Class Action Avoidance

By Andrew H. Perellis, Alex W. Karasik, and Patrick D. Joyce

Seyfarth Synopsis: In a toxic tort class action stemming from automotive and dry cleaning facilities’ alleged contamination of groundwater near Dayton, Ohio, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an Ohio federal district court’s grant to certify seven common issues for classwide treatment under Rule

By: Noah A. Finkel, David S. Baffa, Daniel C. Whang, and Andrew L. Scroggins

Seyfarth Synopsis:  In one of the most significant employment cases in memory, a sharply divided United States Supreme Court held today that employers may require employees, as a condition of employment, to enter into arbitration agreements that contain

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Pamela Q. Devata, Robert T. Szyba, and Ephraim J. Pierre

supremecourt-150x112Seyfarth Synopsis: In deciding Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs seeking to establish that they have standing to sue must show “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is particularized and concrete —

In our third installment of articles looking at the employment law cases being heard by the US Supreme Court this fall term, Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo will have importance in both the wage & hour and class action litigation worlds. “Donning and Doffing “ – who knew!

 Another Watershed Moment for Class Actions?  SCOTUS

By: Karla Grossenbacher

In what is quickly becoming the newest trending topic in class action litigation, another class action has been filed alleging the disclosure of employee personally identifiable information due to a cyber attack.

This time, the employer is the federal government, and another target in the lawsuit is the third party vendor allegedly

By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Amanda Sonneborn

In last week’s oral argument on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, Chief Justice Roberts asked the following question:

Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Kathryn “Chris” Palamountain

Employing reasoning adopted by a number of other courts, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama recently dismissed the EEOC’s claim that an employer’s policy prohibiting employees from wearing dreadlocks violated Title VII – the case of EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, No. 13-00476-CB-M, 2014 WL 47758 (S. D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2014). In its ruling, the Court confirmed that “employers’ grooming policies are outside the purview of Title VII,” and it further rejected the EEOC’s argument that the definition of race under Title VII should be read expansively to encompass more than immutable physical characteristics unique to a particular group.
Continue Reading

By Christopher DeGroff, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Lily M. Strumwasser

“Here we go again.” It is the collective groan heard from employers across the country as they braced for the annual EEOC’s fiscal-year-end filing campaign. With 48 EEOC-initiated lawsuits filed in just the last 30 days, employers were understandably concerned. But when the EEOC’s 2013 fiscal year closed yesterday with a total of 134 lawsuits filed, and the dust settled, we saw a picture emerge about how the EEOC targeted employers in its enforcement efforts this year, and gain insight into what’s to come.

A Last Minute Rush – Again

The EEOC traditionally launches large salvos of federal court complaints across the country in the waning weeks of its fiscal year (ending September 30th). In FY 2011, the EEOC filed an astonishing 175 lawsuits in the last eight weeks of its 2011 fiscal year alone. As we reported here last year, the EEOC again revved its engine in August and September of 2012 and filed 67 of its 122 lawsuits. FY 2013 was no different, with 48 of its 134 filed in the last two months of the year – 11 today alone. Consider the graph below, capturing the month-to-month filing statistics for FY 2013.

EEOC Cases Filed By Month – FY 2013


Continue Reading

By Courtney Bohl, Chris DeGroff, and Reema Kapur

The employment and employment rights of our Veterans and Military servicemembers has always been an important topic and one already protected by such laws as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (which allows for “qualifying exigency