May 2025 – Class Action Defense

May 30, 2025May 30, 2025 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 103: Procedural Issues In Class Actions

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley and associate Nathan Norimoto with their analysis of key procedural issues in class action litigation addressed by the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuit Courts.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jennifer Riley: Thank you for being here again for the next episode of our Friday weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jennifer, Riley, partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is Nathan Norimoto. Thank you so much for being on the podcast today, Nathan.

Nathan Norimoto: Thanks. Happy to be here again, Jen. I appreciate it.

Jennifer: So, today we wanted to discuss trends and important developments with procedural issues in class action litigation. In our Class Action Review, this topic is somewhat of a catch-all in terms of the legal issues involved. Class action litigation presents significant procedural issues to litigants and courts alike. In 2024 courts addressed myriad procedural issues in class action litigation. Nathan, can you tell our listeners some of the highlights in this area over the past year?

Nathan: Certainly, jurisdiction is always an important consideration in class action litigation. Jurisdictional defenses are often can be dispositive when a defendant challenges the ability of plaintiffs to maintain their class action in court. This past year, the plaintiffs in Hasson v. FullStory, Inc. challenged district court decisions dismissing their class action lawsuits against FullStory, Inc., one of the defendants, and also Papa John’s International, Inc., for lack of personal jurisdiction, and essentially in their complaint plaintiffs allege that they were being unlawfully wiretapped by the defendants without their consent. Both of the defendants were incorporated in Delaware and based in Georgia, and the core legal issue that was presented in both cases centered on whether the defendants’ actions constituted sufficient contact with Pennsylvania to warrant jurisdiction from the court. The district court ruled against the plaintiffs on the grounds that they had failed to show that FullStory, one of the defendants, specifically aimed its conduct at Pennsylvania, where the action was venue. The district court also found that the claims were inadequate under both the “traditional” and “effects” tests for establishing personal jurisdiction. This decision from the district court was appealed to the Third Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Third Circuit ruled that the plaintiff’s allegations had failed to show that one of the one of the defendants, Papa John’s, targeted Pennsylvania specifically as the company’s website was intended for a national audience. The Court of Appeals also held that just simply operating an accessible website does not equate to targeting a specific state for purposes of the personal jurisdiction analysis. Additionally, the Third Circuit rejected one of the plaintiffs’ arguments that Papa Johns’ business activities in Pennsylvania established sufficient jurisdiction, analyzing that the alleged wiretapping would have occurred regardless of the company’s operations in that state. The court acknowledged Papa Johns’ significant presence in Pennsylvania but found that the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise out of or relate sufficiently to those contacts. So, ultimately the Third Circuit ruled that the connection between the website’s operation and the wiretapping claims was too weak to satisfy jurisdictional requirements as to the other plaintiff’s claims. The Third Circuit ruled that the plaintiff did not allege that FullStory, the other defendant, knew that he or any other user was in Pennsylvania before this alleged wiretapping app application was dispatched to his browser. The court held that FullStory was a degree removed from the alleged harm in the chain of events preceding this application’s transmission to the plaintiff’s browser failed to establish that FullStory, the defendant, expressly aimed its alleged wiretapping at Pennsylvania. So, for these reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing the case.

Jennifer: Thanks, Nathan. The issue of standing is always also a hot topic in class action litigation. For instance, I know the Second Circuit weighed in on associational standing in a case called Do No Harm, et al. v. Pfizer Inc. this past year. So, associational standing is a legal doctrine that allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members when those members have suffered injury, even if the organization itself hasn’t experienced harm. Essentially, it gives an organization the right to act as a representative of its members in court. So, in that case the defendant was Pfizer. It launched a program called the Breakthrough Fellowship Program in 2021 to increase minority representation and leadership opportunities. The program included a summer internship, two years of full-time employment, a fully paid MBA, MPH, or MS degree, additional internships, and postgraduate employment with Pfizer, the defendant. Eligibility for the program was restricted to the U.S. citizens or permanent residents who were undergraduate juniors with 3.0 GPAs and who exhibited commitment to pursuing one of those degrees, and it specifically aimed to enhance opportunities for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American candidates. The plaintiff in that case was an advocacy organization and filed a lawsuit claiming that the fellowship’s focus on increasing diversity excluded White and Asian American applicants in violation of Title VII. The organizations sought a temporary restraining order, or TRO, to halt the selection process for 2023. The district court in that one dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiff, the association, lacked standing because it failed to identify any harmed members by name, and also did not sufficiently demonstrate that its members were directly affected. The district court there opined also that the fellowship program did not violate the federal civil rights laws. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court. The plaintiff argued that the dismissal was premature because it had met the standing requirements for a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit disagreed. It ruled that the plaintiff, who was of course pursuing claims as an association, had to name at least one injured member in order to establish standing, and therefore the dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to meet that requirement.

Nathan: Interesting. I’m interested to see how that doctrine progresses through 2025. Jen, I also wanted to address the issue of consolidation and class action litigation, since oftentimes consolidation issues surface when defendants are subject to multiple class actions and are assessing whether or not to consolidate multiple cases in one form is a strategic imperative for defendants. In Willis, et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., the plaintiffs filed a collective action alleging that GEICO had failed to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FLSA. The case was connected to two other FLSA collective actions against GEICO already pending in that court and the defendant, GEICO, had sought a dismissal of the case as duplicative since the named plaintiffs were also part of another lawsuit entitled Benvenutti v. GEICO. The court denied the motion and ultimately consolidated the actions, stating that the Benvenutti action specifically involved service representatives at GEICO’s operation working out of its Macon, Georgia call center, and had alleged that GEICO failed to pay overtime under a policy that had only compensated logged in hours. The current plaintiffs, while also part of the Benvenutti case, represented employees in different positions who had similar claims regarding unpaid hours worked. The court noted that there was a substantial overlap in the parties’ issues and relief sought between the two cases, emphasizing that both actions revolved around claims of unpaid overtime under these alleged timekeeping practices. And so, the court ruled that consolidating the cases would actually enhance judicial efficiency and avoid repetitive litigation to provide a more streamlined resolution of the common issues.

Jennifer: Thanks, Nathan. Agreed – centralization is key for parties when attempting to litigate the claims of several actions in a particular forum. So, let’s talk about one more topic, and one that is always interesting in terms of how courts rule – sanctions, sanctions in class action litigation. Were there any interesting rulings on sanctions in 2024?

Nathan: Definitely. One interesting sanctions case was Mazurek, et al. v. Metalcraft Of Mayville, Inc. The plaintiff machinist had filed a collective action alleging that the defendant had failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of again the FLSA. The plaintiff specifically asserted that the defendant’s timekeeping system allowed employees to clock in and out up to 15 minutes before and after their scheduled shifts. However, the plaintiff alleged that if employees clocked in early but didn’t ultimately end up working that time, the recorded start time was adjusted to reflect the regular shift start time that was already programmed in the system. The plaintiff claimed employees were not compensated for this early time, despite them working. So, a timeclock issue. The court initially granted conditional certification of the collective action, but after discovery it subsequently decertified the collective action. The plaintiffs, following that decertification ruling, filed 16 additional cases which the court moved to consolidate or consolidated, and then the court selected two cases for summary judgment briefing. Out of those 16, the court had granted summary judgment to the defendant in all the selected cases. It ruled that even though the FLSA plaintiffs have a lower burden of proof when employer records are inaccurate. For example, the plaintiffs must still provide some proof of the hours they worked and were not compensated for that time. And so, the court noted that reconstructed work time had to be more than mere guesswork and found that plaintiffs’ attempts to estimate their work hours were just insufficient. So, in a separate order, in addition to that motion for summary judgment order, the court noted that since the two selected cases shared similar issues, it might be indicative of the broader problem with all of the pending cases. The court instructed plaintiffs’ counsel to then provide any specific facts or legal arguments that could differentiate the remaining cases from the two that have already been decided. In response, the plaintiffs in the remaining cases voluntarily dismissed their complaints with prejudice. Given the court’s ruling and the other actions, the defendant then moved for sanctions across all 16 cases, arguing that the allegations were based on speculation rather than evidence, and that plaintiffs’ counsel should have realized the cases were baseless when they filed the complaints. The district court ultimately denied the sanctions motion finding that while the evidence provided by the plaintiffs was insufficient to win at summary judgment, it still didn’t rise to the level of frivolousness or baselessness to warrant sanctions. Defendants appealed, and on appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on legitimate legal arguments and methods of proof and also, of course, that the district court had not abused its discretion denying that motion for sanctions.

Jennifer: Thanks, Nathan, great insights and analysis. I know that these are only some of the manners in which procedural issues can and have impacted and shaped class action litigation. I expect the ways in which both sides utilize these procedural tools, and the manner in which the courts rule on their applications, will continue to evolve in 2025. Thanks so much for joining us today. And thank you, Nathan, for your insight and excellent analysis.

Nathan: Thank you, listeners. Thank you, Jen.

May 23, 2025 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 102: Key Developments In Labor Class Actions

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman, senior associate Elizabeth Mincer, and associate Niyah Dantzler with their analysis of the key developments in labor class actions, including claims sparked by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the workforce.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Hello, everyone, and thank you for being here again for our next episode of our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are Niyah Dantzler and Elizabeth Mincer. Thanks so much for being on our podcast.

Elizabeth Mincer: Great to be here, Jerry.

Niyah Dantzler: Thanks for having me on the podcast, Jerry.

Jerry: Today, we wanted to discuss trends and important developments in the area of labor-related class action litigation. Liz, I know this is an area of special interest in your practice – tell us about the highlights of the past year.

Elizabeth: So, labor law issues often result in class action litigation either brought by advocacy groups, including unions, or by private plaintiffs asserting violations of labor-related statutes. In turn, labor-related class actions can arise in many contexts as the consequence of alleged mistreatment or abuse of workers can give rise to various statutory or constitutional claims. In 2024, courts addressed a number of labor issues in class action litigation. Historically, class action rulings have been brought under statutes such as the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, as well as under various constitutional based theories, and then the state law equivalents. Significantly, the majority of the key labor-related class action litigation decided in 2024 involved claims relating to COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

Jerry: Thanks very much for that overview. Let’s talk about COVID-related rulings then in 2024. Niyah, could you give us a brief overview of the key rulings covered in the 2025 Class Action Review in this space?

Niyah: Absolutely. There were several important rulings, particularly in cases stemming from claims relating to COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit weighed in on a case, Bacon v. Woodward, and that case was brought by a group of firefighters from Spokane, Washington, alleging that the city unlawfully discharged them while they refuse to receive COVID-19 vaccinations in accordance with the governor’s Proclamation that all healthcare providers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Although the Proclamation was intended to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs, the plaintiffs alleged that Spokane did not provide religious accommodations to any city firefighters. They instead claimed that the Proclamation, as applied to them, violated their Free Exercise rights under the U.S. Constitution. The state joined the action as an intervener to defend the Proclamation, and move for a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The district court granted the motion, finding that Spokane lawfully applied the proclamation, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed it, determined that the firefighters had plausibly alleged that the city applied the Proclamation arbitrarily and capriciously, and showed callous disregard to the firefighters’ religious rights, and so the Ninth Circuit highlighted the fact that the fire departments outside of Spokane had permitted religious accommodations and actually sent non-vaccinated firefighters to provide services in Spokane pursuant to mutual aid agreements. Accepting the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Ninth Circuit held that firefighters’ claims should move forward because it was possible that they could establish that the Proclamation, as it applied to them, was not narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of stopping COVID-19 spread, as it failed to account for less restrictive alternatives, such as testing, masking, or considering natural immunity.

Jerry: Upon reading that decision, it sure seems to me the Ninth Circuit decision provided some good guideposts for employers trying to accommodate religious exemptions in terms of dealing with public health mandates and underscores the importance of ensuring that these policies are generally applicable but flexible, insofar as they don’t discriminate on the basis of religious practices. Liz, were there significant rulings under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2024 that companies should know about in this space?

Elizabeth: Yes, there was a very interesting case that involved the global supply chain that is important for employers to know about. So, in a case called Doe, et al. v. Apple Inc., the plaintiffs, a group of former child miners who were injured in accidents and their representatives filed a class action against the defendants under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, we’ll call TVPRA, which essentially makes it illegal to participate in a venture that uses forced labor. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants participated in a venture by purchasing cobalt through the global supply chain, which included cobalt that had been mined under forced labor conditions. The defendants had purchased this cobalt from large international suppliers, but those suppliers had subsidiaries in the Democratic Republic of the Congo involved in both mechanized, industrial mining, but also informal mining – and informal mining is really a less sophisticated, more crude operation, where the plaintiffs asserted that sort of operation posed severe safety risks and forced labor. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion. So, a positive outcome there. The district court had determined that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently prove a direct connection between their injuries and the defendants’ actions, which was just merely buying that cobalt. The district court stated that purchasing cobalt through a supply chain without more direct involvement or control over the mining operations, did not constitute “participation in a venture” under the TVPRA. The case was appealed, and the DC. Circuit affirmed that ruling. It agreed that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant’s participation in that venture actually violated the TVPRA. The D.C. Circuit found that the plaintiffs failed to show how an injunction against the defendants would remedy their injuries, as they were no longer involved in the mining, and the effectiveness of such an injunction was too speculative. The D.C. Circuit also reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had a sufficient degree of control or shared purpose with the suppliers to be considered participants in a venture, and that the relationship was that of a buyer and seller.

Jerry: Thanks very much for that overview, that’s a really important case. And those led to some substantial settlements in the labor class action space in 2024. How did the settlement numbers this past year compare to 2023?

Niyah: So, we saw a significant increase in the numbers from 2023 to 2024. In 2023, the top 10 labor settlements totaled about $139 million, whereas in 2024, we got up to $237 million.

Jerry: Well, that’s a big jump. The top settlement areas are something we track every year in the Duane Morris Class Action Review, and we’ll want to keep our eyes on these numbers in 2025 in terms of labor-related class action settlements. Well, Liz and Niyah, thank you very much for lending your thought leadership in this area and being with us today on our podcast. Listeners, thank you for tuning in. And if you have any questions or comments on today’s podcast, please send us a direct message on Twitter @DMClassAction.

Niyah: Thanks, everyone. Great to be here.

Elizabeth: Thanks for having me and thank you to the listeners for being here today.

May 20, 2025May 20, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

When Removing Diversity Cases Defendants Cannot “Embiggen” The Amount-In-Controversy Through Attorneys’ Fee Estimates

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Shannon Noelle, and Anna Sheridan

Duane Morris Takeaways: In an order issued on May 13, 2025, Judge Joshua Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that a case removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction had to be remanded back to state court given that the amount-in-controversy (AIC) alleged was based on an attorneys’ fee award that exceeded the plaintiff’s damages award by “at least seven times.”

Case Background

On January 9, 2025, Plaintiff Frank Wise sued his former employer Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of paper-based consumer products, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on behalf of himself and a putative class, accusing his former employer of violating the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) by failing to pay overtime for the time spent walking to and from job assignments in the Defendant’s manufacturing facility. As part of its remedial regime, the PMWA permits a prevailing party to recover “reasonable” attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff Wise estimated that his damages totaled $9,350.30, but on his cover sheet he indicated that the amount in controversy totaled “[m]ore than $50,000.00” for the amalgamated claims of the class. (ECF No. 1-3, p. 2).

On February 26, 2025, Defendant Kimberly-Clark removed the action to federal court, asserting that the amount in controversy was over $75,000 because Plaintiff Wise “may try to recover at least $78,375.00 in attorney’s fees.” (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24, 29). Plaintiff Wise moved to remand by including with that motion a declaration from his attorneys that if the lawsuit proceeded on an individual, rather than a class wide basis, the Plaintiff and his attorneys would waive the right to recover attorneys’ fees that would cause the amount in controversy to cross $75,000.

The Court’s Order

Judge Wolson found that Defendant Kimberly-Clark did not carry its burden to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, which the Defendant primarily based on its attorneys’ fees estimate. Although attorneys’ fees can be factored into the amount in controversy threshold, the attorneys’ fees sought must be reasonable. To pinpoint the legal standard under Pennsylvania law for determining when an award of attorneys’ fees is reasonable, Judge Wolson surveyed case law interpreting statutes similar to the PMWA, such as the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, where Pennsylvania courts determined that the “term reasonable” incorporates the concept of proportionality between the damages award and attorneys’ fees award. Though Pennsylvania law contains no “hard-and-fast rule for the acceptable ratio,” courts consider “the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite properly to conduct the case, the customary charges of the members of the bar for similar services, the amount involved in the controversy and benefits resulting to the clients from the services, and the contingency or certainty of the compensation.” (internal citations and quotations omitted). Applying this framework, Judge Wolson found that a 7:1 ratio for attorneys’ fees as compared to damages was unreasonable and could not be used to reach the jurisdictional threshold.

Judge Wolson further opined that this conclusion also was consistent with protecting the judicial economy of federal courts as litigants and attorneys should not be able to use exorbitant attorneys’ fees estimates to circumvent the amount in controversy requirement to invoke diversity jurisdiction. In the case at hand, the parties agreed for purposes of the motion that Plaintiff Wise could recover $9,350.30 in monetary damages and that the legal issues at hand involved straight-forward unpaid overtime claims. Notably, Judge Wolson also found the Plaintiff’s attorneys’ declaration, waiving the right to collect attorneys’ fees, to be unavailing as it arguably amended the complaint.

Implications For Employers

The Court’s holding in Wise emphasizes the importance of providing concrete evidence regarding damages sought and reasonable attorneys’ fee estimates when seeking to remove based on diversity jurisdiction. Ultimately, the damages and attorneys’ fees alleged in the complaint take precedence, but proportionality must be considered even in the context of fee shifting statutes. If a party’s jurisdictional math does not add up, they may be sent back to where the matter started: state court.

May 16, 2025May 16, 2025 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 101: Key Developments In Civil Rights Class Actions

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley and associate Nathan Norimoto discussing the key developments in civil rights class actions, including a notable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Episode Transcript

Jennifer Riley: Hello, everyone, and thank you for being here again for the next episode of our weekly, podcast the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jennifer Riley, partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is Nathan Norimoto. Thank you, Nathan, for being on the podcast today.

Nathan Norimoto: Thank you, Jen. Great to be here.

Jennifer: Today, we wanted to discuss some trends and important developments in the area of civil rights class action litigation. Nathan, do you want to talk a bit about this area before we get into the recent developments?

Nathan: Sure. Yeah, so for over 70 years, class actions have been amongst the most powerful tools to secure civil rights in America. This began with the class action of Brown, et al. v. Board Of Education, in which the United States Supreme Court declared school segregation unlawful and arguably set the stage for the civil rights movement. In 1966, Congress and the judicial rule-making authorities crafted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 with the express goal of empowering litigants, challenging systematic discrimination – particularly segregation – to force courts to order widespread injunctive relief that would protect members of the class as a whole. And ever since, this provision remains as salient to the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes and constitutional claims as it was at its inception.

So, for a multitude of reasons, class actions are often a tool of first resort by advocacy groups to remedy civil rights violations – which we certainly saw in 2024.

Jennifer: Thanks, Nathan. What were some of those major developments in 2024 in this area of civil rights class action litigation?

Nathan: So, class actions in the civil rights context span numerous issues. Last year, given this breadth of subject area, there are well over 100 decisions in this space. However, the percentage of times courts granted a plaintiff’s or plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was down significantly last year, with courts granting certification about 40% of the time – in contrast to 2023, where courts granted class certification around 62% of the time. And so last year we saw a bit of a downtrend as to when these classes were being certified.

Jennifer: Are there any key rulings that our listeners need to know about in this area?

Nathan: So, among all civil rights cases, the United States Supreme Court issued an important ruling in the City Of Grants Pass, Oregon, et al. v. Johnson. In that case, the Supreme Court addressed whether a city’s public camping laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Grants Pass, Oregon had ordinances banning camping on public property which can lead to fines and imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit had previously ruled that such laws could not be enforced against homelessness if there were not enough shelter beds available. The plaintiffs, two individuals experiencing homelessness, had filed a class action alleging that Grants Pass’ enforcement of these laws was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction against the city’s enforcement of the public camping laws, and then the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court then granted certiorari, and it overruled the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court determined that enforcing general public camping laws does not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court opined that the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause focuses on the nature of the punishments and not the criminalization of certain behaviors. And so, the court found that the punishments of fines and brief jail time terms imposed by grants passed were not cruel or unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The court also rejected arguments that the enforcement of these laws against individuals who are involuntarily homeless should be considered cruel and unusual, and in the end the court concluded that issues like homelessness and how to address homelessness involved complex policy decisions that were best left for elected representatives and not federal courts to address. So, in conclusion, the court overruled the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, finding that the enforcement of public camping laws by Grants Pass did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Jennifer: Wow, what an interesting decision. So, you mentioned that there were over a hundred rulings in this area last year. How are things progressing so far in 2025 – have there been any interesting cases, interesting rulings where class certification was granted?

Nathan: Definitely, yeah. So, one example is Rossow, et al. v. Jeppesen. In that case, the plaintiff filed a punitive class action against the defendant, the Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, challenging a regulation that designated the prenatal use of controlled substances as child abuse, neglect, or abandonment – with the exception, of course, being that any substances that were prescribed by medical professional would not fall under this regulation. The regulation also included a clause that mandated individuals who use controlled substances be listed on the Central Registry for a minimum of ten years, and the plaintiff in this case was placed on the registry in December of 2021 after she tested positive for THC following the birth of her child. The plaintiff filed a class action, alleging violations of due process and equal protection under the United States Constitution on behalf of herself and others in similarly situated positions. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted the motion. The court had found that the class met the numerosity requirement, as there were over 1,000 women on the registry for a similar reason as the plaintiff. The court also determined that the plaintiff’s claim raised common questions of law and fact, including whether the placement on the Central Registry affected a class member’s access to employment and their other personal rights, substantive rights, and whether there was a discriminatory intent, and how reports of child abuse were substantiated based on prenatal drug use. There were some procedural details and statute of limitations differences between the class members. But despite these differences, the court found that commonality was met because the class shared at least one significant common issue, including being placed on the registry. The court determined that the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief met the requirements under Rule 23, and ultimately certified the class.

Jennifer: Well, it certainly seems like we will be continuing to see courts granting these motions in 2025, and the plaintiffs’ bar aggressively pursuing certification on behalf of plaintiffs. We know that successful certification often leads to settlements between the parties rather than a continuation of the litigation and ultimately a trial. So, how successful were plaintiffs in securing settlement dollars in 2024?

Nathan: So, settlement dollars in civil rights class actions in 2024 were significant. The top 10 settlements totaled $313.8 million. However, this was a significant decrease from the prior year, when the top 10 civil rights class action settlements in 2023 topped $643.15 million.

Jennifer: Wow, what a difference! So, the top settlement amounts in each area of law have been massive in recent years. And that’s a major trend that we track in the Duane Morris Class Action Review. We will continue to track those numbers in 2025 and keep our listeners aware of developments. Nathan, is there anything else corporate counsel and employers should be on the lookout for over the upcoming year?

Nathan: Definitely. Given the volume of litigation in the civil rights area, as well as the frequency with which these classes are granted, and also burgeoning issues that percolate, for example, claims regarding COVID-19, claims regarding increased issues with homelessness, and others, it’s anticipated that the plaintiffs’ bar will continue to be creative and inventive in this space for the coming year.

Jennifer: Well, thank you so much for all of your great analysis, Nathan – thank you for being here with me today. Listeners, thank you for tuning in. And if you have any questions or comments on today’s podcast, please send us a DM on Twitter @DMClassAction.

Nathan: Thanks, Jen. Thanks for having me on this morning!

May 12, 2025May 12, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Court Sua Sponte Dismisses CIPA Class Action For Lack Of Standing

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tyler Z. Zmick, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 4, 2025,inRodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc., No. 24-CV-08735, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70074 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025), Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a class action complaint which asserted violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) for lack of standing. Plaintiff admitted she was a “tester” and knew that defendant Autotrader’s website contained tracking devices before accessing it, leading the Court to rule that Plaintiff failed to allege an unlawful use of pen registers and trace devices under the CIPA.

This ruling is welcome news for businesses sued by so-called “tester” plaintiffs, who actively seek out websites to “test” for potential CIPA violations.

Case Background

Plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez filed a class action complaint against Autotrader.com, asserting claims under (i) CIPA § 631 for violating California’s wiretapping and eavesdropping statute and (ii) CIPA § 638.51 for violating California’s statute prohibiting the use of pen registers and trace devices.

Plaintiff claimed that Autotrader’s website immediately installs third-party tracking software that collects various types of information to deliver targeted advertising. She alleged that she ran a search containing “confidential” and “private” information using a search bar on Autotrader’s website, and that such information was then shared with third parties without her consent. Plaintiff also claimed that when she visited the website, tracking software was installed on her browser which “captured and sent identifying information to third parties.” Plaintiff admitted that she was actively seeking out privacy violations when she visited Autotrader’s website.

On March 14, 2025, the District Court granted Autotrader’s request that Plaintiff’s CIPA § 631 claim be dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. See Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc., No. 24-CV-08735, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47308, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2025). The Court’s March 14 order also directed the parties to show cause in writing “whether Plaintiff has standing to bring her § 638.51 claim.” Id.

The Court’s Order

On April 4, 2025, the Court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining pen register claim under CIPA § 638.51 for lack of standing. The Court relied on the same analysis used in dismissing Plaintiff’s § 631 claim – specifically, Plaintiff was “a tester that actively [sought] out privacy violations,” she “had no expectation of privacy’ when she visited [Autotrader’s] website, and therefore, lacked an injury sufficient to establish standing.” Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc.,No. 24-CV-08735, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47308, *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025). In its ruling, the Court determined that neither party disputed that Plaintiff’s § 638.51 claim “requires the same disclosure of sensitive information and reasonable expectation of privacy as her § 631 claim.” Id.

The Court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that her status as a tester did not preclude “standing even though she expected or sought out an injury,”finding her supporting authority distinguishable because the cases she relied on involved “First Amendment and ADA claims for which the plaintiffs were injured regardless of their expectations or intentions.” Id. at *3. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s § 638.51 claim with prejudice.

Implications For Companies

While the ruling in Rodriguez is a positive development for businesses, the scope of the decision was limited in that Plaintiff lacked standing only because her claim required a violation of her “reasonable expectation of privacy.” “Tester” plaintiffs in other class action lawsuits frequently assert claims against website hosts and website service providers and can proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.

While companies cannot prevent “tester” plaintiffs from filing similar lawsuits, companies can protect themselves from liability under the CIPA by employing safeguards on their websites in the form of data-tracking disclosures and obtaining consent from users.

May 12, 2025May 12, 2025 by Class Action Defense

New York Federal Court Serves The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) With Corrective Notice For Coercive Communications With Class Members

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Nathan Berkebile, and Alek Smolij

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 7, 2025, in Pospisil, et al. v. ATP Tour, Inc., et al., 25 Civ. 02207, 2025 WL 1327363 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025), Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for relief under Rule 23(d) regarding Defendants’ communications with putative class members. The lawsuit – brought by professional tennis players and The Professional Tennis Players Association – challenges the Defendants’ alleged anticompetitive practices in running professional tennis tours. Plaintiffs had sought an order preventing all Defendants from communicating with putative class members about the litigation. While the Court stopped short of granting that broad relief, it prohibited Defendant ATP from retaliating or threatening retaliation against potential class members and ordered ATP to issue a corrective notice to putative class members. This ruling serves as a reminder to employers defending class action lawsuits to tread carefully when communicating with potential class members about the litigation. Ensure that any statements you wish to make to employees about the pending lawsuit are vetted by outside counsel to avoid any appearance of coercion.

Case Background

On March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of professional tennis players against Defendants (ATP and other professional tennis organizations) alleging that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive practices in administering their professional tennis tours. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief three days after filing the lawsuit, alleging that the day after they filed their Complaint, ATP engaged in coercive communications with putative class members (professional tennis players) during the Miami Open tournament. Id. at *2.

Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that a member of Defendant ATP’s Board of Directors approached various players with a pen asking them to sign a statement denouncing the litigation filed by Plaintiffs. Id. Plaintiffs argued that this action, coupled with Defendants’ near-total control of the putative class’s ability to earn a living as professional tennis players, was unduly coercive and entitled Plaintiffs to relief under Rule 23(d), including a restriction on Defendants’ ability to engage in any future communications with putative class members. Id.

On April 11, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for relief that included testimony from Plaintiffs, as well as from the ATP representative who allegedly approached putative class members during the Miami Open. Id.

The Court’s Order

The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for relief in part, and prohibited ATP from retaliating or threatening retaliation against any of its members who are participating (or considering participating) in the putative class action. The Court further directed ATP to distribute a corrective notice drafted by the Court to all putative class members who are members of ATP, and to preserve all documents related to its efforts to communicate with its members concerning the litigation. Id. at *12.

Plaintiffs had moved for relief under Rule 23(d), which courts can use to protect putative class members from misleading communications about the pending lawsuit that would pose a threat to the fairness of the litigation process. Id. at *2. The Court noted that its authority to regulate communications under Rule 23(d) extended to communications in a situation where there is a relationship that is inherently coercive. Id. at *3.

After weighing the parties’ submissions and the live testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the Court held that regardless of ATP’s intent in its communications with putative class members at the Miami Open, such communications could have been viewed as potentially coercive, deceptive, or abusive, which warranted limited relief under Rule 23(d). Id. at *4. The Court found that ATP was the near-exclusive organizer of tournaments that allowed male professional tennis players to earn a living, and that ATP administered incentives for its players including bonus pools and retirement programs. Id. at *4-5. The Court found that ATP had a near-total control over its members’ compensation and benefits. Id. at *5.

Additionally, reviewing the factual record as to ATP’s conduct at the Miami Open, the Court found that ATP unilaterally targeted putative class members with information about the pending lawsuit in at least two instances. Id. at *6. The Court noted that a member of ATP’s Board approached players during the Miami Open with a pen in hand asking them to sign a position statement denouncing the lawsuit. Id. The Court held that regardless of ATP’s intent in this conduct, when paired with ATP’s control over its members’ livelihoods, it had a tendency to unduly influence putative class members and discourage them from participating in the class action. Id. at *8. Moreover, the Court held that ATP’s conduct in encouraging putative class members to sign a statement denouncing the lawsuit posed a threat to the fairness of the litigation process, the adequacy of representation, and the administration of justice generally. Id. at *9.

Although the Court faulted ATP for its conduct, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ requested relief was overbroad, in part because it sought to enjoin all Defendants from communicating with class members rather than just ATP. Id. at *11. ATP was the sole Defendant whose conduct was at issue. The Court noted that narrowly tailored relief was appropriate and granted Plaintiffs relief as to ATP by prohibiting ATP from retaliating or threatening retaliation against its members related to the litigation, requiring ATP to distribute a Court-drafted corrective notice to all of its members, and ordering ATP to preserve all communications related to its efforts to communicate with its members. Id. at *12.

Implications For Companies

The Court’s ruling emphasizes the need for caution by employers when communicating with employees about pending class action lawsuits. Employers hold an inherent position of power and often control the financial livelihood of their employees. Accordingly, if an employer wishes to communicate with its employees about a pending class action lawsuit, those communications must be carefully scrutinized to avoid the appearance of coercion.

May 8, 2025May 8, 2025 by Justin Donoho

Data Security and Privacy Liability – Takeaways From The Sedona Conference Working Group 11 Annual Meeting in Redmond, WA

By Justin R. Donoho

Duane Morris Takeaways: Data privacy and data breach class action litigation continue to explode. At the Sedona Conference Working Group 11 on Data Security and Privacy Liability, at Microsoft’s campus in Redmond, Washington, on May 7, 2025, Justin Donoho of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group served as a dialogue leader for two panel discussions, “Individual Liability for Data Security Failures” and “Privacy and Data Security Litigation Update.” The working group meeting, which spanned two days and had over 50 participants, produced excellent dialogues on these topics and others including AI statutory guidance, shifting U.S. federal regulatory priorities in the privacy and data security landscape, privacy and data security state regulator roundtable, emerging issues and trends in the cyber threat landscape, and law firm data security.

The Conference’s robust agenda featured over 30 dialogue leaders from a wide array of backgrounds, including government officials, data security industry experts, a district court judge, in-house attorneys, cyber and data privacy law professors, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and defense attorneys. In a masterful way, the agenda provided valuable insights for participants toward this working group’s mission, which is to identify and comment on trends in data security and privacy law, in an effort to help organizations prepare for and respond to data breaches, and to assist attorneys and judicial officers in resolving questions of legal liability and damages.

Justin had the privilege of speaking about current trends in cases seeking individual liability for data security failures and in data privacy class actions. A few of the highlights from his presentations included discussing the SEC’s case brought against SolarWinds’ CISO Michael Brown, which has CISOs worldwide on the edges of their seats (discussed in Justin’s article here), and two recent cases resulting in helpful precedent for defendants facing cases alleging privacy violations for their uses of website advertising technologies (adtech), including a case that disposed of an adtech class action due to consent by browsewrap (see here), and a case that dismissed an adtech class action due to ambiguities found in a wiretap statute (see here).

Finally, one of the greatest joys of participating in Sedona Conference meetings is the opportunity to draw on the wisdom of fellow presenters and other participants from around the globe. Highlights included:

A lively dialogue among some of my panelists and other participants regarding trends in decisions regarding Article III standing and the costs and benefits defendants should consider when deciding whether to seek dismissal due to plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing.
State regulators giving candid advice regarding what and what not to do following data breaches in terms of notifying their offices, participating in investigations, and attempting to negotiate settlements.
Experts of all stripes dissecting the Colorado Privacy Act, Colorado AI Act, and those statutes’ application to AI hiring tools in an effort to offer guidance to future legislators drafting similar statutes.
Seasoned defense attorneys discussing how federal agencies responsible for rules regarding privacy and data security have responded to the new presidential administration’s “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum, the personnel changes, actions, and reviews taken during the first months of the new administration, and the implications for regulated organizations.
Cyber and cyber insurance experts leading a dialogue about emerging risks, regulatory challenges, liability concerns, and underwriting processes relating to cybersecurity.
Law firm consultants addressing current issues with AI that law firms should consider when crafting their cybersecurity assessments, policies, and procedures.

Thank you to the Sedona Conference Working Group 11 and its incredible team, the fellow dialogue leaders, the engaging participants, and all others who helped make this meeting in Redmond, Washington, an informative and unforgettable experience.

For more information on the Duane Morris Class Action Group, including its Data Privacy Class Action Review e-book, and Data Breach Class Action Review e-book, please click the links here and here.

May 8, 2025May 8, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Class Action Issues In 2025 – Report From The 9th Annual Class Action Conference In New York City

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Shannon Noelle, and Anna Sheridan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 8, 2025, the Beard Group sponsored the Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in New York City. During the conference, over 200 attendees discussed key issues impacting class action litigation in 2025. We were privileged to chair the Conference and present the keynote address on class action litigation trends for the past year and what 2025 has in store for Corporate America. The discussion at the program underscores the cutting-edge issues facing companies in this area of law.

Key Trends For The Past Year

In our keynote address, we discussed the top ten developments in the class action litigation space. The leading trends center on the new era of heightened risks and elevated exposures that pivot on record-breaking settlement numbers, the high conversion numbers for class certification motions into certified classes, and the rise in privacy and data breach class actions.

On the settlement front, 2022 saw $66 billion in total proceeds when measured by the top ten settlements in all areas of law. In 2023, that figure totaled $51 billion, for a combined total of $117 billion over the past 24 months. And in 2024, those numbers came in at $42 billion, which pushed the settlement numbers to $159 billion for the past 36 months.

In terms of class certification motions, the Plaintiffs bar successfully secured certification in 63% of cases over the past year. Those figures ranged from nearly 83% in WARN lawsuits to 37% in RICO cases. That said, the plaintiffs’ bar has proven its track record to convert class action lawsuit filings in to certified classes at a high rate.

In the privacy and data breach space, such claims became ubiquitous in 2024, with a virtual explosion in those types of lawsuits. While certification rates were quite low in data breach situations, the plaintiffs’ bar secured certification in privacy class actions at a higher rate.

We also discussed how class actions over environmental. social, and governance issues went mainstream in the past year. We predicted that ESG class actions will continue to increase, especially as the plaintiffs’ bar refines their theories of recovery and begin to monetize their claims. In particular, securities fraud class actions over DEI commitments are increasing as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc., et al. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense counsel anticipate more litigation in this space.

Data Breach Panel

An interesting panel discussion – consisting primarily of plaintiffs’ lawyers – ensued after the keynote address on wiretapping class claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act and data privacy class action litigation. They reflected on the patchwork quilt of rulings in these areas over the past year and the low certification rates due to problems in surmounting standing issues based on lack of injury-in-fact showings.

The panelists predicted a subtle shift in privacy and data breach lawsuits to effectuate a “work around” to these impediments. Multiple plaintiffs’ counsel predicted more reliance on state law claims and litigation of class-wide claims in state court.

Panel On Class Notice Strategies

The next panel focused on trends for class notice in 2025 and how artificial intelligence is now mainstream in terms of its use to facilitate the notice send to class members. The panelists expressed how these practices are quite innovative and rapidly evolving. Notice through social media and/or texts or email also is considerable cheaper than U.S. Mail, which is driving down settlement administration costs.

The challenge, however, is to prevent fraudulent claims from individuals seeking a share of the settlement pot. As to take rates, social media advertising is driving the rates upward, but the rates in data breach cases remain low at 1% to 5% (as compared to other types of settlements).- Class member demographics also impact the take rate, as older individuals are apt to view social media notice as “junk mail” or a scam. Conversely, staying ahead of fraudsters has created an imperative for settlement administrators (e.g., where settlement shares are claimed by an IP address of a bot).

Panel On Fraud In The Class Action Process

Another panel discussed the rise of fraudsters in the class action space. Some involve “deep fakes” of persons who seek to assert false claims as named plaintiffs or class members. Others involve cyber-criminals who infiltrate the settlement administration process through artificial intelligence software and seek class settlement shares on a false basis.

Judicial responses have run the gamut from shutting down the settlement administration process and rebooting it with enhanced security measures to referrals to law enforcement personnel to combat fraud. Panelists predicted that judges are apt to ratchet up the scrutiny of final settlement approval of class actions, and possibly promote direct mail notice over digital communications.

Implications For Companies

Class action litigation is a fact of life for corporations operating in the United States. Today’s conference underscored that change is inevitable, and class actions litigation is no exception.

May 8, 2025 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 100: Key Class Action Fairness Act Developments

Duane Morris Takeaway: Our 100th episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Zev Grumet-Morris discussing the key developments under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners for being here for our 100th episode of our weekly podcast the class Action Weekly Wire. It’s a privilege today to have Zev Grumet-Morris with me to do our 100th podcast. Welcome, Zev.

Zev Grumet-Morris: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me on the 100th episode.

Jerry: Today, we’re diving into something that has a big impact on litigation in general and class action litigation in particular, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. It’s discussed in much detail in our annual Duane Morris Class Action Review. Zev, can you start explaining to our listeners what the CAFA is and why it’s significant?

Zev: Absolutely. So, the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA, was signed into law by President George W. Bush on February 18, 2005, and it’s a key statute that expanded federal jurisdiction over large class actions and mass actions. And essentially, it just shifted most of these lawsuits from state courts to the federal courts, which has had major implications for both plaintiffs and for defendants.

Jerry: So how does CAFA function in practice for corporations?

Zev: So, functionally, CAFA provides a tool for defendants, especially big businesses, big employers, to remove class actions from state court to federal court, and that’s a big deal, because federal courts are often viewed as more neutral forums for corporate defendants. And so, this ability to forum shop, if you will, has influenced how both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense attorneys plan their litigation strategies.

Jerry: I’ve always thought that CAFA underscores the notion that location is everything, just like buying real estate – location, location, location. And those who have defended class actions know it sometimes can be very different in state court as compared to federal court. How easy is it, after CAFA, for a plaintiff to keep a class action in state court as opposed to resisting removal to federal court?

Zev: Well, post-CAFA, it’s gotten very difficult, or at least more difficult. But before CAFA it was pretty easy, actually, for plaintiffs to keep cases in state court. Federal jurisdiction requires that every plaintiff meet a $75,000 amount in controversy threshold, and for complete diversity to exist between the plaintiffs and the defendants. So, that meant that plaintiffs’ lawyers before CAFA could often craft cases to stay in state court, especially in jurisdictions with elected judges who might be less sympathetic to out-of-state corporate defendants.

Jerry: So how did CAFA change that dynamic?

Zev: Well, it changed it fairly significantly. So, under CAFA, just one class member being from a different state than a defendant is enough to create diversity. In addition, the total amount in controversy only needs to exceed $5 million, and the class must have at least 100 members. So, this lower threshold made it much easier for corporate defendants to move cases into federal court.

Jerry: Well, we all know that California, New York, and states of that ilk are epicenters for class action litigation, and their defendants invoke CAFA more often than in other areas of the country, and therefore the jurisprudence on the interpretation of CAFA is probably more advanced in the Second and Ninth Circuit, and especially in the Ninth Circuit, than in other areas of the country. In terms of the last 12 months, what, in your opinion, would be the key decisions that have interpreted CAFA?

Zev: Yeah, and you’re absolutely right with the comment you make about the Ninth Circuit. But, as you point out, it’s not the only circuit that comes out with key decisions. So just this past January, the D.C. Circuit issued a rare CAFA ruling in National Consumers League v. Starbucks. So, the National Consumers League, which is a nonprofit focused on consumer protection, they filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against Starbucks, alleging that the company had misled customers by claiming to ethically source its coffee and tea, when in reality they were actually sourcing allegedly from farms that were involved in labor abuses and that violated the D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, or the CPPA. And they filed this lawsuit on behalf of both NCL and the general public. Now, Starbucks attempted to remove the case to federal court under the CAFA. NCL opposed that removal, arguing that the case didn’t meet the criteria for federal jurisdiction, and then, as it turns out, the court agreed with them. They held that the CAFA did not apply because NCL’s lawsuit was not a class action under Rule 23 or any similar rule. So, although the complaint referenced damages and public interest, NCL explicitly stated that it was not seeking representative damages on behalf of the public which undermined Starbucks’ claim that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million threshold. And the court also found that diversity jurisdiction failed, because, even though the parties were from different states, the damages NCL sought amounted to just about $34, more or less, few cups of coffee, and that fell short far short of the $75,000 threshold. So, in the end Starbucks’ argument that potential attorneys’ fees could push the amount over the limit was deemed to be far too speculative, and courts have repeatedly held such fees cannot be aggravated in CPPA cases. So, at the end of the day, the court remanded the action back to the state court.

Jerry: That’s a great analysis. I’ve always thought that CAFA is like a mini trial within a trial in terms of figuring out what procedurally ought to be the venue where a class action is litigated. Well, thanks so much for giving us your insights and thought leadership on CAFA litigation, and how it impacts corporate defendants over 2024 and what we can expect in 2025. Thanks so much for joining us on our 100th podcast.

Zev: Happy to be here, Jerry. Thanks.

May 6, 2025May 6, 2025 by Class Action Defense

Webinar Replay: Mid-Year EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik, and Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaway: Thank you to everyone who joined us yesterday for our Mid-Year EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review webinar! Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, Alex Karasik, and Greg Tsonis presented a 30-minute panel discussion analyzing the first six months of lawsuit filings in the Commission’s fiscal year 2025, current strategic enforcement agendas, and key directives from the White House and EEOC leadership shaping government enforcement litigation in 2025.

If you were unable to attend the webinar, a recording is now available on our channel – check it out below. Last week, we published our annual desk reference on EEOC-initiated litigation. Bookmark or download your copy of the EEOC Litigation Review – 2025, which is fully searchable and viewable from any device.