At , our success in protecting the public interest stands on the...
From the Bench to the Bar: A Former Federal Judge Advances Public Interest Law
read more
Civil Litigation
Premier Trial Advocacy: From High-Impact Litigation to Judicious Settlements
The path to achieving justice is not a uniform one. Trials – whether before a jury or a bench...
How the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Cummings v. Premier Distorts Contract Law to Gut Discrimination Law
In 2016, one of the authors of this post wrote a piece entitled “The ‘Tough Noogies’ Doctrine: Rights But No Remedies.” The article highlighted examples of then-recent Supreme Court cases denying clearly wronged individuals a remedy based on spurious reasoning. Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 2022 WL 1243658 (Apr. 28, 2022) is a prime example of the “tough noogies” doctrine. In Cummings, the Court stripped any meaningful remedies from many victims of race, gender, disability, and other forms of unlawful discrimination. And it did so based on a relatively superficial analysis of contract law, used as a veneer to shelter wrongdoers and leave plaintiffs holding the bag. At issue in Cummings were four laws banning discrimination by programs and institutions that receive federal funding: Title VI (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin); Title IX (prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities); the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting disability discrimination); and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act (covering race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability discrimination by health programs and activities). These laws are exercises of Congressional spending power, under which Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of […]
Recent Company Schemes and Scams – And What to Do About Them
In recent years, corporations have been trying to get away with making more money while appearing to charge the same price. But you might not have noticed due to the subtlety of their tactics. Often, this can be as simple as reducing package sizes—for example, orange juice cartons have incrementally gone down from a full half-gallon (64 ounces) to 52 ounces, nearly a 20% reduction—or the now-common practice of charging extra for baggage. Another tactic involves holding out a low price while adding on extra costs during the purchasing process or even after the order is completed. For instance, “resort fees” or generic “service fees” are often tacked onto a hotel bill that doesn’t explain what those fees are even paying for. Companies pad the price in the guise of a fee simply because they can. Although such bait-and-switch pricing tactics are hardly a new phenomenon, many American consumers have recently noticed—and even fallen victim to—a proliferation of hidden fees and unexpected and unjustified charges. A few pertinent examples spring to mind: So-called premium airline seats: It has become commonplace for airlines to charge extra for premium seats, including those in first or business class sections or rows with additional […]
In Defense of Class Actions: A Response to Gibson Dunn’s Commentary on the Ten-Year Anniversary of Dukes
In recent companion pieces marking the 10-year anniversary of Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes,[1] counsel for Wal-Mart celebrated the judicial assault on class actions and urged that it continue,[2] while counsel for the plaintiffs rightly observed that discrimination class actions are not dead yet.[3] As class action practitioners who have represented employees, consumers, tenants, and others, we take this opportunity to respond to the defense-side piece and address key points. Most saliently, the defense perspective reflects a fundamental philosophical difference regarding class actions. Contrary to defendants’ suggestions, the class action device is not generally antithetical to due process; nor is the steady erosion of class actions beneficial to “the parties, absent class members, and the civil justice system as a whole.” Rather, class actions foster the judicial economy and are often the only feasible means to tackle mass-scale, systemic wrongdoing. Without a class action, countess victims may be left without a meaningful remedy and a corporate or institutional defendant may get a free pass for unlawful conduct—including violations of seminal civil rights, employment, housing, and consumer protection laws. Accordingly, we would venture, defendants’ espoused concern for the rights of absent class members is wholly disingenuous. A self-appointed role in safeguarding class members’ interests is […]
Congress Must Open the Courthouse Doors to Uphold Military Members’ Civil Rights
Workers and students who experience civil rights violations have a plethora of legal tools at their disposal to seek accountability and relief—ranging from constitutional, to statutory, to tort claims. But the courthouse doors have long been closed to one group, whose exclusion from remedies by the government which they defend is particularly jarring: members of the military. Federal civil rights statutes often exclude uniformed members of the military. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(4) (excepting from Title IX’s coverage an educational institution whose primary purpose is the training of individuals for the military services of the United States, or the merchant marine”); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(d)(1) (noting that various civil rights statutes only apply to non-uniformed members of military departments); Jackson v. Modly, 949 F.3d 763, 772 (DC Cir. 2020) (“[E]very circuit court of appeals to address this issue since 1978 has held that uniformed members of the armed forces are not included within the protections of Title VII . . . .”). But Congress had already provided service members a legal remedy through tort law. The Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA), passed in the first half of the 20th Century, allowed military members to sue the United States for their injuries—except for […]
Asian American Litigation and Finance
Read our Firm’s Statement on the Rise of Anti-AAPI Violence and Crimes in the U.S. Asian American Litigation and Finance Practice Group is led by Qiaojing Ella Zheng and committed to helping members of the Asian American community navigate the United States’ legal system. Ms. Zheng and the attorneys in the Asian American Litigation and Finance Practice Group advise entrepreneurs, companies, and financial institutions on regulatory and compliance matters, litigate whistleblowers’ claims under the False Claims Act, advocate for victims of sexual violence, and represent employees and executives in a wide range of employment disputes, including severance negotiations, wrongful termination, retaliation, wage and hour violations, sexual harassment, and gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, and disability discrimination. Ms. Zheng, an experienced attorney who is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and who studied law in both China and the United States, commonly represents individuals and institutions in China, Silicon Valley, and Asian American communities across the United States. Notable Cases Many cases litigated by the Asian American Litigation and Finance Practice Group’s attorneys are resolved through confidential negotiations and mediations. When necessary and favored by clients, will conduct public investigations and will file public lawsuits. The press releases and case pages for some of the Asian American Litigation and Finance Practice Group notable cases are below. […]
Legal Remedies in California for Employees Fraudulently Lured into a Job
Ever since the Gold Rush of the mid-19th century, California has attracted a large number of job seekers. Silicon Valley is home to some of the world’s most valuable technology companies, and the Los Angeles area dominates the national media and entertainment industries. With these booming sectors come enticing professional opportunities that appeal to people all over the globe. But what happens when promised opportunities fail to materialize? Take the facts alleged in Lazar v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 981, 983–84 (Cal. 1996). Andrew Lazar lived and worked in Long Island, New York for decades. He worked his way up within the family-owned restaurant equipment business and became president. Mr. Lazar earned a good salary and enjoyed his life in New York with his wife of 21 years and his two children, ages 17 and 15. One day, the vice president of a company called Rykoff-Sexton, Inc. contacted Mr. Lazar to persuade him to come work in Los Angeles as Rykoff’s West Coast general manager for contract design. During the recruitment process, Mr. Lazar told Rykoff that he was concerned about relocating to Los Angeles since the move would entail relinquishing a secure job and separating his children from their friends at an important time in their lives. […]
Requirements for Filing a Class Action
A class-action lawsuit gives individuals who experienced an injury because of the illegal actions of a corporation to join together and change the policies as well as receive compensation for their injuries. However, there are certain requirements a class needs to have before its lawsuit can proceed. Here are a few things to keep in mind before proceeding with a class action. Before Filing a Class Action Lawsuit It is imperative that you hire an experienced law firm, like to handle your class action. These lawsuits can be extremely complex and an inexperienced lawyer will be quickly overwhelmed. Class Certification Once the complaint has been filed and served on the appropriate parties, the court will need to certify the class. Depending on the state, the court will initiate a certification process or the plaintiff will need to file a motion to have the class certified. Class certification requirements can differ in each state. But generally, in order for a class to be certified, the plaintiff must prove: The representative plaintiff suffered the same alleged injuries as the proposed class The class can be defined clearly enough to determine who is and isn’t a member The number of class members makes joining […]
About the Novartis Settlements
According to the terms of the Settlement as ordered by the Court, the monetary awards for back pay (or lost wages) were subject to all applicable tax withholdings. Monetary awards for compensatory damages were not treated as lost wages and therefore were subject to reporting on IRS Form 1099. We cannot provide tax advice regarding Class Members’ settlement awards or how to handle any dollars reported on a 1099. Please contact your accountant or a tax lawyer for tax advice. Please note that the settlement check and corresponding tax forms were sent to eligible Class Members by the third party Claims Administrator, RUST Consulting, in May/June 2011. If you misplaced those tax forms, you can reach a RUST Representative at 866-208-5285 to request that a copy be re-sent to you. The settlement that negotiated as Class Counsel on behalf of the class of approximately 6,200 female sales employees in the Velez v. Novartis case included $60,000,000 for back pay awards to class members and $40,000,000 for compensatory awards to class members. The settlement we negotiated on behalf of the class was praised by the Judge as being “exceptional” and “one of a kind” because the terms for the women at […]