patients and adults with intellectual disabilities – to and from their health appointments and classes in D.C. Mr. Blakney drove clients every Monday to Friday and every other Saturday for over three years. This added up to over 8,000 hours of driving across some of the busiest parts of D.C., ensuring that clients made their appointments on time and that they returned safely home afterwards.

Decades of empirical research confirm that facially neutral criminal background screening policies can produce unlawful disparate impacts when they disproportionately exclude otherwise qualified workers of a particular race. D.C. discrimination law consequently prohibits employers from relying on selection criteria that systematically and unjustifiably disadvantage Black workers. When employers adopt blanket disqualification rules untethered to job-relatedness or business necessity, those rules fall squarely within the category of practices that antidiscrimination laws deem unlawful.

“While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool for employers, MTM’s policy unfairly and disproportionately limits opportunities for qualified Black employees. The over-criminalization of D.C.’s Black residents means that they are much more likely to be impacted by MTM’s overly punitive background check policy,” said Sarah L. Bessell of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee, who is also representing Mr. Blakney in this case. 

Black individuals in D.C. are arrested at rates 10 times higher than that of whites. Since the 1990s, over 90% of adults sentenced for felonies in D.C. were Black, despite only making up an average of 50% of the general population.

“MTM’s decision to terminate Mr. Blakney is incredibly disheartening, and clearly symptomatic of a larger and inherently biased business issue,” said Harini Srinivasan, a partner at Cohen Milstein, who is representing the plaintiff in this case. “Disparate impact doesn’t arise in a vacuum. Black Americans are disproportionately burdened by the criminal justice system because of long-standing structural inequities and are far more likely to have a criminal record. The use of expansive, overbroad, or stale criminal background screens thus predictably and disproportionately screens out or terminates qualified Black applicants and employees.”

If you believe that you were denied employment or wrongfully terminated by MTM because of your arrest and conviction record in the last two years, please contact the Washington Lawyers’ Committee: Get Legal Help – The Washington Lawyers’ Committee.

Media Contact: Washington Lawyers’ Committee, linda_paris@washlaw.org, 202-308-5186; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

# # #

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 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 https://www.washlaw.org.

Certified investor class alleged InnovAge’s IPO registration statement and subsequent public statements were materially false and misleading, prompting a 78% stock drop.

DENVER – A federal judge in Colorado granted final approval of a $27 million cash settlement between investors and InnovAge Holding Corp., a national senior-living healthcare company, its former CEO and CFO, board of directors, underwriters, and two private equity backers, resolving this high-profile certified securities fraud class action.

The Honorable William J. Martinez of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado commended counsel and the results achieved. In the order, he wrote, “the Court has been particularly impressed by the lawyers litigating this case, and most notably the exceptional results achieved by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this litigation. The briefs and arguments . . . were particularly well-written and were very helpful to the Court in resolving this complex case.” Pg. 7

Originally filed in 2021, El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, et al. v. InnovAge Holding Corp. alleged that InnovAge made false and misleading statements to investors in its IPO materials and throughout the class period.

Following a federal lobbying effort to allow for-profit entities to participate in the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (“PACE”), InnovAge became the first for-profit PACE provider. With the backing of private entity firms, InnovAge went public. Plaintiffs alleged that while InnovAge’s enrollment numbers soared, patients suffered and the Company concealed critical information from investors, including inadequate staffing levels and inability to provide adequate care to patients. Ultimately, the truth was revealed through state and federal regulatory sanctions on InnovAge, which when announced led to a 78% stock drop, making InnovAge one of the five worst-performing IPOs of 2021.

Defendants included InnovAge, former CEO Maureen Hewitt, former CFO Barbara Gutierrez, John Ellis Bush, Andrew Cavanna, Caroline Dechert, Edward Kennedy, Jr., Pavithra Mahesh, Thomas Scully, Marilyn Tavenner, Sean Traynor, Richard Zoretic, WCAS Management Corporation, WCAS Management, L.P., WCAS Management, LLC, Apax Partners US LLC, TCO Group Holdings, L.P., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Piper Sandler & Co., Capital One Securities, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC, and Roberts & Ryan Investments, Inc.

The certified class of investors was led by the El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, and the Indiana Public Retirement System. Cohen Milstein was appointed sole Lead Counsel in 2022.

The case name is: El Paso Firemen & Policemen’s Pension Fund, et al. v. InnovAge Holding Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-02770, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

###

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.

Legal Notice 
Jien v. Perdue Farms, No. 1:19-cv-002521 (D. Md.) 

Those who Worked in Poultry Processing between 2000 and 2021, 
Could Be Affected by a Settlement. 

Notice has been sent advising about $398.05 million in settlements in this lawsuit. Agri Stats, Inc. (“Agri Stats”) has now agreed to a Settlement. This notice is about the Agri Stats Settlement.  

Learn more: Visit www.PoultryWages.com, email info@PoultryWages.com, or call 1-877-311-3745 (toll-free).  

What is this lawsuit about? 

Poultry workers sued their employers and two other companies (called the “Defendants”). This lawsuit says that some poultry companies talked to each other about how much to pay their workers in a way that is against the law and allowed them to pay workers less money than they should have. It says that Agri Stats created reports that helped poultry companies do this. Defendants deny these claims. 

On June 5, 2025, the Court approved settlements with all Defendants except Agri Stats. Agri Stats has now agreed to settle the claims against it in this lawsuit. 

Who are the Defendants? 

The poultry companies being sued in this lawsuit are: Tyson Foods; Keystone Foods; Pilgrim’s Pride; Perdue Farms; Perdue Foods; Sanderson Farms; Koch Foods; Wayne Farms; Cargill Meat Solutions; Mountaire Farms; Simmons Foods; Fieldale Farms; George’s; George’s Foods; Peco Foods; Foster Farms; Case Foods; Case Farms; O.K. Foods; Allen Harim; Amick Farms; Butterball; Jennie-O Turkey Store; Agri Stats; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company. For more information, please visit www.PoultryWages.com. 

Who is a part of the lawsuit? 

In a class action lawsuit, one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group. The people who represent the group are called “Class Representatives.” The whole group of people is called a “Class.” 

Individuals are included in the Class for this Settlement if they were employed by any Defendant (except Agri Stats and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) or a company controlled by them, and worked at their poultry processing plants, poultry hatcheries, poultry feed mills, and/or poultry complexes in the United States at any point from January 1, 2000 until July 20, 2021. 

What does the Settlement provide? 

There is no money available from this Settlement, but Agri Stats will remove some labor-related information from the reports it provides to poultry companies.  

Class Members may still be able to participate and get money from the previous settlements. To learn more, please visit the website, www.PoultryWages.com. 

What are my rights? 

Even if a Class Member does nothing, they will be bound by the Court’s decisions. If the Settlement is approved, included individuals will give up any rights to sue Agri Stats on their own for the claims in this lawsuit. Individuals may object to the Settlement by January 12, 2026. More information about how to object is available on the website, www.PoultryWages.com. 

The Court will hold a hearing on March 10, 2026, to consider if it will approve this Settlement. Class Members, or their own lawyer, may appear and speak at the hearing at their own expense. 

Learn More: 1-877-311-3745             info@PoultryWages.com        
www.PoultryWages.com 

Ranked among the top 5 auditor settlements in the last decade.

Investors alleged that Deloitte aided SCANA in deceiving the public and regulators by concealing financial fraud for its South Carolina nuclear energy expansion project.

NEW YORK, N.Y. – A federal judge in South Carolina granted preliminary approval of a $34 million cash settlement between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund and Deloitte & Touche LLP to resolve a certified securities fraud class action against the accounting giant, ranking it among the top 5 auditor settlements in the last decade.

Originally filed in 2019, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Deloitte alleged Deloitte helped SCANA Corporation commit massive financial fraud related to the multi-billion-dollar expansion of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina. It follows on the heels of In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation, bringing total shareholder recoveries to $226.5 million in this massive fraud. However, IBEW was the only case to address auditor liability issues.

“This settlement is a significant victory for investors and a testament to their role in holding auditors accountable and safeguarding our capital markets,” said Laura Posner, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed lead counsel in this matter. “This case also sets an important precedent. Despite the SCANA fraud being widely reported, Deloitte was not originally sued by SCANA investors because there is such a high bar to establishing liability against auditors. It’s rare for auditor cases to withstand motions to dismiss, let alone achieve class certification, and to fully brief summary judgment as we did here. I’m very pleased with the trail we have blazed to hold auditors liable and the recovery we have obtained for investors and look forward to presenting to the court why the settlement should receive final approval.” 

Shareholders alleged that Deloitte breached its duties as SCANA’s external, independent auditor and trusted gatekeeper by deceiving investors, regulators, and the public about SCANA’s accounting for, and expected completion of, the nuclear energy expansion project. Shareholders further alleged that despite possessing voluminous evidence that SCANA could not achieve its goals, including findings from a whistleblower investigation, Deloitte gave unqualified, “clean” audit reports on SCANA’s financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. As a result, shareholders alleged, Deloitte misled investors into believing that SCANA would complete the Nuclear Project in time to obtain $1.4 billion in nuclear tax credits.

Over the course of more than five years of litigation, the plaintiffs achieved several important court rulings. In 2020, the court denied Deloitte’s motion to dismiss, stating among other things that shareholders plausibly alleged that Deloitte helped conceal the fraud from investors and did so in a manner that amounted “to basically no audit at all.”  In November 2024, the court certified the class.

Heralded as one of the country’s most promising nuclear expansion projects, the $9 billion Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Power Expansion Project was abandoned by SCANA in 2017. It soon became clear that the abandonment was due to SCANA’s deliberately or recklessly concealing cost overruns and construction delays in what turned into the largest fraud in South Carolina history.

The case is styled: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Deloitte, Case No. 3:19-cv-03304, U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina.

###

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.

Settlement provides restitution for delivery drivers, restaurants, and consumers following City-led investigation.

CHICAGO – The City of Chicago today announced an $18 million settlement with DoorDash, resolving the City’s lawsuit asserting claims that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices at the expense of restaurants, consumers, and delivery drivers.

“This settlement demonstrates Chicago’s commitment to standing up for workers and small businesses while maintaining a fair and honest marketplace,” said Mayor Brandon Johnson. “Our hospitality industry is critical to our economy, and it works best when companies play by the rules, workers are treated fairly, and consumers see transparent pricing. We are proud to have delivered justice and relief to the Chicago workers, small businesses, and residents who’ve been affected by these practices.”

The City’s lawsuit arose out of an investigation into the practices of third-party meal delivery companies, which gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the City’s complaint, DoorDash violated the Chicago Municipal Code by listing restaurants on its platform without their consent. The City also alleged that DoorDash did not initially present upfront the full cost of its service to consumers; imposed a misleadingly named “Chicago Fee” that was not a City-mandated charge; and did not disclose that menu prices on the platform were often higher than prices available directly from the restaurant. The City further alleged that DoorDash misled consumers to believe they were tipping drivers directly, when DoorDash actually used the tips to subsidize its own payment of drivers.

“Chicagoans deserve transparency, honest service, and confidence that their tips support workers and local business,” said Corporation Counsel Mary B. Richardson-Lowry. “This settlement affirms those principles.”

Under the settlement terms:

• DoorDash will pay $3.25 million to restaurants that had been listed on DoorDash’s platform without consent and are not currently on the platform. Eligible restaurants will receive instructions from DoorDash on how to sign up for payment. DoorDash also agreed not to list Chicago restaurants without their consent in the future.
• DoorDash will provide $5.8 million in delivery commission and marketing credits to eligible restaurants currently on the DoorDash platform. Eligible restaurants that DoorDash initially listed without consent, but have since joined the platform, will receive an additional share of these credits. Eligible restaurants will receive further information about this relief from DoorDash.
• DoorDash will provide $4 million in credits, which can be applied to food delivery orders, to eligible Chicago users with active accounts on the platform. DoorDash will make these credits automatically available to eligible Chicago users beginning January 28, 2026.
• DoorDash will pay $500,000 to drivers who were delivering food orders in Chicago as of September 2019, the last month that DoorDash’s practice of using tips to subsidize driver pay was in effect. These payments will supplement amounts that eligible drivers already received through DoorDash’s settlement with the Illinois Attorney General over the same practice. Eligible drivers will receive notification and payment from the claims administrator for that settlement, Atticus Administration, LLC.
• DoorDash will pay $4.5 million to the City to cover the City’s costs and fees in bringing the lawsuit.

“The City of Chicago is committed to protecting consumers from unlawful business practices,” said Ivan Capifali, Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection. “This settlement reflects our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance by holding businesses accountable. When businesses operate responsibly, consumers gain trust, and the marketplace becomes stronger and more equitable for all.”

The City was represented in this lawsuit by attorneys from the Department of Law’s Affirmative Litigation Division and by the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

PITTSBURGH – Today, a federal judge in Pennsylvania granted final approval of a $167.5 million cash settlement between investors and defendant EQT Corporation, a major producer of natural gas in the Appalachian Basin. The Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Annuity Fund, the Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Fund, the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, and Cambridge Retirement System served as lead plaintiffs in the case. The settlement resolves investor allegations that EQT made false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding the synergies that would arise from its $6.7 billion merger with rival gas producer Rice Energy.

This is the largest securities class action recovery ever in the history of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the 14th largest in the history of the Third Circuit.

“We are pleased that this hard-fought litigation has reached settlement,” said S. Douglas Bunch, a partner at Cohen Milstein, which is court-appointed co-lead counsel in this matter. “It is a favorable result for investors as it provides an immediate cash recovery and resolves further litigation.”

The litigation stems from EQT’s 2017 merger with Rice Energy. As alleged in the amended complaint, senior executives at EQT made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding EQT’s drilling performance and capability, as well as the purported benefits of EQT’s acquisition of competing oil and gas company Rice Energy.

The alleged false and misleading statements concerned, among other things, the combined company’s ability to drill 1,200 lateral wells at an average lateral length of 12,000 feet and to realize $2.5 billion in synergies. The amended complaint asserted that the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused investors to purchase EQT common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or to approve EQT’s proposed acquisition, and to suffer damages when the truth was revealed.

EQT’s financial results for the third quarter of 2018 revealed that the merger had not only failed to achieve the represented benefits but also created inefficiencies, causing capital expenditures to skyrocket. On this news, EQT shares fell 13%, dropping from a close of $40.46 per share on October 24, 2018 to $35.34 on October 25, 2018—a single-day erasure of nearly $700 million in shareholder value.

Over the next several days, the price of EQT shares fell to as low as $31.00 per share—less than half what the company was worth when the acquisition closed in November 2017.

In arriving at this settlement, lead counsel for the investors, Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, reviewed over 7 million pages of documents obtained from Defendants and third parties, participated in more than 50 depositions, and retained and worked with experts on the subjects of damages, loss causation, natural gas drilling, and corporate due diligence. Not only was a class certified, but the Third Circuit denied Defendants’ request to review the lower court’s order granting class certification, solidifying an important litigation milestone for investors.

Cohen Milstein’s team consisted of Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers, S. Douglas Bunch, Christina D. Saler, Benjamin F. Jackson, and Alexandra Gray. The case is styled: In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00754-RJC, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

###

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.

Complaint Alleges Amazon Discriminated Against Pregnant Employees and Employees with Disabilities in Warehouses Across New Jersey

TRENTON – Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) today announced that they filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court alleging that Amazon, the state’s largest private employer, has systematically violated the civil rights of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in its warehouses across the state, discriminating against them and denying them reasonable accommodations in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

The complaint filed today alleges that Amazon has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination that has violated the rights and compromised the well-being of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities who are employed in its New Jersey warehouses. The complaint follows a years-long investigation by DCR into Amazon’s treatment of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities at dozens of warehouses across New Jersey.

The LAD prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against pregnant workers and workers with disabilities. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations so long as doing so does not create an undue hardship for the business. And it requires employers to engage an interactive process with employees to determine what accommodations are possible.

The complaint asserts, however, that Amazon has repeatedly violated the LAD’s protections by, among other things, unlawfully placing pregnant workers and workers with disabilities on unpaid leave when they request accommodations; unlawfully retaliating against these workers, including by firing them, when they seek accommodations; unlawfully denying reasonable accommodations to these workers; unreasonably delaying its response to accommodation requests by workers; and terminating pregnant workers and workers with disabilities who receive accommodations for failing to meet the company’s rigid productivity requirements.

“Put simply, Amazon has exploited pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in its New Jersey warehouses. In building a trillion-dollar business, Amazon has flagrantly violated their rights and ignored their well-being – all while it continues to profit off their labor,” said Attorney General Platkin. “There is no excuse for Amazon’s shameful treatment of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities. Amazon’s egregious conduct has caused enormous damage to pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in our state, and it must stop now.”

Amazon currently employs approximately 50,000 workers in its dozens of warehouses across the State. Amazon’s internal records show that Amazon receives thousands of requests for accommodations from workers with disabilities and pregnant workers in its warehouses every year. For example, over a recent two-year period, warehouse employees in New Jersey alone made over 27,000 requests for disability- and pregnancy-related accommodations – more than one request per hour of every day.

Yet as the complaint filed today alleges, DCR’s investigation found that Amazon’s responses to these accommodation requests reflect a consistent disregard for the civil rights of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in its warehouses. DCR’s investigation revealed that Amazon has engaged in discriminatory practices that have had the effect of pushing pregnant workers and workers with disabilities out of its workforce.

The complaint alleges that Amazon has automatically placed pregnant employees and employees with disabilities on unpaid leave while their accommodation requests were pending and has kept them on unpaid leave after it has denied their accommodation requests. As a result, employees who request accommodations are often forced to go without pay while the company processes their request.

For example, one pregnant Amazon employee requested the use of a wheelchair as an accommodation and was automatically placed on unpaid leave while her accommodation was pending.  Another employee whose requested disability accommodation was denied was told by Amazon that she was being “automatically placed under [a] leave of absence” because her worksite was “unable to accommodate your restrictions.”

The complaint also asserts that, on numerous occasions, Amazon unlawfully retaliated against workers who requested accommodations by terminating their employment just days or weeks after employees submitted requests for accommodations. One worker notified Amazon that they had “trouble lifting heavy things” or “reaching for things [on] the highest shelf” because of a disability.  Instead of working with the employee to find a suitable accommodation, Amazon terminated the employee just weeks later.

In addition, Amazon often unjustifiably denies accommodation requests from pregnant workers and workers with disabilities without considering whether there are alternative accommodations or worksites that could accommodate the request. Amazon does so even though workers with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations, including job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, leaves of absence, or job reassignment, and even though the LAD (as amended by the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act) explicitly identifies “job restructuring or modified work schedules, and temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous work” as reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers.

Moreover, as the complaint alleges, Amazon also fails to engage with workers in the legally required interactive process because it closes accommodation requests when workers cannot meet a rigid and unduly short seven-day deadline Amazon sets for providing medical documentation. In one instance, when a pregnant worker requested an accommodation to not lift heavy items because the worker was “at a high risk of having a miscarriage,” Amazon closed the request and ultimately refused to provide an accommodation because the employee did not submit paperwork within seven days – even though the LAD does not permit an employer to require paperwork at all under those circumstances.  Moreover, even when workers do provide that documentation, Amazon often unreasonably denies responding to their accommodation requests, leaving some employees in the dark for weeks on end.

A review of Amazon’s records also showed that when Amazon does approve an accommodation request, it applies its standard productivity metrics inflexibly, resulting in pregnant workers and workers with disabilities being disciplined and sometimes terminated disproportionately by Amazon. For instance, as alleged in the complaint, less than a month after Amazon approved one pregnant employee for extra breaks and restricted her from lifting items heavier than 15 pounds, she was terminated for not meeting packing numbers – metrics she could not meet because of her approved accommodation.

“New Jersey’s civil rights laws exist to shield people living and working in our state from discrimination, and the Law Against Discrimination offers strong worker protections that extend beyond what is granted under federal law,” said DCR Director Yolanda N. Melville. “But Amazon has engaged in practices that had dire financial and health consequences for pregnant and disabled workers in New Jersey. Today’s complaint underscores our commitment to protecting people working in our state.”

The 10-count complaint issued today alleges that Amazon violated the LAD by denying reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers and workers with disabilities; failing to engage in the interactive process with these workers; engaging in disparate treatment of these workers based on their protected characteristics; maintaining policies or practices that have an unlawful disparate impact on these workers based on a protected characteristic; and engaging in unlawful retaliation against pregnant workers and workers with disabilities.

The State seeks, among other things, an injunction to stop Amazon from discriminating against pregnant workers and workers with disabilities, as well as civil monetary penalties and punitive damages against Amazon. The State also seeks compensatory damages to all aggrieved persons, including all unnamed victims, for lost wages and benefits, humiliation, emotional distress and mental pain and anguish caused by Amazon’s unlawful conduct.

The State’s complaint in this case against Amazon also follows on the heels of a complaint filed earlier this week by Attorney General Platkin and the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development against Amazon and its Amazon Logistics delivery network, alleging that Amazon misclassified Flex delivery drivers as independent contractors and unlawfully deprived them of rightful wages, benefits, and a host of other legal rights and protections afforded to employees.

Media Inquiries: Tara Oliver – OAGpress@njoag.gov

***

DCR is represented in this matter by Division of Law Civil Rights Assistant Section Chief Farng-Yi Foo and Deputy Attorney General Maryanne Abdelmesih under the supervision of Counsel to the Director of the Division of Law Christina Brandt-Young and Deputy Director Sara M. Gregory of the Division of Law’s Affirmative Civil Enforcement Practice Group. DCR’s investigation was conducted by Deputy Associate Director Danielle Thorne, Legal Specialist Katrina Tattoli, and Investigator Jason Arce, under the direction of Associate Director Malcolm Peyton-Cook.

***

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) is the state agency responsible for preventing and eliminating discrimination and bias-based harassment in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation (e.g., places open to the public like courts, schools, businesses, hospitals). DCR enforces the LAD, the New Jersey Family Leave Act, and the Fair Chance in Housing Act.

DCR recently issued Guidance on Workplace Accommodations for Pregnant, Postpartum, Breastfeeding, and Lactating Employees and a suite of other resources related to reproductive rights in New Jersey and employment discrimination.

BOSTON – Judge Angel Kelley on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of an IBM worker who was let go because of his age along with about 20,000 other workers as part of discriminatory mass layoffs. Judge Kelley held that his age discrimination claim is timely even though it was not filed by a contractual deadline imposed by IBM. The judge also found that the statute of limitations in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a “substantive” right that cannot be shortened by contract.

Michael Rumsey was laid off by IBM in 2016 as part of what the EEOC later found to be a years-long systematic “top-down” scheme devised by IBM’s “highest ranks” to replace older workers with younger workers in violation of the ADEA. As described in court filings made public in February 2022, internal IBM emails showed its top leaders discussing the “need to hire early professionals” to keep up with competitors with a larger share of younger employees and to make “the progress we need to make demographically.” In these same emails, its chief executive and other senior officials planned for making about 20,000 or more of their older employees an “extinct species,” while denigrating them as “dinobabies” and a “dated maternal workforce.”

When Mr. Rumsey and other IBM workers tried to join to enforce their rights by filing a collective age discrimination lawsuit, IBM forced them into individual arbitration based on separation agreements they signed when they were laid off. Hundreds of workers then filed their claims in arbitration, but IBM argued that their claims were barred by a vague provision in its separation agreement, which IBM interpreted to mean that the workers were required to file their claims within 300 days of the layoff, rather than the more than four years they would have had to file their claims under the ADEA.

Mr. Rumsey then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Boston, asking the court to rule that his claims (and therefore the claims of the other IBM workers) were not time barred by IBM’s severance agreement. He argued that the contract could not waive the ADEA’s statute of limitations, which provides that a worker must sue within 90 days of receiving a notice from the EEOC that its investigation and conciliation efforts have ended and the worker is entitled to sue. If the deadline could be shortened so dramatically, that would mean that workers would have to file their claims in arbitration at the same time they would normally start the administrative process for age discrimination claims at the EEOC, preventing them from benefiting from that process — including the investigation that uncovered systematic age discrimination in Mr. Rumsey’s case — before filing suit.

This is one of the first courts to rule on whether the ADEA’s statute of limitations can be shortened by an employer. Judge Kelley emphasized that the result was compelled by precedent of the federal court of appeals in Boston: “The First Circuit’s guidance is clear: an arbitration agreement cannot shorten a statute’s limitations period when legislative intent is to the contrary.” And Judge Kelley found that Congress had intentionally structured the statute of limitations in the ADEA to require workers to file suit only after the EEOC had fully investigated their claims and sent them a notice saying they could sue, a structure that would be entirely undermined by requiring workers to sue within 300 days, which is long before the EEOC usually completes its investigations.

This decision means that Mr. Rumsey and other workers who have been fighting IBM’s discrimination for nearly a decade may finally get to have the merits of their claims heard.

“This is a win for workers,” said Shelby Leighton of Public Justice, one of the attorneys who represents Mr. Rumsey. “This decision affirms that companies like IBM cannot use opaque fine print in contracts to deny workers their day in court.”

“IBM’s top executives covered up their underhanded scheme to fire thousands of workers because of their age and keep them from suing over it,” said David Webbert, the lead counsel for Mr. Rumsey who successfully argued the case to the Court. “It is long overdue for IBM to be held accountable and for Mr. Rumsey and others like him to get the justice they deserve.”

The plaintiff is represented by Public Justice; Johnson & Webbert, LLP; Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll; Gibbs Mura; and Solidarity Law.

###

Public Justice takes on the biggest systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We connect high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to fight these abusive and discriminatory systems and win social and economic justice.

Johnson & Webbert, LLP, is the largest workers’ and civil rights law firm in Northern New England and prosecutes human rights cases nationwide including employment discrimination and wage theft class actions.

Cohen Milstein is one of the largest and most diversified plaintiff-side litigation firms in the country—with over 100 attorneys in offices nationwide.

Gibbs Mura is a California-based law firm committed to protecting the rights of clients nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. It represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world’s largest corporations.

Solidarity Law represents employees and unions in employment disputes, concentrating on discrimination and wage theft cases.

First of its kind ERISA class action addressed unprecedented use of risky proprietary investment funds for managing a 401(k) plan

Strategy allegedly wiped out 401(k) and aided in GWA LLC bankruptcy

HARTFORD, CT – Today, a federal judge granted final approval of a $7.9 million settlement to resolve a class action against hedge fund GWA LLC and its founder George A. Weiss. Employees and participants in the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan alleged that GWA and Weiss breached their fiduciary duties and misused employee retirement plan assets to further their own pecuniary interests in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The settlement recovery averages about $26,000 per class member.

“This is an exceptional recovery for a novel, first of its kind 401(k) ERISA class action,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s ERISA & Employee practice.“GWA’s 401(k) strategy was extremely risky and egregious, compounded by the fact that the plan was 100% invested in its own hedge fund strategies. This settlement is a significant victory for the former employees and provides them meaningful relief, despite the fact that both defendants are now insolvent.”

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that 100% of GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan investments (all of which were 401(k) assets) were and continued to be invested in The Weiss Funds, which included the company’s flagship hedge fund, Weiss Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd. and the company’s mutual fund, Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund, which generally replicated the hedge fund’s strategy.

This strategy is highly unprecedented for a retirement plan. Prevailing practice for retirement portfolio allocation should reflect a mix of asset classes to produce the long-term capital appreciation necessary for participants to save adequately for retirement.

Plaintiffs further claimed that the Weiss Mutual Fund lacked the performance history, market acceptance, and cost structure to be a substantial investment for the 401(k) plan.

As a result, 401(k) plan participant accounts were allegedly worth at least 30% less than what they would have been had the plan been managed prudently in accordance with ERISA.

GWA LLC declared bankruptcy in April 2024 and closed all its funds. A few months ago, in June of 2025, the other defendant in this action, George Weiss, also declared bankruptcy.

The case, Andrew-Berry, et al. v. Weiss, was filed on July 24, 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. It was brought on behalf of employees and other participants in the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.

Cohen Milstein is actively monitoring alternative investment entities, such as hedge funds and private equity firms, offering traditional 401(k) retirement plans to employees. Such entities are not beholden to IRS and SEC regulations like traditional business and could present greater risk for 401(k) participants. In 2022, Cohen Milstein settled a class action against Wells Fargo 401(k) plan administrators for $32.5 million, based on similar allegations.

###

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.