Brett Bohan – Class Action Defense

August 26, 2026August 26, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal District Court Denied FLSA Conditional Certification In Meal And Rest Break Case Due To Insufficient Evidence Of A Companywide Practice

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 21, 2026, in Lightner v. DaVita, Inc., No. 23-CV-03104 (D. Colo. Aug. 21, 2026), Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied a motion seeking conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Plaintiff, a former DaVita nurse, alleged that the healthcare company maintained a practice of failing to pay its nurses and technicians for rest breaks lasting fewer than 20 minutes across 41 states. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had not made the threshold factual showing necessary to demonstrate that putative collective members were victims of a common policy or plan, despite the lenient standard that applies at the conditional-certification stage. The decision highlights the evidentiary burden that FLSA plaintiffs must meet to obtain conditional certification and demonstrates that conclusory allegations and sparse evidence, even at this early stage, will not suffice.

Case Background

Plaintiff Anduin Lightner, an hourly nurse formerly employed by DaVita, a nationwide dialysis and healthcare provider, filed this action in November 2023. Id. at 1-3. She alleged that DaVita routinely required its nurses and technicians to “remain responsible for patient care” during their meal breaks, causing frequent interruptions. Id. at 2. Despite those interruptions, DaVita automatically deducted 30 minutes from each shift lasting at least six hours, depriving employees of compensation for time they actually worked. Id. Lightner further claimed that DaVita required employees to clock out for rest breaks lasting fewer than 20 minutes. Id. Combined, she claimed, this off-the-clock time resulted in unpaid overtime for employees who worked more than 40 hours per week. Id.

Based on these allegations, Lightner moved for conditional certification of a collective covering “all current and former hourly nurses and technicians” who provided “direct patient care” at DaVita facilities across 41 states and who allegedly lost overtime pay because of the company’s failure to compensate them for short rest breaks. Id. at 3. Before the Court ruled on the motion, Lightner withdrew her request to certify a separate meal-break collective, narrowing the case to the rest-break theory alone. Id. at 3, n. 1.

After Lightner filed her motion, DaVita moved to strike all consent forms on the grounds of false and misleading communications to recruit opt-in plaintiffs. Id. at 3-4. The Court agreed and ordered a curative notice; approximately half of the original opt-in plaintiffs filed corrected consent forms. Id. at 4.

The Court’s Opinion

Applying the two-step framework approved by the Tenth Circuit in Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp., the Court assessed whether Lightner had raised substantial allegations that the proposed collective members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. Id. at 4.

The Court found that the complaint contained only conclusory assertions about DaVita’s supposed practice of failing to pay for short rest breaks. Id. at 10. The allegations did not explain how the alleged practice was implemented, how frequently it deprived employees of compensation, or which of DaVita’s many facilities (spanning 41 states) were involved. Id. The Court noted that such bare-bones allegations, without more, do not qualify as “substantial” for conditional-certification purposes. Id.

Turning to the evidentiary record, the Court found the showing equally deficient. Id. at 11-13. Lightner supported her conclusory allegations with citations to only one piece of evidence: the time records for a single employee (who had not filed a corrected consent form and who did not identify in which state she worked), but the Court determined this did “little to establish a companywide practice, across 41 states, of failing to compensate employees for short rest breaks.” Id. at 11-12. Although Lightner attached hundreds of pages of deposition testimony to her motion, she failed to “cite any of this evidence in support of her claim.” Id. at 12.

Nevertheless, the Court reviewed the deposition testimony and acknowledged that testimony from several employees established that their meal breaks were frequently interrupted. Id. at 12. However, that testimony did not demonstrate that interrupted employees “started working again within 20 minutes of starting their break.” Id. The Court concluded that Lightner had not bridged the gap between the “interruptions happening” and an alleged 41-state common practice of not paying for sub-20-minute breaks. Id. at 13-14.

The Court emphasized that while the conditional-certification standard is lenient, “it is not nonexistent, and it cannot be satisfied by unsupported assertions.” Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion. Id. at 15.

Implications For Employers

The Lightner decision offers several important lessons. First, it reaffirms that, even at the initial conditional-certification stage where the standard is intentionally modest, courts will scrutinize whether a plaintiff has offered any concrete evidence of a common policy or plan. Conclusory allegations that a practice existed “companywide” will not carry the day absent at least some factual support tying the alleged practice to the employer’s operations.

Second, the decision illustrates the challenges FLSA plaintiffs face when attempting to certify geographically broad collectives. The Court was unwilling to conclude that, because meal breaks were sometimes interrupted for some employees at some locations, Plaintiff had shown that the company systematically refused to pay for compensable short breaks across dozens of states.

Third, the ruling underscores the importance of employers maintaining clear timekeeping practices and policies. DaVita’s own time records were a focal point of the Court’s analysis, and the absence of widespread evidence of unpaid sub-20-minute breaks in those records undermined Plaintiff’s theory.

Finally, the case serves as a cautionary note about opt-in solicitation practices in FLSA collective actions. The Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s counsel used false and misleading communications to recruit opt-ins—resulting in a curative notice order and the loss of approximately half the original opt-ins—demonstrates the risks of aggressive solicitation tactics and the scrutiny courts will apply to the process.

August 20, 2026August 20, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Landmark Billion Dollar Class Action Settlement In Real Estate Broker Commission Antitrust Litigation

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Mike Rosenblatt, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 19, 2026, in Burnett v. National Association of Realtors, Nos. 24-3444, 24-3450, 24-3451, 24-3527, 24-3585, 24-3619, 24-3621 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s final approval of a nationwide class action settlement resolving antitrust claims alleging that the National Association of Realtors (the “NAR”) and several major real estate brokerage franchisors conspired to inflate buyer-broker commissions. The settlement exceeds $1 billion in total value, eliminates the longstanding rule requiring sellers to offer compensation to buyer brokers through multiple listing services, and survived challenges from seven separate groups of objectors and intervenors.

Case Background

Starting in 1996, NAR’s Cooperative Compensation Rule required home sellers listed on an NAR-affiliated Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) to offer the buyer’s broker a commission. Id. at 9. In practice, this rule meant “sellers paid a combined commission of roughly 5-6% of the sale price, split roughly evenly between the seller’s broker and the buyer’s broker” even though the buyer’s broker represented the buyer. Id. Because of the supremacy of NAR-affiliated MLSs in the national residential market, the rule applied nationwide. Id.

In April 2019, Rhonda Burnett filed a class action in the Western District of Missouri on behalf of a group of Missouri home sellers against NAR and four brokerage franchisors—HomeServices of America, Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams. Id. She alleged that the defendants had conspired to fix prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Id. After trial in October 2023, a jury awarded $1.785 billion in damages subject to trebling. Id. at 10. While post-trial motions were pending, the parties in this case and in several related nationwide actions reached a global settlement. Id. NAR agreed to pay the settlement fund $418 million, HomeServices agreed to pay $250 million, and additional opt-in brokerages brought the total fund above $1 billion. Id. at 11. NAR also agreed to eliminate the Cooperative Compensation Rule and implement changes restructuring buyer-broker compensation. Id.

The district court entered an 88-page final approval order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving the settlement under Rule 23. Id. at 13. Seven groups of objectors and intervenors appealed the settlement. Id. at 13 n.3.

The Eighth’s Opinion

The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s approval of the settlement and rejected the objectors’ and intervenors’ challenges.

Standing. The Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for injunctive relief, finding an ongoing injury because “home prices remain inflated absent” the settlement’s practice changes. Id. at 17.

Rule 23(e)(2) Fairness Factors. The Eighth Circuit clarified that Rule 23(e)(2), as amended in 2018, provides the authoritative factors for evaluating class-action settlements. Id. at 21. However, the district court did not err by considering additional factors, even if it was not required to do so. Id.

Overbroad Release Challenge. Objectors/Intervenors contended the settlement impermissibly extended to New York claims involving the Real Estate Board of New York’s (“REBNY”) independently operated rules. Id. at 22. The Eighth Circuit held that both the NAR and REBNY claims hinged on the same operative factual predicate—that industry rules were used to keep brokerage fees artificially high at the expense of home buyers and sellers. Id. at 23. Because the released claims shared a “common nucleus of operative fact” with the litigated claims, the breadth of the release was permissible. Id.

Adequacy of Representation. The Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that class counsel had provided inadequate representation. Id. at 26. It held that the district court did not err in finding class counsel was qualified, had pursued the case aggressively through trial, and negotiated at arm’s length with the defendants. Id.

Attorneys’ Fees. The Eighth Circuit upheld a $333 million attorneys’ fees award—one-third of the fund—as consistent with Eighth Circuit precedent under the percentage-of-the-benefit approach. Id. at 30-31.

Distribution Method.The Eighth Circuit held that the parties did not need to establish a detailed distribution plan prior to final settlement approval. Id. at 32. A notice that “outlines the settled and released claims and states the total settlement amounts” is sufficient. Id.

Fairness Hearing Procedure. Objectors/Intervenors also challenged the district court’s requirement that all objectors appear in person at the fairness hearing. Id. The Eighth Circuit found due process was satisfied where counsel for non-appearing objectors was able to argue at the hearing, and the district court addressed the objections on the merits. Id.

Adoption of Proposed Order. The Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that the district court’s adoption of the plaintiffs’ proposed settlement order warranted heightened scrutiny, reaffirming that “even when the trial judge adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous.” Id. at 33 (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985)).

Timeliness of Intervention. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a group of objectors’ intervention motion because (1) “the litigation had proceeded for five years” before they filed the motion, (2) the intervenors knew about the case, (3) they offered no explanation for the delay, and (4) reopening the settlement would prejudice the parties. Id. at 34-35.

Implications For Companies

The Eighth Circuit’s decision carries broad significance. First, the sheer magnitude of the settlement, more than $1 billion in total, highlights the extraordinary financial exposure that antitrust price-fixing claims can generate. Under the Sherman Act, depending on the claims and damages alleged, successful plaintiffs may be entitled to treble damages, meaning that even a single adverse jury verdict can spiral into catastrophic liability. Businesses that participate in industry-wide arrangements touching price, commissions, or fee structures should ensure that any agreements or coordinated practices involving competitors are reviewed by experienced antitrust counsel before implementation.

Second, it reinforces that federal courts retain wide latitude to approve nationwide settlements releasing claims beyond the originally certified class’s geographic scope, provided the claims share a common factual predicate. Companies facing multi-state litigation should recognize that a settlement in one jurisdiction may resolve related claims elsewhere.

Third, the opinion provides the Eighth Circuit’s first definitive guidance on the 2018 Rule 23(e)(2) amendments, making clear that Rule 23 supplies the mandatory factors while circuit-specific tests may supplement but not supplant them.

Finally, the decision reinforces the high deference appellate courts afford district courts evaluating complex settlements following contested litigation and trial.

August 20, 2026August 20, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Waive Goodbye To Arbitration: Seventh Circuit Holds That Pre-Certification Conduct Can Establish Waiver Of Arbitration Rights In A Putative Class Action

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Ryan T. Garippo, and Brett A. Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 18, 2026, in Moore, et al. v. Club Exploria, LLC, No. 25-2721, 2026 WL 2409841 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2026), Chief Judge Michael Brennan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The Seventh Circuit held that a defendant’s conduct, even prior to class certification, may support an inference that it waived its right to compel arbitration of putative class member’s claims. This ruling is significant for companies asserting an arbitration defense in a pending class action as preserving the right to compel arbitration can result in significant procedural complications.

Case Background

Club Exploria, LLC (“Exploria”) owns and manages vacation properties. To promote one of its properties, Exploria contracted with third-party vendors to run a telemarketing campaign. These vendors purchased the phone numbers of individuals who had agreed to receive sales calls which had been generated through various websites. Exploria used that list to call tens of thousands of potential customers using a prerecorded voice, including Plaintiff George Moore (“Plaintiff” or “Moore”).

In April 2019, Moore sued Exploria under § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA and claimed that he received these prerecorded calls without his consent. Over the next four years, Exploria filed pleadings with affirmative defenses, engaged in class-wide discovery, filed motions on the merits, and opposed class certification. After the class was certified, however, Exploria filed more motions, including a request to reopen discovery and to amend its answer to add additional affirmative defenses. In its third amended answer, Exploria stated that it sought to add an affirmative defense based on arbitration agreements with the class members. The district court denied this request and explained that the defense “was clearly waived by not bringing it up before now.” Id.

Thereafter, class notice was issued and Moore moved for summary judgment. But two months after briefing finished on Moore’s summary judgment motion, Exploria moved to compel arbitration and stated that 1,026 of the 66,682 class members had entered into mandatory individual arbitration agreements with the company. Exploria also explained that up to 70% of the class may be subject to similar agreements. The district court “ruled that Exploria had waived [the] arbitration defense” and “also granted summary judgment to Moore.” Id. at *2. Exploria appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit’s Ruling

On appeal, Chief Judge Brennan, writing for the Seventh Circuit, addressed three issues: (1) the appellate standard of review for orders denying motions to compel arbitration; (2) whether a court may consider a defendant’s pre-certification conduct in evaluating waiver; and (3) whether the district court clearly erred in finding waiver on the facts of this case.

First, the Seventh Circuit took the opportunity to clarify the standard of review for such cases as the case law was “in shambles” and highly conflicting. Id. at *3 (quoting Al-Nahhas v. 777 Partners LLC, 129 F. 4th 418, 430 (7th Cir. 2025) (Easterbrook, J., concurring)). To resolve the conflict, the Seventh Circuit turned to the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387, 395-96 (2018) which explains that “[m]ixed questions [of law and fact] are not all alike.” Under that standard, where a district court is required to “expound on the law” the standard of review is de novo, but if the “decision does not announce a new legal rule, waiver decisions should be reviewed for clear error.” Moore, 2026 WL 2409841, at *4 (quotations omitted). The Seventh Circuit thus “overrule[d] the caselaw that does not follow [this] guidance,” particularly as to the case law that indicated that there is a per se rule that de novo review is the standard, but “only as to the applicable standard of review and to the extent [the cases] are inconsistent with this opinion.” Id.

Second, the Seventh Circuit considered whether a defendant’s pre-certification conduct could support an inference of waiver. “Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’” Id. at *5 (quoting Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411, 417 (2022)). The Seventh Circuit held that – although the issue was not free from dispute – that “a defendant’s pleadings, conduct during class-related discovery, and arguments in opposition to class certification are relevant to the waiver decision.” Id. at *6. “Arbitration agreements with putative class members should be produced during class-related discovery and in opposition to class certification. The number and variety of such agreements impact the district court’s Rule 23 analysis.” Id. “[I]f a diligent defendant intends to compel arbitration after class certification, it cannot do so promptly if those agreements have not been produced. Asking to reopen discovery shows a lack of diligence.” Id. Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded that such conduct is relevant to the waiver inquiry.

Third, on the specific facts of this case and because the “legal principle [was] settled,” the Seventh Circuit reviewed the “waiver decision . . . for clear error.” Id. at *7. Here, the parties engaged in two years of class-related discovery and developed no evidence of arbitrability. Similarly, when class certification was briefed, the opposition made “no mention of arbitration.” Id. Thus, it was immaterial that “as much as 70% of the putative class [may] be subject to such agreements.” Id. “If Exploria intended to move to compel arbitration, it should have raised the issue of arbitrability in opposing class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23” and could not do so without first developing the defense in discovery. Id.

The Seventh Circuit, therefore, affirmed the district court’s denial of Exploria’s motion to compel arbitration.

Implications For Companies

The Moore decision is quite significant for companies and their arbitration programs.

It is very common for companies to have an arbitration agreement with some members of a putative class and not others. When sued in a class action, there is often a temptation to hold such agreements back until after class certification in order to forgo the burden of collecting them until absolutely necessary. But the Moore decision instructs that this path forward is rife with peril and may result in a company losing the right to compel arbitration even when 70% of the class agreed to the provision.

From a legal perspective, the Seventh Circuit’s clarification of the standard of review, and the overruling of cases that call for a per se rule of de novo review, will also make it harder for defendants to overturn unfavorable waiver findings on appeal. When a waiver decision is ultimately reviewed for clear error, the burden to overturn an unfavorable decision will be exceedingly high at the appellate court level. Thus, the stakes at the district court level just got even higher for companies with federal cases pending in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, because the district court decision is likely to be the one that sticks in the long run.

As a result, corporate counsel should work with their outside counsel to audit their organizations’ arbitration agreements to ensure they are identified and ready to be used at the earliest stages of any pending class action.

August 6, 2026August 6, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict For Employer In Racial Harassment Case, Finding Insufficient Evidence Of Failure To Prevent Discrimination

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 4, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sun Chemical Corporation, No. 25-1318 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of an employer following a jury verdict rejecting a hostile work environment claim brought by the EEOC and an intervenor employee. The Eighth Circuit held that even assuming the jury instructions failed to adequately cover the EEOC’s theory that the employer could have prevented the harassment, the evidence in the record did not support such a theory. The opinion illustrates the importance of employers taking prompt corrective action in response to workplace harassment and reinforces the principle that an employer cannot be held liable for failing to prevent harassment when it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of ongoing discriminatory conduct.

Case Background

Bryan Banks and Ricardo Nevarez were both technicians at Sun Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer of inks, colorants, and coatings. Id. at 1. Their relationship deteriorated over time, culminating in a confrontation in which Nevarez punched a locker while standing near Banks and screamed that Banks was a “f***ing [N-word]” three times. Id. Banks reported the incident to a manager. Id. Sun Chemical suspended Nevarez for five days without pay and warned him that future incidents would lead to further discipline, up to and including termination. Id. at 1-2. Banks received a written warning for his profanity during the exchange. Id. at 2.

Banks subsequently filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC. Id. After conciliation efforts failed, the EEOC sued Sun Chemical in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. Banks intervened. Id. Together, the EEOC and Banks argued that Sun Chemical’s response to Nevarez using the N-word was insufficient.

The Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claim proceeded to a jury trial. Id. at 3. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sun Chemical, concluding that the company did not discriminate against Banks. Id.

The Eighth Circuit’s Opinion

On appeal, the EEOC argued the jury received flawed jury instructions that did not cover its theory that Sun Chemical could have prevented the harassment. Id. The instructions indicated that plaintiff needed to prove that the company “knew or should have known of the harassing conduct” and “failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.” Id. The EEOC contended that the instructions addressed only whether Sun Chemical adequately responded to the harassment rather than whether the company had failed to prevent the harassment. Id. at 3-4.

The Eighth Circuit declined to decide whether the instructions adequately reflected the EEOC’s failure-to-prevent-harassment theory, holding instead that the evidence in the record did not support such a theory. Id. at 4. It explained that, even under the EEOC’s theory, Sun Chemical had to (1) have actual or constructive knowledge of “ongoing” harassment by Nevarez, and (2) decline to take “remedial action reasonably calculated to stop it.” Id.

As to the first element, the Eighth Circuit found that, at most, Sun Chemical may have known that Nevarez had used the N-word on one previous occasion toward a different Black employee. Id. Nothing about that incident would have placed the company on notice that Nevarez was a “known serial harasser.” Id. The Eighth Circuit distinguished cases where employers knew of continued harassment from a single isolated incident, noting that “a single harassing act might not be actionable standing alone.” Id. citing Engel v. Rapid City Sch. Dist., 506 F.3d 1118, 1124 (8th Cir. 2007).

Regarding the second element, shortly after the first incident, Sun Chemical sent a written disciplinary action to Nevarez directing him to “take a step back and begin to think about what you are about to say and the consequences that may follow.” Id. Although the Eighth Circuit acknowledged the response “could have been stronger,” it concluded that the discipline “reflected Nevarez’s more than three decades of service without a history of harassment,” and the law does not require an employer “to fire a harasser in the first instance to demonstrate an adequate remedial response.” Id. at 4-5.

The Eighth Circuit also rejected the EEOC’s unsupported argument that Nevarez used the N-word in occasional workplace conversations, finding that no one reported that conduct to Sun Chemical and there was not “enough information to raise a probability of harassment in the mind of a reasonable employer.” Id. at 5. It concluded that the occasional uses of the slur were not “so severe and pervasive that management reasonably should have known of them.” Id.

Implications For Employers

The Eighth Circuit’s decision in Sun Chemical provides several important takeaways for employers. First, the decision reinforces that an employer’s duty to prevent workplace harassment is triggered only when it has actual or constructive knowledge of discriminatory conduct. A single isolated incident, without more, does not place an employer on notice that an employee is a serial harasser requiring heightened preventive measures.

The opinion also confirms that courts will consider the totality of the circumstances, including the employee’s length of service and disciplinary history, when evaluating whether an employer responded appropriately. Employers should, however, document all known incidents and any progressive discipline, making clear that further incidents will result in escalating consequences, and in turn, underscoring the importance of reporting mechanisms. The Eighth Circuit found that the EEOC could not establish constructive knowledge of unreported incidents of alleged harassment. Employers who maintain clear reporting channels and anti-harassment policies may be better positioned to defend against claims that they should have known about discriminatory conduct that was never brought to management’s attention.

June 5, 2026June 5, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal Court Denies EEOC Application To Enforce Administrative Subpoenas Against Psychological Testing Firm In Discrimination Investigation

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 3, 2026, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Psychological Dimensions, No. 1:26-MC-00072 (D. Colo. June 3, 2026), Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the EEOC’s application for an order to show cause as to why two administrative subpoenas served on Psychological Dimensions should not be enforced. The EEOC sought information regarding a pre-offer psychological assessment administered to job applicants for the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office. The Court concluded that the subpoenas sought information that had nothing to do with the discrimination allegedly suffered by the charging party and declined to hold that the EEOC’s investigative authority is unlimited.

Courts typically give wide berth to the EEOC with its administrative, pre-lawsuit subpoenas, but this ruling illustrates that courts may impose meaningful limits on the EEOC’s subpoena power where the information sought bears no connection to the harm alleged by the individual claimant.

Case Background

On June 10, 2020, Jessica Roe applied for a position as a Public Information Liaison at the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”). (ECF 20 at 1) The application process included both pre-offer and post-offer phases. During the pre-offer phase, Ms. Roe completed a 430-plus question psychological examination, sometimes referred to as a “Job Suitability Assessment,” administered by Psychological Dimensions, a contractor to the ACSO. (Id.) Ms. Roe also took a polygraph test, provided writing samples, and participated in interviews. (Id. at 2) Following these steps, Ms. Roe was informed she was one of three finalists, had additional interviews, and was offered the job contingent upon further medical, psychological, and background investigation. (Id.)

In the post-offer phase, Ms. Roe completed another extensive psychological examination and met with the Chief Psychologist of Psychological Dimensions. (Id.)During that meeting, she disclosed a mental health diagnosis, a mental health provider, and additional information regarding prescriptions she had been given. (Id.) She was also asked to release information for the diagnosing doctors. (Id.) However, when Psychological Dimensions attempted to verify the information, the diagnosing provider could not confirm Ms. Roe had been a patient or provide records to Psychological Dimensions due to its document retention policy, so the psychologist was unable to “pass” her. (Id.) On September 14, 2020, the ACSO rescinded the job offer because Ms. Roe did not pass the post-offer psychological exam. (Id.)

On June 4, 2021, Ms. Roe filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, alleging retaliation and discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII and disability in violation of the ADA. (Id. at 3) Nearly three years later, on March 20, 2024, Ms. Roe filed an Amended Charge to expand the allegations to include discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, retaliation, age, disability, genetic information, and pregnancy, invoking additional federal statutes. (Id.)

On August 28, 2025, as part of its investigation, the EEOC served two administrative subpoenas on Psychological Dimensions — one pursuant to the ADEA and one pursuant to the ADA and Title VII. (Id.) The subpoenas required Psychological Dimensions to produce the Job Suitability Assessments and related communications for all individuals who answered affirmatively that they had experienced workplace sexual harassment, filed formal complaints against an employer, been involved in lawsuits, or appeared in legal proceedings. (Id. at 4)

On September 10, 2025, Psychological Dimensions objected to the subpoenas, arguing that the information was not relevant, that compliance would be unduly burdensome (requiring at least 1,500 hours), that the request infringed on the privacy and HIPAA rights of non-parties, and that the request sought proprietary trade secrets. (Id.) The parties were unable to resolve the dispute, and the EEOC filed an application for an order to show cause. (Id. at 5)

The Court’s Order

The Court denied the EEOC’s application on procedural and substantive grounds.

As an initial matter, the EEOC argued that Psychological Dimensions’ objections were both procedurally defective and untimely. (Id.) The EEOC noted that the September 10, 2025, objection letter identified only the ADEA subpoena, and there is no administrative procedure for objecting to ADEA subpoenas. (Id.) The EEOC also pointed out that objections to subpoenas issued pursuant to the ADA or Title VII are due within five days after service, making Psychological Dimensions’ objections untimely. (Id. at 5-6) The Court acknowledged the untimeliness — the objections were filed thirteen days after service — but declined to treat this delay as dispositive. (Id.)

Turning to the substance of the subpoenas, the Court identified what it characterized as a “bigger problem.” (Id. at 6) The Court recognized that the four questions in the Job Suitability Assessment potentially punished applicants for exercising their rights under discrimination laws, and the subpoenas sought information to determine whether persons who answered “yes” to those questions were consistently denied employment at the ACSO. (Id. at 7) However, that information had “no application to the charging party, Ms. Roe.” (Id.) The Court’s rationale was that it was undisputed that Ms. Roe answered “no” to all four questions, was found suitable for the position, made the short list of three finalists, and was offered the job. (Id.) The reasons her offer was rescinded were found in the post-offer evaluation, not in the pre-offer Job Suitability Assessment.

Ultimately, the Court determined it was “unwilling to hold that the EEOC’s authority to investigate discrimination in the workplace is unlimited, or that an individual’s claim that she lost a job opportunity due to discrimination opens the door to compelling a third party to produce information that has nothing to do with the discrimination allegedly suffered by the claimant.” (Id. at 7-8) For this reason, the Court denied the EEOC’s application for an order to show cause on its two administrative subpoenas. (Id. at 8)

Implications For Employers

The Court’s decision in Psychological Dimensions is a significant ruling for employers and third-party contractors who face EEOC subpoenas during the investigation of discrimination charges. The decision signals that courts may impose meaningful limits on the scope of the EEOC’s investigative subpoena power where the information sought lacks a nexus to the actual harm alleged by the charging party.

This case demonstrates that, although the EEOC’s subpoena power is broad, it is not boundless. Where the EEOC seeks to expand an investigation beyond the facts that are relevant to the charging party’s claims, courts may be willing to deny enforcement of those subpoenas. Employers who receive subpoenas that they believe extend beyond the scope of the underlying charge should carefully consider whether the information sought bears a meaningful connection to the claimant’s allegations and should be prepared to articulate that disconnect to a court.

April 17, 2026April 17, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal Court Compel Arbitration In Parking Lot Dispute, Finding Posted Signs Create Binding Contracts

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 14, 2026, in Brant, et al v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-CV-01771 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2026), Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs, a group of parking lot customers who brought a putative class action, argued that they never agreed to arbitrate and that any arbitration clause was unconscionable. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that by parking in the lots, Plaintiffs assented to the terms posted on conspicuous signs — including a binding arbitration clause — and that the clause was not unconscionable. This ruling reinforces that businesses can form enforceable contracts, including arbitration agreements, through conspicuously posted signage, and that consumers who fail to read posted terms are nonetheless bound by them.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Brian Brant, Brooke Fitz, Robert Caldwell, and Mayenssi Montiel each parked at various parking garages managed by Defendant Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. (“PRRS”) in Denver and Little Rock between 2023 and 2025. (ECF 36 at 1-2) At each of these lots, PRRS posted large red signs at the entrances, exits, and pay stations. (Id. at 2-14) The signs stated, in relevant part, “This is a Contract,” instructed customers to “Read these terms PRIOR to parking,” and included a capitalized, boldfaced “ARBITRATION” heading explaining that “[b]y parking on this Facility, you hereby agree that the sole remedy for all unresolved disputes is binding arbitration, and specifically waive the right to jury trial, class action and/or class arbitration”. (Id.)

Each of the Plaintiffs claimed they did not see the signs. (Id. at 7, 12, and 14.) Some faulted the location, lighting, and number of signs, while others argued there were no gates or speed bumps to slow drivers down enough to read the posted terms. (Id.)

The Court’s Order

The Court granted PRRS’s motion to compel arbitration, addressing both of Plaintiffs’ arguments against enforcement. (Id. at 16-21.)

First, as to whether a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, the Court noted that two other courts in Colorado had recently addressed the same issue with the same defendant. (Id. at 16.) Adopting the analysis of Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico in Butler v. Asura Technologies USA, Inc., the Court held that a contract was formed when Plaintiffs manifested assent to the implied terms of the parking agreement by choosing to park in the lots. (Id. at 17.) The Court emphasized that the fundamental exchange — temporary use of a parking spot in exchange for a promise to pay — was sufficient to establish contract formation, and that the operator of a parking lot may modify or add to the basic terms by posting signs. (Id.) The Court analogized the posted signage to online “clickwrap” contracts, noting that users of such contracts are regularly bound by terms they never actually read. (Id. at 19.) Accordingly, whether Plaintiffs chose to read the signs was irrelevant because they agreed to the posted terms when they decided to park their cars on PRRS’s lots. (Id. at 18.)

The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clause was insufficiently specific because it lacked details regarding the scope, rules, or effect of any arbitration ruling. (Id. at 19.) Citing the Supreme Court of Colorado’s long-standing precedent in Guthrie v. Barda, 533 P.2d 487 (Colo. 1975), the Court held that a clause stating disputes “shall be submitted to binding arbitration” is sufficient and enforceable, even without additional procedural details. (Id.)

Second, the Court addressed Plaintiffs’ unconscionability defense. Applying the seven-factor test under Colorado law, the Court acknowledged that the first factor — a standardized agreement between parties with unequal bargaining power — may point toward unconscionability but noted that consumer contracts of adhesion are ubiquitous in modern commerce. (Id. at 20.) The remaining factors, however, weighed against a finding of unconscionability: Plaintiffs had the opportunity to review the terms before parking, the arbitration provision was written in large font against a contrasting red background and arbitration is a commercially reasonable method of dispute resolution. (Id.) The Court concluded bluntly that “if Plaintiffs did not wish to agree to the terms, they could have parked somewhere else.” (Id. at 21.)

The Court ordered the case stayed and administratively closed pending the conclusion of arbitration. (Id. at 22.)

Implications For Employers And Businesses

The Court’s decision in Brant v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. affirms that conspicuously posted signage can create binding arbitration agreements with consumers, even in the absence of a signed written contract, a clickthrough mechanism, or any affirmative acknowledgment. For businesses that rely on physical signage to communicate contractual terms — including parking operators, event venues, and service providers — this decision provides a roadmap for drafting and displaying enforceable arbitration clauses. Specifically, businesses should ensure that their signs are prominently displayed, use clear language and contrasting formatting, and explicitly state that use of the premises constitutes acceptance of the posted terms, including arbitration. The decision also reinforces that a consumer’s failure to read posted terms does not relieve them of their contractual obligations, further underscoring the importance of adequate notice over actual knowledge.

December 1, 2025December 1, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Florida Federal Court Denies Certification Of Nationwide Classes Of Burger King Consumers in Suit Alleging Deceptive Practices

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brett Bohan, and Andrew Quay

Duane Morris Takeaways: On November 25, 2025, in Coleman, et al. v. Burger King Corp., Case No. 22-CV-20925, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231422 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2025), Judge Roy K. Altman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a motion for class certification of three nationwide classes of consumers against one of the Burger King after the lawsuit narrowly survived two motions to dismiss. The Court held that due to the predominance of individual questions between the proposed classes, and plaintiffs’ lack of class-wide evidence to support certification, the plaintiffs failed to establish the prerequisites for class certification from the sale of “Whoppers” and “Big Kings” across the country. The opinion illustrates the hurdles plaintiffs face when attempting to certify multi-state, let alone nationwide, classes, and the fundamental, yet effective arguments corporate counsel can raise to defeat them.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, a group of Burger King consumers alleging that Burger King materially overstates the size of its burgers in advertisements, sought certification of three nationwide classes. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs sought certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which allows a district court to certify a class only if “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Id. at *6-7 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)). Plaintiffs insisted that they each purchased a burger because of the advertising and would not have if the size of the burgers had been portrayed accurately. Id. at *3. Notably, the plaintiffs did not offer any substantive analysis on variations between state laws despite their request for certification of nationwide classes.

Burger King responded that plaintiffs’ motion could not satisfy predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) and commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a). Id. at *8. Burger King argued that plaintiffs’ lack of class-wide evidence, coupled with Burger King’s affirmative defenses that raise additional individualized questions, was fatal to their motion for class certification. Id. at *33. Also weighing against predominance, Burger King argued, the proposed class members “were exposed to a wide variety of advertisements,” and “[n]o single photograph of a burger . . . can represent the appearances of the burgers every other class member received.” Id. at *23, 28.

The Court’s Opinion

In a 35-page opinion, Judge Roy K. Altman denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for failing to carry their Rule 23 burden. Explaining that plaintiffs are not entitled to “a mere pleading standard” on a motion for class certification, and that they must “affirmatively demonstrate” their compliance with each element of Rule 23, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) and, at minimum, commonality under Rule 23(a). Id. at *5 (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011)).

As for predominance, the Court explained that Plaintiffs needed to be able to prove “the relative smallness of the burgers [they bought compared to the burgers in the advertisements] with a few pieces of common evidence that apply with equal force to everyone.” Id. at *30. Plaintiffs could not do that, the Court held, because each putative class member saw a particular advertisement and received a specific burger. Id. Plus, by seeking certification of nationwide or multi-state classes, plaintiffs bear the heavy burden to demonstrate that “variations in state law” do not threaten to “swamp any common issues and defeat predominance.” Id. at *10 (quoting Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1261 (11th Cir. 2004)). Plaintiffs’ motion for certification did not provide “any analysis of potential state-law conflicts,” thus “utterly fail[ing]” to meet their burden of showing that common issues of law predominate. Id. at *12.

The Court further agreed that Burger King’s affirmative defenses raised additional individualized inquiries. If the Court were to grant certification, a “potentially significant percentage” of the putative class members may be precluded from pursuing their claims by virtue of an arbitration clause and class action waiver that loyalty rewards program users had agreed to, and with respect to at least one class, numerous plaintiffs and putative class members did not properly notify Burger King of the alleged breaches within a reasonable time after they discovered the alleged breaches.

For similar reasons, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ proffered method of calculating class-wide damages by subtracting the price of the burger from the value of the item as determined by the jury. Id. at *45. Burger King menu items vary by location, and the prices likely differed throughout the class period, so the Court would need to confirm when and where each individual plaintiff purchased a burger in order to compute damages. Id. at *46.

Turning to superiority, the Court held that plaintiffs’ proposed classes “would create an administrative nightmare.” Id. at *51. Plaintiffs contended that “there are no significant or unusual difficulties in managing this case” because Burger King’s liability “can be proven by its uniform advertisements and photographs of the actual Menu Items served to customers, which are common to the entire class.” Id. at *50. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ conclusory argument because the proposed class involves millions of consumers stretching to 2018, “very few of whom are likely to have retained proof of (or even remember) their fast-food purchases.” Id. at *52.

Finally, though not necessary for denying class certification, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to show that common questions they raised, such as whether Burger King’s advertisements are materially misleading, can be raised through class-wide evidence. Id. at *54. While plaintiffs offered questions common to the class, they failed to show that a class-wide proceeding would “generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. at *55 (quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350).

In sum, after narrowly surviving two motions to dismiss, plaintiffs were unable to surmount their burden at the class certification stage, and the Court denied their motion for class certification.

Implications For Companies

The Court’s holding in Coleman demonstrates the burden that plaintiffs must overcome when seeking to certify a class. Coleman shows that plaintiffs cannot rest on the allegations in their complaints to satisfy the elements of class certification and must instead put forth evidence from which courts may determine commonality and predominance.

In cases involving allegations of consumer fraud, it may not be sufficient for plaintiffs to establish that they were all deceived by the same allegedly fraudulent behavior. Instead, to certify a nationwide class, plaintiffs may also need to overcome differences between locations; difficulties in supplying reliable, supporting proof; and variations between state laws.

Additionally, Coleman represents a reminder of the continued utility of an arbitration agreement for defeating class certification, even where the agreement may not extend to all members of the class.

October 29, 2025October 29, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Illinois Federal Court Allows Plaintiffs To Proceed In Data Breach Class Action Anonymously

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brett Bohan, and Andrew Quay

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 22, 2025, in Doe, et al. v. Veradigm Inc., No. 25-CV-10147, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2025), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under a pseudonym in a class action alleging violations of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and negligence for improper disclosure of plaintiffs’ protected health information (“PHI”). The Court held that the potential harm to the plaintiffs in revealing their identities exceeded the likely harm from concealment because revealing their identities would exacerbate the very harm plaintiffs sought to remedy.

The decision illustrates the delicate balancing that courts apply when deciding whether to allow plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, particularly when faced with allegations of improper disclosure of highly sensitive personal information including test results, doctor’s notes, and medical treatment information. When plaintiffs’ reasons for proceeding anonymously implicate the same reasons they brought the lawsuit, like in Veradigm, the scales are demonstrably tipped in favor of proceeding under a pseudonym.

Case Background

In August 2025, plaintiffs, proceeding under the pseudonyms “Jane Doe,” “Janet Doe,” and “John Doe,” filed a class action lawsuit against Veradigm alleging improper disclosure of their PHI to Google via Google’s online marketing systems. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs contended that the disclosure would make them particularly vulnerable if their true names were revealed, as the publication of their names together with improperly released PHI would make them a “prime target” for identity theft, fraud and financial loss, stigma, and similar threats. Id. at *2.

Plaintiffs’ initial motion to proceed under a pseudonym was denied without prejudice for failing to address recent Seventh Circuit precedent, Doe v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 100 F.4th 910 (7th Cir. 2024), and Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). Id at *1. In Loyola, the expelled plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously where he was accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with another student. 100 F.4th at 912. In Blue Cross, the plaintiff requested anonymity out of fear that the litigation might result in the disclosure of his psychiatric records. 112 F.3d at 872. The Seventh Circuit indicated that it was inappropriate to allow the plaintiffs to proceed under fictitious names. See id.; Loyola, 100 F.4th at 914.

In their renewed motion in the case at hand, plaintiffs argued that Loyola and Blue Cross could be distinguished because, rather than concealing embarrassing information flowing from their own conduct, plaintiffs seek to prevent additional intrusions into their own private affairs. Veradigm, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942at *2. Plaintiffs agreed to reveal their true identities to Veradigm pursuant to a protective order to allow Veradigm to investigate their claims. Id. at *4-5.

The Court’s Opinion

The Court agreed that the sensitive information in Loyola and Blue Cross was “tangential” to the respective Title IX and ERISA claims, whereas in the case at bar “the injury litigated against is the same interest Plaintiffs seek to protect through pseudonyms: disclosure of Plaintiffs’ PHI.” Id. at *4. Furthermore, there could be no prejudice to Veradigm where the plaintiffs agreed to reveal their true identities under a protective order to allow Veradigm to investigate their claims. Id. at *4-5. Therefore, although the use of fictitious names is generally disfavored in federal court, the harm to plaintiffs in revealing their identities exceeded the likely harm from concealment, and the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under a pseudonym.

An analogous decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., No. 22-CV-03580, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45310 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2025), guided the opinion. There, as in Veradigm, the court considered whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under pseudonyms where data privacy was at issue. Id. at *12. It held that they should, reasoning that requiring the plaintiffs to proceed publicly would “arguably cause a further and greater privacy intrusion” and disclosure may dissuade plaintiffs from bringing privacy cases. Id. The court in Veradigm adopted this reasoning when granting plaintiffs’ motion for permission to proceed under a pseudonym. Veradigm, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 at *4-5.

Implications for Companies

Veradigm illustrates that, where the privacy of an individual is at issue in a lawsuit, courts may be more inclined to permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously to avoid intruding further on their privacy.

Individuals who know that they may be able to avoid disclosing their identities during litigation may feel emboldened to pursue a data privacy lawsuit that they may not have otherwise.

Therefore, companies should be aware of the risk of additional litigation as the result of plaintiffs being permitted to litigate under pseudonyms.

September 9, 2025September 9, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment For Employer In EEOC Case Alleging Long COVID Complications

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 3, 2025, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A&A Appliance, Inc. d/b/a Appliance Factory Outlet, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-02456 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2025), Judge Daniel D. Domenico of the District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant A&A Appliance, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment as to the EEOC’s claims. The Court held that the EEOC failed to make a prima facie case of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it had not shown Defendant was aware of a disability or request for accommodation from the charging party. This ruling illustrates the steps an employee must take to adequately demonstrate a disability and request an accommodation and the situations where an employer may be justified in terminating an employee who fails to return from taking leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.

Case Background

Defendant A&A Appliance, Inc. (“Defendant”) employed Karima Javanzad (“Claimant”) from February 2019 to June 2020. (ECF 172 at 1) Shortly before her termination, in April, the Claimant requested a retroactive 12-week leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), citing various ailments for her and her son, including COVID-19. Id. at 1-2. Defendant granted the Claimant’s FMLA request from March 12 to June 7. Id. at 2. During her leave, the Claimant contacted Defendant on several occasions to inquire regarding the length of her leave and whether she could extend it. Id. Defendant consistently communicated with the Claimant and informed her that she could extend her leave “if the triggering condition for FMLA was extended by [her] medical provider.” Id. The Claimant did not return to work on June 8, she did not respond to Defendant’s requests to discuss her position, and she did not provide nor receive any confirmation that she ever contracted COVID-19 nor had any disability requiring an accommodation until after the end of her leave. Id. at 6-7. The last doctor’s note the Claimant received in May stated that she did not have any work restrictions. Id. at 6. On June 9, Defendant informed the Claimant that her FMLA had been exhausted and requested to further discuss her position, but Claimant never responded. Id. at 7. As such, Defendant terminated her employment on June 10. Id. at 7.

In response to her termination, the Claimant filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Id. at 2. When conciliation efforts between the parties failed, the EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Claimant against Defendant on the same grounds. Id. Following discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. Id.

The Court’s Order

The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on both the ADA discrimination and the retaliation counts. Id. at 4. On each count, the Court reasoned that the EEOC must show that the Claimant was either disabled or that she was engaged in a protected activity for which she was discriminated or retaliated against. See id. at 4-10. The Court concluded that the EEOC could prove neither element.

First, the Court noted that the Claimant provided three possible disabling illnesses, COVID-19, vocal cord paralysis, and gastritis. Id. at 7. However, she never received a formal diagnosis for any of them until after she was terminated. Id. Moreover, while the Claimant asserted that she was unable to return to work, her May doctor’s note contradicted her statements by indicating that she “did not have any [work] restrictions” and that she could return to work without issue. Id. at 6-7. The Court concluded that these “inconsistent representations regarding [Claimant’s] ability to return to work” coupled with the lack of clarity regarding her illness meant that “Defendant cannot be found to have been on notice of a disability that required accommodation under the ADA.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added).

Second, in the alternative, the Court held that, even if the EEOC had presented evidence that the Claimant suffered from COVID-19, the EEOC’s claims still failed. Id. The Court reasoned that, to recover for a claim for failure to accommodate or for retaliation for requesting an accommodation, an employee must “make an adequate request, making clear that she wants assistance for her disability.” Id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the Court, the Claimant’s requests for additional information regarding her remaining leave did not amount to an accommodation request. Id. In fact,“Ms. Javanzad never made an explicit request for an accommodation from Defendant — even for an additional leave of absence — until after her FMLA leave expired.” Id. And when she did request additional leave, the Claimant did not provide any details about the leave she was requesting. Id. The Court concluded that these facts provided an independent basis for entering summary judgment against the EEOC. Id. at 9.

Implications For Employers

The Court’s decision in A&A Appliance, Inc. serves as a reminder to both employees and employers. Although employers must engage in the interactive process for both ADA and FMLA purposes to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities, the onus rests with the employee to demonstrate a disability and to request an accommodation, effectively providing notice to the employer of the claimed disability. If the employee fails to satisfy either of these prerequisites, an employer is not on notice of any disability and may be justified in terminating the employee’s employment.

August 26, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit For Lack Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Christian Palacios, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 20, 2025, in Phelps v. Ill. Bone & Joint Inst., LLC, No. 24-CV-08555, 2025 WL 2410341 (N.D Ill. Aug. 20, 2025), Judge Martha Pacold of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendant Illinois Bone & Joint Institute, LLC’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court held Plaintiff failed to adequately plead Defendant’s citizenship, given its status as a limited liability company; therefore, the Court could not determine whether complete diversity existed between the parties. This ruling illustrates the differences between the general diversity statute under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and the more lenient “minimal diversity” requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act, as well as the consequences of failing to sufficiently plead a limited liability company’s citizenship.

Case Background

On August 30, 2024, Defendant Illinois Bone & Joint Institute, LLC (“Defendant”) sent a data breach notification letter to its patients, including Plaintiff Alexandra Phelps (“Plaintiff”). Id. at *1. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a lawsuit shortly after receiving the letter alleging negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and violation of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act. Id.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. In the motion, Defendant raised two arguments, including: (i) that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing, and (ii) that Plaintiff could not establish diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Id. Although Plaintiff had invoked jurisdiction under the CAFA in her Complaint, she did not respond to Defendant’s CAFA arguments. Id. at 2. Instead, Plaintiff argued that she could “invoke jurisdiction under the general diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Id.

The Court’s Order

The Court determined that the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support diversity jurisdiction.

First, the Court reasoned that Plaintiff’s decision not to respond to Defendant’s CAFA arguments amounted to a concession that Plaintiff could not meet the standards for subject-matter jurisdiction under the statute. Id. However, although Plaintiff had not invoked general diversity jurisdiction in her Complaint, the Court permitted her to raise these arguments because “a complaint’s imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting jurisdiction does not itself defeat jurisdiction.” Id.

Second, the Court observed that, to satisfy general diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff must be able to show that Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than Defendant and “the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Id. Under the CAFA, an LLC, like Defendant, is “a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized.” Id. Under the general diversity statute, on the other hand, an LLC is a citizen “of every state of which any member is a citizen.” Id. The Court concluded that the Complaint did not include any allegations of Defendant’s “member’s identity or citizenship.” Id. As such, the Court could not determine whether “any member is a citizen of the same state as Phelps.” Id. Because the Complaint did not allege facts sufficient for the Court to conclude that “complete diversity between the parties” existed, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. Id.

In sum, the Court concluded that, to establish diversity jurisdiction, a Complaint must adequately allege the citizenship of all parties. Id. Plaintiff’s failure to plead the citizenship of all Defendant’s members was, therefore, fatal to her claims. Id. at 3

Implications For Employers

The Court’s ruling in Phelps serves as a reminder of the distinctions between the the CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction requirement and general diversity jurisdiction. While Plaintiff’s Complaint may have included sufficient facts to establish Defendant’s citizenship under the CAFA, the Complaint could not support the more demanding “complete” diversity jurisdiction requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

This case highlights an important procedural defense available to employers, particularly if the named corporate entity in the litigation is a limited liability company (rather than a traditional corporation, who’s citizenship is tied to its state of incorporation and principal place of business). Employers should take note of a plaintiff’s burden to sufficiently establish federal subject matter jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation, and the accompanying procedural defenses they might avail themselves of when a plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead the jurisdictional prerequisite.