States must fill enforcement vacuum being left by federal regulators who are abandoning these cases under Trump administration
Attorney General Dan Rayfield today filed a lawsuit against Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency trading platforms in the United States, for violating the Oregon Securities Law. The lawsuit claims that Coinbase has both encouraged and helped the sale of unregistered cryptocurrencies to people in Oregon. In doing so, Coinbase has reaped millions of dollars in fees as Oregonians have faced huge losses, often devastating, from risky investments in a market that’s stacked against them and hard to navigate.
“After building trust with Oregon consumers, Coinbase sold high risk investments without them being properly vetted to protect consumers,” Rayfield said. “Oregonians lost money, and we believe Coinbase should be held accountable and take steps to protect consumers.”
The complaint filed today in Multnomah County Circuit Court claims that Coinbase created and operated an exchange that drives and supports the sale of unregistered securities – or in other words, risky investments. Coinbase approves the cryptocurrencies listed on its platform, connects buyers and sellers, handles their trades, manages their funds and assets, and actively promotes and encourages Oregonians to buy these digital assets.
As detailed in the complaint, these unregistered securities are vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes and fraud, which often end in devastating losses for investors. Meanwhile, the insiders behind these tokens profit from investors not being able to fully research their investments.
In one example, the cryptocurrency called ICP, short for “Internet Computer Protocol,” which the SEC previously identified as an unregistered security, plummeted in price from $700 to $72 within one month after it was launched for public trading on Coinbase. Today, the coin trades around $7 per share, a price drop of almost 99% that wiped out billions of dollars of investors’ money.
This lawsuit comes as the SEC recently dropped its case against Coinbase and reassigned the lawyer leading the case to the SEC’s IT office. Attorney General Rayfield says the states must fill the enforcement vacuum being left by federal regulators who are giving up under the new administration and abandoning these important cases.
“I am committed to protecting Oregon’s investors so they’re not taken advantage of.”
Employees allege that owners of California’s top design-build multifamily plumbing subcontractor abused the AMPAM’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan in an illegal $247 million transaction
Washington, D.C. – A California federal court certified a class of employees and participants of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). AMPAM Parks Mechanical, one of California’s largest multifamily plumbing subcontractors, employs approximately 1,000 employees throughout Los Angeles, San Diego, and Northern California.
“I am really pleased the judge granted class certification in this important lawsuit against AMPAM Parks Mechanical for violating ERISA,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “The Court correctly found—as dozens of prior decisions previously held—in ERISA fiduciary cases, “Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses are identical to the unnamed class members.””
The plaintiffs allege that the founders of AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks, and Jason Parks (“the Parks brothers”), and Neil Brozen, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly creating the AMPAM ESOP for the sole purpose of selling their interest in AMPAM at an inflated price of $247 million.
To achieve the $247 million purchase price in the ESOP transaction, they hired Neil Brozen, president of Ventura Trust, a trust company doing business in Minnesota. Notably, there are multiple lawsuits pending against Neil Brozen for violations of ERISA, including a lawsuit filed by the Secretary of Labor and other class actions filed by employees of other ESOPs.
The suit further alleges that neither the Parks brothers nor Neil Brozen involved AMPAM employees in negotiating the price the ESOP would pay or the other terms of the transaction. Rather, AMPAM employees found out about the purchase of AMPAM from the Parks brothers only after the ESOP transaction was complete.
Shortly after the sale, AMPAM’s stock held by the ESOP was reported to be valued at $17,821,310, or approximately 7% of what the ESOP had paid for the company. Thereafter, the company’s value plummeted, resulting in a valuation of a mere $2.1 million, less than 1% of what the plan paid. Ultimately, based on public reporting, the ESOP participants sold the stock for less than they paid for it just four years earlier.
The name of the case is Ramirez, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
Los empleados alegan que los propietarios del principal subcontratista de plomería multifamiliar de diseño y construcción de California abusaron del Plan de Propiedad de Acciones para Empleados de AMPAM en una transacción ilegal de $247 millones.
Washington, D.C.- Un tribunal federal de California certificó a un grupo de empleados y participantes del Plan de Participación Social para Empleados (ESOP) de AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, uno de los subcontratistas de plomería multifamiliar más grandes de California, emplea aproximadamente 1000 empleados en Los Ángeles, San Diego y el norte de California.
“Me complace enormemente que el juez haya concedido la certificación de la demanda colectiva en esta importante demanda contra AMPAM Parks Mechanical por violar la ley ERISA”, declaró Michelle C. Yau, presidenta del departamento de Beneficios para Empleados/ERISA de Cohen Milstein. “El Tribunal determino correctamente—como se ha sostenido en docenas de decisiones anteriores—en casos fiduciarios bajo la ley ERISA, “que las reclamaciones y defensas de los demandantes son idénticas a la de los miembros de la demanda colectiva no identificados.” ”
Los demandantes alegan que los fundadores de AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Buddy Parks, John D. Parks, James Parks y Jason Parks (“los hermanos Parks”), y Neil Brozen, violaron la Ley de Seguridad de los Ingresos de Jubilación de los Empleados (ERISA) al supuestamente crear el ESOP de AMPAM con el único propósito de vender su participación en AMPAM a un precio inflado de $247 millones de dólares.
Para alcanzar el precio de compra de $247 millones de dólares en la transacción del ESOP, contrataron a Neil Brozen, presidente de Ventura Trust, una compañía fiduciaria que opera en Minnesota. Cabe destacar que existen múltiples demandas pendientes contra Neil Brozen por violaciones de ERISA, incluyendo una demanda interpuesta por el Secretario de Trabajo, y otras demandas colectivas interpuestas por empleados de otros ESOPs.
La demanda alega además que ni los hermanos Parks ni Neil Brozen involucraron a los empleados de AMPAM en la negociación del precio que pagaría el ESOP, ni en los demás términos de la transacción. De hecho, los empleados de AMPAM se enteraron de la compra de AMPAM por medio de los hermanos Parks solo después de que se completara la transacción del ESOP.
Poco después de la venta, se informó que las acciones de AMPAM, en poder del ESOP, estaban valoradas en $17,821,310, o aproximadamente el 7% de lo que el ESOP había pagado a la compañía. Posteriormente, el valor de la compañía se desplomó, resultando en una valoración de tan solo $2.1 millones de dólares., menos del 1% de lo que pagó el plan. Finalmente, según informes públicos, los participantes del ESOP vendieron las acciones por menos de lo que pagaron por ellas tan solo cuatro años antes.
El nombre del casi es Ramirez, et al. v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Central de California.
Sobre Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, un prestigioso bufete estadounidense especializado en litigios, con más de 100 abogados en ocho oficinas, defiende las causas de personas reales- trabajadores, consumidores, proprietario,s de pequeñas empresas, inversores y denunciantes- que trabajan para impulsar reformas corporativas y mercados justos para el beneficio del bien común.
Prioritizing Lucrative Investment Banking Clients and Putting Workers Second
A new class action lawsuit filed alleges that JPMorgan mismanaged its employee health and prescription benefits program resulting in its current and former employees vastly overpaying for premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
The case alleges that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, and other executives who claimed to be personally involved in the employee health plan, abandoned efforts at prudent management under pressure from lucrative investment banking clients of JPMorgan in the health industry.
The complaint further alleges that JPMorgan mismanaged its prescription drug plan in a number of ways that would have been obvious to any prudent manager. Other smaller companies avoided these costly mistakes, which JPMorgan’s own industry trade groups specifically warned against. These mistakes include:
- Using a flawed process to select CVS Caremark to administer its employee prescription benefits plan while CVS was a major investment banking client of JPMorgan’s, resulting in employees overpaying for prescriptions
- Overcharging employees for generic prescriptions available at vastly lower prices, including for some who went to a pharmacy without insurance.
- Allowing Caremark to list its own overpriced Humira biosimilar as the only option on the employee health plan formulary
The 97-page complaint was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. The three class representatives are current or former JPMorgan employees from across the country. The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Fairmark Partners, LLP.
“This case alleges that JPMorgan executives put lucrative investment banking revenue ahead of their fiduciary obligations to their employees, resulting in higher premiums and health care prices for employees and their families,” said Michael Lieberman of Fairmark Partners, LLP. “As one of the most powerful corporations in the world, JPMorgan has no excuse for allowing PBMs and Big Pharma to overcharge its employees for prescription drugs and healthcare.”
“We look forward to prosecuting this important case on behalf of our clients. The stakes are high for JPMorgan’s employees, and JPMorgan has an obligation to put them first – not the company – when managing its health plan and prescription drug benefit program,” added Michelle Yau of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (cohenmilstein.com) is a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, that champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – and works to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
Fairmark Partners, LLP (fairmarklaw.com) is a Washington, DC law firm that specializes in complex antitrust and healthcare litigation to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing.
Together, Cohen Milstein and Fairmark are prosecuting three cutting-edge ERISA cases against JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the companies breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to terms with their PBM that caused employees to overpay for prescription drugs.
Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
San Diego, CA – Four Indonesian villagers who worked on fishing vessels in Bumble Bee Foods, LLC’s supply chain accused the seafood company of knowingly benefitting from forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It is believed to be the first such forced labor at sea case brought against an American seafood company.
The men were lured by promises of good jobs that would support their families but life on board vessels in Bumble Bee’s supply chain was rife with abuse, according to filings. The villagers allege they endured violence daily, did not get enough to eat, and were denied medical care even when seriously injured and forced to keep working.
Trapped by predatory contracts, the men would owe insurmountably steep fines if they quit – a form of forced labor known as debt bondage. According to the complaint, the wages they were promised shrank as funds were withheld to repay bogus fees, deductions and penalties. The men returned home to find they had earned little to no money from months of hard labor. Bumble Bee earns over $1 billion in revenue annually.
“These men were looking for good jobs so they could provide for their families and build a future. Instead, they allege, they were trapped – isolated at sea, beaten with metal hooks, not getting enough food, working around the clock – and facing financial penalties if they tried to leave. The complaint outlines how each of them asked to be released but were kept on board against their will – and in some cases didn’t take home a single penny for their labor,” said Agnieszka Fryszman, partner at Cohen Milstein and chair of its Human Rights practice. “As part of its effort to stamp out human trafficking and forced labor, U.S. law authorizes survivors to bring claims in the United States against the persons who benefitted from those abuses, recognizing that forced labor overseas harms U.S. companies that obey the law. Our clients are seeking justice not only for themselves but to implement changes that will protect other fishers, including men at sea right now on the same boats.”
“One time, the rope holding the weighing gear broke and dropped a load of fish on me, cutting my leg open from thigh to shin. The captain ordered me to keep working. I thought there was water filling my boot, but I realized it was my own blood. I could see the bone in my leg,” said Akhmad, one of the Indonesian villagers bringing the lawsuit. “I was left to clean and bandage my leg myself, without sterile medical supplies, and I kept bleeding for two weeks. They made me keep working. It still hurts and probably always will. One of the other fishers and I asked to leave the ship, but the captain refused.”
Once on board, the fishers were not allowed to leave the boats and the ships never sailed to port. Vessels in Bumble Bee’s fleet transfer their catches to refrigerated cargo vessels, and receive supplies of fuel, food and water at sea. This practice, called transshipment, enables fishing vessels to remain at sea for months or even years at a time.
For decades, governments, international organizations, non-government organizations, academic researchers, labor rights advocates and the media have raised alarms about the prevalence of forced labor on distant-water fishing vessels, as well as about risk factors such as the use of transshipment. As a leader in the seafood industry, Bumble Bee is aware of these issues. Since 2016, Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace East Asia and Greenpeace Southeast Asia have issued multiple reports highlighting the use of forced labor on vessels in Bumble Bee’s supply chain. When Greenpeace USA emailed a link to one such report directly to Bumble Bee’s then-CEO Chris Lischewski, he replied, “As for the report on Taiwan, I have printed it but have not yet taken the time to read it. It is not high on my priority list.”
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act authorizes a survivor of human trafficking, regardless of their citizenship, to take legal action against companies that knew or should have known that they were benefiting from participation in a venture that used forced labor. Bumble Bee Foods is headquartered in San Diego, California.
The plaintiffs are represented by Agnieszka Fryszman and Nicholas Jacques of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. Other counsel include Paul Hoffman and Helen Zeldes of Shonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP and Asia Arminio of GREENPEACE, INC.
###
Douglas J. McNamara named to four-person leadership team in high-profile consolidated fintech consumer protection class action.
WASHINGTON, DC – The Honorable Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Douglas J. McNamara, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice, as one of four Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel, to oversee In re: Capital One Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation. This high-profile consolidated class action represents more than 40 online community creators across the United States. They include influencers, YouTubers, website operators, and online publications, among others, who work hand-in-hand with online merchants to market and sell specific products and services.
The plaintiffs allege that the Capital One Shopping browser extension, that an estimated 10 million people in the United States download and use on their laptops and mobile devices for online shopping at a discounted price, is designed to steal their commissions. Specifically, they claim that when a consumer makes a purchase via the Capital One Shopping browser extension, instead of crediting the creator’s affiliate marketing identify code, it automatically substitutes its own affiliate marketing identity code to receive the commission – even if the consumer made the purchase directly from the creator’s affiliate web link.
“I’m incredibly honored by Judge Trenga’s appointment. He had many highly qualified attorneys to choose from and selected some fantastic litigators to represent the impacted plaintiffs,” said Doug McNamara, of Cohen Milstein. “I look forward to representing the creators and influencers in this case against Capital One, that, on its face appears to be an egregious theft of their hard-earned compensation.”
McNamara is widely recognized for his class action experience involving data breach and false advertising. He currently serves as co-lead class counsel in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, In Re: Data Breach Security Litigation Against Caesars Entertainment, Inc, and In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation. He is also on the steering committee and leadership teams ofIn re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation and In re Marriott International Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.
The four-member court-appointed leadership team also includes the law firms of Hausfeld LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
Class actions allege that the mass terminations of probationary employees violated workers’ rights under federal law
The class action filings are believed to be the first on behalf of thousands of probationary employees fired in February
Washington, D.C. – Federal employees announced today the filing of class action appeals against multiple federal agencies, alleging their rights have been violated under federal law. The proposed classes include federal employees who were terminated in recent weeks on the basis that they were in a probationary or trial period.
Leading employment and civil rights attorneys representing federal workers say that the recent purge violated at least a dozen laws, regulations, and constitutional protections. The workers argue that the mass terminations constituted a constructive reduction in force (RIF), which requires that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance, and veteran status when making termination decisions. Regulations also require 60 days advance notice of termination in a RIF. Instead, public servants were abruptly terminated, with total disregard for these key protections.
The unprecedented purge of the civil service has left workers, agencies, and the public reeling. Thousands of federal employees were fired without cause, notice or severance. Agencies are struggling to function without the staffing needed to provide vital services to the American people.
“It feels like the rug has been pulled out from under us,” said Allison Keating, a New Hampshire native and single mother of two, who was fired last month after a 24-year career in public service. “You spend your whole life doing the right things to build your experience and career: go to college, volunteer, work hard, two jobs, night school. And then suddenly everything you’ve worked your whole life for is gone. I am worried about how to pay my mortgage and support my two daughters.” Keating worked for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, where she helped implement Pittman-Robertson funded wildlife management, research and conservation across 13 states.
The appeals were filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent agency that oversees and protects the rights of federal employees.
“I’ve dedicated my life to serving this country — on the battlefield and in the public sector. Being laid off without any notice or cause turned my life upside down,” said Jammie Mosser, a veteran and father of two who worked at the Veterans Affairs office in his home state of Michigan. “But this isn’t just about the harm to federal employees and their families. These layoffs will devastate the communities that depend on government services, like the millions of veterans who rely on the VA when they return home from duty.”
The employees are represented by a group of leading employment and civil rights law firms — Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Brown Goldstein Levy, Gilbert Employment Law, and James & Hoffman.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. It has litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continues to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.
About Brown Goldstein Levy
For almost four decades, Brown, Goldstein & Levy has been recognized as Maryland’s leading private law firm for high impact, public interest cases. Our attorneys have handled these challenges in the Supreme Court and most of the federal appellate circuits, as well as in state courts throughout Maryland and around the country. The attorneys at Brown, Goldstein & Levy devise creative and practical solutions to workplace issues. And when negotiated solutions are not possible, we provide effective and tenacious representation. Whether you are a top executive or an hourly wage worker, we can help you understand your rights at work, negotiate fair deals, and litigate aggressively when your rights have been violated. Our lawyers provide counseling and advice about employee rights under state and federal employment laws. We help executives negotiate contract and severance terms, file large wage and hour cases to protect employees’ rights to overtime and equal pay, and advocate for employees in whistleblower, discrimination, contract, non-competition, and compensation matters.
About Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.
Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., is the worker’s voice in litigation involving employee rights violations. Gilbert’s attorneys are highly skilled in representing federal employees before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other federal administrative agencies. Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., has also represented employees in county and state courts, as well as U.S. District and Appeals Courts.
About James & Hoffman
James & Hoffman is a law firm that represents workers and labor unions across the country, advancing their interests in critical matters arising in state and federal courts, administrative proceedings, and arbitrations. The firm is a national leader in representation of federal government employees. It is based in Washington, D.C.
DiCello Levitt, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, HammondLaw Representing Content Creators Who Claim Capital One Shopping Browser Extension Steals Commissions
CHICAGO – January 24, 2025 – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, HammondLaw, and DiCello Levitt have filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One Financial Corporation, Wikibuy LLC, and Wikibuy Holdings, LLC (Capital One) on behalf of Edgar Oganesyan, Matthew Ely, and other social media influencers. The lawsuit alleges that defendants’ Capital One Shopping browser extension has been systematically stealing affiliate marketing commissions.
The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claims that the browser extension replaces the affiliate marketer’s cookie with its own, thereby taking credit for the sale and the resulting commission.
Oganesyan and Ely operate popular YouTube channels—Oganesyan runs TechSource with 3.87 million followers, and Ely co-owns ToastyBros, LLC with more than 750,000 followers. Both say they have experienced a decline in revenue from affiliate marketing despite increased viewership and engagement.
“Capital One’s actions are a blatant exploitation of content creators’ hard work, diverting their rightful earnings through deceptive practices,” said DiCello Levitt Partner Daniel Schwartz. “We are committed to ensuring Mr. Oganesyan, Mr. Ely, and other affected Creators receive the compensation they deserve.”
“This is pure and simple consumer abuse by Capital One, but at a nationwide level. We look forward to seeking justice for our clients and helping them have their day in court,” said Douglas J. McNamara, a partner at Cohen Milstein.
The class action seeks to represent a nationwide class of U.S.-based social media influencers, bloggers, and other content creators who have had their commissions diverted by Capital One. The lawsuit alleges violations of several laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Business & Professional Code, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief.
The case is Edgar Oganesyan and Matthew Ely v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Wikibuy LLC, and Wikibuy Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00113. A copy of the complaint is available here.
About DiCello Levitt
At DiCello Levitt, we’re dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, and civil and human rights litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases—whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise—for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens’ rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations—and our capital—on the line for our clients.
DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings.
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
About Hammond Law
HammondLaw P.C., is a leading class action litigation law firm dedicated to protecting consumers and employees and attaining the best results possible on their behalf. We are a nimble team of lawyers who have achieved remarkable success on behalf of our clients. Our work has resulted in changes to industry standards, legislative amendments, and millions of dollars in recovered damages.
LAS VEGAS – A federal court granted preliminary approval of a $45 million global settlement in a data breach class action against MGM Resorts International for failing to implement reasonable data security practices, thereby allowing the personal information of tens-of-millions of MGM hotel guests and customers to be stolen in two massive data breaches in July 2019 and September 2023.
Plaintiffs alleged that because MGM Resorts failed to implement reasonable data security practices, MGM customers’ personally identifiable information (PII), including addresses, driver’s license numbers, social security numbers, passport numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and other information, were stolen as a result of the two data breaches. Some of the information was subsequently posted for sale on online forums.
“On behalf of millions of MGM Resort customers, I’m very pleased with this settlement,” said Douglas J. McNamara, Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel and a partner at Cohen Milstein. “The hotel and entertainment industries are particularly desirable targets for hackers. The same hackers also attacked Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in 2023.” Mr. McNamara is Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in In Re: Data Breach Security Litigation Against Caesars Entertainment, Inc., as well.
The settlement includes significant financial relief for impacted plaintiffs. Class members whose social security number or military identification number were exposed are eligible for a $75 cash payment and those whose passport number or driver’s license were exposed are eligible for a $50 payment. In addition, all settlement class members may elect identity theft protection and credit monitoring.
MGM Resorts International is a global hospitality, entertainment, and resort company, which operates properties across the U.S., including the Bellagio, Mandalay Bay and MGM Grand. The name of the consolidated class action is In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation, Case. No. 2:20-cv-00376, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada.
In addition to Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein, the Interim Class Counsel leadership team for the 2019 case includes John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan; David M. Berger of Gibbs Law Group; and E. Michelle Drake of Berger Montague. The Interim Class Counsel leadership team for the 2023 case includes James J. Pizzirusso of Hausfeld; J. Gerard Stranch IV of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey; Lynn A. Toops of Cohen & Malad; Gary Klinger of Milberg; and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.
More than 12,000 female Apple employees in California potentially impacted.
Women claim that Apple systematically pays them less than male employees.
San Francisco, CA – A San Francisco Superior Court judge denied Apple Inc’s motion to strike class allegations and largely denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in a high-profile putative gender discrimination class action, allowing the case to move forward.
The women, who seek to represent more than 12,000 current and former female employees in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions in California, claim that Apple violated California’s Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act by systematically paying them lower wages than male employees who perform substantially similar work and by assigning them lower starting salaries and salary levels based on their prior pay or pay expectations.
In its ruling the court held that it was not persuaded by Apple’s arguments, finding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged their claims about Apple allegedly violating the California Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act. Specifically, the court believed that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Apple’s salary decisions were made in a centralized location pursuant to an employment policy had the effect of perpetuating past pay disparities and paying women less for substantially similar work to men.
“I am really pleased with today’s ruling. This start low, stay low practice has been a no-win situation for women working at Apple for years. So, I’m glad they will have their day in court.” said Eve Cervantez, a partner at Altshuler Berzon LLP.
Specifically, the women claim that before the fall of 2017, Apple asked job candidates for prior pay information and, when that practice became unlawful in January 2018, Apple continued to inquire about prior pay under the guise of candidates’ pay expectations.
“This is a very important case that impacts thousands of current and former female Apple employees,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. “I look forward to helping them prove that Apple systematically and willfully maintained a centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice of paying its female employees in California less than male employees for substantially similar work. This practice is simply unlawful, and Apple should be held accountable.”
The complaint alleges that once women were hired, Apple used prior pay information to set starting salaries, resulting in lower pay rates for women than for men who perform substantially similar work. Subsequent pay raises and bonuses were proportional to existing pay, thereby perpetuating and widening the gap. The women also claim that Apple’s performance evaluation system is biased against women, rewarding men and penalizing women for scored categories like teamwork and leadership.
“Apple has known or should have known about these pay and evaluation disparities and has yet to take any action to remedy the inequality. Unfortunately, as in many gender discrimination cases, such pay gaps only widen over time” said Chauniqua Young, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP. “We look forward to helping our clients get justice.”
As a result of Apple’s unlawful pay policies and/or practices, the women claim that all putative class members have been denied compensation legally owed to them for work performed since 2020, and are entitled to wages and other compensation due, interest, and liquidated damages. In addition to damages, the women also seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs are represented by James Finberg and Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon LLP, Joseph Sellers and Phoebe Wolfe of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Adam Klein and Chauniqua Young of Outten & Golden LLP.
###
About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.
About Altshuler Berzon
Altshuler Berzon LLP is a California law firm dedicated to providing the highest quality representation in the service of economic justice and the public interest. We represent labor unions, workers, consumers, environmental groups, other public interest organizations, and public entities. We specialize in labor and employment, constitutional, environmental, civil rights, class action, campaign and election, and impact litigation, at both the trial and appellate levels.
About Outten & Golden LLP
Outten & Golden LLP is the largest U.S. law firm dedicated to the representation of employees. With offices in New York City, Washington D.C. and San Francisco, the firm has taken on many of the country’s largest and most powerful employers, forging landmark settlements and historic verdicts that contribute to a more equitable workplace. As a mission-driven firm, O&G uses litigation and other means to expand the rights of all employees to fair wages and working conditions, and a workplace free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.