NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. After filing an administrative complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a Complaint with the Court, on June 22, 2006, on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a nationwide class of women employees against Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., (“Title VII”), and for a California Class under California state law prohibiting sex discrimination. In addition to 1 Following the filing of the Complaint in June 2006, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx XX Inc. merged into Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx & Co. Incorporated. The Named Plaintiff and the Class Members all work or worked as Financial Advisors or Registered Financial Advisor Trainees in what is now referred to as the Global Wealth Management Group. these class claims, Xx. Xxxxx asserted an individual, non-class age discrimination claim.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On December 6, 2012, certain plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). On December 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of Section 1981, which is the operative complaint in this matter (the “Complaint”). Dkt. No. 514.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. On October 29, 2008, Named Plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxxx filed her Class Action Complaint against Dell in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of female employees of Dell. Named Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx was subsequently added as a named plaintiff and class representative. Named Plaintiffs are represented by Class Counsel, who have represented many clients in employment disputes with Dell. As part of their investigation and prosecution of this Civil Action, Class Counsel interviewed current and former Dell female employees regarding then- experiences at Dell, particularly as it related to their compensation, promotion, business opportunities, and career advancement at Dell in comparison to then male counterparts. Class Counsel also reviewed numerous Dell documents relating to these issues. In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, cost and expense, the Parties entered pre-litigation mediation. Dell provided Class Counsel with substantial employment data and information in furtherance of the mediation and the Parties retained a well-known and experienced mediator, skilled in mediation of complex class actions, including national employment discrimination class actions, to assist the Parties in their negotiations. Over the course of several months and multiple mediation sessions, the Parties discussed extensive analyses of the employment data and potential equitable forms of relief to be part of a settlement. Each party retained an expert labor economist to analyze the available employment data and to assist the Parties in negotiating a fair and reasonable settlement. Both Parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions to dismiss, motions for class certification, formal discovery, motions for summary judgment, and trial and appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, After careful review and consideration, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel are of the opinion that the settlement set forth in this Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and provides prompt relief for the Class. Class Counsel and the Class Representatives believe that the settlement set ...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. In early August of 2016, Plaintiff Xxxxxx Senegal, an African American Advisor employed by Chase, retained Class Counsel to represent him with respect to his individual and potential classwide claims of race discrimination and related retaliation in employment. Plaintiff Senegal alleged that African American and Black Advisors had been and were being assigned to less lucrative branches and denied business opportunities, among other things, because of race and had experienced race discrimination and related retaliation in other terms and conditions of their employment.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On April 29, 2014, the Named Plaintiff, Xxxxxxxx Xxxx, Ph.D., filed a Complaint in the Court on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a class of nine month faculty against Defendants pursuant to the FMLA. In this Action, the Named Plaintiff, among other things, alleged on behalf of herself and members of the Class defined herein, that they are employees who are or were employed with Employer as faculty members, that they were eligible for up to 12 weeks of leave under the FMLA for the birth or adoption of a child or the placement of a xxxxxx child (“parental leave”) and did not receive the notices and leave to which they were entitled under the FMLA. Named Plaintiff further alleged, on behalf of herself and members of the Class defined herein, that the Employer’s violations of the FMLA include, but are not limited to, failure to post required FMLA notices in the workplace, failure to provide individual notice of FMLA rights and responsibilities upon notice to the employer of an event which may constitute an FMLA-qualifying parental leave, requiring more onerous proof of qualification for parental leave than is permitted by law, denial of leave, failure to designate some or all of the parental leave take as FMLA- protected leave, and interference with FMLA-rights. In addition to these class claims, the Named Plaintiff asserted individual, non-class claims, including for interference with FMLA- protected rights and retaliation, as set forth in the Complaint. The Named Plaintiff devoted significant time and energy to pursuing the claims of the Class.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. Named Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxx, an African American Financial Advisor employed by Xxxxxx Xxxxx, retained Class Counsel to represent him against Xxxxxx Xxxxx in connection with what he believed to be individual and systemic race discrimination.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. After filing an administrative complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a Complaint with the Court, on June 22, 2006, on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a nationwide class of women employees against Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., (“Title VII”), and for a California Class under California state law prohibiting sex discrimination. In addition to these class claims, Xx. Xxxxx asserted an individual, non-class age discrimination claim. 1 Following the filing of the Complaint in June 2006, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx XX Inc. merged into Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx & Co. Incorporated. The Named Plaintiff and the Class Members all work or worked as Financial Advisors or Registered Financial Advisor
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. 2.1. On May 9, 2013, Class Representative Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a Class Action Complaint against Merck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination class claims. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on January 16, 2014, inter alia, joining Class Representatives Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxxx, and Xxx Xxxxxxx.1 On May 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of female sales representatives under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 et seq. (“ERISA”), and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the “Equal Pay Act” or the = 1 On November 4, 2014, Named Plaintiff Xxx Xxxxxxx stipulated to the dismissal of her individual, collective, and class claims against Merck with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. “EPA”). On April 27, 2016, the Court conditionally certified a collective action regarding certain claims under the EPA.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE
