Jennifer A. Riley – Class Action Defense

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

California Court Of Appeal Affirms Dismissal Of Standalone PAGA Action Because A Prior Global Settlement Precluded Overlapping Claims

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: On November 19, 2025, in Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of Cal., Inc., Case No. B339729, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750 (Cal. App. Nov. 19, 2025), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s decision granting judgment on the pleadings that barred a standalone PAGA plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing and due to a prior global settlement with overlapping claims.

In an important decision for all employers in California, the Court of Appeal recognized a prior PAGA settlement fully encompassed and released the standalone plaintiff’s claims as to all defendant entities. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court order finding that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue and her claims were barred by claim preclusion.

Case Background

Lauren Brown worked for Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc. and Dave & Buster’s Inc. (collectively “Buster’s”) in its Westchester restaurant location from November 2016 to April 2018. Id. at *1-2.

In June 2019, Brown filed a standalone representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) against Buster’s and alleged Buster’s “failed to provide meal periods, rest periods, vacation pay, and wage statements . . . and routinely required employees to work off-the-clock.” Id. at *2.

Buster’s filed a demurrer to abate/stay, or in the alternative, a motion for discretionary stay, and argued that Brown’s action “was between the same parties on the same cause of action in at least two previously-filed actions” in Espinoza v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC710345, and Lopez v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., et al.,San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2018-00054080-CU-OE-CTL. See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *2. In October 2019, the trial court found Brown’s case was “‘substantially identical’ to the Espinoza action” and sustained Buster’s demurrer and stayed the case. Id.

Buster’s, in February 2020, filed a statement with the trial court concerning additional information on earlier-filed PAGA actions. Buster’s statement included “when each case was filed, when the other plaintiffs submitted their requisite notices to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (Agency), and which claims overlapped with Brown’s.” See id. at *3. Buster’s disclosed Rocha v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19CV348961, and Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2019-00019561-CU-OE-CTL (“Andrade”). See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *3.

On April 1, 2022, the Andrade parties entered into a long-form settlement agreement with all three Buster’s entities, including those that Brown sued. Included in the released claims was “failure to pay accrued vacation pay at the end of employment, including but not limited to claims under the California Labor Code.” The released claims specifically cited § 227.3 of the California Labor Code regarding vacation pay. Id. at *4-5.

The plaintiff in Andrade moved for settlement approval, showing she notified the Agency of her motion and settlement agreement. The Agency accepted the settlement and did not oppose it. On November 4, 2022, the San Diego Superior Court granted approval of the Andrade settlement. Id.

In April 2023, the parties in Brown’s action notified the court that the Andrade action had settled. Brown alleged there “might not be complete overlap with Andrade as to her unpaid vacation claim, but she was still checking on this issue.” Id. at *4.

Thereafter, in June 2023, Buster’s moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued the Andrade settlement released all of Brown’s claims and that claim preclusion barred Brown’s lawsuit. Id. Buster’s supported its motion with various documents from the Andrade action, including the pre-filing notice to the Agency on May 13, 2019, the Andrade complaint filed on November 14, 2019 (which omitted a vacation pay violation), the amended notice letter to the Agency on February 3, 2022, and the corresponding amended complaint filed in Andrade on March 10, 2022. The amended notice to the Agency added a vacation pay claim, under § 227.3, and added the named defendants in Brown’s case. Id. at *4.

Brown opposed Buster’s motion and asserted she had standing to bring all claims in her PAGA letter because Buster’s violated her rights under the Labor Code. Citing LaCour v. Marshalls of Cal., LLC, 94 Cal. App. 5th 1172 (2023), Brown maintained because the Andrade plaintiff failed to exhaust her claims before the Agency, “she was therefore not deputized to pursue and settle the Labor Code violations in [Andrade’s] amended complaint.” See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *5. Brown also noted the plaintiff in Andrade waited 35 days between sending her amended pre-filing notice and filing her complaint in court, and therefore, the Andrade settlement did not apply to Brown’s §227.3 vacation pay claims against the Buster’s entities Brown sued. Id.

The trial court granted Buster’s motion without written comment, dismissed Brown’s complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of Buster’s. Thereafter, Brown appealed. Id. at *5-6.

The California Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appealaffirmed the trial court’s decision, finding Brown lacked standing, claim preclusion barred Brown’s PAGA claims, and the Andrade plaintiff’s failure to wait 65 days to file her amended complaint was a “harmless defect” where the Agency had an opportunity to object to the Andrade global settlement and did not do so.

At the outset, the Court of Appealopined Brown identified no error from the trial court decision and determined Brown “effectively concede[d]” the Andrade settlement resulted in a final judgment on the merits and did not bar her non-vacation pay claims. Id. at *6. The Court of Appealsimilarly rejected Brown’s argument that she had standing to pursue Labor Code violations after November 4, 2022, the date after court approval of the Andrade settlement, because her employment with Buster’s ended in 2018. Id. at *6-7.

The Court of Appealconsidered the sole issue as — “did Andrade’s failure to adhere strictly to the 65-day waiting period for her amended claims defeat Buster’s claim preclusion argument?” Id. at *7. In determining this question, the Court of Appealexplained § 2699.3 of the Labor Code provides “if the Agency does not respond within 65 calendar days of an aggrieved employee providing it with written notice, ‘the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action.’” The crux of the Court of Appeal’sdecision centered on Andrade’s amended complaint which was filed “fewer than 65 days after her amended notice to the Agency.” Id.

The Court of Appealreasoned claim preclusion “bars a new lawsuit if the first case had (1) the same cause of action; (2) between the same parties, or parties in privity; and (3) a final judgment on the merits” and noted the doctrine “promotes judicial economy by requiring all claims based on the same cause of action that were or could have been raised to be decided in a single suit.” Id.

Brown argued LaCour, 94 Cal.App.5th 1172 (2023), controls and suggested the Court of Appealfind the Andrade settlement “does not bar her vacation pay or reach the Buster’s defendants in [Brown’s] case because [the] Andrade [plaintiff] filed her second amended complaint only 35 days after submitting her amended presuit notice to the agency.” See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *7-9. The Court of Appeal interpreted Brown’s reliance on LaCour to suggest the plaintiff in Andrade “was never authorized to pursue the additional vacation pay claim and new defendants in her amended complaint” which would necessarily encompass Brown. Id. at *9.

Buster’s contended LaCour is “‘completely inapposite’ and factually distinguishable” given “Andrade’s initial notice letter, initial complaint, amended notice letter, and amended complaint ‘expressly include all of Brown’s alleged Labor Code violations such that they encompass Brown’s entire PAGA claim.’” Buster’s additionally contended “Andrade’s failure to abide by the 65-day waiting period is a technicality” and “not dispositive as to the issue of administrative exhaustion under PAGA.” Id.

The Court of Appealdetermined on the “administrative exhaustion issue, LaCour does not apply” and California’s Supreme Court has described “PAGA’s statutory pre-filing notice requirement as a ‘condition of suit.’” Similarly, the Court of Appealreasoned the purpose of PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirement is to afford “the Agency ‘the opportunity to decide whether to allocate scare resources to an investigation…’” Id. at *11. It explained “[n]othing in the statute’s language or any published case law suggests the 65-day waiting period also applies to amended notices and complaints.” Id. Accordingly, the Court of Appealfound “Andrade’s failure to wait 65 days was a harmless defect” and the “Agency accepted Andrade’s global settlement with Buster’s after it had an opportunity to object.” Id. at *12.

In sum, the Court of Appeal held “Andrade’s settlement fully encompassed and released Brown’s claims as to all Buster’s entities, thus satisfying all elements of claim preclusion” and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Implications For Employers

Employers facing PAGA litigation can rely on Brown for support that prior settlements have a preclusive effect where, as here, the prior settlement and second lawsuit have overlapping claims.

Brown also supports the proposition that PAGA’s 65-day notice waiting period requirement for filing suit may not apply to amended PAGA notices. In another win for employers, the Court of Appeal found the plaintiff in Brown could not recover for periods after she left the company in 2018 – thereby limiting the scope of PAGA penalties further.

Given the myriad issues employers defend against in PAGA litigation, this decision signals an important strategic consideration in defending overlapping PAGA actions. Employers when faced with multiple PAGA actions must consider the sequencing of PAGA settlements and whether an already settled PAGA action can create a preclusive effect barring a separate PAGA action.

November 19, 2025November 19, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Class Action Review Cited In Three U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Ryan T. Garippo, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 15, 2025, in Eli Lilly & Co., et. al. v. Richards, et al., No. 25-476 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2025), Eli Lilly & Co. filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which created a four-way circuit split as to the proper interpretation of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This petition drew briefing from several amici curiae, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CHRO Association.

Similarly, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision widened that circuit split to include five different methodical approaches in Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Andrew Harrington, et al., No. 25-559 (U.S. Nov. 5, 2025), Cracker Barrel also filed a Petition For A Writ of Certiorari.

Significant for readers of this blog, both petitioners and amici also cited the Duane Morris Class Action Review as the authoritative source on FLSA certification statistics and the widening circuit split regarding when it is appropriate to send notice to would-be plaintiffs, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.

In its review of our practice group’s resource, Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) said, “The Duane Morris Class Action Review is ‘the Bible’ on class action litigation and an essential desk reference for business executives, corporate counsel, and human resources professionals.” EPLiC continued, “The review is a must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular.

With the submission of our analysis to the U.S. Supreme Court, we are humbled and proud to be cited as the authoritative source in the class action space.

The Briefing In Richards And Harrington

Both Cracker Barrel and Eli Lilly correctly argued in their petitions that “the circuits are split five ways in how to interpret” Section 216(b) and the case law in this area “is in total disarray.” Both petitions ask the U.S. Supreme Court to help organize this “disarray.” As such, a brief guide through these disjointed methodological approaches is included below.

First, there is the familiar and lenient two-step standard in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), which was expressly adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502, 515 (2d Cir. 2020), and “acquiesced to . . . without express adoption” by the First, Third, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. Kwoka v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC, 141 F.4th 10, 22 (1st. Cir. 2025); Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 534 (3d Cir. 2012); Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1105 (10th Cir. 2001); Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001)

Under the Lusardi approach, at step one, a plaintiff moves for conditional certification, relying solely on his or her allegations, and not competing evidence submitted by the employer. If the employee’s motion is granted, would-be plaintiffs receive notice of the lawsuit and then have the ability to opt-in as party plaintiffs to the case and participate in discovery. At the close of discovery, the employer can then move to decertify the conditionally certified collective action, and prove the employees are not similarly situated with the benefit of discovery and evidence.

Second, in Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1114 (9th Cir. 2018),the Ninth Circuit adopted a variation of the Lusardi two-step approach but also required the plaintiff to show he or she is similarly situated to his or her fellow employees in “some material aspect of their litigation” and not just similar in some sort of irrelevant way, but the plaintiff may rely on mere allegations to make that showing.

Third, the Fifth Circuit in Swales v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC, 985 F.3d 430, 443 (5th Cir. 2021), rejected Lusardi’s two-step approach outright, and required its district courts to “rigorously enforce” the FLSA’s similarity requirement at the outset of the litigation in a one-step approach. “[T]he district court needs to consider all of the available evidence” at the time the motion is filed and decide whether the plaintiff has “met [his or her] burden of establishing similarity.” Id. at 442-43.

Fourth, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), adopted a comparable standard to Swales requiring the employee to show a “strong likelihood” that others are similarly situated to him or her before the district court can send notice, but leaving open the possibility of the employer filing a motion for decertification down the line. Clark, 68 F.4th at 1011.

Fifth, the Seventh Circuit in Richards, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co, et al., 149 F.4th 901 (7th Cir. 2025), rejected the Lusardi framework but declined to go as far as Clark or Swales. Instead, the Seventh Circuit approach requires “a plaintiff must first make a threshold showing that there is a material factual dispute as to whether the proposed collective is similarly situated” to secure notice and an employer “must be permitted to submit rebuttal evidence” for the court to consider. Richards, 149 F.4th at 913. But, there is not a bright line rule as to whether the court should decide the similarly situated question in a one or two step approach as the analysis is not an “all-or-nothing determination.” Id. at 913-914.

Sixth, as correctly noted by counsel for Cracker Barrel, the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the D.C., Fourth, and Eighth Circuits have not yet opined on the proper interpretive method, leaving their district courts free to choose among the available options.

Duane Morris Class Action Review Citations

It should go without saying that these issues are complicated, and employers are looking to experienced practitioners to help them navigate this procedural morass. For that reason, both petitioners and the amici curiae turned to the Duane Morris Class Action Review, and its authors, as the authoritative source in support of their petitions.

The first citation is found in Eli Lilly’s petition for writ of certiorari, which cites Avalon Zoppo, Circuit Split Widens on Judicial Approach to Sending FLSA Collective Action Notices, Nat. L. J. (Aug. 11, 2025), regarding the proper interpretation of Richards, following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in that case. In that article, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Chair of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group, stated “[t]he [Seventh Circuit’s] holding is going to reverberate and have a huge impact on wage and hour litigation throughout the United States.”

The second citation can be found in Cracker Barrel’s petition, following the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Harrington, which cites directly to the Duane Morris Class Action Review for varying conditional certification rates under this patchwork quilt of legal standards. Indeed, in the 2024 and 2025 editions of the Duane Morris Class Action Review, our analysis showed that: (1) the federal circuit courts that follow or acquiesce to Lusardi grant conditional certification at rates of 84%; (2) the Ninth Circuit grants conditional certification at rates of approximately 71% under the lenient-plus approach; and (3) the remaining Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, with varied stricter standards, granted certification at rates approximating 67%. The petition further noted our finding that only approximately 10% of conditionally certified FLSA collective actions reach the decertification stage.

The third citation is found in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CHRO Association’s amicus brief which relies on the Duane Morris Class Action Review for the proposition that “motions for conditional certification . . . are granted in a large majority of [FLSA] cases.” Looking at the statistics, the amici highlight “[i]n 2024, district courts granted 80% of motions seeking court-ordered notice” with “Plaintiffs enjoy[ing] similar success in past years”

These U.S. Supreme Court practitioners and defense counsel are not alone as others refer to the Duane Morris Class Action Review as “the Bible” on class action litigation. It is also relied on by some of the world’s largest plaintiffs’ firms and federal judges, see, e.g., Laverenz v. Pioneer Metal Finishing, LLC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 602, 614 (E.D. Wis. 2024). The Duane Morris Class Action Review is the “one stop shop” and authoritative source on collective action certification rates, collective action trends and analysis, and the implications, pressures, and contours that parties face when engaged in FLSA collective action litigation.

Implications For Employers

Although the petitioners are still briefing their petitions, it is clear that the myriad approaches adopted by the federal circuit courts are ripe for some clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court, which would hopefully provide a roadmap for district courts to assess collective actions uniformly.

Further, the framework for when and how to send notice under Section 216(b) are not the only issues presented by these petitions. Eli Lilly expressly invited the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) and plaintiff-appellee in Harrington would also have the high court decide whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (2017) applies to collective actions, which we blogged about here.

Because these questions, and many others, remain in flux and unanswered, employers should monitor this blog for updates as it is a trusted source for companies, defense counsel, plaintiffs’ firms, federal judges, and U.S. Supreme Court practitioners alike. We will be following these petitions as they unfold.

November 7, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Ohio Federal Court Applies Sixth Circuit’s Heightened Standard To Deny Certification Of Overtime Claims For Alleged Unpaid Pre-Shift Work

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Arble v. East Ohio Gas Company, et al., No. 5:24-CV-747 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2025), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio denied the plaintiffs’ motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs based on application of the Sixth Circuit’s “strong likelihood” standard for FLSA certification. As a result of the court’s ruling, the lawsuit will proceed based on the claims of only three plaintiffs. The decision is essential reading for defendants in the Sixth Circuit seeking to defeat a motion for certification of FLSA claims.

Case Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 26, 2024, on behalf of a putative class and collective action of call center employees against an energy company that provides services throughout Ohio and the United States.

Plaintiff contended that the defendant had an unlawful practice of failing to pay wages to call center employees for time spent logging on and booting up their computer systems. She alleged that as a result of “off the clock” work prior to the start time of the shift, she and other call center workers worked in excess of 40 per workweek without receiving overtime pay. Plaintiff asserted claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

Two other call center employees filed consent forms to become opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs for purposes of their collective action per the FLSA. Defendants responded in opposition on April 22, 2025. The Court denied the motion as moot after granting Plaintiff’s separate motion to amend the complaint to add a party.

On July 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for court-facilitated notice to a putative nationwide collective action of call center workers. Defendants responded in opposition on August 1, 2025. Plaintiffs did not file a reply in further support of the motion.

As Ohio law no longer permits plaintiffs to pursue class action (opt-out) claims for unpaid overtime under Ohio state law, the Plaintiffs’ motion addressed only the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs. See Ohio Rev. Code 4111.10(C).

The Court’s Ruling

The Court explained the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims under the pivotal decision of the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023). In Clark, the Sixth Circuit abandoned the familiar two-step framework for conditional certification under the FLSA. In its place, the Sixth Circuit announced a new standard for facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA. Under the new standard, plaintiffs must demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that they are similarly situated to others with a showing “greater than the one necessary to create a genuine issue of material fact, but less than the one necessary to show a preponderance.” See Clark, 68 F.4th at 1010.

Upon application of the Clark standard, the Court concluded Plaintiffs fell far short of meeting their evidentiary burden to receive court-facilitated notice of their claims to others. The Court highlighted three primary deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ motion.

First, the Court found the Plaintiffs’ sworn declarations insufficient to show similarity to any other call center workers. The declarations failed to identify any other call center workers by name, failed to state any dates when Plaintiffs allegedly saw others performing pre-shift work, failed to explain how Plaintiffs knew that others experienced violations of the FLSA, and failed to connect Plaintiffs’ observations to any broader set of call center workers employed by Defendants inside or outside Ohio.

Next, the Court roundly rejected Plaintiffs’ reading of an employee handbook policy applicable to call center workers. Plaintiffs contended that a policy stating that workers must be on time and available to start work at the beginning of their shift supported their claims of widespread “off the clock” work in violation of the FLSA. The Court reasoned that a mere requirement for employees to be on time for work did not run afoul of the FLSA. Therefore, nothing on the face of the policy warranted court-supervised notice, nor did Plaintiffs explain how the policy proves a violation as to all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Finally, the Court found no basis in the record to send notice to the membership of a nationwide collective action. Plaintiffs, who each worked in Ohio, presented no evidence of how Defendants staffed or managed any call center outside of Ohio.

The Court reasoned that absent evidence linking Plaintiffs’ allegations to other call center workers, facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs “would amount to claim solicitation that the Court declines to undertake.” Id. at 6.

Having concluded that no basis existed to expand the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs under the Clark standard, the Court ordered that the case would proceed based on the claims of three Plaintiffs alone.

Implications For Defendants

In FLSA collective action litigation, the disposition of a motion for notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs is a central inflection point. The Court’s ruling in Arble illustrates the opportunity afforded to defendants in the wake of Clark to shrink the scope of an FLSA lawsuit by dissecting the purported evidence of similarity between the named plaintiff and other employees. Where plaintiffs rely on vague and conclusory allegations of widespread unlawful pay practices, defendants have an opportunity to defeat the plaintiffs’ efforts to expand the universe of party plaintiffs in the case, and thereby gain significant leverage in the lawsuit. Corporate counsel defending similar FLSA claims of unpaid overtime on behalf of a putative collective action ought to take note of the Court’s reasoning in Arble when preparing their defense strategy.

As the Northern District of Ohio’s ruling in Arble reflects, the Sixth Circuit’s “strong likelihood” standard under Clark poses a formidable hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome to obtain court-sanctioned notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

October 23, 2025October 23, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Webinar Replay: Year-End Review Of EEOC Enforcement Litigation & Strategy

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: Thank you to all the loyal blog readers and followers who joined us for our Year-End EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review webinar! In this 30-minute program, Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik and Gregory Tsonis analyzed the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the EEOC lawsuits filed throughout fiscal year 2025, and discussed how heading into FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative.

If you were unable to attend the webinar, it is now available on our podcast channel. Click to watch below and stay tuned for important EEOC trends and developments throughout the year.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up The Transportation Worker Exemption Again

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 20, 2025, in Flower Foods, et al. v. Brock, No. 23-0936 (U.S.), the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to decide whether last-mile delivery drivers are considered transportation workers, and thus exempt under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), when the driver’s route is purely intrastate.

The decision will have sweeping implications for logistics companies and any business employing delivery drivers across the country.

Case Background

Flower Foods, Inc. (“Flower Foods”) operates one of the largest bakery companies in the United States. Under Flower Foods’ business model, the company contracts with independent distributors who purchase the rights to distribute products in specific territories. The delivery-driver distributors “stock shelves, maintain special displays, and develop and preserve positive customer relations.” Brock v. Flower Foods, Inc., 121 F. 4th 753, 757 (10th Cir. 2024). Flower Foods “produces and markets the baked goods.” Id.

Flower Foods delivers the products it produces, via these delivery-driver distributors, who are classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). These products are usually produced in out-of-state bakeries, but then shipped to a local warehouse, where the local delivery driver picks them up to sell retail stores. This process is more commonly known as “last-mile delivery.” Plaintiff Angelo Brock (“Plaintiff or “Brock”), through his company Brock, Inc., was one of those delivery drivers. When Brock started delivering Flower Foods’ products, he entered into a Distributor Agreement that contained a “Mandatory and Binding Arbitration” clause, which required nearly all disputes to be arbitrated under the FAA. Id. at 758.

Nonetheless, Brock filed a putative collective and class action under the FLSA, and Colorado labor law, claiming that Flower Foods misclassified him and other delivery-driver distributors as independent contractors. As a result, Flower Foods moved to compel arbitration, but the U.S. District Court for Colorado denied its request. The District Court concluded that Brock fell within the ‘‘transportation workers exemption” of the FAA, which exempts transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce from arbitration. The District Court reasoned that, although Brock did not cross state lines, he ‘‘actively engaged in the transportation of [the company’s] products across state lines into Colorado” and thus was covered by the exemption. Id. at 759. Flower Foods appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Lower Court Opinion

On appeal, and on November 12, 2024, Judge Gregory Phillips, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, affirmed the District Court’s decision that delivery-driver distributors were exempt from the FAA. Judge Phillips explained that, although Brock’s routes were entirely within Colorado, a transportation worker need not cross state lines to qualify for the exemption. Instead, individuals qualify as transportation workers if they play a direct and necessary role in the interstate flow of goods.

Relying on decisions from the First and Ninth Circuits, which also concluded “that last-mile delivery drivers . . . who make the last intrastate leg of an interstate delivery route . . . are directly engaged in interstate commerce,” the Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion. Id. at 762. The Tenth Circuit explained that “[b]oth [other] circuits focused on whether the goods moved in a continuous interstate journey or as part of multiple independent transactions.” Id. Thus, the flow of interstate commerce did not stop when “Brock start[ed] the interstate delivery process by placing orders for products produced in out-of-state bakeries” and Flower Foods “deliver[ed] the products to the agreed-upon warehouse,” only for Brock to “load the products at the warehouse onto his vehicle and deliver[] the goods to retail stores on his intrastate delivery route” within one day. Therefore, Brock and other delivery-driver distributors were exempt under the FAA even though they did not cross state lines. But, Flower Foods decided to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take a third look at the issue.

On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, without a making any other comment, in its two-word order holding “certiorari granted.”

In some ways, this decision is not surprising as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided two recent cases under the transportation worker exemption: Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024). The decision in Brock, however, is poised to be the most impactful of all three of the cases.

Implications For Employers

The importance of the ultimate decision in Brock cannot be overstated. In both Saxon and Bissonnette, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded the reach of the transportation worker exemption making it increasingly difficult for employers to move to compel arbitration in class and collective actions brought by workers in logistics-adjacent positions

If workers who engage in wholly intrastate commerce fall within the exemption’s reach, it may require a fundamental re-structuring of many employers’ arbitration programs. In contrast, if these workers and independent contractors are not exempt from the requirements of the FAA, then employers may finally be able to rest easy knowing that their arbitration defenses remain viable for at least a portion of their workforce.

Although only time will tell what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide, corporate counsel should follow this blog for updates because the authors will be watching this case closely. Oral arguments are likely to occur during Fall 2025 and a decision will follow in Spring 2026.

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

Third Circuit Green Lights “Hybrid” Class Action Settlements That Release Unasserted FLSA Claims

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Lundeen v. 10 West Ferry Street Operations, LLC, No. 24-3375 (3d Cir. Oct. 16, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the opt-in requirement set forth in Section 216(b) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) does not prohibit plaintiffs in a class action from settling prospective class members’ unasserted FLSA claims as part of an opt-out class settlement. In a precedential and unanimous opinion, the Third Circuit concluded that Section 216(b) establishes only the mechanism by which FLSA claims may be litigated, not the conditions under which they may be released. The decision is welcome news for both plaintiffs and defendants, as the case makes it easier for parties to settle “hybrid” cases asserting claims under both federal and state wage-and-hour laws.

Background

Plaintiff Graham Lundeen alleged that Defendant – his former employer, and the owner of a restaurant and bar – violated the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) in connection with its tip-pooling practices. Plaintiff styled his case as a “hybrid” class/collective action, asserting that his FLSA claim should proceed as a collective action under Section 216(b) and that his PMWA claim should proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The parties reached a settlement under which class members would agree to release their claims, including those arising under the FLSA, even if class members did not submit claim forms, submit opt-in consent forms, or receive settlement payouts.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, ruling that the settlement “was ‘neither fair nor reasonable’ because it ‘require[d] class members who did not opt in to the FLSA collective to release their FLSA claims.’” Id. at 6.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

After accepting the parties’ interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s ruling and held that Section 216(b) does not bar approval of a Rule 23 settlement that includes the release of “unasserted FLSA claims.” Id. at 10-11. In reaching its conclusion, the Third Circuit began with the text of Section 216(b):

An action to recover the liability prescribed in the preceding sentences [for failure to pay statutorily required overtime or minimum wages under the FLSA] may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.

Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)).

Acknowledging that no other federal circuit has resolved the split among district courts regarding the propriety of “hybrid” settlements, the Third Circuit ultimately sided “with those courts that have held that § 216(b) of the FLSA provides only a mechanism for opting into collective litigation.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added). In other words, Section 216(b) “requires written consent to litigate FLSA claims, but it does not forbid the release of unasserted claims through a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out settlement.” Id. at 16 (emphases added).

The Third Circuit concluded with an important caveat, however, emphasizing that while the FLSA does not prohibit settlements through which Rule 23 class members release unasserted FLSA claims, that does not mean such settlements are always permissible: “[W]hether judges can approve opt-out settlements that release FLSA claims is a different inquiry from whether judges should do so. The former question is an issue of statutory interpretation; the latter turns on whether the settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate,’ subject to the District Court’s considerable discretion.” Id. at 16-17 (internal citation omitted). Thus, “while § 216(b) does not forbid the release of unasserted FLSA claims in opt-out settlements, such releases remain relevant to the court’s overall Rule 23(e)(2) analysis.” Id. at 18.

Implications Of The Decision

The Lundeen decision provides clarity on the proper scope of “hybrid” settlements involving the simultaneous release of FLSA claims and Rule 23 class claims premised on state wage-and-hour laws. Moving forward, defendants settling such claims will likely rely on Lundeen to broaden their settlements to cover the FLSA claims of all individuals within the Rule 23 settlement class, even if such individuals do not affirmatively opt into the case. This will give defendant-employers closure and alleviate potential risks as to whether settlement class members who did not opt into the case retain their rights to bring FLSA claims.

Parties should take heed of the caveat noted by the Third Circuit, however – namely, that a class settlement involving the release of unasserted FLSA claims will not automatically pass muster. Rather, district courts must still consider whether a class settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” To increase the likelihood that courts will approve “hybrid” class settlements, parties should ensure their proposed settlements satisfy the Rule 23(e)(2) “fairness” factors, including by: providing clear notice to class members of the scope of the release and a meaningful opportunity to opt out; and ensuring that the relief provided to the class is adequate when accounting for the costs and risks of litigation, the method of distributing relief to the class, and the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees.

September 30, 2025October 1, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Signaling A Slowdown? EEOC’s FY 2025 Lawsuit Filings Reflect A Narrowing Of Priorities After Change In Presidential Administration

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In FY 2025 (October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025), the EEOC’s litigation enforcement activity stalled significantly compared to previous years. By the numbers, FY 2025 lawsuit filings ended on the lower end of the spectrum with 94 lawsuits filed compared to the height of filings in FY 2018 (217 lawsuits). The decline in enforcement activity suggests that during President Trump’s second term in office, employers should not expect the EEOC to be as aggressive as past regimes in terms of the volume of government enforcement lawsuits, particularly in terms of systemic litigation.

Though the overall filings totals are lower than previous years, certain geographic regions, types of claims, and key industries remain prime targets of the Commission’s lawsuits. Our analysis of these patterns is set forth below and is offered to arm employers with the EEOC’s FY 2025 litigation scorecard through an evaluation of district office enforcement activity, filings by statute and discrimination basis, and the most impacted industries.

In sum, there is still a bevy of EEOC lawsuits being filed against businesses, but in a more localized and targeted fashion. Employers should continue their legal compliance with all EEOC initiatives.

Lawsuit Filings Based On Month And Year

The EEOC’s fiscal year ends each year on September 30. The final deluge of filings for EEOC-initiated litigation maintained its year-end boost in 2025. This year, in September alone, 35 lawsuits were filed, down from September filings in FY 2024 (50 lawsuits filed) and September filings in FY 2023 (67 lawsuits filed) – but still a significant total, nonetheless. Of the 94 total filings this year, just over one-third of EEOC lawsuits were filed in September, down from FY 2024’s last-minute filing frenzy accounting for half of that year’s filings. The following chart shows the EEOC’s filing pattern over FY 2025:

We track the EEOC’s filing efforts across the entire fiscal year with its beginning in October through the anticipated filing spree in September. Unlike other fiscal years, the EEOC’s filing patterns were consistent in the first half of FY 2025, peaking with 14 lawsuits in January. Filings again slowed down until Summer, where there was a resurgence of another 14 lawsuits in June 2025. Thereafter, lawsuit filings dipped until the “eleventh hour” in September.

Comparing these filings in FY 2025 to previous years, the EEOC filed significantly less lawsuits than in FY 2024 (111) and FY 2023 (144 lawsuits), signaling a trend in decreased EEOC enforcement activity. Though EEOC litigation filings continuously decreased compared to pre-COVID era filing metrics, the EEOC’s presence as a litigation powerhouse persists. The following graph shows the EEOC’s year-over-year fiscal year filings beginning in FY 2017 through FY 2025:

Lawsuit Filings Based On EEOC District Offices

In addition to tracking the total number of filings, we closely monitor which of the EEOC’s 15 district offices are most actively filing new cases throughout the EEOC’s fiscal year. Some district offices tend to be more aggressive than others. Some focus on different case filing priorities. The following chart shows the number of lawsuit filings by each of the EEOC district offices.

In FY 2025, Philadelphia and Chicago led the pack in filing the most lawsuits at 11 each, followed by Indianapolis with 8 filings, then Atlanta, Birmingham, Houston, and Phoenix with 7 filings, and Charlotte, New York, and Miami each with 6 filings. St. Louis had 5 filings, Los Angeles and San Francisco had 4 filings, and Dallas had 3 filings. Memphis had the lowest amount with only 2 filings.

Like FY 2024, Philadelphia proved itself as a leader in EEOC enforcement filings. Chicago remained steady with 11 filings, same as FY 2024. St. Louis (2 filings in FY 2024) and Phoenix (4 filings in FY 2024) also experienced increases in filings compared to last year. Other offices comparatively lagged in enforcement activity, Atlanta (11 filings in FY 2024), Indianapolis (9 filings in FY 2024), and Houston (8 filings in FY 2024), showed slight decreases in enforcement activities. Across the board filings generally evened out for each district office compared to FY 2024, but overall, filings fell.

Although filing trends were down for all Districts, the total filings demonstrate the EEOC maintained its consistent litigation strength, across all district offices. Employers with operations in Philadelphia and Chicago should pay extra attention to EEOC charge activity given the aggressiveness of the Commission in those regions.

(Note: Three EEOC press releases from the Washington D.C. Field Office included their lawsuit filings as part of the Philadelphia District Office statistics)

Lawsuit Filings Based On Type Of Discrimination

We also analyze the types of lawsuits the EEOC filed in terms of the statutes and theories of discrimination alleged. This enables us to determine how the EEOC is shifting its strategic priorities.

When considered on a percentage basis, the distribution of cases filed by statute skewed significantly in favor of Title VII cases when comparing FY 2025 to previous fiscal years. Title VII cases once again made up the majority of cases filed, as they constituted 50% of all filings in FY 2025 (decreased from 58% of all filings in FY 2024, significantly down from 68% of all filings FY 2023 and 69% of filings in FY 2022, and decreased compared to 61% of all filings in FY 2021).

Overall, ADA cases also made up the next most significant percentage of the EEOC’s FY 2025 filings – totaling 31.5%. This is an overall decrease in previous years where ADA filings amounted to 42% in FY 2025, 34% in FY 2023, and 37% in FY 2021. Though these filings are marginally higher than FY 2022 where ADA filings on a percentage basis amounted to 29.7% of all filings.

There was also an uptick in ADEA filings, as 9 ADEA cases were filed in FY 2025, whereas 6 age discrimination cases were filed in FY 2024, after 12 age discrimination cases were filed in FY 2023 and 7 age discrimination cases were filed in FY 2022. Like FY 2024, this year the EEOC pursued Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act cases with 6 filings compared to FY 2024’s 3 filings. In addition, FY 2025 had a slight increase in Pregnancy Discrimination Act cases where 5 cases were filed compared to FY 2024’s 4 filed cases. Notably absent from FY 2025’s filing balance are cases under the Equal Pay Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The following graph shows the number of lawsuits filed according to the statute under which they were filed.

We also collect data on the allegations for which the EEOC bases its litigation filing.

The EEOC’s basis for suit remained the same among its core tenets, with Disability, Sex, and Retaliation claims leading the way. Collectively, these three bases were alleged in 59.4% of FY 2025 EEOC filings. In FY 2024, those same three core tenets also took the top three spots (collectively alleged in 67.6% of FY 2024 EEOC filings). Notably, in FY 2025, only 3 Race or National Origin based lawsuits were filed by the EEOC, or 2.3% of the total lawsuit filings. In FY 2024, 8.9% of all filings included Race claims. The following graph shows a comparison of the filings in FY 2025 to FY 2024 for the allegation basis in filings:

Lawsuits Filings Based On Industry

In monitoring the EEOC’s filings by industry, FY 2025 aligns with prior EEOC-initiated lawsuits in the top two industries compared to FY 2024, demonstrating the Commission’s focus on a few major industries.

In FY 2025, two industries remained in the EEOC’s targets: Hospitality and Healthcare: On a percentage basis, Hospitality (Restaurants / Hotels / Entertainment) comprised 25% of filings, and Healthcare had 21.3% of filings. A key difference in FY 2025 compared to FY 2024 is Manufacturing (15% of FY 2025 filings; 12.1% of FY 2024 filings) overtaking Retail (11.3% of FY 2025 filings; 23.1% of FY 2024 filings) as the next most targeted industry. The staggering drop in enforcement actions against Retailers poses a distinct drop in enforcement actions in this industry. Only one other industry, Transportation & Logistics, entered double digit enforcement activity (with 10%).The remaining industries in FY 2025 did not enter double-digit percentages though Staffing and Construction each experienced EEOC initiated litigation in FY 2025 (8.8%, and 8.8% of filings respectively per industry).

Unlike FY 2024, FY 2025 did not have any actions which involved Property Management industries. Overall, the FY 2025 industry spread aligns with FY 2024, where Hospitality and Healthcare are the most heavily targeted industries. Though Manufacturing and Retail swapped positions in enforcement priority, both still placed in the third and fourth impacted industries. Like FY 2024, the EEOC’s FY 2025 fiscal year again did not advance any industry-based filings in the Automotive, Security, and/or Technology industries.

Like FY 2024, Hospitality and Healthcare employers should continue to monitor their compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. These industries are regular hotbeds for charges and ultimately lawsuits. No matter the industry, every employer should recognize they are vulnerable to EEOC-initiated litigation as detailed by the below graph.

Looking Ahead To Fiscal Year 2026

Moving into FY 2026, the EEOC’s budget justification includes a $19.618 million decrease from FY 2025. President Trump’s Administration prioritizes a return to the “agency’s true mission.” The reinvigorated EEOC aims to “return to its founding principles and restore evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws on behalf of all Americans.” The EEOC’s mission is guided by the President’s pledge to “restore dignity to the American worker” and is bolstered by the President’s series of executive orders.

The FY 2026 EEOC budget justification signals a transition to “attacking all forms of race discrimination, including rooting out unlawful race discrimination arising from DEI programs, policies, and practices; protecting American workers from unlawful national origin discrimination involving preferences for foreign workers; defending women’s sex-based rights at work; and supporting religious liberty by protecting workers from religious bias and harassment and protecting their rights to religious accommodations at work.” The Commission also intends to continue its efforts in incorporating technological advances, streamlining and improving operational processes, and refining its organizational structure to ensure efficiency and effective EEOC enforcement.

The EEOC also shifted its goals in FY 2025. The EEOC now prioritizes three strategic goals. First, the EEOC will combat and prevent employment discrimination through the strategic application of the EEOC’s law enforcement authorities. In achieving this goal, the EEOC will employ broad remedial measures and exercise its enforcement authority fairly, efficiently, and based on the circumstances of the charge or complaint. Second, the EEOC will prevent employment discrimination and advance equal employment opportunities through education and outreach. Namely, the EEOC will increase public awareness of employment discrimination laws, and knowledge of specific rights and responsibilities under these laws, while also using its agencies to advance and resolve EEO issues. Third, the EEOC will strive for organizational excellence through its people, practices, and technology. In so doing, the EEOC intends to achieve a culture of accountability, inclusivity, and accessibility balanced against intake, outreach, education, enforcement, and service to the public to protect and advance civil rights in the workplace.

Key Employer Takeaways

In several respects, FY 2025 represented a change in enforcement targets and continued efforts in key discriminatory areas. While total filings decreased, the new administration foreshadows a targeted approach in upcoming EEOC enforcement. This is considerably true where the requested budget decrease reflects a narrower window of enforcement priorities but maintains the EEOC’s hallmark tradition of defending public civil liberties.

Given the President’s second term is just beginning, the EEOC’s FY 2025 data should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it was a year of transition for the Commission. The Commission’s FY 2025 filings suggest discrimination always stays within the purview of the EEOC’s priorities, but what constitutes “actionable” or “litigation-worthy” discrimination is wavering. We anticipate these figures will grow by next year’s report. Finally, given the volatility of the EEOC’s priorities, it is more crucial than ever for employers to stay abreast of EEOC developments and comply with anti-discrimination laws.

***This article is published in advance of EEOC’s FY 2025, with the data current as of 5:00 p.m. CST. Duane Morris will post the final numbers and statistics through FY 2025, by 5:00 p.m. CST on October 1, 2025.

***For more on the EEOC’s FY 2025, we invite you to attend Duane Morris’ Year-End EEOC Review Webinar on October 22, 2025. To register for the webinar access the link here.

September 24, 2025September 24, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

You’re Invited: Year-End Review Of EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review Webinar

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

Mark your calendars for our bi-annual program analyzing the latest EEOC developments: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Central. Reserve your virtual seat for the program here.

Join Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik and Gregory Tsonis for a live panel discussion analyzing the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the EEOC lawsuits filed throughout fiscal year 2025. In its annual performance report for FY 2024, the agency touted a record $700 million in monetary recoveries for workers through litigation and administrative avenues. Heading into FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative. Our virtual program will empower corporate counsel, human resource professionals and business leaders with key insights into the EEOC’s latest enforcement initiatives and provide strategies designed to minimize the risk of drawing the agency’s scrutiny.

Presenters

Gerald L. Maatman Jr.

Jennifer A. Riley

Alex W. Karasik

Gregory Tsonis

July 7, 2025July 7, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

DMCAR Mid-Year Review – 2025/2026: FLSA Conditional Certifications Remain High, And So Far In 2025 Courts Are Granting More Class Certification Motions Overall Compared To 2024

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaway: In the first half of 2025, across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings on more than 211 motions to grant or deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 145 rulings, with an overall success rate of 69%. In contrast, in 2024, the plaintiffs’ class action bar succeeded in certifying class actions 63% of the time. However, plaintiffs have not been as successful so far this year as compared to 2023, when courts granted 72% of class certification motions, or 2022 when courts granted 74% of class certification motions.

Across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings last year on 432 motions to grant or to deny class certification. Of these, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 272 rulings, for an overall success rate of 63%. In 2023, by comparison, courts issued rulings on 451 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 324 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 72%. In 2022, courts issued rulings on 335 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 247 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 74%.

2022 – 74%
2023 – 72%
2024 – 63%
2025 – 69%

In 2025, the number of motions that courts considered varied significantly by subject matter area, and the number of rulings varied across substantive areas.

The following list summarizes the results in each of ten key areas of class action litigation:

WARN – 100% granted / 0% denied (2 of 2 granted / 0 of 2 denied)
Antitrust – 92% granted / 8% denied (11 of 12 granted / 1 of 12 denied)
ERISA – 92% granted / 8% denied (11 of 12 granted / 1 of 12 denied)
FLSA / Wage & Hour (Conditional Certification) – 82% granted / 18% denied (58 of 71 granted / 13 of 71 denied)
Securities Fraud – 75% granted / 25% denied (12 of 16 granted / 4 of 16 denied)
TCPA – 67% granted / 33% denied (4 of 6 granted / 2 of 6 denied)
Consumer Fraud – 58% granted / 42% denied (15 of 26 granted / 11 of 26 denied)
Civil Rights – 56% granted / 44% denied (19 of 34 granted / 15 of 34 denied)
Discrimination – 55% granted / 45% denied (6 of 11 granted / 5 of 11 denied)
Privacy – 43% granted / 57% denied (3 of 7 granted / 4 of 7 denied)
FCRA / FDCPA – 40% granted / 60% denied (2 of 5 granted / 3 of 5 denied)
FLSA / Wage & Hour (Decertification) – 33% granted / 67% denied (1 of 3 granted / 2 of 3 denied)
Products Liability / Mass Torts – 33% granted / 67% denied (1 of 3 granted / 2 of 3 denied)
RICO – 25% granted / 75% denied (1 of 4 granted / 3 of 4 denied)
Data Breach – 0% granted / 100% denied (0 of 2 granted / 2 of 2 denied)

The plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained the highest rates of success in WARN, antitrust, ERISA, and wage & hour class actions. There have only been two WARN certification rulings in 2025, which were both granted by the court for a 100% success rate. In cases alleging antitrust violations, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes in 11 of 12 rulings, for a success rate of 92%. In cases alleging ERISA violations, plaintiffs managed to obtain class certification rulings in 11 of 12 rulings issued during the first half of 2025, a success rate of 92%. And in wage & hour litigation, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes and/or collective actions in 58 of 71 rulings issued during 2025, a success rate of 82%.

Courts Issued More Rulings In FLSA Collective Actions and Wage & Hour Class Actions Than In Any Other Areas Of Law

For the first half of calendar year 2025, courts issued more certification rulings in FLSA collective actions and wage & hour class actions than in other types of cases. Plaintiffs historically have been able to obtain conditional certification of FLSA collective actions at a high rate, which surely has contributed to the number of filings in this area.

From January 1 to July 1, 2025, courts considered more motions for certification in FLSA matters than in any other substantive area. Overall, courts issued 74 rulings. Of these, 71 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 3 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 71 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 58 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 82%.

These numbers are higher than the numbers observed in 2024, during which courts issued 171 rulings. Of these, 156 addressed first-stage motions for conditional certification of collective actions under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and 15 addressed second-stage motions for decertification of collective actions. Of the 156 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 124 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 79.5%.

At the decertification stage, courts generally have conducted a closer examination of the evidence and, as a result, defendants historically have enjoyed an equal if not higher rate of success on these second-stage motions as compared to plaintiffs.

The results so far in 2025 have not supported that typical success. There have only been 3 rulings thus far that courts issued on motions for decertification of collective actions, and only 1 ruling favored defendants, for a lower success rate of 33%.

An analysis of the rulings demonstrates that a disproportionate number emanated from traditionally pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, including the judicial districts within the Second Circuit (21 decisions) and Third Circuit (12 decisions), which include New York and Pennsylvania, respectively.

Takeaways From Certification Statistics Midway Through 2025

Notable thus far at the halfway point of the year, there have been a very small number of rulings emanating from the Fifth and Sixth Circuits (1 and 0 decisions, respectfully), which could account for the high overall conditional certification rate in the wage & hour space, given that these two circuits have imposed new, stricter standards for conditional certification. Plaintiffs likely are shifting their case filings away from these two circuits toward jurisdictions with more lenient, more plaintiff-friendly standards for conditional certification.

The numbers no doubt flow from the different standards and approaches that courts in different federal circuits take in evaluating motions for conditional certification and decertification and, in turn, the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on such motions. If more courts join the Fifth and Sixth Circuits in abandoning the traditional two-step certification process under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and thereby increase the time and expense of gaining a conditional certification order, it may lead to a reshuffling of the deck in terms of where plaintiffs file their cases and the types of claims they pursue.

We will continue to track class certification trends in 2025 and will report on final numbers in the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026, which will be published in the first week of January. Stay tuned!

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

Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2025/2026: Mid-Year Class Action Settlement Report & Analysis

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: Corporate defendants saw unprecedented settlement numbers across all areas of class action litigation in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and halfway through 2025, settlement numbers remain robust. The cumulative value of the top ten settlements across all substantive areas of class action litigation hit near record highs in 2024, following the highest levels ever in 2022, and the second highest total in 2023. When the numbers for 2022, 2023, and 2024 are combined, the total signals that corporate defendants have entered a new era of heightened risks and higher stakes in the valuation of class actions.

On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, class actions and government enforcement lawsuits garnered more than $42 billion in 2024, $51.4 billion in settlements in 2023, and a record-setting $66 billion in 2022. When combined, the three-year settlement total eclipses any other three-year period in the history of American jurisprudence.

As a prelude to the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026, this blog post reports on our analysis of class action settlements through the first half of 2025. The data shows that for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2025, the current year is on pace with the numbers of the previous three years. As of the end of the first half of 2025, the aggregate settlement total across all areas of class action litigation and government enforcement lawsuits is $21.77 billion (in accounting for the top 5 settlements in the various substantive areas of law). By comparision, in 2024 at the half-way mark, the aggregate settlement total was $22.5 billion.

It is anticipated that these numbers will increase across the board by the end of the year and when measured by the top 10 settlements in each category.

More Billion Dollar Class Action Settlements

At the mid-way point of 2025, there are three settlements over the billion-dollar mark. The 10 individual billion-dollar settlements in 2024 surpassed the number in 2023, and only fell short of the number of billion-dollar settlements in 2022. In 2023, parties resolved nine class actions for $1 billion or more. In 2022, parties resolved 15 class actions for $1 billion or more in settlement dollars. Together with the three thus far in 2025, corporations have seen 37 settlements of one billion dollars or more in three and a half years. This string of settlements marks the most extensive set of billion-dollar class action settlements in the history of the American court system.

Class action settlements totaled $66 billion in 2022, $51.4 billion in 2023, $42 billion in 2024, and $21.77 billion in 2025 so far.

The Scorecard On Leading Class Actions Settlements Halfway Through 2025

The plaintiffs’ class action bar has scored rich settlements thus far in 2025 in virtually every area of class action litigation.

The top 5 class action settlement totals in each practice area. [Click to enlarge]

The following list shows the totals of the top 5 settlements at the mid-year point in 2025 in key areas of class action litigation:

$13.09 Billion – Products liability/mass tort class actions
$4.36 Billion – Antitrust class actions
$2.03 Billion – Securities fraud class actions
$712 Million – Consumer fraud class actions
$300.8 Million – Data breach class actions
$293.75 Million – Privacy class actions
$279.7 Million – Civil rights class actions
$222 Million – Discrimination class actions
$178 Million – ERISA class actions
$86.9 Million – Wage & hour class and collective actions
$77.05 Million – Government enforcement actions
$54.5 Million – Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions
$54.4 Million – Labor class actions
$34.77 Million – TCPA class actions

The high dollar settlements of the past three years suggested that the plaintiffs’ bar would continue to be equally, if not more aggressive, with their case filings and settlement positions. From the 2025 data, it certainly looks to be the case as we end the first half of the year.

The data points in each category are set out in the following charts.

Top Class & Collective Action Litigation Settlements In 2025

Top Antitrust Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 antitrust class action settlements totaled $8.412 billion in 2024, $11.74 billion in 2023, and $3.72 billion in 2022.

$2.78 billion – In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-3919 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action requiring the NCAA and its Power Five conference members to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages, characterized as “back pay,” to compensate student-athletes for the denial of name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities under prior NCAA eligibility rules).
$630 million – Loop LLC, et al. v. CDK Global LLC, Case No. 24-CV-571 (W.D. Wis. June 10, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims by automotive technology vendors who alleged the company colluded with Reynolds & Reynolds Co. to inflate prices for data integration services).
$398 million – Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms Inc., Case No. 19-CV-2521 (D. Md. June 5, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims by workers alleging the poultry firms violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to drive down their hourly wages and salaries at poultry processing operations).
$375 million – Le, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, Case No. 15-CV-1045 and Johnson, et al. v. Zuffa LLC, Case No. 21-CV-1189 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims in a more than a decade-long class action in which fighters accused UFC of suppressing their wages).
$275 million – In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 16-MD-2724 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 19, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims brought by consumers, insurers and other end payer plaintiffs alleging that drugmaker Sandoz conspired with other companies to fix the price of certain generic drugs).

Top Civil Rights Class Action Settlements In 2024

The top 10 civil rights class action settlements totaled $313.8 million in 2024, $643.15 million in 2023, and $1.31 billion in 2022.

$140 million – Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, Case No. 06 Civ. 4991 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from over 19,000 taxi drivers challenging the city’s practice of suspending the license of any driver who was arrested for a felony or misdemeanor).
$92.5 million – Onadia, et al. v. City Of New York, Case No. 300940/2010 (N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025) (final settlement approval hearing scheduled in a class action to resolve claims by individuals who were unlawfully detained by the NYC Department of Correction).
$28 million – Doe, et al. v. Johnson City, Case No. 23-CV-71 (E.D. Tenn. May 5, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that Johnson City businessman Sean Williams drugged and raped more than 50 women in his downtown condo in incidents he captured on video).
$17 million – Allen, et al. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies, Case No. 24-CV-827 (E.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company charged incarcerated individuals and their families excessive fees for communications services).
$2.2 million – Vigil, et al. v. 2801 Fifteenth Street NW LLC, Case No. 2022 CA 001459 (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the apartment complex charged illegal fees and failed to provide habitable living conditions for tenants).

Top Consumer Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements totaled $2.44 billion in 2024, $3.29 billion in 2023, and $8.596 billion in 2022.

$425 million – In Re Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 24-MD-3111 (E.D. Va. June 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company deceptively advertised its 360 Savings accounts as high-interest savings products).
$145 million – In Re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-MD-2966 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims by direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the company’s actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with generic drug manufacturers who had filed abbreviated new drug applications violated U.S. state and federal antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws).
$100 million – Cabrera, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 11-CV-1263 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from advertisers alleging the defendant overcharged for advertisements through its AdWords service).
$25 million – Anderson, et al. v. Boyne USA, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-95 (D. Mont. June 25, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from condo property owners alleging that the exclusive rental management requirement of condominium-hotel units violated state and federal law).
$20 million – Smith, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-9527 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging a battery swelling defect with early-model Apple Watches in some cases caused watch screens to detach or shatter).

Top Data Breach Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 data breach class action settlements totaled $593.2 million in 2024, $515.75 million in 2023, and $719.21 million in 2022.

$177 million – In Re AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 24-CV-757 (N.D. Tex. June 20, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant released customer information on the dark web).
$45 million – In Re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 20-CV-376 (D. Nev. June 18, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that MGM failed to protect 37 million customers’ personal information from multiple data breaches in and 2023).
$32.8 million – Baker, et al. v. ParkMobile, LLC, Case No. 21-CV-2182 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company harmed consumers by failing to secure their data and therefore exposed them to identity theft, fraud, and the need to spend time securing related accounts).
$25 million – In Re LoanDepot Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 24-CV-136 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company negligently failed to protect the personal information of nearly 17 million people).
$21 million – In Re Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 22-CV-137 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims the company failed to prevent a 2020 data breach that compromised sensitive employee and client information).

Top Discrimination Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 discrimination class action settlements totaled $356.8 million in 2024, $762.2 million in 2023, and $597 million in 2022

$70 million – Ferris, et al. v. Wynn Resorts Ltd., Case No. 18-CV-479 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims in a class action alleging sexual misconduct allegations against founder Steve Wynn).
$50 million – Curley, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 22-CV-1735 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company discriminated against Black employees).
$43 million – Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co., Case No. 19-STCV-10974 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 13, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant systematically paid female employees in California less than men for substantially similar jobs; regularly passed women over for promotion; and loaded them with extra work without providing additional pay).
$31 million – In Re Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Case No. 21-BK-20687 (D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2025) (settlement entered following Norwich Diocese filing for bankruptcy in July 2021 following lawsuits by survivors of clergy abuse at its Academy at Mount Saint John boarding school).
$28 million – Cantu, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 21-CV-392049 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that workers identifying as Latino, Native American, and other ethnicities were paid less than white, Asian, and Asian American employees for substantially similar work).

Top EEOC / Government Enforcement Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 EEOC / government enforcement class action settlements totaled $335.9 million in 2024, $263.58 million in 2023, and $404.5 million in 2022

$20.25 million – U.S. Department Of Labor v. UMR, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-513 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 19, 2025) (consent order entered in an enforcement action that challenged adverse benefit determinations regarding hospital emergency services claims and urinary drug screening claims).
$20 million – Federal Trade Commission v. Cognosphere LLC, Case No. 25-CV-447 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2025) (consent order entered in an enforcement action to resolve claims against a video game maker by the FTC alleged that the company misled children and other users about the actual costs of purchases and illegally collected children’s personal information).
$16.8 million – In The Matter Of The Investigation Of Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York Of DoorDash Inc., No. 25-007 (N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025) (assurance order effective following an investigation by the Attorney General for New York that found the company cheated about 63,000 food delivery workers out of their full tips in order to subsidize their pay).
$15 million – U.S. Department Of Labor v. Americare Healthcare Services, LLC, Case No. 21-CV-5076 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 9, 2025) (consent order entered in an enforcement action to resolve claims alleging that the third-party home care agency failed to pay employees overtime compensation).
$5 million – In The Matter Of The National Women’s Soccer League, No. 25-002 (N.Y. Feb. 1, 2025) (assurance order effective following an investigation by the attorneys general for New York, Illinois, and the District of Columbia found that the NWSL was “permeated by a culture of inappropriate and abusive behavior, including sexual harassment and harassment and discrimination based upon gender, race, and sexual orientation”).

Top ERISA Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 ERISA class action settlements totaled $413.3 million in 2024, $580.5 million in 2023, and $399.6 million in 2022.

$69 million – Snyder, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-1049 (D. Minn. June 12, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant engaged in imprudence, disloyalty, prohibited transactions and failure to monitor in violation of the ERISA).
$60 million – In Re AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation, Case No. 22-MD-3035 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the church plan was mismanaged leading to participants losing significant money from the plan in violation of the ERISA).
$20.5 million – Baker, et al. v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Case No. 22-CV-4645 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action alleging that the defendant failed to honor its promise to provide them with lifetime retiree medical benefits).
$14.5 million – Burnett, et al. v. Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC, Case No. 22-CV-270 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a pair of class actions to resolve claims alleging that the resolving claims pilots were forced to overpay for their stake in the company through its employee stock ownership plan).
$14 million – Coleman, et al. v. Brozen, Case No. 20-CV-1358 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action brought by participants in All My Sons Moving & Storage’s employee stock ownership plan that when the plan was terminated they received losses).

Top FCRA, FDPCA, And FACTA Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 FCRA, FDPCA, and FACTA class action settlements totaled $42.43 million in 2024, $100.15 million in 2023, and $210.11 million in 2022.

$23 million – Norman, Sr., et al. v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 18-CV-5225 (E.D. Penn. Feb. 24, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant did not conduct a reasonable investigation of disputes of hard inquiries in credit files, or in the alternative, did not remove the disputed hard inquiries from credit files in violation of the FCRA).
$15 million – In The Matter Of Equifax Inc. And Equifax Information Services LLC, File No. 2025-CFPB-0002 (CFPB Jan. 17, 2025) (consent order entered to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the FCRA by failing to thoroughly investigate consumer disputes, putting previously deleted errors back on credit reports, failing to block information that resulted from identity theft, and sharing inaccurate credit scores and data about consumers to lenders).
$12.8 million – In The Matter Of American Honda Finance Corp., File No. 2025-CFPB-0003 (CFPB Jan. 17, 2025) (consent order entered to resolve claims alleging that the company violated the FCRA by furnishing false and harmful information that ended up on borrowers’ credit reports, continuing doing so after determining that several types of information were inaccurate, failing to investigate disputes about information it provided to credit reporting companies, and failing to send the results of investigations to those companies and consumers, when required).
$2.2 million – Magallon, et al. v. Robert Half International, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-1478 (D. Ore. May 7, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to notify applicants when it saw negative “red” or “yellow” flags in consumer reports provided by third-party credit reporting agencies in violation of the FCRA).
$1.3 million – Wickham, et al. v. Schenker Inc., Case No. 23-CV-946 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2025) (settlement agreement reached in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant failed to provide proper disclosure under the FCRA that it was conducting background checks on workers during hiring).

Top FLSA / Wage & Hour Class And Collective Settlements In 2025

The top 10 FLSA / wage & hour class and collective action settlements totaled $614.55 million in 2024, $742.5 million in 2023, and $574.55 million in 2022.

$21 million – Wilder, et al. v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 22-CV-681 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company missed paychecks and made inaccurate deductions to employee wages after it switched payroll systems).
$19.9 million – Morgan, et al. v. Rohr Inc., Case No. 20-CV-574 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class and collective action to resolve claims alleging that the company failed to pay proper overtime, minimum wage, and for meal and rest breaks).
$16 million –Taylor et al. v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, Case No. 22-2-15300-8 (Wash. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims from hospital workers alleging they were denied required meal breaks in violation of Washington wage and hour laws).
$15.5 million – Abrishamcar, et al. v. Oracle America Inc., Case No. CIV 535490 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims from sales employees who alleged that the technology company violated the state’s wage laws for commissioned sales workers).
$14.5 million – Hunter, et al. v. Legacy Health, Case No. 18-CV-2219 (D. Or. Jan. 23, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that nurses were denied overtime compensation).

Top Labor Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 labor class action settlements totaled $237.0 million in 2024 and $129.67 million in 2023.

$55 million – Saunders, et al. v. State Of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, Case No. 22-000007-MM (Mich. Ct. Claims May 13, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims between the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency and individuals who alleged their benefits were improperly clawed back without notice during the COVID-19 pandemic).
$34 million – Borozny, et al. v. RTX Corp., Pratt & Whitney Division, Case No. 21-CV-1657 (D. Conn. May 14, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company engaged in an agreement among contractors not to hire one another’s aerospace engineers).
$6 million – Carmen, et al. v. Health Carousel LLC, Case No. 20-CV-313 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from about 5,600 workers accusing the defendant of imposing strict employment contracts, not paying overtime compensation, and mandating a gossip ban).
$4.95 million – Ruiz, et al. v. Bass Pro Group LLC, Case No. 24-CV-3122 (W.D. Mo. May 29, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the retailer unlawfully charged employees who use tobacco an extra $2,000 per year for health insurance without properly telling them how to avoid the charge).
$4.75 million – Clarkson, et al. v. v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-5 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims that the company failed to provide paid leave for time spent performing military service).

Top Privacy Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 privacy class action settlements totaled $2.01 billion in 2024, $1.32 billion in 2023, and $896.7 million in 2022.

$100 million – Cabrera, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 11-CV-1263 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant overcharged them for advertisements).
$95 million – Lopez, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-4577 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company made unauthorized recordings of Apple device users via its digital assistant Siri).
$51.75 million – In Re Clearview AI Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 21-CV-135 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a multidistrict litigation challenging the company’s practice of automatically collecting biometric facial data online in violation of the BIPA).
$27.5 million – Brooks, et al. v. Thomson Reuters Corp., Case No. 21-CV-1418 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company collected and sold publicly available information about consumers without their knowledge or consent in violation of California privacy laws).
$19.5 million – Aguilar Auto Repair, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, Case No. 23-CV-6265 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendants recorded phone calls to California businesses without informing the recipients that the calls were being recorded in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)).

Top Products Liability And Mass Tort Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 products liability / mass tort class action settlements totaled $23.40 billion in 2024, $25.83 billion in 2023, and $50.32 billion in 2022.

$7.4 billion – In Re Purdue Pharma LP, Case No. 19-BK-23649 (N.Y. Bankr. Ct. Jan. 22, 2025) (settlement agreement in principle reached with the Sackler family and their company Purdue Pharma to resolve claims between 15 states alleging that Purdue, under the Sacklers’ leadership, invented, manufactured, and aggressively marketed opioid products for decades, fueling waves of addiction and overdose deaths across the country).
$4 billion – Doe 1, et al. v. County Of Los Angeles, Case No. 21-STCV-20949 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve nearly 7,000 claims of sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities and foster homes).
$750 million – Doe 16, et al. v. Columbia University, Case No. 20 Civ. 1791 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025) (settlement reached to resolve claims from hundreds of patients who say they were sexually abused by a former Columbia University obstetrician-gynecologist).
$651 million – San Miguel Hospital Corp., et al. v. Publix Supermarket, Case No. 23-CV-903 (D.N.M. Mar. 4, 2025) (final settlement approval granted to resolve claims between various Acute Care Hospitals against certain opioid manufacturers and distributors)
$285 million – New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours And Co., Case No. 19-CV-14766 (D.N.J. May 12, 2025) (settlement reached in an action to resolve environmental claims brought by New Jersey officials over purported PFAS contamination at the Chamber Works manufacturing facility in Salem County as well as future statewide claims).

Top Securities Fraud Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 securities fraud class action settlements totaled $2.55 billion in 2024, $5.4 billion in 2023, and $3.25 billion in 2022.

$919 million – Tornetta, et al. v. Musk, Case No. 2018-0408 (Del. Chanc. Ct. Jan. 8, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve shareholder claims that board members overpaid themselves from 2017 to 2020, a period when Tesla’s market capitalization rose dramatically).
$433.5 million – In Re Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 20 Civ. 9568 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from investors regarding alleged misstatements about the company’s exclusivity practices and its planned initial public offering of a fintech affiliate).
$362.5 million – Ap-Fonden, et al. v. General Electric, Case No. 17 Civ. 8457 (S.D.N.Y Apr. 24, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims from investors alleging that General Electric Co. operated a cash shortfall in its power unit).
$167.5 million – In Re EQT Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-CV-754 (W.D. Penn. June 26, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval sought in a class action to resolve claims from investors alleging the company overstated the benefits of its $6.7 billion merger with Rice Energy).
$146 million – In Re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 19-CV-957 (S.D. Tex. May 6, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve stemming from the $3.8 billion oil and gas company’s financial collapse in which investors alleged Alta Mesa secretly used unconventional drilling methods to inflate financial estimates before and after its merger with the SPAC).

Top TCPA Class Action Settlements In 2025

The top 10 TCPA class action settlements totaled $84.73 million in 2024, $103.45 million in 2023, and $134.13 million in 2022.

$20 million – Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Case No. 19-CV-3309 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company made harassing phone calls from real estate agents in violation of federal telemarketing restrictions).
$6.5 million – Williams, et al. v. PillPack LLC, Case No. 19-CV-5282 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 18, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging Amazon.com affiliate PillPack LLC was responsible for unsolicited telemarketing calls that violated a federal consumer law restricting robocalls and texts).
$4.1 million – Truong, et al. v. Truist Bank, Case No. 23-CV-79 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2025) (preliminary settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the defendant placed robocalls to cellphone numbers regarding unrelated accounts in violation of the TCPA).
$3.49 million – Johnson, et al. v. United HealthCare Services Inc., Case No. 23-CV-522 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging the company violated the TCPA by placing calls to consumers about its Optum HouseCalls program).
$2.5 million – Samson, et al. v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-175 (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2025) (final settlement approval granted in a class action to resolve claims alleging that the company made telemarketing calls to non-members in violation of the TCPA).