Category: Press Releases - Page 3

The American Antitrust Institute has announced its 2024 Antitrust Enforcement Award honorees. These leading attorneys and economists will be recognized at AAI Awards Night on October 30, following AAI’s Annual Private Antitrust Enforcement Conference. Congratulations to the honorees!

OUTSTANDING ANTITRUST LITIGATION ACHIEVEMENT IN PRIVATE LAW PRACTICE

Moehrl, et al./Burnett, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al.
Moehrl Team: Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Susman Godfrey L.L.P.; Justice Catalyst Law
Burnett Team: Ketchmark and McCreight, P.C.; Williams Dirks Dameron LLC; Boulware Law
Moehrl team members include Cohen Milstein’s Benjamin D. Brown, Robert A. Braun, Daniel H. Silverman, Daniel A. Small, Kit Pierson, and George Farah (now with Handley Farah & Anderson); Hagens Berman’s Steve W. Berman, Rio S. Pierce, and Jeannie Evans; Susman Godfrey’s Marc M. Seltzer, Beatrice C. Franklin, Matthew R. Berry, and Alex Aiken; and Justice Catalyst Law’s Ben Elga. Burnett team members include Ketchmark and McCreight P.C.’s Michael Ketchmark and Scott McCreight; Williams Dirks Dameron’s Matthew L. Dameron and Eric L. Dirks; and Boulware Law’s Brandon J.B. Boulware and Jeremy M. Suhr.

Fusion Elite All Stars, et al. v. Varsity Brands, LLC, et al.
Berger Montague PC
DiCello Levitt LLP
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
Co-lead counsel teams included Berger Montague PC’s Eric L. Cramer, Michael Kane, Joshua Davis, and Mark Suter (now at the FTC); DiCello Levitt LLP’s Gregory Asciolla, Jonathan Crevier, Karin Garvey (now with Scott + Scott), and Brian Hogan (now with Scott + Scott); and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP’s Jonathan Cuneo (deceased), Victoria Sims (now with the FTC), and Katie Van Dyck (now with the FTC). Supporting team members included Justice Catalyst Law Inc.’s Benjamin Elga; Fine Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.’s Roberta Liebenberg; Neal & Harwell, PLC’s Charles Barrett; and Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC’s J. Gerard Stranch.

Leinani Deslandes v. McDonald’s USA LLC
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP
McCune Law Group
Team members included Lieff Cabraser’s Dean Harvey, Anne Shaver, and Jessica Moldovan and McCune Law Group’s Derek Brandt (now with Brandt Law) and Richard McCune.

In Re Suboxone Antitrust Litigation
Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP
Berger Montague PC
Odom & Des Roches LLC
Smith Segura Raphael & Leger LLP
The Radice Law Firm PC
Sperling & Slater LLP
Team members included Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP’s Bruce Gerstein, Noah Silverman and Kimberly Hennings; Faruqi & Faruqi LLP’s Peter Kohn and Joe Lukens; Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP’s Thomas Sobol, Kristen Johnson and Jessica MacAuley; Berger Montague PC’s David Sorensen, Caitlin Coslett, Ellen Noteware and Richard Schwartz; Odom & Des Roches LLC’s Stuart Des Roches, Dan Chiorean, TJ Maas, and Caroline Hoffmann; Smith Segura Raphael & Leger LLP’s David Raphael, David Smith, Susan Segura and Erin Leger; The Radice Law Firm PC’s John Radice; and Sperling & Slater LLP’s David Germaine.

OUTSTANDING ANTITRUST LITIGATION ACHIEVEMENT IN ECONOMICS

In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation
Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz, Ph.D., Berkeley Research Group
Team members included Dr. Minjae Song and the Brattle Group team and Dr. Albert Metz from Berkeley Research Group.

Federal Trade Commission v. IQVIA Holdings Inc. et al.
Kostis Hatzitaskos, Ph.D., Cornerstone Research

House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Daniel A. Rascher, Ph.D., OSKR
Team members included OSKR’s Glenn Mitchell, Yi Wang, David Sanders, Andrey Tselikov, Maxine Brown, Andy Schwarz, Sofia Cervantes, Giseob Hyun, Luke Fahmy, Julia Tjan, Colin Weaver, Chloe Kidder, and Jenna Bonavia.

U.S. and Plaintiff States v. JetBlue Airways Corporation and Spirit Airlines, Inc.
Gautam Gowrisankaran, Ph.D., Columbia University and Cornerstone Research
The Cornerstone Research team included Brad Howells, Bob Majure, Chris Bruegge, and Nathaniel Hipsman.

OUTSTANDING ANTITRUST LITIGATION ACHIEVEMENT BY A YOUNG LAWYER

Henry, et al. v. Brown University, et al.
Hope Brinn, Berger Montague PC

In Re European Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation
Patrick Rodriguez, Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

The Judging Committee for the 2024 Awards was comprised of:

Co-Chair: Heidi Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
Co-Chair: Elizabeth T. Castillo, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP
Trish Conners, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson
Deborah Elman, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP
Christopher Le, BoiesBattin LLP
Jamie McClave, McClave & Associates
Philip Nelson, Secretariat Economists
Elizabeth Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP
Brian Rosewarne, applEcon
Catherine Sung-Yun Smith, Gustafson Gluek PLLC
Peggy Wedgworth, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC

Settlement provides $10 million in increased pension payments for Citgo retirees.

Plaintiffs claimed Citgo used outdated mortality tables to underpay class members in violation of ERISA.

CHICAGO – Today, a federal judge granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement that provides $10 million in increased pension benefits to more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in two of Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s pension plans. The settlement comes shortly after the court gave plaintiffs two back-to-back wins – a class certification ruling on May 16 and a ruling that largely dismissed Citgo’s motion for summary judgment on May 6.

The lawsuit against Citgo alleged that the Houston-based gas and energy giant violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by failing to properly calculate joint and survivor annuity (“joint pensions”) benefits for married retirees and imposing a “marriage penalty” that reduced these joint pensions below the value of pensions paid to retirees who are single. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that Citgo’s pension plans utilized outdated mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine the value of the joint pensions, resulting in married retirees systematically receiving less than their single counterparts in violation of ERISA. The lawsuit sought to fix the underpayments, and to reform the Citgo plans to fully comply with ERISA.

“We are delighted by the settlement, which provides a significant victory for married retirees who are entitled to receive the full value of their hard-earned pensions,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “As our claims have asserted, federal law does not allow corporations to shortchange married retirees and their spouses. Today’s proposed settlement is a major victory in this legal battle.”

In May, the court rejected Citgo’s summary judgment arguments that the entire lawsuit should be dismissed based on the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim. Further, the court was not persuaded by Citgo’s argument that the plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court.

The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al., was filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. It was brought on behalf retirees in the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Salaried Employees Pension Plan and the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Hourly Employees Pension Plan who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity.

This is one of six such “marriage penalty” ERSIA class actions Cohen Milstein has filed against some of the largest companies in the United States, including AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica, and Southern Company.

###

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.

U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Inspector General’s 2022 Report Confirmed Claims of Gender Discrimination

Women Who Were Dismissed from Agent Training May Be Eligible to Reenter the Program

WASHINGTON, DC – Representatives of a proposed class of thirty-four women dismissed from the FBI’s agent training program filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $22.6 million settlement with the law enforcement agency in court today.

According to the class action lawsuit, brought by Cohen Milstein, a nationally recognized plaintiffs class action law firm, and David Shaffer Law PLLC, the FBI wrongly dismissed 34 women from the “new agent training” program between April 17, 2015 and August 10, 2024. The women allege they were terminated from the training program due to a systematic practice of intentional gender discrimination and that the dismissal process had a disparate impact on women trainees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“My dream was to be an FBI agent. I interned with the FBI in college and did everything needed to qualify for a special agent role. I even became a lawyer, which the FBI considers a high value qualification for future agents. It was shattering when the FBI derailed my career trajectory. Seeing the FBI – which is supposed to represent the best of law enforcement – dismiss so many talented women from the agent training was disillusioning,” said Paula Bird, now a practicing lawyer and lead plaintiff in this gender discrimination class action. “I am extremely pleased that this settlement will bring a measure of justice to the women who were unfairly dismissed. Also, I hope that through this settlement the FBI will implement changes that will give women going through agent training in the future a fair shot at their dream career.”

Filed in 2019, thirteen former new agent trainees claimed that after completing months of rigorous training and passing tests of academic knowledge, physical fitness, and firearms skill, they were dismissed based on the FBI’s subjective “suitability” criteria, after often hasty hearings before the agency’s Trainee Review Board. Specifically, the women claimed that instructors cited them for perceived deficiencies more often than men engaged in similar behavior and judged them more harshly than their male peers. For example, Ms. Bird received a “suitability notation” for conduct which her male classmate engaged in without any such discipline. Other former female trainees noted instructors perceived them as being “weak and prone to failure” and, similarly to Ms. Bird, consistently gave them lower performance ratings for mistakes that were ignored when made by their male counterparts.

Upon becoming aware of the lawsuit in 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary asked the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General to investigate the claims. On December 6, 2022, the Inspector General issued a report which “found that female NATs received a disproportionate number of Suitability Notations (SN) in several areas and were dismissed at rates higher than their overall representation in the [Basic Field Training Course] population.” The report identified particular concerns with the handling of tactical training and the underrepresentation of women in the program’s instructors.

“These plaintiffs are dedicated to the FBI’s mission of law enforcement,” said Christine Webber, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Civil Rights & Employment practice and class counsel to the plaintiffs, “But they were also brave enough to call for the FBI to obey the law, including Title VII. Through their determination and leadership, and what we believe is a genuine desire by the FBI to turn the page on the past history of discrimination in new agent training, the parties have reached a settlement agreement that will provide a measure of relief for what these women experienced.”

In addition to monetary relief, the settlement agreement also provides that eligible class members may seek reinstatement to the FBI’s new agent training program. The FBI has also agreed to a fulsome review by two outside experts, who will work with the FBI to ensure that women seeking to become FBI agents face a fair evaluation process. This includes the eligible class members who may seek reinstatement. The settlement agreement will become effective only after approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Unfortunately, some in the settlement class may not seek reinstatement because in the years since their dismissal, they have rebuilt their careers and families elsewhere,” said David J. Shaffer of David Shaffer Law PLLC, who originally filed the suit. “As a result, the FBI has deprived itself of some genuinely exceptional talent. Nevertheless, these women should be incredibly proud of what they have accomplished in holding the FBI accountable.”

Plaintiffs in Bird, et al. v. Garland, Case No. 1:19-cv-01581 (D.D.C.) are represented by Christine E. Webber, Joseph M. Sellers, Rebecca A. Ojserkis, and Dana Busgang of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and David J. Shaffer of David Shaffer Law PLLC. When David Shaffer filed the initial complaint in May 2019, he received support from the Times Up Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center. Cohen Milstein joined as lead counsel in June 2019.

Here are links to the filed motion for preliminary approval and filed, redacted settlement agreement.

Media Request: This case has garnered significant media coverage. While certain plaintiffs are available to talk to the media, we ask that you respect their privacy. All media requests should be directed to our media team: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

###

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.

About David Shaffer Law PLLC

David Shaffer specializes in civil rights cases on behalf of women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities in nation-wide class actions against federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, ATF, and Secret Service, as well as individuals with disabilities in seeking accommodations in the workplace.

New York, NY – Today, Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), now known as 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 three transgender women—Binah Gordon, Kay Mayers, and S.N. —denied coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming facial reconstruction procedures.

“With my job, I am on the road every week, spending a lot of time in places that are not as safe for trans people as the community where I am blessed to work. For years, I struggled with fear and anxiety around the danger my facial features put me in while traveling and finding lodging, and even leaving my home, which made me less effective at work and impacted my weekends and all my relationships. My doctors knew I was desperate to improve my quality of life,” said Binah Gordon, who is a plaintiff in the case. “When I was finally able to get the gender-affirming surgeries that I needed, it was like my life finally began. When I looked in the mirror, I used to see an obstacle, a laughingstock, a target, or a victim. Today in the mirror I see a capable, socially and spiritually connected, empowered and confident professional, partner, sister and aunt.”

“For transgender women, gender-affirming facial surgeries are not about vanity or appearance – they are about providing lifesaving medical care that enable them to live full authentic lives and reduce distress caused by gender dysphoria,” said Gabriel Arkles, Co-Interim Legal Director at Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE). “Aetna’s refusal to cover gender-affirming healthcare, despite the medical necessity, forces many trans women to continue to suffer, and a minority to assume the major financial burden of paying out-of-pocket.”

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

Kay Mayers, a 52-year-old resident of Alaska, has been unable to afford the necessary facial surgery due to Aetna’s refusal to cover the costs. She continues to experience severe gender dysphoria and fear for her safety.
Binah Gordon, a 42-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 48-year-old from Pennsylvania, paid nearly $50,000 out of pocket for gender affirming facial and voice surgeries. Her appeals to Aetna were denied, forcing her to bear the financial burden for gender-affirming healthcare that her medical providers had deemed medically necessary.

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 reconstructive surgeries for cisgender patients, Aetna categorically excludes these procedures for transgender people, classifying them as cosmetic, thus violating the Affordable Care Act.

“All of our clients, and thousands of others like them, were denied insurance coverage by Aetna for gender-affirming facial surgeries that their treating providers determined were medically necessary to treat their gender dysphoria and improve their overall well-being,” said Joseph Wardenski, Principal of Wardenski P.C. “Aetna has ignored the medical consensus and wrongly treated this critical health care as ‘’cosmetic.’ Aetna’s refusal to recognize the medical necessity of this critical health care is causing unnecessary harm to many transgender women on Aetna health plans.”

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 their policy and expanded their coverage to include the procedure.

“We are disappointed that Aetna retains this outdated exclusion and are filing this lawsuit as a crucial step towards ensuring that the tens of thousands of transgender people who rely on Aetna receive the care they need without facing additional barriers solely because they are trans,” said Harini Srinivasan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Associate. “This lawsuit is a crucial step toward ensuring that the tens of thousands of transgender people who are customers of Aetna receive the care they need without facing additional barriers based solely on their gender identity.”

A4TE filed the complaint today against Aetna for violating Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded healthcare programs. The lawsuit seeks a 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.

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

See a copy of the complaint.

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

###

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 National Center for Trans 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.

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.

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.

6th Circ. Rejects General Motors Appeal of Lower Court’s Certification of 26 State Classes Who Claim General Motors Was Aware of Transmission Defects and Safety Risks

6th Circ. Concurs with Lower Court’s Rejection of Key GM Arguments About Consumer Fraud and Arbitration

DETROIT, Mich. – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a class certification granted on March 20, 2023 in a massive class action lawsuit across 26 states against General Motors (GM) that alleges the car manufacturer violated state consumer protection statutes by knowingly putting cars with faulty transmissions on the road, endangering drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.

The certified class is composed of more than 800,000 owners of GM vehicles with one of two models of eight-speed automatic transmissions, the GM 8L90 or 8L45, which were manufactured between 2015 and March 1, 2019. Plaintiffs claim that the vehicles suffer from shuddering or shaking in higher gears and hesitation, lurching, or jerking in lower gears. Some drivers reported the gear shifting as so violent that it feels as if they were hit by another vehicle. Internal company documents obtained in litigation show that even GM had determined the “startling effect” of the harsh shifts can create a safety issue.

The Sixth Circuit concurred with the lower court’s determination that “[t]he predominant elements of claims for consumer fraud . . . are consistent across all jurisdictions,” namely “(1) proof of intentional concealment or deception by the defendant concerning its knowledge of the alleged defects, and (2) the significance of the information withheld to a reasonable consumer.”

“We are very pleased the 6th Circuit affirmed Judge Lawson’s very thoughtful and thorough class certification order. As the evidence shows, GM has known for years about these transmission defects yet did nothing to tell its customers. Instead, GM went as far as to direct dealers to tell the customers that harsh shifts were ‘normal or ‘characteristic,’” said Ted Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed Sole Lead Counsel for the class. “GM’s conduct is highly irresponsible and a breach of the consumers’ trust. We look forward to holding GM accountable before a Michigan jury.”

In its appeal, GM also argued that absent class members were bound by arbitration agreements in addressing any alleged defective transmissions and that the lower court did not consider these agreements in evaluating predominance. However, in certifying the class action, the court determined that GM had waived its right to compel arbitration. The Sixth Circuit concurred with the lower court, stating “it is notable that that GM did not raise an arbitration issue in its initial motion to dismiss, filed on June 14, 2019, nor in its motion to dismiss the [consolidated complaint], filed on November 29, 2019. Instead, GM engaged in over two years of litigation after it filed both motions to dismiss.”

“GM never had any arbitration agreements with its customers and was trying to highjack agreements between dealers and customers to avoid a class action. GM could have tried this tactic with the named Plaintiffs, but didn’t.” stated Doug McNamara, a partner at Cohen Milstein. “We will continue to protect these consumers who purchased defective vehicles worth less than they paid.”

On April 17, 2024, Cohen Milstein filed another case in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of consumers in ten additional states regarding the 8L transmission defects. Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-11007.

The affected vehicles in the Speerly and Ulrich cases include Cadillac Escalade (2015 – 2016), Chevrolet Corvette (2015), Chevrolet Camaro (2016 – 2017), Chevrolet Silverado (2015 – 2017), Chevrolet Colorado (2017 – 2018), CMC Sierra (2015 – 2017), GMC Yukon Denali (2015 – 2017), and GMC Canyon (2017 – 2018) with one of two models of eight-speed automatic transmissions, the GM 8L90 or 8L45.

Access case documents and read more about Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, LLC (E.D. Mich.).

The plaintiffs are also represented by Theodore J. Leopold, Doug McNamara, Karina Puttieva, and Madelyn Petersen of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC, Melissa L. Yeates of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Tarek Zohdy of Capstone Law APC, E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, Steven Calamusa of Gordon & Partners PA and Gretchen Freeman Cappio of Keller Rohrback L.L. P.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

The settlement includes a number of major reforms to the agency after members of a class of over 1,000 employees challenged a widespread practice of involuntary removal from active duty because of pregnancy, resulting in lost wages and causing them emotional harm.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A class of over 1,000 employees of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the largest federal law enforcement agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has reached a historic $45 million settlement in a class action alleging that the agency discriminated against pregnant employees. The settlement includes an agreement by CBP to enact sweeping reforms to policies that will eliminate long-standing discriminatory practices.

Initially filed in 2016 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the case challenged the widespread practice of placing Officers and Agriculture Specialists on light duty because of their pregnancy without offering them the opportunity to remain in their regular positions, with or without an accommodation, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Placement on temporary light duty limited the pregnant employees’ ability to earn overtime and enhanced pay rates for service at night and on Sundays. In addition, pregnant officers placed on leave were required to immediately turn in their firearms after reporting their pregnancy and often required to requalify to carry their firearm.

“Announcing my pregnancy to my colleagues and supervisor should have been a happy occasion – but it quickly became clear that such news was not welcome. The assumption was that I could no longer effectively do my job, just because I was pregnant. It was traumatizing, frustrating and demoralizing,” said Roberta Gabaldon, lead plaintiff in the case. “My managers don’t get to start making decisions for me just because I’m pregnant. This policy was never about our abilities – it was about the agency’s outdated views on pregnancy.”

Affected employees alleged that this systematic practice violated federal law because the agency treated pregnancy differently from all other short-term disabilities. Typically, CBP employees who experience injuries unrelated to their work or illness were given the option to request light duty, while pregnant officers and agricultural specialists were directed to placement on temporary light duty.

“In one of the premier law enforcement agencies in our country, it is very troubling that pregnant officers and specialists were disadvantaged solely because of their pregnancy,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of the Civil Rights & Employment practice. “Fortunately, this settlement will provide significant relief to victims of this unlawful practice and, with the CBP’s adoption of reforms negotiated in this settlement, CBP should become a leader among law enforcement agencies in providing equal opportunities for pregnant employees to thrive and be regarded as equally capable of performing their jobs as their non-pregnant colleagues.”

In addition to paying monetary relief to redress financial losses and emotional harm of the class members, CBP agreed to reform its personnel practices to ensure pregnant officers and specialists are treated equally in their ability or inability to work as their colleagues. Those reforms include enacting a new policy that presumes pregnant officers and agriculture specialists can continue to serve in their positions, identifies a non-exhaustive list of accommodations for pregnant employees and mandatory training for managers and supervisors on the rights and reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. Any pregnant employees currently on light duty due to CBP’s current practice will be able to return to full duty and their normal shift schedule.

“CBP has a well-documented history of forcibly sidelining their employees when they report their pregnancies. This policy created tremendous emotional and economic harm for these women, and we are pleased to have secured justice and accountability for their mistreatment,” said Shannon Leary, partner at Gilbert Employment Law and chair of its LGBTQ+ and Gender Issues practice. “This settlement is about more than rectifying a discriminatory practice – it’s about making the entire agency a fair workplace for everyone.”

The EEOC certified the class action in April 2023. The settlement is expected to receive final approval in September. The class is represented by Joseph M. Sellers, Phoebe Wolfe, Harini Srinivasan and Megan Reif of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Gary Gilbert, Shannon Leary, Cori Cohen and Rachel Petro of Gilbert Employment Law.

###

About Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.

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

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

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

WASHINGTON, DC, July 8, 2024 – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC alerts investors who purchased securities of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (“Hertz”) (NASDAQ: HTZ) between April 27, 2023 and April 24, 2024 (the “Class Period”) that they have until July 30, 2024 to contact the firm if they wish to seek lead plaintiff status in a pending class action lawsuit.

If you acquired Hertz shares during the Class Period and suffered a significant loss, contact Cohen Milstein Partner Steven J. Toll at (202) 408-4600 or stoll@cohenmilstein.com to discuss your legal rights and options, which include moving to be appointed lead plaintiff. You are not required to file a lead plaintiff motion to take part in the litigation as an absent class member.

Hertz operates as a vehicle rental company that offers internal combustion engine (“ICE”) vehicles and electric vehicles (“EVs”) for rental from locations in various countries. It also sells vehicles and provides other value-added services. A complaint filed May 31, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida accuses the Company and certain current and former officers (“Defendants”) of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that: (i) Hertz downplayed the financial impact of vehicle depreciation, and/or overstated its ability to track and manage vehicle depreciation; (ii) demand for Hertz’s EVs was not as strong as Defendants had led investors to believe; and (iii) Hertz had too many vehicles, particularly EVs, in its fleet to remain profitable. The complaint further alleges that Hertz failed to disclose that it was likely to incur significant losses on the disposition of both its ICE vehicles and EVs, resulting in a significant negative impact on Hertz’s financial results.

If you would like to discuss your legal rights without any cost or obligation, please contact:

Steven J. Toll, Esq.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600

Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices, Cohen Milstein is one of the largest plaintiff-side law firms with more than 50 years of experience litigating securities fraud cases. We have recovered billions of dollars to investors, including $1 billion last year as co-lead counsel in In re Wells Fargo & Company Securities Litigation, and are perennially recognized as one of the best securities practice groups in the country by legal publications such as The National Law Journal, Law360, Chambers USA, and The Legal 500.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This may be considered Attorney Advertising.

# # #

Settlement includes meaningful tenant screening policy reforms, training, and testing at several Northwest D.C. apartment buildings.

Settlement helps establish best practices for other housing providers and property management companies across D.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C.–The Equal Rights Center (“ERC”) today announced that it has reached a Cooperation Agreement to resolve its housing discrimination lawsuit against AIR Property Management TRS, LLC (“AIR”) which manages several Washington D.C. apartment complexes in Northwest D.C. neighborhoods. The settlement includes reforms designed to ensure equal access for all applicants, including voucher holders, at Latrobe Apartment Homes in Logan Circle, Upton Place in Cathedral Heights, and Vaughan Place in McLean Gardens.

As part of the settlement, AIR agrees not to deny applicants on illegal bases, including having criminal records more than 7 years old and evictions more than 3 years old, as well as using income-based housing subsidies to pay for rent. In accordance with D.C. law, it also won’t consider credit scores for those using housing subsidies.

In addition, AIR has agreed to implement a number of measures to ensure a fair and equitable tenant screening process, including:

Revising its tenant screening policy and criteria as needed to comply with D.C. law, and distributing the policy to all employees involved in management and leasing of apartments, all employees involved in the screening of applicants for apartments, and all third-party screening companies engaged in the screening of applicants;
Requesting prospective tenants disclose their voucher status prior to the running of income and credit checks, and ensuring that all prospective tenant screening procedures comply with DC’s protections for voucher holders;
Ensuring all prospective tenant screening procedures comply with DC’s protections for people with prior evictions and people with criminal records;
Providing an annual ERC training program to all employees involved in the screening, leasing, and management functions;
Updating AIR’s website to list all eligibility criteria for housing applicants; and
Testing for compliance with the above provisions.

“Crafting and implementing equitable tenant screening policies are where the rubber hits the road in our work to undo the harms of racial segregation. That’s why we’re committed to leading efforts that result in such wide-ranging policy changes,” said Kate Scott, Equal Rights Center Executive Director. “We are thrilled to be able to work with AIR Communities collaboratively on these issues, and we look forward to helping AIR become a better role model in the D.C. neighborhoods where their properties are located.”

“The settlement reached today shows how one property management company can make a difference to make sure that tenant screening across the District is fair and equitable,” said Brian Corman, partner at Cohen Milstein, who helps lead the firm’s Fair Housing litigation efforts. “Housing vouchers help level the economic playing field, particularly for communities of color, and we are pleased that AIR Property Management is taking measures to further that goal.”

Earlier this year, ERC filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against AIR Property Management, alleging the company discriminated against potential tenants using vouchers at two of its Northwest D.C. apartment complexes. The lawsuit also alleged AIR Property Management created unlawful barriers for applicants who have criminal records more than 7 years old and evictions more than 3 years old. As ERC explained in its lawsuit, the harm caused by these types of tenant screening practices are particularly acute for low-income and Black residents of the District.

Between 2022 and 2023, ERC conducted an investigation to determine whether AIR Property Management engaged in discriminatory and unlawful rental behaviors. The testing was in response to allegedly discriminatory statements on the Latrobe Apartment Homes and Vaughan Place websites, which stated that applicants would be disqualified based on felony convictions and previous evictions. These statements violated several of D.C.’s consumer protection and fair housing laws. ERC also discovered that applicants with government-issued vouchers faced unfair and unlawful requirements, including meeting minimum credit scores and income requirements.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, formerly known as Section 8, is a federally funded housing subsidy program that currently provides rental and housing assistance to approximately 2 million families in the U.S. and 11,500 low-income families in D.C.. Under the program, Voucher holders are free to choose any housing in the rental market as long as it doesn’t exceed the monthly rental limit amounts of the program. The program’s intent is to eliminate barriers that would restrict these families from securing housing in neighborhoods with increased access to public transportation, grocery stores, and well-performing schools.

“The settlement reached today is a step in the right direction and puts a much-needed spotlight on policies that greatly limit options for people with criminal histories – an issue we have seen in the District for far too long,” said Joanna K. Wasik, Deputy Legal Director at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

ERC is represented by Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Joanna K. Wasik of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

###

About 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.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

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, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all.

Lead plaintiffs represent a potential class of more than 12,000 women in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions in California.

Women claim that Apple systematically relies on pay expectation and prior pay information before joining Apple, to pay them less than male employees who perform substantially similar work.

San Francisco, CA – Today, plaintiff-side powerhouses Altshuler Berzon, Cohen Milstein, and Outten & Golden filed a class action gender pay discrimination lawsuit against Apple Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two female employees, claims Apple violated California’s Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act by systematically paying women lower wages than male employees who perform substantially similar work.

The women, who represent more than 12,000 current and former female employees in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions in California, also claim that Apple, which is headquartered in Cupertino and has an office in San Francisco, maintains a centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice of paying its female employees less than male employees for substantially similar work. Finally, they claim that the tech giant knows or should have known about these substantial pay disparities and has yet to take any action to remedy the inequality.

“One day, I saw a W-2 left on the office printer. It belonged to my male colleague, who has the same job position. I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work. This revelation made me feel terrible,” said Justina Jong, a Customer/Technical Training Instructor on Apple’sWorldwide Developer Relations/App Review team.

Specifically, the women claim that before the fall of 2017, Apple asked job candidates for prior pay information and, when that practice became unlawful in January 2018, Apple continued to inquire about prior pay under the guise of candidates’ pay expectations. Apple used this information to set starting salaries, resulting in lower pay rates for women than for men who perform substantially similar work.

“Apple has systematically and willfully paid women in California lower compensation than men with similar education and experience by tracking them into lower starting salaries,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. “Even if Apple no longer asks for specific prior pay data, asking them for pay expectations is basically the same thing. Apple’s policy and practice of collecting such information about pay expectations and using that information to set starting salaries has had a disparate impact on women, and Apple’s failure to pay women and men equal wages for performing substantially similar work is simply not justified under the law.”

The women also claim that Apple’s performance evaluation system is biased against women for scored categories, such as teamwork and leadership, which typically reward men and penalize women. They further claim this bias has a direct impact on women’s bonuses, restricted stock units, and pay increases at Apple, thereby furthering the disparate impact and widening the pay gap.

“This is a no-win situation for female employees at Apple,” said Eve Cervantez, a partner at Altshuler Berzon. “Once women are hired into a lower pay range at Apple, subsequent pay raises or any bonuses are tracked accordingly, meaning they don’t correct the gender pay gap. Instead, they perpetuate and widen the gap because raises and bonuses are based on a percentage of the employee’s base salary.”

“Unfortunately, it seems that our clients have been paid unfairly from the moment they were hired, and that pay gap has only widened over time” said Chauniqua Young, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP. “We look forward to fighting for their rights, and those of thousands of other women who have been affected by Apple’s pay practices.”

As a result of Apple’s unlawful pay policies and/or practices, the women claim that all putative class members have been denied compensation legally owed to them for work performed since 2020, and are entitled to wages and other compensation due, interest, and liquidated damages. In addition to damages, the women also seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs are represented by James Finberg and Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joseph Sellers and Phoebe Wolfe of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Adam Klein and Chauniqua Young of Outten & Golden LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

About Altshuler Berzon

Altshuler Berzon LLP is a California law firm dedicated to providing the highest quality representation in the service of economic justice and the public interest. We represent labor unions, workers, consumers, environmental groups, other public interest organizations, and public entities. We specialize in labor and employment, constitutional, environmental, civil rights, class action, campaign and election, and impact litigation, at both the trial and appellate levels.

About Outten & Golden

Outten & Golden LLP is the largest U.S. law firm dedicated to the representation of employees. With offices in New York City, Washington D.C. and San Francisco, the firm has taken on many of the country’s largest and most powerful employers, forging landmark settlements and historic verdicts that contribute to a more equitable workplace. As a mission-driven firm, O&G uses litigation and other means to expand the rights of all employees to fair wages and working conditions, and a workplace free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Douglas J. McNamara named to the three-person Interim Class Counsel leadership team.

WASHINGTON, DC – Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada appointed Douglas J. McNamara, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice and Data Breach & Cybersecurity Litigation team, as one of three Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, to oversee In Re: Data Breach Security Litigation Against Caesars Entertainment, Inc., a data breach class action arising from a cyberattack impacting members of the loyalty program at Caesars Entertainment, which operates eight hotel casinos in Las Vegas.

The data breach, which was discovered on September 7, 2023, was allegedly perpetrated by a cybercriminal group called “Scattered Spider,” which infiltrated an IT vendor of Caesar Entertainment through social engineering. As a result, the group was allegedly able to download the six-terabyte Caesars’ loyalty program member database, which included personal identifiable information (“PII”) of more than 65 million rewards program members, including Social Security numbers, drivers’ license information, passport numbers, birthdates, purchase information, gaming activity information, biometric information, and other sensitive data. The group then demanded a $30 million ransom, of which Caesars reportedly paid half.

Plaintiffs, who are members of Caesars’ loyalty program, allege that the breach was the result of Caesars negligence in managing its data security protocol and that customers were not informed of the issue in a timely manner. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that despite Caesars disclosing the attack in a September 14 Securities Exchange Commission filing, Caesars did not explain the breadth of the breach to the SEC.

“I’m incredibly honored by Judge Weksler’s appointment. She had a number of excellent data breach litigators to select from,” said Doug McNamara, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice and Data Breach & Cybersecurity Litigation team.

McNamara is widely recognized for his class action expertise in data breach and false advertising litigation. He currently serves as co-lead interim class counsel in In re MOVEit Data Breach Litigation and In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation. He is also on the steering committee and leadership teams ofIn re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation .

The three-member court-appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel leadership team also includes the law firms of Morgan & Morgan and Dicello Leavitt LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC