PITTSBURGH – Today, a federal judge in Pennsylvania granted final approval of a $167.5 million cash settlement between investors and defendant EQT Corporation, a major producer of natural gas in the Appalachian Basin. The Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Annuity Fund, the Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters Pension Fund, the Government of Guam Retirement Fund, and Cambridge Retirement System served as lead plaintiffs in the case. The settlement resolves investor allegations that EQT made false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding the synergies that would arise from its $6.7 billion merger with rival gas producer Rice Energy.
This is the largest securities class action recovery ever in the history of the Western District of Pennsylvania and the 14th largest in the history of the Third Circuit.
“We are pleased that this hard-fought litigation has reached settlement,” said S. Douglas Bunch, a partner at Cohen Milstein, which is court-appointed co-lead counsel in this matter. “It is a favorable result for investors as it provides an immediate cash recovery and resolves further litigation.”
The litigation stems from EQT’s 2017 merger with Rice Energy. As alleged in the amended complaint, senior executives at EQT made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding EQT’s drilling performance and capability, as well as the purported benefits of EQT’s acquisition of competing oil and gas company Rice Energy.
The alleged false and misleading statements concerned, among other things, the combined company’s ability to drill 1,200 lateral wells at an average lateral length of 12,000 feet and to realize $2.5 billion in synergies. The amended complaint asserted that the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions caused investors to purchase EQT common stock at artificially inflated prices and/or to approve EQT’s proposed acquisition, and to suffer damages when the truth was revealed.
EQT’s financial results for the third quarter of 2018 revealed that the merger had not only failed to achieve the represented benefits but also created inefficiencies, causing capital expenditures to skyrocket. On this news, EQT shares fell 13%, dropping from a close of $40.46 per share on October 24, 2018 to $35.34 on October 25, 2018—a single-day erasure of nearly $700 million in shareholder value.
Over the next several days, the price of EQT shares fell to as low as $31.00 per share—less than half what the company was worth when the acquisition closed in November 2017.
In arriving at this settlement, lead counsel for the investors, Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, reviewed over 7 million pages of documents obtained from Defendants and third parties, participated in more than 50 depositions, and retained and worked with experts on the subjects of damages, loss causation, natural gas drilling, and corporate due diligence. Not only was a class certified, but the Third Circuit denied Defendants’ request to review the lower court’s order granting class certification, solidifying an important litigation milestone for investors.
Cohen Milstein’s team consisted of Steven J. Toll, Daniel S. Sommers, S. Douglas Bunch, Christina D. Saler, Benjamin F. Jackson, and Alexandra Gray. The case is styled: In re EQT Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00754-RJC, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
Complaint Alleges Amazon Discriminated Against Pregnant Employees and Employees with Disabilities in Warehouses Across New Jersey
TRENTON – Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) today announced that they filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court alleging that Amazon, the state’s largest private employer, has systematically violated the civil rights of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in its warehouses across the state, discriminating against them and denying them reasonable accommodations in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
The complaint filed today alleges that Amazon has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination that has violated the rights and compromised the well-being of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities who are employed in its New Jersey warehouses. The complaint follows a years-long investigation by DCR into Amazon’s treatment of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities at dozens of warehouses across New Jersey.
The LAD prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against pregnant workers and workers with disabilities. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations so long as doing so does not create an undue hardship for the business. And it requires employers to engage an interactive process with employees to determine what accommodations are possible.
The complaint asserts, however, that Amazon has repeatedly violated the LAD’s protections by, among other things, unlawfully placing pregnant workers and workers with disabilities on unpaid leave when they request accommodations; unlawfully retaliating against these workers, including by firing them, when they seek accommodations; unlawfully denying reasonable accommodations to these workers; unreasonably delaying its response to accommodation requests by workers; and terminating pregnant workers and workers with disabilities who receive accommodations for failing to meet the company’s rigid productivity requirements.
“Put simply, Amazon has exploited pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in its New Jersey warehouses. In building a trillion-dollar business, Amazon has flagrantly violated their rights and ignored their well-being – all while it continues to profit off their labor,” said Attorney General Platkin. “There is no excuse for Amazon’s shameful treatment of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities. Amazon’s egregious conduct has caused enormous damage to pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in our state, and it must stop now.”
Amazon currently employs approximately 50,000 workers in its dozens of warehouses across the State. Amazon’s internal records show that Amazon receives thousands of requests for accommodations from workers with disabilities and pregnant workers in its warehouses every year. For example, over a recent two-year period, warehouse employees in New Jersey alone made over 27,000 requests for disability- and pregnancy-related accommodations – more than one request per hour of every day.
Yet as the complaint filed today alleges, DCR’s investigation found that Amazon’s responses to these accommodation requests reflect a consistent disregard for the civil rights of pregnant workers and workers with disabilities in its warehouses. DCR’s investigation revealed that Amazon has engaged in discriminatory practices that have had the effect of pushing pregnant workers and workers with disabilities out of its workforce.
The complaint alleges that Amazon has automatically placed pregnant employees and employees with disabilities on unpaid leave while their accommodation requests were pending and has kept them on unpaid leave after it has denied their accommodation requests. As a result, employees who request accommodations are often forced to go without pay while the company processes their request.
For example, one pregnant Amazon employee requested the use of a wheelchair as an accommodation and was automatically placed on unpaid leave while her accommodation was pending. Another employee whose requested disability accommodation was denied was told by Amazon that she was being “automatically placed under [a] leave of absence” because her worksite was “unable to accommodate your restrictions.”
The complaint also asserts that, on numerous occasions, Amazon unlawfully retaliated against workers who requested accommodations by terminating their employment just days or weeks after employees submitted requests for accommodations. One worker notified Amazon that they had “trouble lifting heavy things” or “reaching for things [on] the highest shelf” because of a disability. Instead of working with the employee to find a suitable accommodation, Amazon terminated the employee just weeks later.
In addition, Amazon often unjustifiably denies accommodation requests from pregnant workers and workers with disabilities without considering whether there are alternative accommodations or worksites that could accommodate the request. Amazon does so even though workers with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations, including job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, leaves of absence, or job reassignment, and even though the LAD (as amended by the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act) explicitly identifies “job restructuring or modified work schedules, and temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous work” as reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers.
Moreover, as the complaint alleges, Amazon also fails to engage with workers in the legally required interactive process because it closes accommodation requests when workers cannot meet a rigid and unduly short seven-day deadline Amazon sets for providing medical documentation. In one instance, when a pregnant worker requested an accommodation to not lift heavy items because the worker was “at a high risk of having a miscarriage,” Amazon closed the request and ultimately refused to provide an accommodation because the employee did not submit paperwork within seven days – even though the LAD does not permit an employer to require paperwork at all under those circumstances. Moreover, even when workers do provide that documentation, Amazon often unreasonably denies responding to their accommodation requests, leaving some employees in the dark for weeks on end.
A review of Amazon’s records also showed that when Amazon does approve an accommodation request, it applies its standard productivity metrics inflexibly, resulting in pregnant workers and workers with disabilities being disciplined and sometimes terminated disproportionately by Amazon. For instance, as alleged in the complaint, less than a month after Amazon approved one pregnant employee for extra breaks and restricted her from lifting items heavier than 15 pounds, she was terminated for not meeting packing numbers – metrics she could not meet because of her approved accommodation.
“New Jersey’s civil rights laws exist to shield people living and working in our state from discrimination, and the Law Against Discrimination offers strong worker protections that extend beyond what is granted under federal law,” said DCR Director Yolanda N. Melville. “But Amazon has engaged in practices that had dire financial and health consequences for pregnant and disabled workers in New Jersey. Today’s complaint underscores our commitment to protecting people working in our state.”
The 10-count complaint issued today alleges that Amazon violated the LAD by denying reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers and workers with disabilities; failing to engage in the interactive process with these workers; engaging in disparate treatment of these workers based on their protected characteristics; maintaining policies or practices that have an unlawful disparate impact on these workers based on a protected characteristic; and engaging in unlawful retaliation against pregnant workers and workers with disabilities.
The State seeks, among other things, an injunction to stop Amazon from discriminating against pregnant workers and workers with disabilities, as well as civil monetary penalties and punitive damages against Amazon. The State also seeks compensatory damages to all aggrieved persons, including all unnamed victims, for lost wages and benefits, humiliation, emotional distress and mental pain and anguish caused by Amazon’s unlawful conduct.
The State’s complaint in this case against Amazon also follows on the heels of a complaint filed earlier this week by Attorney General Platkin and the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development against Amazon and its Amazon Logistics delivery network, alleging that Amazon misclassified Flex delivery drivers as independent contractors and unlawfully deprived them of rightful wages, benefits, and a host of other legal rights and protections afforded to employees.
Media Inquiries: Tara Oliver – OAGpress@njoag.gov
***
DCR is represented in this matter by Division of Law Civil Rights Assistant Section Chief Farng-Yi Foo and Deputy Attorney General Maryanne Abdelmesih under the supervision of Counsel to the Director of the Division of Law Christina Brandt-Young and Deputy Director Sara M. Gregory of the Division of Law’s Affirmative Civil Enforcement Practice Group. DCR’s investigation was conducted by Deputy Associate Director Danielle Thorne, Legal Specialist Katrina Tattoli, and Investigator Jason Arce, under the direction of Associate Director Malcolm Peyton-Cook.
***
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) is the state agency responsible for preventing and eliminating discrimination and bias-based harassment in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation (e.g., places open to the public like courts, schools, businesses, hospitals). DCR enforces the LAD, the New Jersey Family Leave Act, and the Fair Chance in Housing Act.
DCR recently issued Guidance on Workplace Accommodations for Pregnant, Postpartum, Breastfeeding, and Lactating Employees and a suite of other resources related to reproductive rights in New Jersey and employment discrimination.
BOSTON – Judge Angel Kelley on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of an IBM worker who was let go because of his age along with about 20,000 other workers as part of discriminatory mass layoffs. Judge Kelley held that his age discrimination claim is timely even though it was not filed by a contractual deadline imposed by IBM. The judge also found that the statute of limitations in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a “substantive” right that cannot be shortened by contract.
Michael Rumsey was laid off by IBM in 2016 as part of what the EEOC later found to be a years-long systematic “top-down” scheme devised by IBM’s “highest ranks” to replace older workers with younger workers in violation of the ADEA. As described in court filings made public in February 2022, internal IBM emails showed its top leaders discussing the “need to hire early professionals” to keep up with competitors with a larger share of younger employees and to make “the progress we need to make demographically.” In these same emails, its chief executive and other senior officials planned for making about 20,000 or more of their older employees an “extinct species,” while denigrating them as “dinobabies” and a “dated maternal workforce.”
When Mr. Rumsey and other IBM workers tried to join to enforce their rights by filing a collective age discrimination lawsuit, IBM forced them into individual arbitration based on separation agreements they signed when they were laid off. Hundreds of workers then filed their claims in arbitration, but IBM argued that their claims were barred by a vague provision in its separation agreement, which IBM interpreted to mean that the workers were required to file their claims within 300 days of the layoff, rather than the more than four years they would have had to file their claims under the ADEA.
Mr. Rumsey then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Boston, asking the court to rule that his claims (and therefore the claims of the other IBM workers) were not time barred by IBM’s severance agreement. He argued that the contract could not waive the ADEA’s statute of limitations, which provides that a worker must sue within 90 days of receiving a notice from the EEOC that its investigation and conciliation efforts have ended and the worker is entitled to sue. If the deadline could be shortened so dramatically, that would mean that workers would have to file their claims in arbitration at the same time they would normally start the administrative process for age discrimination claims at the EEOC, preventing them from benefiting from that process — including the investigation that uncovered systematic age discrimination in Mr. Rumsey’s case — before filing suit.
This is one of the first courts to rule on whether the ADEA’s statute of limitations can be shortened by an employer. Judge Kelley emphasized that the result was compelled by precedent of the federal court of appeals in Boston: “The First Circuit’s guidance is clear: an arbitration agreement cannot shorten a statute’s limitations period when legislative intent is to the contrary.” And Judge Kelley found that Congress had intentionally structured the statute of limitations in the ADEA to require workers to file suit only after the EEOC had fully investigated their claims and sent them a notice saying they could sue, a structure that would be entirely undermined by requiring workers to sue within 300 days, which is long before the EEOC usually completes its investigations.
This decision means that Mr. Rumsey and other workers who have been fighting IBM’s discrimination for nearly a decade may finally get to have the merits of their claims heard.
“This is a win for workers,” said Shelby Leighton of Public Justice, one of the attorneys who represents Mr. Rumsey. “This decision affirms that companies like IBM cannot use opaque fine print in contracts to deny workers their day in court.”
“IBM’s top executives covered up their underhanded scheme to fire thousands of workers because of their age and keep them from suing over it,” said David Webbert, the lead counsel for Mr. Rumsey who successfully argued the case to the Court. “It is long overdue for IBM to be held accountable and for Mr. Rumsey and others like him to get the justice they deserve.”
The plaintiff is represented by Public Justice; Johnson & Webbert, LLP; Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll; Gibbs Mura; and Solidarity Law.
###
Public Justice takes on the biggest systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We connect high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to fight these abusive and discriminatory systems and win social and economic justice.
Johnson & Webbert, LLP, is the largest workers’ and civil rights law firm in Northern New England and prosecutes human rights cases nationwide including employment discrimination and wage theft class actions.
Cohen Milstein is one of the largest and most diversified plaintiff-side litigation firms in the country—with over 100 attorneys in offices nationwide.
Gibbs Mura is a California-based law firm committed to protecting the rights of clients nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. It represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world’s largest corporations.
Solidarity Law represents employees and unions in employment disputes, concentrating on discrimination and wage theft cases.
First of its kind ERISA class action addressed unprecedented use of risky proprietary investment funds for managing a 401(k) plan
Strategy allegedly wiped out 401(k) and aided in GWA LLC bankruptcy
HARTFORD, CT – Today, a federal judge granted final approval of a $7.9 million settlement to resolve a class action against hedge fund GWA LLC and its founder George A. Weiss. Employees and participants in the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan alleged that GWA and Weiss breached their fiduciary duties and misused employee retirement plan assets to further their own pecuniary interests in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The settlement recovery averages about $26,000 per class member.
“This is an exceptional recovery for a novel, first of its kind 401(k) ERISA class action,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s ERISA & Employee practice.“GWA’s 401(k) strategy was extremely risky and egregious, compounded by the fact that the plan was 100% invested in its own hedge fund strategies. This settlement is a significant victory for the former employees and provides them meaningful relief, despite the fact that both defendants are now insolvent.”
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that 100% of GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan investments (all of which were 401(k) assets) were and continued to be invested in The Weiss Funds, which included the company’s flagship hedge fund, Weiss Multi-Strategy Partners (Cayman) Ltd. and the company’s mutual fund, Weiss Alternative Multi-Strategy Fund, which generally replicated the hedge fund’s strategy.
This strategy is highly unprecedented for a retirement plan. Prevailing practice for retirement portfolio allocation should reflect a mix of asset classes to produce the long-term capital appreciation necessary for participants to save adequately for retirement.
Plaintiffs further claimed that the Weiss Mutual Fund lacked the performance history, market acceptance, and cost structure to be a substantial investment for the 401(k) plan.
As a result, 401(k) plan participant accounts were allegedly worth at least 30% less than what they would have been had the plan been managed prudently in accordance with ERISA.
GWA LLC declared bankruptcy in April 2024 and closed all its funds. A few months ago, in June of 2025, the other defendant in this action, George Weiss, also declared bankruptcy.
The case, Andrew-Berry, et al. v. Weiss, was filed on July 24, 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. It was brought on behalf of employees and other participants in the GWA LLC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.
Cohen Milstein is actively monitoring alternative investment entities, such as hedge funds and private equity firms, offering traditional 401(k) retirement plans to employees. Such entities are not beholden to IRS and SEC regulations like traditional business and could present greater risk for 401(k) participants. In 2022, Cohen Milstein settled a class action against Wells Fargo 401(k) plan administrators for $32.5 million, based on similar allegations.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
Greensboro, NC – On September 4, 2025, District Judge William Osteen Jr., of the Middle District of North Carolina rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss, and held that a federal False Claims Act lawsuit which Cohen Milstein whistleblower client, Leslie Carico, filed on behalf of the United States government against Veterans Guardian, a veterans’ disability payment claim consulting firm, Scott Greenblatt, its founder and CEO, William Taylor, its COO (as to conspiracy only), and Gregory Villarosa, a psychologist who worked with Veterans Guardian, could proceed. Notably, the court rejected the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the whistleblower’s conspiracy claims as lacking in the requisite specificity.
Veterans Guardian calls itself a “pre-filing consulting firm” that seeks to increase its military veteran clients’ monthly disability payments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It markets itself to and serves veterans nationwide.
The whistleblower, a former Veterans Guardian employee, alleges that in the course of preparing disability applications and submitting them to the VA on veteran clients’ behalf, Veterans Guardian, an unaccredited, for-profit company, fraudulently and without any reasonable basis, routinely assigns new veteran clients a mental illness, typically depression or PTSD, in order to inflate their disability level. Defendants then manipulate the veteran-specific information contained in the various forms required for submission to the VA to fraudulently ensure that the veteran can achieve a 100% disability rating or as close to that rating as possible. Furthermore, the whistleblower claims that individuals at Dr. Villarosa’s psychology practice lack the professional credentials required under applicable law to conduct psychological evaluations of the veterans but nevertheless conduct them.
In exchange for Veterans Guardian’s services, the veteran, who has chosen Veterans Guardian in good faith, agrees to pay the first five months of any increase in any disability payments which he/she receives as a result of the submission Veterans Guardian makes to the VA.
Gary Azorsky, Jeanne Markey, Casey Preston, and Adnan Toric, attorneys in Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice, have been prosecuting this lawsuit on behalf of the whistleblower. “Veterans Guardian has not been shy in promoting its interests publicly, both as part of its ongoing marketing efforts but also as part of its aggressive lobbying campaign to prevent its business model from being jeopardized by recent legislative efforts to curb fraud in this industry,” the Whistleblower team stated. “Cohen Milstein emphatically believes veterans and taxpayers deserve a veterans disability system free from fraud and waste. We intend to play a role in achieving that worthy goal by proceeding with this lawsuit.”
The whistleblower in the case is also represented by Gary Jackson of the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin and by Bill Nettles, John Warren, and Fran Trapp of The Law Offices of Bill Nettles. The case name is U.S. ex rel. Leslie Carico v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 20-784-WO-LPA, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
About Cohen Milstein
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com
In the wake of FTX cryptocurrency fraud, investors claim Silvergate Bank misled the public about its customer vetting and anti-money laundering programs.
Subsequent run on the bank led to Silvergate Bank’s demise and Silvergate Capital’s bankruptcy.
SAN DIEGO, CA – Today, a federal judge in California granted final approval of a $37.5 million cash settlement between investors and Silvergate Capital Corporation, the holding company for Silvergate Bank, resolving a securities fraud class action against the bank. A premier banking service provider to cryptocurrency platforms, Silvergate Bank allegedly made materially false and misleading statements about the integrity of the bank’s compliance framework, particularly its customer monitoring and anti-money laundering assurance programs.
Originally filed on December 7, 2022, Silvergate investors’ complaint claimed they incurred significant losses beginning in November 2022 as the truth emerged about the bank’s lax customer vetting and monitoring program – a critical bank safeguard to prevent exposure to money laundering and criminal activity. Then, on January 5, 2023, Silvergate disclosed that the collapse of FTX, one of its largest clients, had led to a run on the bank, causing its deposits to decline by $8.1 billion – more than 68% – over a three-month period. As a result, Silvergate was forced to sell off illiquid securities for a loss of more than $700 million and to borrow $4.3 billion from Federal Home Loan Banks to address its massive liquidity crunch. Eventually, Silvergate Capital filed for bankruptcy.
“In light of Silvergate Capital’s bankruptcy, the settlement is a highly favorable resolution that ensures an immediate recovery for impacted investors,” said Carol Gilden, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed co-lead counsel in this matter. “We are proud that the pension and union funds we represented had the resolve to step forward on behalf of investors and demand accountability from Silvergate Capital.”
As a federally regulated bank, Silvergate was subject to anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulations in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act.
Investors claimed that Silverglate did not vet, perform due diligence on, or monitor its clients who participated on its one-of-a-kind service called the Silvergate Exchange Network (SEN), which allowed Silvergate customers to send U.S. dollars and euros between eligible counterparty SEN accounts at any time of day using the bank’s programming interface. SEN Network participants included FTX, Alameda, Binance.US, Huobi Global, and other cryptocurrency platforms which were subsequently investigated, shut down, fined or in bankruptcy due to money laundering allegations.
On February 28, 2023, the court appointed Cohen Milstein and Bernstein Litowitz, jointly, as Lead Counsel. The court also appointed, as Lead Plaintiffs, Indiana Public Retirement System, Boston Retirement System, Public School Teachers’ Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, UMC Benefit Board, Inc., and Wespath Institutional Investments LLC., as administrative trustees of the Wespath Funds Trust. The case is styled: In re Silvergate Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01936-JES-MSB, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California.
###
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 investors, along with consumers, small business owners, workers and whistleblowers, – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com
The former U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner will represent state attorneys general and other public sector clients.
WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, one of the leading plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States, announced today that Rich Trumka Jr. has joined as Of Counsel in the firm’s Public Client practice. Trumka most recently served as a Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission – beginning in 2021 following his nomination by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and confirmation by the United States Senate. There, he championed efforts to ensure consumer protection from hidden hazards and deter corporate misconduct.
“I have long admired Cohen Milstein’s leadership in consumer advocacy on behalf of state attorneys general, and have been impressed by the firm’s deft navigation of complex legal challenges and its securing of landmark results,” said Rich Trumka Jr. “It is an honor to join the firm. I believe my years of public sector experience will strengthen the firm’s already formidable Public Client team.”
Prior to joining the Commission, Trumka worked for the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform under the leadership of civil rights champion and then-Chairman Elijah E. Cummings. Trumka was General Counsel & Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy. Before that he was an Assistant Attorney General in the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.
“Rich brings impressive and diverse government experience that complements our firm’s services and our clients’ interests perfectly,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “He also brings valuable insights into new forms of consumer fraud that will help expand our ability to protect public client interests.”
Trumka began his career clerking for the Honorable Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com/
WASHINGTON — Georgetown Law announced today that Agnieszka Fryszman, L’96, one of the nation’s preeminent human rights litigators and founder of the Human Rights practice at Cohen Milstein, has been appointed the 2025-2026 Robert F. Drinan, S.J, Chair in Human Rights.
“We are honored to welcome Agnieszka Fryszman back to Georgetown as this year’s Drinan Chair in Human Rights,” said Interim Dean Joshua C. Teitelbaum. “Agnieszka’s career is marked by both legal innovation and a tenacious commitment to amplifying the voices of survivors. Her work embodies Georgetown Law’s guiding principle that ‘law is but the means; justice is the end.’”
For more than two decades, Fryszman has been at the forefront of landmark litigation on behalf of survivors of grave human rights abuses. She has led cases against corporations, government contractors and other actors accused of complicity in forced labor, human trafficking, torture and other human rights violations.
Her groundbreaking victories include securing billions in compensation for Holocaust survivors from German and Austrian companies, and exposing Swiss banks’ role in laundering assets during the Nazi era. Most recently, Fryszman and her team at Cohen Milstein secured a landmark settlement from ExxonMobil for Indonesian villagers who alleged that soldiers retained to protect the company’s facilities in Aceh had tortured, raped or killed local residents.
Fryszman also filed one of the earliest civil suits under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and won the first successful U.S. judgment for men enslaved aboard fishing vessels, spotlighting abuses in the seafood supply chain. She has represented Nepali laborers trafficked onto U.S. military bases in Iraq, survivors of the Japanese military’s World War II-era sexual slavery system (“comfort women”) and former detainees seeking redress for abuse at Guantánamo Bay.
Her achievements have earned wide recognition, including the National Law Journal’s Lifetime Achievement Award, Public Justice’s Trial Lawyer of the Year, Human Trafficking Advocate of the Year from the Human Trafficking Legal Center, recognition as a Lawdragon Legend and inclusion in Forbes’s “50 Over 50” list of changemakers improving the world.
Human Rights Institute Executive Director and 2019-2021 Drinan Chair Elisa Massimino expressed enthusiasm for Fryszman’s appointment. “Agnieszka is one of the most formidable human rights litigators of her generation. Her groundbreaking work has expanded the boundaries of accountability for corporations and governments alike, and her victories have delivered justice to survivors of some of the world’s gravest abuses. We are thrilled to welcome her to Georgetown this academic year. As our students prepare to enter the profession, I know Agnieszka will inspire them to pursue bold, creative strategies to uphold human dignity and the rule of law in the face of complex global challenges.”
As Drinan Chair, Fryszman will teach a course in the spring semester on human rights litigation in United States courts. She will also engage deeply with the Georgetown Law community by mentoring students and participating in the Human Rights Institute’s programs and events. She will deliver the annual Drinan Lecture on Human Rights on Thursday, November 13, 2025.
“I am excited to return to Georgetown Law where, as a night student, I was fortunate to take Father Drinan’s class,” said Fryszman. “He was a wonderful teacher and a great storyteller, and had an inspirational career fighting for human rights. Father Drinan became my faculty mentor, so it’s a huge honor to have the opportunity to carry on his legacy and help equip the next generation of lawyers to tackle the challenges ahead.”
The Drinan Chair was established in 2006 in honor of Professor Robert F. Drinan, S.J. Father Drinan was a professor at Georgetown Law for over 25 years, where he taught international human rights and constitutional law, among other topics. He was a priest, scholar, lawyer, politician, activist, ethicist and one of the nation’s leading advocates for international human rights. He dedicated his life to humanitarian causes and to improving the legal profession. The Human Rights Institute at Georgetown Law honors his legacy through its mission of being a premier training ground for future human rights lawyers and advocates.
In-depth investigations reveal apartments in Navy Yard, Shaw, and NoMa allegedly discriminated against potential renters
Washington, D.C. – The Equal Rights Center (ERC), the premier fair housing organization representing the greater Washington, D.C. region, today filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against JAG Management Company (JAG) and Jefferson Apartment Group, the companies behind several luxury residential properties across the District. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engage in widespread discriminatory housing practices that unlawfully exclude applicants with housing vouchers and implemented tenant screening criteria that violate D.C. housing, consumer protection, and civil rights laws.
The complaint alleges violations at four JAG-managed properties in or near D.C.’s Shaw, NoMa, and Navy Yard neighborhoods: J. Coopers Row, Jefferson MarketPlace, J Linea, and Pinnacle. Investigations conducted by the ERC found that JAG imposes numerous unlawful requirements on prospective renters, including minimum income requirements for voucher holders and overly broad eviction records and criminal background screenings.
“Housing discrimination isn’t always blatant—it’s often hidden and systematized in unfair tenant screening policies—but the harm it causes is clear,” said Kate Scott, Executive Director of the Equal Rights Center. “Our investigation shows that renters with vouchers, outdated evictions, and irrelevant criminal records are being discriminated against at buildings in D.C.’s fastest-growing neighborhoods. That’s unacceptable, and we’re taking action.”
Under D.C. law, landlords are prohibited from denying housing to individuals based on source of income—including housing vouchers—and must adhere to strict limits when considering eviction and criminal records in tenant screenings. Yet, as the complaint details, across three JAG properties, ERC testing revealed that voucher holders are subject to minimum income requirements, which is prohibited by the D.C. Human Rights Act. At the fourth property, an ERC tester was told outright that vouchers were not accepted.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program, a federally funded rental subsidy program, currently supports over 11,000 low-income D.C. families. Designed to provide housing access in safe, high-opportunity neighborhoods, the program is undermined when landlords illegally reject applicants simply because of how they pay rent.
The ERC also uncovered illegal criminal background and eviction record screening practices. Testing revealed that multiple JAG properties inquire about any evictions, regardless of how long ago they were resolved, in clear violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act and the Rental Housing Act. One JAG property applied a blanket ban on applicants with criminal records, regardless of context or the amount of time elapsed, in direct defiance of the District’s Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act.
“The law is clear: you cannot require a voucher holder to prove income beyond what’s legally required, and you cannot disqualify people based on sealed evictions or irrelevant criminal records,” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “These are not just suggestions; they are civil rights protections, meant to address persistent and pervasive discrimination in the District, and this lawsuit demands these laws be enforced.”
“Screening practices that exclude voucher holders and people with certain criminal histories function as modern-day redlining,” said Mirela Missova, Supervising Counsel at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee. “They reinforce segregation, deepen inequality, and block families from accessing opportunity. We’re proud to stand with the ERC in this fight.”
The ERC is represented by Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Ryan Downer, Mirela Missova, and Rebecca Guterman of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee.
The case name is Equal Rights Center v. Jefferson Apartment Group, et al., Superior Court of the District of Columbia. ERC brings these claims under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which incorporates the requirements of the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Rental Housing Act, D.C. Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act, and the D.C. Security Deposit Act.
###
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 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 Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, and public accommodations based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. For over 50 years, the Committee has delivered a steady stream of civil rights victories to advance justice in the District and beyond.
BOSTON, MA – An antitrust class action lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts accuses some of the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities of participating in an illegal conspiracy to inflate the cost of higher education through the collective enforcement of Early Decision admissions policies.
The complaint, filed by four students and a recent graduate, names as defendants 32 elite colleges and universities, two major college application platforms, and a private, highly secretive membership-only organization of private liberal arts colleges and universities, whose stated purpose is to share admissions and financial aid information among its members.
Under Early Decision, students must agree to attend a specific institution if admitted, forfeiting the ability to consider competing offers or compare financial aid packages. The lawsuit alleges that schools that participate in the Early Decision scheme entered into a coordinated agreement not to recruit or admit students accepted through Early Decision elsewhere despite their shared understanding that Early Decision offers are not legally binding.
According to Jude Robinson, a named plaintiff and current Vassar College student, “It does not seem fair that, in order to put my chances of admission on a level playing field with my peers, I had to give up the right to compare the cost of attendance at different schools. I thought I would get more financial aid than I did, but I never got a chance to weigh other options.”
The students allege that under the current Early Decision system, the colleges lock Early Decision candidates into commitments before they can see the price of attendance. These commitments, which the schools misleadingly present as binding agreements, prevent students from weighing their options and seeing what competing institutions might offer in financial support. This allows the schools to charge higher prices and disproportionately harms students from middle- and lower-income families.
“Early Decision is widely recognized to be unfair and harmful to students, even by the schools themselves,” said Edward Diver, partner at Langer Grogan & Diver P.C., which represents the plaintiffs. “It’s also a textbook antitrust violation—a horizontal agreement between competing schools not to compete.”
In addition to 32 named colleges and universities—including Columbia University, Cornell University, Duke University, and the University of Pennsylvania—defendants include the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), Common Application Inc., and Scoir Inc., which operates the Coalition App. The students allege that these entities facilitated the information sharing and policy coordination among the school defendants, which contributed to artificially inflated tuition and suppressed financial aid.
“Early Decision applicants lose choice and negotiation leverage, while Regular Decision applicants are left to scramble for an artificially diminished number of admission slots doled out at lower acceptance rates. We contend that all of this is only made possible by an agreement not to compete that violates bedrock antitrust law,” said Benjamin Brown, co-chair of the Antitrust practice and managing partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, who also represents the plaintiffs.
The antitrust class action seeks an injunction to end the use of binding Early Decision, past damages for students forced to pay more than they would have, and broad structural reforms in how colleges conduct admissions and deliver financial aid going forward.
“At a time when higher education is more expensive than ever, learning of this scheme among elite schools and organizations was disheartening,” said Alayna D’Amico, a recent graduate of Wesleyan University and named plaintiff. “I hope this lawsuit puts an end to practices that hurt hardworking students and families.”
The students are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Langer Grogan & Diver. The case name isD’Amico, et al. v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education, et al.
###
About Langer Grogan & Diver P.C.
Langer Grogan & Diver P.C. is a Philadelphia-based litigation boutique focusing on antitrust, consumer fraud, trials and appeals, and high-stakes commercial disputes.
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.