LAS VEGAS – A federal court granted preliminary approval of a $45 million global settlement in a data breach class action against MGM Resorts International for failing to implement reasonable data security practices, thereby allowing the personal information of tens-of-millions of MGM hotel guests and customers to be stolen in two massive data breaches in July 2019 and September 2023.
Plaintiffs alleged that because MGM Resorts failed to implement reasonable data security practices, MGM customers’ personally identifiable information (PII), including addresses, driver’s license numbers, social security numbers, passport numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and other information, were stolen as a result of the two data breaches. Some of the information was subsequently posted for sale on online forums.
“On behalf of millions of MGM Resort customers, I’m very pleased with this settlement,” said Douglas J. McNamara, Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel and a partner at Cohen Milstein. “The hotel and entertainment industries are particularly desirable targets for hackers. The same hackers also attacked Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in 2023.” Mr. McNamara is Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in In Re: Data Breach Security Litigation Against Caesars Entertainment, Inc., as well.
The settlement includes significant financial relief for impacted plaintiffs. Class members whose social security number or military identification number were exposed are eligible for a $75 cash payment and those whose passport number or driver’s license were exposed are eligible for a $50 payment. In addition, all settlement class members may elect identity theft protection and credit monitoring.
MGM Resorts International is a global hospitality, entertainment, and resort company, which operates properties across the U.S., including the Bellagio, Mandalay Bay and MGM Grand. The name of the consolidated class action is In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation, Case. No. 2:20-cv-00376, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada.
In addition to Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein, the Interim Class Counsel leadership team for the 2019 case includes John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan; David M. Berger of Gibbs Law Group; and E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague. The Interim Class Counsel leadership team for the 2023 case includes James J. Pizzirusso of Hausfeld; J. Gerard Stranch IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey; Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad; Gary Klinger of Milberg; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow.
###
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.
More than 12,000 female Apple employees in California potentially impacted.
Women claim that Apple systematically pays them less than male employees.
San Francisco, CA – A San Francisco Superior Court judge denied Apple Inc’s motion to strike class allegations and largely denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in a high-profile putative gender discrimination class action, allowing the case to move forward.
The women, who seek to represent more than 12,000 current and former female employees in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions in California, claim that Apple violated California’s Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act by systematically paying them lower wages than male employees who perform substantially similar work and by assigning them lower starting salaries and salary levels based on their prior pay or pay expectations.
In its ruling the court held that it was not persuaded by Apple’s arguments, finding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged their claims about Apple allegedly violating the California Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act. Specifically, the court believed that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Apple’s salary decisions were made in a centralized location pursuant to an employment policy had the effect of perpetuating past pay disparities and paying women less for substantially similar work to men.
“I am really pleased with today’s ruling. This start low, stay low practice has been a no-win situation for women working at Apple for years. So, I’m glad they will have their day in court.” said Eve Cervantez, a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP.
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.
“This is a very important case that impacts thousands of current and former female Apple employees,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. “I look forward to helping them prove that Apple systematically and willfully maintained a centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice of paying its female employees in California less than male employees for substantially similar work. This practice is simply unlawful, and Apple should be held accountable.”
The complaint alleges that once women were hired, Apple used prior pay information to set starting salaries, resulting in lower pay rates for women than for men who perform substantially similar work. Subsequent pay raises and bonuses were proportional to existing pay, thereby perpetuating and widening the gap. The women also claim that Apple’s performance evaluation system is biased against women, rewarding men and penalizing women for scored categories like teamwork and leadership.
“Apple has known or should have known about these pay and evaluation disparities and has yet to take any action to remedy the inequality. Unfortunately, as in many gender discrimination cases, such pay gaps only widen over time” said Chauniqua Young, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP. “We look forward to helping our clients get justice.”
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
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 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 LLP
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.
Partners elected in the Civil Rights & Employment, Securities Litigation & Investor Protection, Complex Torts, and ERISA/Employee Benefits practices.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the nation’s leading plaintiffs’ law firms, has named Jan E. Messerschmidt, Poorad Razavi, Harini Srinivasan, and Daniel R. Sutter to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2025.
“This group of dedicated attorneys has demonstrated a deep commitment to upholding the law and the sharp skills necessary to win in high stakes litigation” said Benjamin Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “It is an honor to call each of them a partner. I’m confident they will continue to elevate the quality of work we deliver for our clients and in service of the common good each day.”
Jan E. Messerschmidt, a member of the firm’s Securities Litigation & Investor Protection practice, represents institutional investors and shareholders in derivative and securities class action lawsuits. He also chairs the firm’s Summer Associate Committee.
Before entering private practice, Messerschmidt served as a law clerk to the Honorable Beryl A. Howell, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was also a law clerk to the Honorable Rosemary S. Pooler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Messerschmidt earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from New York University. He earned his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was the head articles editor for Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.
Poorad Razavi, a member of the firm’s Complex Tort practice, represents individuals in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases, involving product liability, toxic tort, and environmental law claims. His work focuses on mass torts and class action law suits and often involves innovative case theories and expert witness strategy.
Razavi earned his B.S. in International Business and Economics from Indiana University and his J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law, where he was a merit scholar.
Harini Srinivasan is a member of the firm’s Civil Rights and Employment practice and co-chair of the Hiring and Diversity Committee. She is a fierce advocate for marginalized groups who are often up against well-resourced corporations. She supports workers in employment and civil rights class actions, oftentimes involving cutting-edge legal issues.
Prior to entering private practice, Srinivasan was a Georgetown Law Center Women’s Law and Public Policy Fellow and worked at the National Partnership for Women & Families.
Srinivasan earned her B.A., with honors, from the University of Chicago. She earned her J.D., cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law, where she was on the editorial staff of the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy.
Daniel R. Sutter, a member of the firm’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice, represents retirement and health plan participants and beneficiaries in their pursuit of economic justice against retirement plan fiduciaries for mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary responsibility.
Sutter joined Cohen Milstein as a legal analyst and subsequently worked as a law clerk before serving as a law fellow and an associate in the Employee Benefits/ERISA practice.
Sutter earned his B.A. in Finance from George Washington University and his J.D. from the George Washington University Law School. During law school, he was a member of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal and worked as a summer law clerk at the CFBP Legal Division. He also studied at the London School of Economics.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
LOS ANGELES – Today, class representatives of current and former female employees of certain Disney-related companies in California filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $43.25 million settlement in a gender pay discrimination class action.
Filed in 2019, the women claimed that Disney deprived the class of millions in wages. Disney’s actions, the women claimed, were in violation of California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA), because its compensation practices caused a disparate impact on women, and California’s Equal Pay Act (EPA), because it paid women less than men for substantially similar jobs. The EPA class was certified in 2023.
Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that before 2018 Disney employed an enterprise-wide compensation policy, whereby it started out new female hires at lower salaries than their male counterparts for similar jobs in part because Disney would base starting pay on prior salary, which historically includes gender-based disparities. Plaintiffs relied on the public report of a labor economist, filed with the court in 2023 at the time of class certification, to support their claims, while Disney disputed that analysis.
“I strongly commend Ms. Rasmussen and the women who brought this discrimination suit against Disney, one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. They risked their careers to raise pay disparity at Disney,” said Lori Andrus, founding partner of Andrus Anderson. “I’m also encouraged that Disney has committed to run annual pay equity reviews to further promote pay equity. I believe this will help strengthen the company and its brand as a key employer and contributor to California’s economy.”
As a part of the settlement, Disney has agreed to retain an outside industrial consultant to provide training on best practices for benchmarking jobs to external market data and organizing jobs within its job architecture. Furthermore, Disney has agreed to retain a labor economist for the next three years to perform a pay equity analysis of all full-time, non-union, California employees below the level of vice president using the model developed by Plaintiff’s expert, and to take appropriate steps to address any statistically significant pay differences found.
“This settlement would not be possible without these courageous women. Because of them, women can expect equitable treatment at Disney in the future,” said Christine Webber, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Civil Rights & Employment practice. “I am hopeful the court will move swiftly to approve the settlement, so these hard-working women can move forward with confidence that best practices will be used, and unencumbered by further litigation.”
Disney, which is based in Burbank, CA, operates amusement parks, resorts, media studios, broadcast networks, publishing, and other consumer companies worldwide.
Plaintiffs include women who have been employed in California between April 1, 2015 – December 28, 2024 below the level of vice president, and in a salaried, non-union position with specified job levels.
The class action, Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case. No. 19STCV10974, Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, was brought under California FEHA and EPA, as well as, and California Business & Professions Code §17200, the California Private Attorneys General Act, and various California Labor Codes.
###
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 Andrus Anderson
Andrus Anderson is dedicated to making the concepts of truth, justice and accountability a reality for each and every client. A national leader in litigation for equal pay, Andrus Anderson is a law firm that will stand up to corporate giants and fight tirelessly to see individual rights prevail over corporate and governmental misconduct, greed and abuse.
About Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (GBDH) is one of the oldest and most successful plaintiffs’ firms litigating public interest class actions in California and nationally. GBDH represents plaintiffs against large companies and other entities in complex lawsuits with a focus on cases involving wage theft, employment discrimination, disability access, consumer protection, environmental justice, voting rights, housing rights, and other public interest litigation.
Historic undercover investigation found rampant discrimination & clear violations of the law by real estate companies against families with Housing Choice Vouchers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose
New York, NY — A sweeping undercover investigation by housing watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative (HRI) has resulted in the filing of what appears to be the largest housing discrimination case in California’s history against 203 real estate agents, brokerage firms and landlords for illegally discriminating against families with Housing Choice Vouchers (“Section 8”). The 112 complaints (against 203 defendants) were filed en masse with the California Civil Rights Department. The defendants include some of the largest real estate companies in the country: Coldwell Banker, EXP Realty, Sotheby’s International Realty, and RE/MAX.
HRI is being represented by the Inner City Law Center, Cohen Milstein PLLC, and Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC.
In 2019, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 329, which made it illegal for landlords and brokers to discriminate against tenants with housing vouchers. This historic filing serves as an opportunity for the Governor and his housing enforcement agency to enforce the very bill he signed into law and hold violators accountable.
Over the course of a year, HRI trained, equipped, and deployed an army of undercover investigators, who posed as prospective tenants with Section 8 vouchers. These investigators contacted hundreds of brokers and landlords by text message to determine compliance with California’s fair housing laws. For completed tests (in which our investigators were able to conclusively determine whether a real estate company accepted vouchers), HRI found that voucher holders were explicitly discriminated against 44% of the time in San Francisco, 53% of the time in Oakland, 58% of the time in San Jose, and a whopping 70% of the time in Los Angeles.
Below are just a few examples of the alleged discrimination HRI uncovered during the course of its investigation:
- The complaints allege that a broker at EXP Realty, which is one of the largest brokerage firms in the county, illegally discriminated against one of HRI’s undercover investigators:
- The complaints allege that a broker at Sotheby’s International Realty, a leading multinational real estate company, illegally rejected the voucher of one of HRI’s testers:
The full list of alleged violators and screenshots of the discriminatory and illegal conduct broken down by city can be found here (Important note: Rely on columns B and C for the identities of the real estate companies, as the screenshots of the text message exchanges themselves may have obsolete contact names that are automatically populated by Google Voice): Evidence of Discrimination
The goal of these filings is to get the real estate companies to stop their discriminatory housing practices and exacerbating California’s homelessness and affordable housing crisis.
Furthermore, the result of HRI’s investigation underscores the need for proactive and systematic enforcement to combat housing discrimination and for the State of California to provide adequate funding for the California Civil Rights Department to meet the scale of the problem. At the end of the day, whatever our non-profit can do, the government could do better, if it had the resources and the political will to get the job done.
The national implications of this filing are clear: If housing discrimination is going unchecked in the largest and most well resourced state in America, this same problem is happening everywhere.
“In 2019, Governor Newsom banned housing voucher discrimination in the state of California. The goal of this historic filing is to enforce the very bill he signed into law with the power of his own enforcement agency,” said Aaron Carr,Founder and Executive Director of Housing Rights Initiative. “It’s time for California to get tough on real estate crime.”
“This mass filing, as historic as it is, represents just a fraction of the voucher discrimination that has been running rampant in California. By exposing this widespread and harmful practice, we call on the State to provide agencies like the California Civil Rights Department with the resources they need to eradicate voucher discrimination once and for all,” said Kate Liggett, Program Director of Housing Rights Initiative.
“This landmark filing with the California Civil Rights Department shines a spotlight on the insidious and illegal practice of discriminating against families with Housing Choice Vouchers,” said David Smith, Director of Litigation at Inner City Law Center.“This filing will hold landlords and brokers accountable for engaging in this unlawful conduct, and hopefully result in more funding and resources being devoted to government investigation and enforcement.
Matthew Handley, partner at Handley Farah & Anderson added “Source of income discrimination in California is a pernicious and persistent problem, further aggravating the affordable housing crisis that has plagued the state for years. These complaints aim to stop this practice.”
“Housing affordability is a national crisis, especially in California, where too many people pay an excessive proportion of their income for rent and are at risk of homelessness. Housing vouchers are one of the most successful methods for addressing this problem by ensuring families have access to safe and secure housing, and hundreds of thousands of Californians rely on vouchers to help pay their rent. But too often, discrimination against voucher holders only exacerbates the homelessness crisis. And because vouchers are disproportionately used by racial minorities, the elderly, and those with disabilities, this form of discrimination also has a disparate effect on these groups,” said Brian Corman, partner at Cohen Milstein, who helps lead the firm’s Fair Housing litigation efforts. “This lawsuit should send a clear message to landlords, property managers, and brokers, many of whom operate across the state and country, that housing discrimination will not be tolerated. It’s against the law. Period.”
“The persistent and widespread nature of this type of discrimination showcases the dire lack of affordable housing options available on the market here in California. Expanding the supply of affordable housing would mean corporate landlords being less likely to turn qualified tenants, including those with Section 8 vouchers, away, and to “cherry pick” their tenants, as there will be more available units, as opposed to the status quo where tenants are forced to compete for the same few units. All of these qualified tenants – just like you and I – are simply searching for stable housing, something we all have a right to,” said Francisco Dueñas, Executive Director of Housing Now! “Governor Newsom made a promise to bring one million new affordable homes to the state by 2030. Currently, only 12% of that funding needed to meet that goal has been committed. It’s time for him to make due on his promise and bring affordable homes to the people of California.”
“SB 329 was a critical step toward preventing discrimination against voucher holders – it enabled us to hold landlords accountable when they deny housing to a prospective tenant because of their voucher,” said Chione Flegal, Executive Director at Housing California. “But the Housing Rights Initiative’s critical work shows that without sufficient enforcement of the law, discrimination against voucher holders will continue. We look forward to working to strengthen enforcement of SB 329 and ensure that low-income tenants can use their vouchers to access the dignified housing they deserve.”
###
About Housing Rights Initiative – Housing Rights Initiative takes a proactive and systematic approach to targeting, investigating, and fighting fraudulent real estate practices, promoting fair housing, and connecting tenants to legal support. HRI educates tenants about their rights to fair and affordable housing, launches investigations, and generates class-action lawsuits against predatory real estate companies. Through a legal mobilization effort, HRI lays the foundation for tenants who have been defrauded or discriminated against by the real estate industry, to seek redress and secure their rights under the law. HRI’s successful investigations into and class action lawsuits against Kushner Companies were featured in the Netflix documentary Dirty Money.
###
About Inner City Law Center – Inner City Law Center is a nonprofit, poverty-law firm headquartered in Skid Row, working to end the homelessness crisis by providing free legal services to the most vulnerable residents of Los Angeles. Inner City Law Center’s staff of more than 130 (including 70 lawyers), together with hundreds of volunteers, fight for people facing eviction, struggling with landlord harassment, fighting to secure their veteran or disability benefits, or standing up to slum housing conditions.
###
About Handley Farah & Anderson – Handley Farah & Anderson are lawyers who seek to improve the world. They fight for: workers deprived of wages, consumers deceived about products, tenants denied access to housing, farmers mistreated by processors, parents deprived of adequate parental leave, investors who were defrauded, small businesses harmed by antitrust violations, persons with disabilities denied access, whistleblowers who uncover fraud, and women and communities of color subject to discrimination.
###
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.
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
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.
Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com