Third judgment against Iran brings total damages to more than $1.5 billion for its alleged involvement in the 1983 bombing.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Honorable Carl J. Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a final judgment, requiring the Islamic Republic of Iran to pay $239 million to 25 military servicemembers and relatives who were injured or killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, carried out by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, at the direction and with the support of Iran. The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American servicemembers and injured numerous others, was the deadliest state-sponsored terrorist attack against United States citizens before September 11, 2001.

This is the third judgment the court has entered in three cases brought by Cohen Milstein and Karsman McKenzie & Hart on behalf of plaintiffs under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against Iran for its role in the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing. In 2018, the same court ordered Iran to pay $920 million in total damages in the first case that was brought in 2014. In total, Cohen Milstein and Karsman McKenzie & Hart have obtained more than $1.5 billion in total judgments for more than 150 U.S. military service members who were killed or injured in the 1983 bombing and their relatives.

“We have been in litigation against Iran for this horrific terrorist act for well over 10 years. I am grateful to the court in continuing to hold Iran accountable and bringing some semblance of justice to the victims’ families and the soldiers who survived,” said Robert Braun, a partner at Cohen Milstein overseeing the litigation. “Nothing will bring back the brave men and women lost in the 1983 bombing, but this judgment will bring a measure of relief.”

The plaintiffs filed this most recent lawsuit, Encinas, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, in 2018, bringing claims under the state-sponsored terrorism exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows citizens to sue foreign countries sponsoring terrorism.

“I am pleased to see justice done and Iran held accountable for sponsoring acts of terror. If nothing else, these three Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act judgments are an important testament to the strength of the United States justice system in holding bad foreign actors accountable to the U.S. citizens they harm no matter what soil their feet stand on,” Ted Leopold, co-chair of the firm’s Complex Tort and Consumer Protection practices.

To date, Iran has not participated in these lawsuits, resulting in default judgments. However, the plaintiffs can receive compensatory damages from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.

“While we are grateful to the Court for holding Iran accountable for the horrific act it perpetrated in 1983, we acknowledge that much more work needs to be done to ensure our clients are fully compensated,” said R. Paul Hart, a partner at Karsman McKenzie & Hart and co-counsel on the case.”

The three cases are Relvas, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., filed in 2014, DiBenedetto, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., filed in 2016; and Encinas, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., filed in 2018. Plaintiffs are represented by Robert A. Braun and Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and R. Paul Hart and Jeremy McKenzie of Karsman McKenzie & Hart.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information, visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com.

About Karsman McKenzie & Hart

Karsman McKenzie & Hart is a Savannah, Georgia-based personal injury and trial law firm. The firm has extensive experience handling complex personal injury lawsuits, including mass torts, major industrial accident litigation, and product liability claims. For more information, visit https://www.kmtrial.com.

More than 15,750 individual claims filed simultaneously against Amazon, alleging drivers were misclassified as independent contractors.

Lawyers continue to sign up other misclassified drivers to participate in arbitration. 

San Francisco, CA – Today, more than 15,750 Amazon Flex drivers in California, Illinois and Massachusetts deluged Amazon, the e-commerce and delivery giant, with individual wage and hour arbitration actions, alleging that Amazon misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees. Approximately 450 such claims are already on file with the American Arbitration Association, bringing the total driver claims to well over 16,000. The drivers are seeking compensation for unpaid wages, overtime, and reimbursement for eligible expenses, such as mileage and cell phone usage. 

Launched in 2015, Amazon Flex is a cornerstone of Amazon’s national delivery operation, which, according to the Wall Street Journal is now the largest U.S. package delivery company, outpacing rivals FedEx and UPS.  Since the inception of Amazon Flex, more than 2.9 million drivers in the U.S. have downloaded the Amazon Flex app. onto their phone. A hallmark of Amazon delivery service is to offer Amazon Prime and other customers premium “last-mile” deliveries from Whole Foods, which Amazon acquired in 2017, and Amazon warehouse hubs to customers’ doorsteps. However, unlike its main delivery rivals, Amazon classifies the Flex drivers as independent contractors, not employees, requiring the drivers to bear all expenses of their work and engage in work that is uncompensated.

The drivers claim that the laws prevailing in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts require that the Amazon Flex drivers should be classified and compensated as employees.

“As Amazon exerts considerable control over the Flex Drivers in their deliveries and the deliveries are part of Amazon’s usual business, the drivers qualify as Amazon employees, not independent contractors, and should be paid accordingly,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and attorney for the drivers. “That Amazon fails to pay these Flex Drivers wages and reimburse expenses that the law requires is inexcusable, exploiting some of the most vulnerable workers in our society.   By doing so, Amazon gains a competitive advantage in pricing these delivery services that has contributed to its success as the leading package delivery company in the country.”

Advertising the Flex program as a way for drivers to earn extra money, Amazon pays Amazon Flex drivers for only a pre-set number of scheduled hours in a delivery shift (or “block”), regardless of how long it takes to complete their delivery route. That means if a driver books a 3-hour shift where they might receive dozens of delivery requests that could take 4+ hours to complete, Amazon will pay them for only 3 hours.

“I came to the United States from Iran for a better life. Amazon Flex promised good money and flexible hours,” said Saman Khodaei, a driver who drove for Amazon Flex in Los Angeles and successfully arbitrated his misclassification claim. “Instead, it’s a fulltime job. Some days, I worked more than 8 hours because I had to wait in line to pick up my packages before I could start my deliveries. And then I had to check in and wait in line again for my next block of deliveries. It’s so competitive, I barely had time to eat or take a break. It should be simple: Amazon should pay drivers for their time to wait, load, check in. It’s all a part of the delivery.”

Amazon, which has a history of misclassifying workers as independent contractors, also requires drivers to arbitrate disputes with the American Arbitration Association. More than 65% of employers in the U.S. mandate such agreements. Unlike court, arbitration proceedings are private and often confidential, which often prevent systemic issues like Amazon’s employee misclassification issues from becoming public. Such agreements, like Amazon’s, forbid class arbitration and require individuals to file claims individually.

“Arbitration, unfortunately, limits the drivers’ pursuit of justice. So, we’re left with little choice but to file almost 16,000 individual arbitration actions at once,” said Steven Tindall of Gibbs Law Group. “Amazon required Flex drivers to agree to bring these cases in private proceedings—likely in an effort to keep its business practices from being exposed to public and shareholder scrutiny.”   

Thus far, Amazon Flex drivers have successfully tried seven bellwether arbitration trials, addressing the same misclassification claims. Each driver has been awarded, on average, $9,000 in damages.

“It’s about time that Amazon is exposed for misclassifying employees,” said Norva Williams, another driver who successfully litigated her claim through Amazon’s arbitration process. “I was excited to work for Amazon, but it quickly became clear to me that it was a racket. I was the one who ended up paying. My hope is that Amazon will be forced to reconcile how it classifies employees and how employees can seek justice.”

The Amazon Flex drivers are represented by Joseph Sellers, Brian Corman, Rebecca Ojserkis, and Megan Reif of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Steven Tindall, Ashleigh Musser, Jane Farrell, and Brian Bailey of Gibbs Law Group. The more than 16,000 total claims will be litigated before the American Arbitration Association.

###

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 Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group LLP is a California based law firm committed to protecting the rights of clients nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. We represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world’s largest corporations. Our award-winning lawyers have achieved landmark recoveries and over a billion dollars for our clients in high-stakes class action and individual cases involving consumer protection, data breach, digital privacy, and federal and California employment lawsuits. Our attorneys have received numerous honors for their work, including “Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California,” “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year,” and “Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar.” 

Six-week jury trial is the first of a series of bellwether trials in 16-year wrongful death lawsuit.

In 2007, Chiquita pled guilty to a federal crime arising out of its payments to the terror group responsible for the murders.

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Today, a South Florida jury found Chiquita Brands International responsible for the wrongful deaths of eight men who were murdered by Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) and awarded the surviving family members $38.3 million in damages for the deaths of eight of victims.

The eight plaintiffs in this case are the surviving family members of the victims, who include husbands and sons targeted and killed by the AUC, a brutal paramilitary known for mass killing and designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. That designation made supporting the AUC a federal crime. The plaintiffs alleged that Chiquita paid the AUC nearly $2 million, while facilitating shipments of arms, ammunition and drugs, despite knowing that the AUC was an illegal organization engaged in a reign of terror.  

“Our clients risked their lives to come forward to hold Chiquita to account, putting their faith in the United States justice system.  I am very grateful to the jury for the time and care they took to evaluate the evidence,” said Agnieszka Fryszman, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Human Rights practice and one of the attorneys leading the case. “The verdict does not bring back the husbands and sons who were killed, but it sets the record straight and places accountability for funding terrorism where it belongs: at Chiquita’s doorstep.”

“After a long seventeen years against a well-funded defense, justice was finally served,” added Leslie Kroeger, a partner at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Plaintiffs’ trial team. “We look forward to the next round of bellwether trials and will continue to fight for our clients.”

The civil claims were brought on the heels of a 2007 Chiquita guilty plea to criminal charges brought by the United States. The Department of Justice described Chiquita’s support to the AUC as “prolonged, steady, and substantial.”

The claims were consolidated by the multidistrict litigation (MDL) panel and heard by a federal court in Florida. A group of plaintiffs, referred to as “bellwether” plaintiffs, was selected to proceed to trial. This jury verdict concludes the first six-week bellwether jury trial, which began on April 22, 2024. The second bellwether trial is scheduled for July 15, 2024.

The plaintiffs in John Doe I v. Chiquita Brands International are represented by Agnieszka Fryszman and Leslie M. Kroeger of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Marco Simons, Rick Herz, Maryum Jordan, Marissa Vahlsing, Wyatt Gjullin, and Gabriela Paola Valentin Dias of EarthRights International; and Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes. 

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.

About EarthRights International

EarthRights International is a non-governmental, non-profit organization that combines the power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment, which we define as “earth rights.”

About Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes

Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes is a public interest law firm that has had the honor of handling numerous landmark civil and human rights cases to hold corporations and government entities accountable for wrong-doing.

Class action certification and recent ruling largely dismissing CITGO’s summary judgment adds fuel to plaintiffs’ claim that CITGO imposed a “marriage penalty” on pension plans’ joint and survivor annuity recipients.

CHICAGO – Today, a federal judge certified a class of more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in two of CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s pension plans. This class certification ruling, along with last week’s ruling largely dismissing CITGO’s motion for summary judgement, paves the way for the class claims to move forward to trial. Estimated financial exposure to CITGO could well exceed $30 million.

The lawsuit against CITGO alleges 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 (“JSA”) benefits for retired employees and imposing a “marriage penalty” that reduced their monthly pension payments.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that prior to 2018, CITGO’s two pension plans utilized inaccurate mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine the value of JSAs, resulting in married retirees consistently receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of a single-life annuity (“SLA”) as required under ERISA. The lawsuit seeks to recover the underpayments, and to reform the CITGO Plans to fully comply with protections afforded by ERISA to pension plan participants and their beneficiaries.

“We are very pleased the court granted class certification to more than 1,700 CITGO employees and pensioners in this important ERISA case,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “This ruling and the court’s recent order denying summary judgment pave the way for the class claims to move forward to trial and affirm our confidence that our clients will prevail. Married retirees and their beneficiaries deserve to receive accurate pension payments after years of hard work and should not be shortchanged or subjected to a ‘marriage penalty.’”

Just ten days ago, on May 6, the same court rejected CITGO’s motion for summary judgment on three of four counts and partially denied the motion on the fourth count. Specifically, the court rejected CITGO’s arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the basis of the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims in Counts 1 through 3, and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count 4. Further, the court rejected CITGO’s argument that the plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court, stating that it was “not persuaded that requiring exhaustion would serve any useful purpose in this case.”  Finally, the court also held that plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently meritorious to proceed to trial and supported by expert testimony.

The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al. (N.D. Ill.), 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 the firm has recently filed against several 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.

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of their outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the authors listed below have been selected as recipients of the 22nd Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:

• Miguel Antón, Professor of Financial Management, IESE Business School
• Florian Ederer, Allen and Kelli Questrom Professor in Markets, Public Policy & Law, Boston University
• Mireia Giné, Professor and Head of the Financial Management Department, IESE Business School
• Martin C. Schmalz, Professor of Finance, Economics, and Real Estate, University of Oxford Saïd Business School

The award will be presented during the gala luncheon at the American Antitrust Institute’s 25th Annual Policy Conference on May 22, 2024 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

The authors will be honored for their article:

“Common Ownership, Competition, and Top Management Incentives,” 131 Journal of Political Economy 1294 (2023): The authors demonstrate that altered managerial incentives can serve as the mechanism that connects common ownership to softer competition. The predictions generated by their model help explain the existing empirical evidence on the anticompetitive effects of common ownership that thus far has lacked a theoretical explanation. The authors also provide additional empirical support for the previously untested prediction that higher firm-level common ownership leads to less performance-sensitive incentives for CEOs. The article meaningfully advances our understanding of the theory of anticompetitive effects from common ownership by offering a compelling response to the primary criticism of the theory’s detractors: that there is no realistic mechanism by which common ownership could impact firm-level decisions.

The four winners will share the $11,000 prize. Each winner will also receive a specially commissioned and inscribed artwork by Lori Milstein, artist and daughter of Herb Milstein, co-founder of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

This year’s award selection committee consisted of Zachary Caplan, Shareholder at Berger Montague; Warren Grimes, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School; John Kirkwood, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law; Roger Noll, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University; Leslie Marx, Professor of Economics at Duke Fuqua School of Business; Robert Lande, Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law; Daniel H. Silverman, Partner at Cohen Milstein; and Daniel A. Small, Of Counsel at Cohen Milstein.

About the Award

The Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award was created through a trust established in memory of Jerry S. Cohen, an outstanding trial lawyer and antitrust scholar. The award is administered by the law firm he founded, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The award honors the best antitrust writing published during the prior year that is consistent with the values that animated Jerry S. Cohen’s professional life — a genuine concern for economic justice, the dispersal of economic power, effective limitations upon economic power, and the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws.

About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

About the American Antitrust Institute

The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to promoting competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society. AAI serves the public through research, education, and advocacy on the benefits of competition and the use of antitrust enforcement as a vital component of national and international competition policy.

CITGO Allegedly Imposed “Marriage Penalty” on Joint and Survivor Annuity Recipients in Its Pension Plans

CHICAGO – Today, a federal judge wholly denied CITGO’s motion for summary judgment on three of four counts, and also partially denied the motion on the fourth count, allowing a proposed class action lawsuit regarding CITGO’s pension benefits to move forward to trial. The lawsuit alleges that that the company violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by failing to properly calculate joint and survivor annuity (“JSA”) benefits for retired employees and imposing a “marriage penalty” that reduced their monthly pension payments.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that prior to 2018, two CITGO pension plans utilized inaccurate mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine the value of JSAs, resulting in married retirees consistently receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of a single-life annuity (“SLA”) as required under ERISA. The lawsuit seeks to recover the underpayments, and to reform the CITGO Plans to fully comply with protections afforded by ERISA to pension plan participants and their beneficiaries.

With more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in the proposed class receiving JSAs, the estimated financial exposure to CITGO could well exceed $30 million.

“We are very pleased by the judge’s ruling that our clients’ claims against CITGO may proceed to trial,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “Married retirees and their beneficiaries deserve to receive accurate pension payments after years of hard work and should not be shortchanged or subjected to a ‘marriage penalty.’”

In its ruling, the court rejected CITGO’s arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the basis of the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims in Counts 1 through 3, and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count 4. Further, the court rejected CITGO’s argument that the Plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court, stating that it was “not persuaded that requiring exhaustion would serve any useful purpose in this case.”   Finally, the court also held that Plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently meritorious to proceed to trial and supported by expert testimony.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf a proposed class of 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.  Class certification is currently pending.

The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al. (N.D. Ill.), was filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

This is one of six such cases the firm has recently filed against the largest companies in the U.S., addressing similar claims, including against 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.

Media Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

Pending Final Approval, Precedent-Setting Injunctive Relief Achieved.

BOSTON, MA – On April 25, 2024, the Honorable Angel Kelley for the United States District Court of Massachusetts allowed a $2.275 million settlement on behalf of Massachusetts housing voucher recipients to move forward, certifying the settlement classes and directing notice to be sent to class members. The Court will hold a final approval hearing in November. The settlement, if finally approved, will resolve a lawsuit against SafeRent Solutions, a national tenant screening provider formerly known as CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, claiming that SafeRent’s algorithmic tenant screening program (the “SafeRent Score”) disproportionately harmed housing voucher recipients, including Black and Hispanic individuals, under Massachusetts law protecting individuals based on their source of income and race. In July 2023, the Court denied SafeRent’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Massachusetts Discrimination Law claims.

The pending settlement provides for significant injunctive relief to tenant applicants who rely on vouchers and may be subjected to SafeRent tenant screening. It would require a more robust evaluation of prospective housing voucher tenants’ eligibility for housing based on their full record rather than relying on a score derived though an algorithm. If SafeRent develops another tenant screening score it wishes to use after five years, it would have to be validated by an independent third-party organization agreed to by the Plaintiffs. This injunctive relief would establish precedent for the tenant screening industry.

• Access a link to the March 28 settlement agreement.
• Access a link to the April 25 preliminary settlement approval order.

“On behalf of housing voucher holders in Massachusetts, we are very pleased with this outcome,” stated Todd Kaplan at Greater Boston Legal Services. “It gives Massachusetts rental applicants who have been unfairly subjected to SafeRent’s tenant screening algorithm immediate relief and it should protect voucher holders from any future discriminatory assessment.”

“Federal and state housing voucher programs were established to give recipients, who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic renters, more choice in where they live. The changes SafeRent has agreed to make are key to ensuring the original intention of the nation’s voucher programs, helping to erase historic discrimination in the housing markets,” said Brian Corman, a partner at Cohen Milstein, who leads the firm’s fair housing litigation efforts and helped negotiate the settlement.

One of the central claims in the lawsuit was that SafeRent’s algorithm did not consider the financial benefits of housing vouchers in assigning SafeRent Scores. Specifically, when a housing voucher is used, on average over 73% of the monthly rental payment is paid by public housing authorities directly to housing providers.

“This is a precedent-setting settlement, a case of first impression for the home rental and property management industries given the pervasive use of algorithms in assessing tenant worthiness,” stated Christine E. Webber, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Civil Rights & Employment practice. “Decision-making algorithms, such as the ones at issue here, are often opaque. Vendors who develop these algorithms are not willing to disclose all the data they consider or how the data is weighted in score modeling. This is gravely concerning to fair housing, employment, and civil rights advocates as potentially discriminatory bias can be easily coded into automated decision-making platforms. The ability to hold such vendors accountable is essential for full enforcement of the civil rights laws.”

On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development filed a statement of interest in this case to ensure “the correct interpretation and application of the FHA’s pleading standard for disparate impact claims, including where the use of algorithms may perpetuate housing discrimination.”

“The use of algorithms to evaluate housing eligibility must be scrutinized to ensure that individuals and families are not improperly denied opportunities to access housing or subject to discrimination. There is no evidence that credit scores are predictive of tenants’ ability to pay rent and there is even less justification to rely on them in this case where government-backed vouchers pay a substantial majority of the rent each month,” said Shennan Kavanagh, Director of Litigation at the National Consumer Law Center. 

In addition to certifying the class action for settlement purposes, the preliminary settlement approval also appoints the plaintiffs Mary Louis and Monica Douglas as Settlement Class Representatives and Greater Boston Legal Services, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and the National Consumer Law Center as Settlement Class Counsel. 

This is the second artificial intelligence or algorithm-based FHA discrimination lawsuit Cohen Milstein has brought against SafeRent Solutions, which previously operated as CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions. Cohen Milstein is currently litigating Connecticut Fair Housing Center, et al. v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, Case No. 3:18-cv-00705 (D. Conn.), in partnership with Connecticut Fair Housing Center and the National Housing Law Project.  On November 24, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Second Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in that case.

###

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 Greater Boston Legal Services 

Greater Boston Legal Services helps more than 10,000 low-income families and individuals solve their civil (non-criminal) legal problems. We represent our clients in court, at appeals, in hearings before administrative law judges, and with advice and paperwork, both as individuals and through partnerships with community organizations. We have a special focus on “impact litigation.”

National Consumer Law Center

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the United States. NCLC’s expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy; consumer law and energy publications; litigation; expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates. NCLC works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts across the nation to stop exploitive practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness.

Resolves fraud allegations regarding the COVID-19 Waiver Program

PHILADELPHIA, PA– National plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll announced today that the United States and the State of California reached a $7 million settlement with ReNew Health Group LLC, ReNew Health Consulting Services LLC and its owner-CEO and its COO to resolve False Claims Act allegations filed by Cohen Milstein’s whistleblower clients.  ReNew Health, which owns and operates dozens of nursing facilities throughout California, allegedly submitted millions of dollars of false claims to Medicare and California Medicaid under a COVID-19 waiver program beginning at the start of the pandemic in March 2020.

“This settlement is a reminder about the important role whistleblowers play in rooting out fraud in the healthcare industry,” said Gary Azorsky, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice. “This case would not have been possible without the brave individuals who came forward to report improper Medicare claims.”

“Our clients are persons of integrity who stepped forward and brought an end to ReNew Health’s practice of overcharging Medicare and Medicaid,” said Ray Sarola, counsel for the whistleblowers and also a member of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice. “We thank the United States and the State of California for their diligent and thorough investigation of our clients’ allegations and for protecting taxpayers and government health care programs by recovering these substantial overpayments.”

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) took emergency measures to free up hospital beds and temporarily waived the requirement that a person stay in a hospital for three days before Medicare Part A would cover skilled care in a nursing home that qualified as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). This meant that if a person who had Medicare Part A needed skilled care, the person could move directly into a nursing home that qualified as a SNF to receive that care – or if the person already lived in a nursing home that qualified as a SNF, the person could remain there and receive that care. The nursing home could then submit Medicare Part A claims on behalf of the person to get paid for providing that care. CMS also waived the 100-day limit on Medicare Part A coverage of such care under certain circumstances. These waivers expired in May 2023.

The whistleblowers alleged that beginning in March 2020, after learning of CMS’s waivers, ReNew Health submitted false Medicare and Medicaid claims representing that many residents in their nursing homes needed skilled care based on the possibility that they were exposed to COVID-19, in violation of the terms of the COVID-19 waiver program.  Skilled care typically involves the treatment of severe illness or injuries, such as heart attacks, pneumonia, or significant orthopedic issues.

Cohen Milstein was pleased to work on this matter with co-counsel David Brevda of Senior Justice Law Firm and June Hoidal, Chuck Toomajian, and Caleb Marker of Zimmerman Reed LLP.

The federal False Claims Act and its state law equivalents permit private citizens to bring lawsuits on behalf of the government against persons who present false or fraudulent claims for payment under government contracts or programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the FEHB Program. Whistleblowers, like those who brought this lawsuit, are entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant.

###

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.

Settlements now total more than $943.25 million.

WASHINGTON, DC– Home sellers have reached a $250 million settlement with HomeServices of America and certain of its subsidiaries, including Long & Foster Companies, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, and HSF Affiliates, LLC, resolving class action claims against one of the nation’s largest residential real estate services companies. Home sellers alleged that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) conspired with HomeServices America and several of the nation’s largest residential real estate brokerage companies to illegally require home sellers to pay buyer broker fees – at an inflated rate – in addition to their own brokers’ commissions.

On October 31, 2023, a jury in Missouri found HomeServices of America, NAR, and Keller Williams liable for conspiring to inflate such commissions and for nearly $1.8 billion in damages. This settlement resolves those claims against HomeServices of America. However, it does not release Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company (BHE) or BHE’s or HomeServices of America’s direct or indirect parents or their officers, directors, and employees from such claims or liabilities.

This settlement is in addition to the $418 million settlement reached with NAR on March 15, 2024, and more than $275.25 million in other settlements reached with Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams in 2023 and Compass and Real Brokerage Inc. in 2024, bringing total settlements, pending court approval, to more than $943.25 million.

“This is another significant settlement for American home sellers who have been saddled with paying billions in unnecessary commission costs.  This brings us a step closer to resolving this long-running case involving the industry-wide brokers’ commission scheme,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of its Antitrust practice.

In its $418 million settlement against NAR this past March, plaintiffs also achieved extensive industry reforms that will increase transparency and fairness regarding buyer broker commissions, while eliminating requirements that sellers must offer on multiple listing services to pay the commissions of brokers representing the buyers they are negotiating against.

“These settlements will return hundreds of millions of dollars to home sellers and empower both sellers and buyers in the real estate negotiation process.” said Robert A. Braun, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Antitrust practice. “This is one of the most important transactions in a person’s lifetime. Confidence in the process is critical.”

Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor (N.D. Ill.) was the first-filed case in 2019, and centers on NAR’s adoption of a mandatory rule, which required a blanket, largely non-negotiable offer of compensation to the buyer broker when listing a property on a multiple listing service (MLS), which are online platforms that real estate brokers and agents use to share listings. The vast majority of MLSs are affiliated with NAR and required to follow NAR rules.

The case, which was subsequently followed by the filing of Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.), alleged that those rules incentivize buyer brokers to avoid showing their clients homes where the seller offers a lower commission. This results in sellers offering high and mostly uniform commissions in order to avoid broker steering.

Despite the shrinking role of buyer brokers over the years – caused by advances in technology, including the internet and public access to listings – buyer brokers’ commissions have remained artificially inflated. On average, home sellers overpay such commissions by thousands of dollars on any given transaction.

Burnett was the first of the two cases to go to trial, resulting in the $1.8 billion jury trial verdict in October 2023. Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) and Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) were filed later in 2023. The ongoing settlement process addresses and resolves claims in all four of the class actions.

Plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor, et al.  (N.D. Ill.) and Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.); and Boulware Law LLC, Ketchmark & McCreight PC, and Williams Dirks Dameron LLC in Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) and Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.)

###

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.

Plaintiffs in Ten States Claim GM Was Aware of Transmission Defects That Pose Safety Risk to Drivers and Passengers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, purchasers of new and used GM vehicles manufactured between 2015 – 2019 equipped with GM’s 8-speed transmission filed a product defect and consumer protection class action against GM for an alleged defective transmission design of GM’s Hydra-Matic 8L90 transmission or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission, which causes vehicles to suddenly lurch forward, shudder, and experience significant delays in acceleration. The action, Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-11007, was filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

This class action includes ten states and causes of action that were not part of Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, LLC (E.D. Mich.), a class action which was certified as a class on March 20, 2023.

Among other things, plaintiffs in this expanded class action claim that GM not only knew about this pervasive issue but developed a fix for it in 2018 – namely a transmission flush it calls Mod1a. However, GM made the business decision in 2019 to forgo recalling all impacted vehicles (approximately 2 million) to receive this flush, which would have cost GM about $305 per vehicle for a total $592 million, and instead decided to limit the flush to only unsold Cadillacs and trucks in certain states where it expected customers to complain within their warranty. Finally, plaintiffs claim that GM never alerted existing customers of the issue or the fix and only addressed the issue if the customer was under warranty and complained about the shudder.

“GM has breached the trust of millions of Americans by selling defective 8-speed transmission vehicles which they knew to be defective for years, putting profit first and safety last,” said Ted Leopold, partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed Lead Counsel for the class. “GM marketed and sold these 8-speed automatic transmission vehicles as having “world-class performance,” lightning-fast and smooth shifting, along with improved fuel efficiency, and instead sold defective vehicles.”

Plaintiffs claimed that the sudden lurching, sudden and/or delayed acceleration, and shuddering presented safety hazards because they would severely affect the driver’s ability to control the car’s speed, acceleration, and deceleration. As an example, these conditions would make it difficult to safely merge into traffic or back out of a garage or driveway. Drivers also reported sudden lurching into intersections when attempting to gradually accelerate from a stopped position and other dangerous driving conditions. Even more troubling, the transmission defects would cause the vehicle to delay downshifting and decelerating when the brakes are depressed.

“GM made poor design choices. It knew of the transmission problems before ever selling the vehicles but hid what it knew – even the solutions to the problems,” stated Doug McNamara, a partner at Cohen Milstein. “Customers who could have benefitted from the Mod1a flush years ago continued to drive with a poorly performing transmission fluid. Now out of warranty, some customers have had to pay for transmission repairs.”

The affected vehicles include Chevrolet Silverado (2015-2019); Chevrolet Colorado (2017-2019); the Chevrolet Corvette (2015-2019); the Chevrolet Camaro (2016-2019); the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV (2015-2019); the Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V (2016-2019); the GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali XL (2015-2019); and the GMC Canyon (2017-2019).

The 10 states in Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al. include California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The 26 states in Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, the certified class action, include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs are represented by Theodore J. Leopold, Douglas J. McNamara, Karina G. Puttieva, and Madelyn N. Petersen of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Robert Gordon, Steven Calamusa, Geoff Stahl, and Rachel Bentley of Gordon & Partners PA; Russell D. Paul and Amy J. Park of Berger Montague PC; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, and Laura E. Goolsby of Capstone Law APC; E. Powell Miller, Sharon S. Almonrode, Brian M. Saxe, Emily E. Hughes, and Dennis A. Lienhardt of The Miller Law Firm; Joseph H. Meltzer, Melissa L. Yeates, Lisa M. Port, Tyler S. Graden, Jordan E. Jacobson, and James A. Maro of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP;  Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, and Ryan McDevitt of Keller Rohrback L.L. P.; and Michael L. Pitt and Beth Rivers of Pitt McGehee Palmer and Rivers.

In addition to Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al., Cohen Milstein and plaintiffs’ counsel continue their litigation in Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, LLC, which was certified as a class action on March 20, 2023. GM quickly appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs will be filing their opposition brief to the appeal shortly.

###

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.