NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. After filing an administrative complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a Complaint with the Court, on June 22, 2006, on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a nationwide class of women employees against Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., (“Title VII”), and for a California Class under California state law prohibiting sex discrimination. In addition to 1 Following the filing of the Complaint in June 2006, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx XX Inc. merged into Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx & Co. Incorporated. The Named Plaintiff and the Class Members all work or worked as Financial Advisors or Registered Financial Advisor Trainees in what is now referred to as the Global Wealth Management Group. these class claims, Xx. Xxxxx asserted an individual, non-class age discrimination claim.
B. On October 12, 2006, Xx. Xxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx filed an Amended Complaint against Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx adding additional allegations that the Company had discriminated against Xx. Xxxxxxxx on the basis of her race in violation of Title VII, 42
C. On August 2, 2007, Xx. Xxxxx, Xx. Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx- Xxxxx filed a Second Amended Complaint in this action, in which Xx. Xxxxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxx-Xxxxx collectively alleged, among other things, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class defined herein, that African Americans and Latinos who are or were employed with MS-GWMG as Financial Advisors or Registered Financial Advisor Trainees have been and are afforded fewer business opportunities than comparable white Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees, and that they experienced race and color discrimination in numerous aspects of their employment. The Named Plaintiff has further alleged, on behalf of herself and members of the Class defined herein, that aspects of her employment in which she has experienced race and color discrimination include, but are not limited to, career advancement, distribution of accounts, work assignments, compensation, and/or other terms and conditions of employment and/or termination.
X. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx denies the allegations in the administrative charges, the Complaint, the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint, and in connection therewith denies any liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1981 as amended, or any other federal, state or local laws, and s...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. Named Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxx, an African American Financial Advisor employed by Xxxxxx Xxxxx, retained Class Counsel to represent him against Xxxxxx Xxxxx in connection with what he believed to be individual and systemic race discrimination.
B. Class Counsel conducted an extensive investigation into the individual and class- wide claims at issue. They conducted in-depth interviews of potential class members across the United States and reviewed and analyzed company documents and publicly available information, including information about Xxxxxx Xxxxx, the financial services industry, and United States Census data reflecting the demographics of financial advisor office territories.
C. As a result of its investigation, Class Counsel filed a representative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for Plaintiff Xxxxx on November 23, 2016.
D. On May 24, 2018, Xxxxx filed the Complaint to initiate a putative class action on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of African American Financial Advisors (“FAs”) against the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Dkt. 1. The Complaint alleged that Xxxxxx Xxxxx employed Firm-wide policies and practices that harm African American FAs and result in significant racial disparities in pay and attrition.
E. On July 27, 2018, the Complaint was amended (the “Amended Complaint”) to add Plaintiff Xxxxx’x individual and class claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq. (“Title VII”). The Amended Complaint also added Named Plaintiff and Putative Class Representative Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx-Xxxxx, who also filed a representative charge of discrimination with the EEOC on September 14, 2018. Dkt. 9.
F. On September 25, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, denying the allegations therein. Dkt. 25. On September 25, 2018, Defendant also filed a Motion to Transfer Venue or, Alternatively, to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 22.
G. On November 26, 2018, after Plaintiff Xxxxxx-Xxxxx received her Notice of Right to Xxx from the EEOC, Plaintiffs filed a second amended Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”) with leave of Court, to add Plaintiff Xxxxxx-Xxxxx’x individual and class-wide claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination pursuant to Title VII and to add Named Plaintiff and Putative Class Representative Xxxxxx Xxxx. Dkt. 33. Xxxxxx Xxxx ...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On December 6, 2012, certain plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). On December 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of Section 1981, which is the operative complaint in this matter (the “Complaint”). Dkt. No. 514.
B. The Settling Defendant denies all liability and wrongdoing associated with the claims alleged in the Complaint or any prior pleading filed by any plaintiff to this Action. Specifically, the Settling Defendant denies that it discriminated against the Plaintiff or other African Americans on the basis of race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, or any other state or federal law. The Settling Defendant further denies all other allegations of wrongdoing in the Complaint or that had been raised against PSG in the Action.
C. Counsel for the Parties are experienced class action attorneys. They have vigorously pursued their positions and the rights of their clients through extensive briefing, legal and factual analysis, as well as discovery. In light of the novel legal issues briefed to date and the potential risk and delay in the event this case proceeded to trial, the Parties elected to engage in settlement discussions during the time the Action has been pending.
D. In late 2021, PSG advised Plaintiffs that, due to a series of major financial setbacks affecting its long-term viability, its primary secured lenders forced PSG to sell its assets and that an asset sale was consummated on or about July 30, 2021. PSG provided Plaintiffs with substantial documentation and other information concerning its financial situation. To assist with the negotiations, in early 2022 the parties re-engaged the Xxx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx (Xxx.), who had previously assisted with settlement negotiations, for mediation. During the negotiations, counsel for the Plaintiffs and PSG bargained vigorously on behalf of their respective clients. Among other considerations, the precarious financial condition of PSG, based on publicly available information and confidential financial information produced by PSG, and the risks and uncertainties of pursuing claims against potential successors and alter egos led the Plaintiffs to set...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On April 29, 2014, the Named Plaintiff, Xxxxxxxx Xxxx, Ph.D., filed a Complaint in the Court on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a class of nine
B. Defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint.
C. The parties engaged in class-wide discovery as to the number of employees who constitute the class, the Employer’s policies and practices with respect to the FMLA and leaves of absence, the Employer’s the handling of the Named Plaintiff’s FMLA-parental- leave- qualifying event, the Employer’s handling of other class members FMLA-parental- leave- qualifying events, employee additions of dependents to health insurance benefits available through the Employer, and the Employer’s training and compliance activities with
D. Counsel for the parties have also conducted their own substantial investigations of the matter, including the facts underlying the claims and issues raised in the charges and the Complaint. The investigations included, among other things, interviewing Class Member witnesses, deposing three key Human Resources employees responsible for the Employer’s FMLA compliance, and reviewing a substantial number of relevant records. As a result of the exchange of discovery, the investigation, and other activity both prior to and after filing the Complaint, counsel for the parties are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, and have had a full opportunity to assess the litigation risks presented in this case. All parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions for class certification, formal discovery and depositions, motions for summary judgment, and trial and potential appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The parties wish to avoid these risks and
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. On October 29, 2008, Named Plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxxx filed her Class Action Complaint against Dell in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of female employees of Dell. Named Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx was subsequently added as a named plaintiff and class representative. Named Plaintiffs are represented by Class Counsel, who have represented many clients in employment disputes with Dell. As part of their investigation and prosecution of this Civil Action, Class Counsel interviewed current and former Dell female employees regarding then- experiences at Dell, particularly as it related to their compensation, promotion, business opportunities, and career advancement at Dell in comparison to then male counterparts. Class Counsel also reviewed numerous Dell documents relating to these issues. In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, cost and expense, the Parties entered pre-litigation mediation. Dell provided Class Counsel with substantial employment data and information in furtherance of the mediation and the Parties retained a well-known and experienced mediator, skilled in mediation of complex class actions, including national employment discrimination class actions, to assist the Parties in their negotiations. Over the course of several months and multiple mediation sessions, the Parties discussed extensive analyses of the employment data and potential equitable forms of relief to be part of a settlement. Each party retained an expert labor economist to analyze the available employment data and to assist the Parties in negotiating a fair and reasonable settlement. Both Parties and their counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved settlement, they would face a long litigation course, including motions to dismiss, motions for class certification, formal discovery, motions for summary judgment, and trial and appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, After careful review and consideration, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel are of the opinion between them and between the Released Parties and the Settlement Class. It is the intention of the Parties that this Settlement Agreement shall constitute a full and complete settlement and release...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. 2.1. On May 9, 2013, Class Representative Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a Class Action Complaint against Merck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination class claims. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on January 16, 2014, inter alia, joining Class Representatives Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxxx, and Xxx Xxxxxxx.1 On May 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class of female sales representatives under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”), the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 et seq. (“ERISA”), and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the “Equal Pay Act” or the = 1 On November 4, 2014, Named Plaintiff Xxx Xxxxxxx stipulated to the dismissal of her individual, collective, and class claims against Merck with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. “EPA”). On April 27, 2016, the Court conditionally certified a collective action regarding certain claims under the EPA.
2.2. In an effort to avoid further unnecessary litigation, cost, and expense, the Class Representatives and the Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”) entered mediation after more than five years of litigation. The Parties retained a well-known and experienced mediator, Xxxx Xxxx, Esq., skilled in mediation of complex class actions, to assist them in their negotiations. Both Parties and their Counsel recognize that, in the absence of an approved Settlement, they will face a long litigation course, including motions for summary judgment and trial and appellate proceedings that would consume time and resources and present each of them with ongoing litigation risks and uncertainties. The Parties wish to avoid these risks and uncertainties, as well as the consumption of time and resources, through settlement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.2 After extensive discovery, analysis, and deliberation, the Parties are of the opinion that the Settlement described in this Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class Counsel and the Class Representatives believe that the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement serves the best ...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. After filing an administrative complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a Complaint with the Court, on June 22, 2006, on behalf of herself as an individual and on behalf of a nationwide class of women employees against Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., (“Title VII”), and for a California Class under California state law prohibiting sex discrimination. In addition to these class claims, Xx. Xxxxx asserted an individual, non-class age discrimination claim. 1 Following the filing of the Complaint in June 2006, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx XX Inc. merged into Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx & Co. Incorporated. The Named Plaintiff and the Class Members all work or worked as Financial Advisors or Registered Financial Advisor
B. On October 12, 2006, Xx. Xxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx filed an Amended Complaint against Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx adding additional allegations that the Company had discriminated against Xx. Xxxxxxxx on the basis of her race in violation of Title VII, 42
C. On August 2, 2007, Xx. Xxxxx, Xx. Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx- Xxxxx filed a Second Amended Complaint in this action, in which Xx. Xxxxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxx-Xxxxx collectively alleged, among other things, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class defined herein, that African Americans and Latinos who are or were employed with MS-GWMG as Financial Advisors or Registered Financial Advisor Trainees have been and are afforded fewer business opportunities than comparable white Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees, and that they experienced race and color discrimination in numerous aspects of their employment. The Named Plaintiff has further alleged, on behalf of herself and members of the Class defined herein, that aspects of her employment in which she has experienced race and color discrimination include, but are not limited to, career advancement, distribution of accounts, work assignments, compensation, and/or other terms and conditions of employment and/or termination.
X. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx denies the allegations in the administrative charges, the Complaint, the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint, and in connection therewith denies any liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1981 as amended, or any other federal, state or local laws, and specifically denies that Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx unlawfully discriminated against Pla...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois County Department, (“Complaint”), alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
B. On February 24, 2021, discovery in this case was stayed pending the McDonald v.
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A. On December 5, 2012, certain plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). On December 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of Section 1981, which is the operative complaint in this matter (the “Complaint”). ECF No. 514.
B. Counsel for the Parties are experienced class action attorneys. They have vigorously pursued their positions and the rights of their clients through extensive briefing, legal and factual analysis, as well as discovery. In light of the novel legal issues briefed to date and the potential risk and delay in the event this case proceeded to trial, the Parties elected to engage in settlement discussions during the time the Action has been pending.
C. After almost eleven years of litigation and multiple unsuccessful attempts to settle this matter, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification on February 21, 2023 and entered an order certifying the following three Subclasses: Staffing Network Subclass (represented by Plaintiffs Eagle and Keys) African American laborers who sought work assignments at Staffing Network from offices that referred workers to Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015. ASI Subclass (represented by Plaintiff Franklin) African American laborers who sought work assignments at Alternative Staffing, Inc. from offices that referred workers to Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including December 31, 2015. MVP Subclass (represented by Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxxxx) African American laborers who sought work assignments at Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a MVP from offices that referred workers to Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and including October 21, 2013, but on one or more occasion were not assigned to work at Vee Pak during the period of January 1, 2011 up through and includin...
NATURE AND RESOLUTION OF THE CASE
