6th Circ. Rejects General Motors Appeal of Lower Court’s Certification of 26 State Classes Who Claim General Motors Was Aware of Transmission Defects and Safety Risks
6th Circ. Concurs with Lower Court’s Rejection of Key GM Arguments About Consumer Fraud and Arbitration
DETROIT, Mich. – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a class certification granted on March 20, 2023 in a massive class action lawsuit across 26 states against General Motors (GM) that alleges the car manufacturer violated state consumer protection statutes by knowingly putting cars with faulty transmissions on the road, endangering drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
The certified class is composed of more than 800,000 owners of GM vehicles with one of two models of eight-speed automatic transmissions, the GM 8L90 or 8L45, which were manufactured between 2015 and March 1, 2019. Plaintiffs claim that the vehicles suffer from shuddering or shaking in higher gears and hesitation, lurching, or jerking in lower gears. Some drivers reported the gear shifting as so violent that it feels as if they were hit by another vehicle. Internal company documents obtained in litigation show that even GM had determined the “startling effect” of the harsh shifts can create a safety issue.
The Sixth Circuit concurred with the lower court’s determination that “[t]he predominant elements of claims for consumer fraud . . . are consistent across all jurisdictions,” namely “(1) proof of intentional concealment or deception by the defendant concerning its knowledge of the alleged defects, and (2) the significance of the information withheld to a reasonable consumer.”
“We are very pleased the 6th Circuit affirmed Judge Lawson’s very thoughtful and thorough class certification order. As the evidence shows, GM has known for years about these transmission defects yet did nothing to tell its customers. Instead, GM went as far as to direct dealers to tell the customers that harsh shifts were ‘normal or ‘characteristic,’” said Ted Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed Sole Lead Counsel for the class. “GM’s conduct is highly irresponsible and a breach of the consumers’ trust. We look forward to holding GM accountable before a Michigan jury.”
In its appeal, GM also argued that absent class members were bound by arbitration agreements in addressing any alleged defective transmissions and that the lower court did not consider these agreements in evaluating predominance. However, in certifying the class action, the court determined that GM had waived its right to compel arbitration. The Sixth Circuit concurred with the lower court, stating “it is notable that that GM did not raise an arbitration issue in its initial motion to dismiss, filed on June 14, 2019, nor in its motion to dismiss the [consolidated complaint], filed on November 29, 2019. Instead, GM engaged in over two years of litigation after it filed both motions to dismiss.”
“GM never had any arbitration agreements with its customers and was trying to highjack agreements between dealers and customers to avoid a class action. GM could have tried this tactic with the named Plaintiffs, but didn’t.” stated Doug McNamara, a partner at Cohen Milstein. “We will continue to protect these consumers who purchased defective vehicles worth less than they paid.”
On April 17, 2024, Cohen Milstein filed another case in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of consumers in ten additional states regarding the 8L transmission defects. Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-11007.
The affected vehicles in the Speerly and Ulrich cases include Cadillac Escalade (2015 – 2016), Chevrolet Corvette (2015), Chevrolet Camaro (2016 – 2017), Chevrolet Silverado (2015 – 2017), Chevrolet Colorado (2017 – 2018), CMC Sierra (2015 – 2017), GMC Yukon Denali (2015 – 2017), and GMC Canyon (2017 – 2018) with one of two models of eight-speed automatic transmissions, the GM 8L90 or 8L45.
Access case documents and read more about Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, LLC (E.D. Mich.).
The plaintiffs are also represented by Theodore J. Leopold, Doug McNamara, Karina Puttieva, and Madelyn Petersen of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC, Melissa L. Yeates of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Tarek Zohdy of Capstone Law APC, E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, Steven Calamusa of Gordon & Partners PA and Gretchen Freeman Cappio of Keller Rohrback L.L. P.
###
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.
Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com
The settlement includes a number of major reforms to the agency after members of a class of over 1,000 employees challenged a widespread practice of involuntary removal from active duty because of pregnancy, resulting in lost wages and causing them emotional harm.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A class of over 1,000 employees of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the largest federal law enforcement agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has reached a historic $45 million settlement in a class action alleging that the agency discriminated against pregnant employees. The settlement includes an agreement by CBP to enact sweeping reforms to policies that will eliminate long-standing discriminatory practices.
Initially filed in 2016 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the case challenged the widespread practice of placing Officers and Agriculture Specialists on light duty because of their pregnancy without offering them the opportunity to remain in their regular positions, with or without an accommodation, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Placement on temporary light duty limited the pregnant employees’ ability to earn overtime and enhanced pay rates for service at night and on Sundays. In addition, pregnant officers placed on leave were required to immediately turn in their firearms after reporting their pregnancy and often required to requalify to carry their firearm.
“Announcing my pregnancy to my colleagues and supervisor should have been a happy occasion – but it quickly became clear that such news was not welcome. The assumption was that I could no longer effectively do my job, just because I was pregnant. It was traumatizing, frustrating and demoralizing,” said Roberta Gabaldon, lead plaintiff in the case. “My managers don’t get to start making decisions for me just because I’m pregnant. This policy was never about our abilities – it was about the agency’s outdated views on pregnancy.”
Affected employees alleged that this systematic practice violated federal law because the agency treated pregnancy differently from all other short-term disabilities. Typically, CBP employees who experience injuries unrelated to their work or illness were given the option to request light duty, while pregnant officers and agricultural specialists were directed to placement on temporary light duty.
“In one of the premier law enforcement agencies in our country, it is very troubling that pregnant officers and specialists were disadvantaged solely because of their pregnancy,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of the Civil Rights & Employment practice. “Fortunately, this settlement will provide significant relief to victims of this unlawful practice and, with the CBP’s adoption of reforms negotiated in this settlement, CBP should become a leader among law enforcement agencies in providing equal opportunities for pregnant employees to thrive and be regarded as equally capable of performing their jobs as their non-pregnant colleagues.”
In addition to paying monetary relief to redress financial losses and emotional harm of the class members, CBP agreed to reform its personnel practices to ensure pregnant officers and specialists are treated equally in their ability or inability to work as their colleagues. Those reforms include enacting a new policy that presumes pregnant officers and agriculture specialists can continue to serve in their positions, identifies a non-exhaustive list of accommodations for pregnant employees and mandatory training for managers and supervisors on the rights and reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. Any pregnant employees currently on light duty due to CBP’s current practice will be able to return to full duty and their normal shift schedule.
“CBP has a well-documented history of forcibly sidelining their employees when they report their pregnancies. This policy created tremendous emotional and economic harm for these women, and we are pleased to have secured justice and accountability for their mistreatment,” said Shannon Leary, partner at Gilbert Employment Law and chair of its LGBTQ+ and Gender Issues practice. “This settlement is about more than rectifying a discriminatory practice – it’s about making the entire agency a fair workplace for everyone.”
The EEOC certified the class action in April 2023. The settlement is expected to receive final approval in September. The class is represented by Joseph M. Sellers, Phoebe Wolfe, Harini Srinivasan and Megan Reif of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Gary Gilbert, Shannon Leary, Cori Cohen and Rachel Petro of Gilbert Employment Law.
###
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 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.
WASHINGTON, DC, July 8, 2024 – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC alerts investors who purchased securities of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (“Hertz”) (NASDAQ: HTZ) between April 27, 2023 and April 24, 2024 (the “Class Period”) that they have until July 30, 2024 to contact the firm if they wish to seek lead plaintiff status in a pending class action lawsuit.
If you acquired Hertz shares during the Class Period and suffered a significant loss, contact Cohen Milstein Partner Steven J. Toll at (202) 408-4600 or stoll@cohenmilstein.com to discuss your legal rights and options, which include moving to be appointed lead plaintiff. You are not required to file a lead plaintiff motion to take part in the litigation as an absent class member.
Hertz operates as a vehicle rental company that offers internal combustion engine (“ICE”) vehicles and electric vehicles (“EVs”) for rental from locations in various countries. It also sells vehicles and provides other value-added services. A complaint filed May 31, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida accuses the Company and certain current and former officers (“Defendants”) of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that: (i) Hertz downplayed the financial impact of vehicle depreciation, and/or overstated its ability to track and manage vehicle depreciation; (ii) demand for Hertz’s EVs was not as strong as Defendants had led investors to believe; and (iii) Hertz had too many vehicles, particularly EVs, in its fleet to remain profitable. The complaint further alleges that Hertz failed to disclose that it was likely to incur significant losses on the disposition of both its ICE vehicles and EVs, resulting in a significant negative impact on Hertz’s financial results.
If you would like to discuss your legal rights without any cost or obligation, please contact:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices, Cohen Milstein is one of the largest plaintiff-side law firms with more than 50 years of experience litigating securities fraud cases. We have recovered billions of dollars to investors, including $1 billion last year as co-lead counsel in In re Wells Fargo & Company Securities Litigation, and are perennially recognized as one of the best securities practice groups in the country by legal publications such as The National Law Journal, Law360, Chambers USA, and The Legal 500.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
# # #
Settlement includes meaningful tenant screening policy reforms, training, and testing at several Northwest D.C. apartment buildings.
Settlement helps establish best practices for other housing providers and property management companies across D.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C.–The Equal Rights Center (“ERC”) today announced that it has reached a Cooperation Agreement to resolve its housing discrimination lawsuit against AIR Property Management TRS, LLC (“AIR”) which manages several Washington D.C. apartment complexes in Northwest D.C. neighborhoods. The settlement includes reforms designed to ensure equal access for all applicants, including voucher holders, at Latrobe Apartment Homes in Logan Circle, Upton Place in Cathedral Heights, and Vaughan Place in McLean Gardens.
As part of the settlement, AIR agrees not to deny applicants on illegal bases, including having criminal records more than 7 years old and evictions more than 3 years old, as well as using income-based housing subsidies to pay for rent. In accordance with D.C. law, it also won’t consider credit scores for those using housing subsidies.
In addition, AIR has agreed to implement a number of measures to ensure a fair and equitable tenant screening process, including:
- Revising its tenant screening policy and criteria as needed to comply with D.C. law, and distributing the policy to all employees involved in management and leasing of apartments, all employees involved in the screening of applicants for apartments, and all third-party screening companies engaged in the screening of applicants;
- Requesting prospective tenants disclose their voucher status prior to the running of income and credit checks, and ensuring that all prospective tenant screening procedures comply with DC’s protections for voucher holders;
- Ensuring all prospective tenant screening procedures comply with DC’s protections for people with prior evictions and people with criminal records;
- Providing an annual ERC training program to all employees involved in the screening, leasing, and management functions;
- Updating AIR’s website to list all eligibility criteria for housing applicants; and
- Testing for compliance with the above provisions.
“Crafting and implementing equitable tenant screening policies are where the rubber hits the road in our work to undo the harms of racial segregation. That’s why we’re committed to leading efforts that result in such wide-ranging policy changes,” said Kate Scott, Equal Rights Center Executive Director. “We are thrilled to be able to work with AIR Communities collaboratively on these issues, and we look forward to helping AIR become a better role model in the D.C. neighborhoods where their properties are located.”
“The settlement reached today shows how one property management company can make a difference to make sure that tenant screening across the District is fair and equitable,” said Brian Corman, partner at Cohen Milstein, who helps lead the firm’s Fair Housing litigation efforts. “Housing vouchers help level the economic playing field, particularly for communities of color, and we are pleased that AIR Property Management is taking measures to further that goal.”
Earlier this year, ERC filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against AIR Property Management, alleging the company discriminated against potential tenants using vouchers at two of its Northwest D.C. apartment complexes. The lawsuit also alleged AIR Property Management created unlawful barriers for applicants who have criminal records more than 7 years old and evictions more than 3 years old. As ERC explained in its lawsuit, the harm caused by these types of tenant screening practices are particularly acute for low-income and Black residents of the District.
Between 2022 and 2023, ERC conducted an investigation to determine whether AIR Property Management engaged in discriminatory and unlawful rental behaviors. The testing was in response to allegedly discriminatory statements on the Latrobe Apartment Homes and Vaughan Place websites, which stated that applicants would be disqualified based on felony convictions and previous evictions. These statements violated several of D.C.’s consumer protection and fair housing laws. ERC also discovered that applicants with government-issued vouchers faced unfair and unlawful requirements, including meeting minimum credit scores and income requirements.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program, formerly known as Section 8, is a federally funded housing subsidy program that currently provides rental and housing assistance to approximately 2 million families in the U.S. and 11,500 low-income families in D.C.. Under the program, Voucher holders are free to choose any housing in the rental market as long as it doesn’t exceed the monthly rental limit amounts of the program. The program’s intent is to eliminate barriers that would restrict these families from securing housing in neighborhoods with increased access to public transportation, grocery stores, and well-performing schools.
“The settlement reached today is a step in the right direction and puts a much-needed spotlight on policies that greatly limit options for people with criminal histories – an issue we have seen in the District for far too long,” said Joanna K. Wasik, Deputy Legal Director at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
ERC is represented by Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Joanna K. Wasik of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
###
About Equal Rights Center
The ERC is a civil rights organization that identifies and seeks to eliminate unlawful and unfair discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations in its home community of Greater Washington D.C. and nationwide. The ERC’s core strategy for identifying unlawful and unfair discrimination is civil rights testing. When the ERC identifies discrimination, it seeks to eliminate it through the use of testing data to educate the public and business community, support policy advocacy, conduct compliance testing and training, and, if necessary, take enforcement action.
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.
About Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all.
Lead plaintiffs represent a potential class of more than 12,000 women in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions in California.
Women claim that Apple systematically relies on pay expectation and prior pay information before joining Apple, to pay them less than male employees who perform substantially similar work.
San Francisco, CA – Today, plaintiff-side powerhouses Altshuler Berzon, Cohen Milstein, and Outten & Golden filed a class action gender pay discrimination lawsuit against Apple Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two female employees, claims Apple violated California’s Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act by systematically paying women lower wages than male employees who perform substantially similar work.
The women, who represent more than 12,000 current and former female employees in Apple’s engineering, marketing, and AppleCare divisions in California, also claim that Apple, which is headquartered in Cupertino and has an office in San Francisco, maintains a centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice of paying its female employees less than male employees for substantially similar work. Finally, they claim that the tech giant knows or should have known about these substantial pay disparities and has yet to take any action to remedy the inequality.
“One day, I saw a W-2 left on the office printer. It belonged to my male colleague, who has the same job position. I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work. This revelation made me feel terrible,” said Justina Jong, a Customer/Technical Training Instructor on Apple’sWorldwide Developer Relations/App Review team.
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. Apple used this information to set starting salaries, resulting in lower pay rates for women than for men who perform substantially similar work.
“Apple has systematically and willfully paid women in California lower compensation than men with similar education and experience by tracking them into lower starting salaries,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. “Even if Apple no longer asks for specific prior pay data, asking them for pay expectations is basically the same thing. Apple’s policy and practice of collecting such information about pay expectations and using that information to set starting salaries has had a disparate impact on women, and Apple’s failure to pay women and men equal wages for performing substantially similar work is simply not justified under the law.”
The women also claim that Apple’s performance evaluation system is biased against women for scored categories, such as teamwork and leadership, which typically reward men and penalize women. They further claim this bias has a direct impact on women’s bonuses, restricted stock units, and pay increases at Apple, thereby furthering the disparate impact and widening the pay gap.
“This is a no-win situation for female employees at Apple,” said Eve Cervantez, a partner at Altshuler Berzon. “Once women are hired into a lower pay range at Apple, subsequent pay raises or any bonuses are tracked accordingly, meaning they don’t correct the gender pay gap. Instead, they perpetuate and widen the gap because raises and bonuses are based on a percentage of the employee’s base salary.”
“Unfortunately, it seems that our clients have been paid unfairly from the moment they were hired, and that pay gap has only widened over time” said Chauniqua Young, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP. “We look forward to fighting for their rights, and those of thousands of other women who have been affected by Apple’s pay practices.”
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
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.
Douglas J. McNamara named to the three-person Interim Class Counsel leadership team.
WASHINGTON, DC – Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada appointed Douglas J. McNamara, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice and Data Breach & Cybersecurity Litigation team, as one of three Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, to oversee In Re: Data Breach Security Litigation Against Caesars Entertainment, Inc., a data breach class action arising from a cyberattack impacting members of the loyalty program at Caesars Entertainment, which operates eight hotel casinos in Las Vegas.
The data breach, which was discovered on September 7, 2023, was allegedly perpetrated by a cybercriminal group called “Scattered Spider,” which infiltrated an IT vendor of Caesar Entertainment through social engineering. As a result, the group was allegedly able to download the six-terabyte Caesars’ loyalty program member database, which included personal identifiable information (“PII”) of more than 65 million rewards program members, including Social Security numbers, drivers’ license information, passport numbers, birthdates, purchase information, gaming activity information, biometric information, and other sensitive data. The group then demanded a $30 million ransom, of which Caesars reportedly paid half.
Plaintiffs, who are members of Caesars’ loyalty program, allege that the breach was the result of Caesars negligence in managing its data security protocol and that customers were not informed of the issue in a timely manner. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that despite Caesars disclosing the attack in a September 14 Securities Exchange Commission filing, Caesars did not explain the breadth of the breach to the SEC.
“I’m incredibly honored by Judge Weksler’s appointment. She had a number of excellent data breach litigators to select from,” said Doug McNamara, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Consumer Protection practice and Data Breach & Cybersecurity Litigation team.
McNamara is widely recognized for his class action expertise in data breach and false advertising litigation. He currently serves as co-lead interim class counsel in In re MOVEit Data Breach Litigation 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.
The three-member court-appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel leadership team also includes the law firms of Morgan & Morgan and Dicello Leavitt 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. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com.
Third judgment against Iran brings total damages to more than $1.5 billion for its alleged involvement in the 1983 bombing.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Honorable Carl J. Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a final judgment, requiring the Islamic Republic of Iran to pay $239 million to 25 military servicemembers and relatives who were injured or killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, carried out by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, at the direction and with the support of Iran. The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American servicemembers and injured numerous others, was the deadliest state-sponsored terrorist attack against United States citizens before September 11, 2001.
This is the third judgment the court has entered in three cases brought by Cohen Milstein and Karsman McKenzie & Hart on behalf of plaintiffs under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against Iran for its role in the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing. In 2018, the same court ordered Iran to pay $920 million in total damages in the first case that was brought in 2014. In total, Cohen Milstein and Karsman McKenzie & Hart have obtained more than $1.5 billion in total judgments for more than 150 U.S. military service members who were killed or injured in the 1983 bombing and their relatives.
“We have been in litigation against Iran for this horrific terrorist act for well over 10 years. I am grateful to the court in continuing to hold Iran accountable and bringing some semblance of justice to the victims’ families and the soldiers who survived,” said Robert Braun, a partner at Cohen Milstein overseeing the litigation. “Nothing will bring back the brave men and women lost in the 1983 bombing, but this judgment will bring a measure of relief.”
The plaintiffs filed this most recent lawsuit, Encinas, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, in 2018, bringing claims under the state-sponsored terrorism exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows citizens to sue foreign countries sponsoring terrorism.
“I am pleased to see justice done and Iran held accountable for sponsoring acts of terror. If nothing else, these three Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act judgments are an important testament to the strength of the United States justice system in holding bad foreign actors accountable to the U.S. citizens they harm no matter what soil their feet stand on,” Ted Leopold, co-chair of the firm’s Complex Tort and Consumer Protection practices.
To date, Iran has not participated in these lawsuits, resulting in default judgments. However, the plaintiffs can receive compensatory damages from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.
“While we are grateful to the Court for holding Iran accountable for the horrific act it perpetrated in 1983, we acknowledge that much more work needs to be done to ensure our clients are fully compensated,” said R. Paul Hart, a partner at Karsman McKenzie & Hart and co-counsel on the case.”
The three cases are Relvas, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., filed in 2014, DiBenedetto, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., filed in 2016; and Encinas, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., filed in 2018. Plaintiffs are represented by Robert A. Braun and Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and R. Paul Hart and Jeremy McKenzie of Karsman McKenzie & Hart.
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. For more information, visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com.
About Karsman McKenzie & Hart
Karsman McKenzie & Hart is a Savannah, Georgia-based personal injury and trial law firm. The firm has extensive experience handling complex personal injury lawsuits, including mass torts, major industrial accident litigation, and product liability claims. For more information, visit https://www.kmtrial.com.
More than 15,750 individual claims filed simultaneously against Amazon, alleging drivers were misclassified as independent contractors.
Lawyers continue to sign up other misclassified drivers to participate in arbitration.
San Francisco, CA – Today, more than 15,750 Amazon Flex drivers in California, Illinois and Massachusetts deluged Amazon, the e-commerce and delivery giant, with individual wage and hour arbitration actions, alleging that Amazon misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees. Approximately 450 such claims are already on file with the American Arbitration Association, bringing the total driver claims to well over 16,000. The drivers are seeking compensation for unpaid wages, overtime, and reimbursement for eligible expenses, such as mileage and cell phone usage.
Launched in 2015, Amazon Flex is a cornerstone of Amazon’s national delivery operation, which, according to the Wall Street Journal is now the largest U.S. package delivery company, outpacing rivals FedEx and UPS. Since the inception of Amazon Flex, more than 2.9 million drivers in the U.S. have downloaded the Amazon Flex app. onto their phone. A hallmark of Amazon delivery service is to offer Amazon Prime and other customers premium “last-mile” deliveries from Whole Foods, which Amazon acquired in 2017, and Amazon warehouse hubs to customers’ doorsteps. However, unlike its main delivery rivals, Amazon classifies the Flex drivers as independent contractors, not employees, requiring the drivers to bear all expenses of their work and engage in work that is uncompensated.
The drivers claim that the laws prevailing in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts require that the Amazon Flex drivers should be classified and compensated as employees.
“As Amazon exerts considerable control over the Flex Drivers in their deliveries and the deliveries are part of Amazon’s usual business, the drivers qualify as Amazon employees, not independent contractors, and should be paid accordingly,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and attorney for the drivers. “That Amazon fails to pay these Flex Drivers wages and reimburse expenses that the law requires is inexcusable, exploiting some of the most vulnerable workers in our society. By doing so, Amazon gains a competitive advantage in pricing these delivery services that has contributed to its success as the leading package delivery company in the country.”
Advertising the Flex program as a way for drivers to earn extra money, Amazon pays Amazon Flex drivers for only a pre-set number of scheduled hours in a delivery shift (or “block”), regardless of how long it takes to complete their delivery route. That means if a driver books a 3-hour shift where they might receive dozens of delivery requests that could take 4+ hours to complete, Amazon will pay them for only 3 hours.
“I came to the United States from Iran for a better life. Amazon Flex promised good money and flexible hours,” said Saman Khodaei, a driver who drove for Amazon Flex in Los Angeles and successfully arbitrated his misclassification claim. “Instead, it’s a fulltime job. Some days, I worked more than 8 hours because I had to wait in line to pick up my packages before I could start my deliveries. And then I had to check in and wait in line again for my next block of deliveries. It’s so competitive, I barely had time to eat or take a break. It should be simple: Amazon should pay drivers for their time to wait, load, check in. It’s all a part of the delivery.”
Amazon, which has a history of misclassifying workers as independent contractors, also requires drivers to arbitrate disputes with the American Arbitration Association. More than 65% of employers in the U.S. mandate such agreements. Unlike court, arbitration proceedings are private and often confidential, which often prevent systemic issues like Amazon’s employee misclassification issues from becoming public. Such agreements, like Amazon’s, forbid class arbitration and require individuals to file claims individually.
“Arbitration, unfortunately, limits the drivers’ pursuit of justice. So, we’re left with little choice but to file almost 16,000 individual arbitration actions at once,” said Steven Tindall of Gibbs Law Group. “Amazon required Flex drivers to agree to bring these cases in private proceedings—likely in an effort to keep its business practices from being exposed to public and shareholder scrutiny.”
Thus far, Amazon Flex drivers have successfully tried seven bellwether arbitration trials, addressing the same misclassification claims. Each driver has been awarded, on average, $9,000 in damages.
“It’s about time that Amazon is exposed for misclassifying employees,” said Norva Williams, another driver who successfully litigated her claim through Amazon’s arbitration process. “I was excited to work for Amazon, but it quickly became clear to me that it was a racket. I was the one who ended up paying. My hope is that Amazon will be forced to reconcile how it classifies employees and how employees can seek justice.”
The Amazon Flex drivers are represented by Joseph Sellers, Brian Corman, Rebecca Ojserkis, and Megan Reif of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Steven Tindall, Ashleigh Musser, Jane Farrell, and Brian Bailey of Gibbs Law Group. The more than 16,000 total claims will be litigated before the American Arbitration Association.
###
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 Gibbs Law Group
Gibbs Law Group LLP is a California based law firm committed to protecting the rights of clients nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. We represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world’s largest corporations. Our award-winning lawyers have achieved landmark recoveries and over a billion dollars for our clients in high-stakes class action and individual cases involving consumer protection, data breach, digital privacy, and federal and California employment lawsuits. Our attorneys have received numerous honors for their work, including “Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California,” “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year,” and “Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar.”
Six-week jury trial is the first of a series of bellwether trials in 16-year wrongful death lawsuit.
In 2007, Chiquita pled guilty to a federal crime arising out of its payments to the terror group responsible for the murders.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Today, a South Florida jury found Chiquita Brands International responsible for the wrongful deaths of eight men who were murdered by Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) and awarded the surviving family members $38.3 million in damages for the deaths of eight of victims.
The eight plaintiffs in this case are the surviving family members of the victims, who include husbands and sons targeted and killed by the AUC, a brutal paramilitary known for mass killing and designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. That designation made supporting the AUC a federal crime. The plaintiffs alleged that Chiquita paid the AUC nearly $2 million, while facilitating shipments of arms, ammunition and drugs, despite knowing that the AUC was an illegal organization engaged in a reign of terror.
“Our clients risked their lives to come forward to hold Chiquita to account, putting their faith in the United States justice system. I am very grateful to the jury for the time and care they took to evaluate the evidence,” said Agnieszka Fryszman, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Human Rights practice and one of the attorneys leading the case. “The verdict does not bring back the husbands and sons who were killed, but it sets the record straight and places accountability for funding terrorism where it belongs: at Chiquita’s doorstep.”
“After a long seventeen years against a well-funded defense, justice was finally served,” added Leslie Kroeger, a partner at Cohen Milstein and a member of the Plaintiffs’ trial team. “We look forward to the next round of bellwether trials and will continue to fight for our clients.”
The civil claims were brought on the heels of a 2007 Chiquita guilty plea to criminal charges brought by the United States. The Department of Justice described Chiquita’s support to the AUC as “prolonged, steady, and substantial.”
The claims were consolidated by the multidistrict litigation (MDL) panel and heard by a federal court in Florida. A group of plaintiffs, referred to as “bellwether” plaintiffs, was selected to proceed to trial. This jury verdict concludes the first six-week bellwether jury trial, which began on April 22, 2024. The second bellwether trial is scheduled for July 15, 2024.
The plaintiffs in John Doe I v. Chiquita Brands International are represented by Agnieszka Fryszman and Leslie M. Kroeger of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Marco Simons, Rick Herz, Maryum Jordan, Marissa Vahlsing, Wyatt Gjullin, and Gabriela Paola Valentin Dias of EarthRights International; and Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes.
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 EarthRights International
EarthRights International is a non-governmental, non-profit organization that combines the power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment, which we define as “earth rights.”
About Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes
Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes is a public interest law firm that has had the honor of handling numerous landmark civil and human rights cases to hold corporations and government entities accountable for wrong-doing.
Class action certification and recent ruling largely dismissing CITGO’s summary judgment adds fuel to plaintiffs’ claim that CITGO imposed a “marriage penalty” on pension plans’ joint and survivor annuity recipients.
CHICAGO – Today, a federal judge certified a class of more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in two of CITGO Petroleum Corporation’s pension plans. This class certification ruling, along with last week’s ruling largely dismissing CITGO’s motion for summary judgement, paves the way for the class claims to move forward to trial. Estimated financial exposure to CITGO could well exceed $30 million.
The lawsuit against CITGO alleges that the Houston-based gas and energy giant violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by failing to properly calculate joint and survivor annuity (“JSA”) benefits for retired employees and imposing a “marriage penalty” that reduced their monthly pension payments.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim that prior to 2018, CITGO’s two pension plans utilized inaccurate mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine the value of JSAs, resulting in married retirees consistently receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of a single-life annuity (“SLA”) as required under ERISA. The lawsuit seeks to recover the underpayments, and to reform the CITGO Plans to fully comply with protections afforded by ERISA to pension plan participants and their beneficiaries.
“We are very pleased the court granted class certification to more than 1,700 CITGO employees and pensioners in this important ERISA case,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “This ruling and the court’s recent order denying summary judgment pave the way for the class claims to move forward to trial and affirm our confidence that our clients will prevail. Married retirees and their beneficiaries deserve to receive accurate pension payments after years of hard work and should not be shortchanged or subjected to a ‘marriage penalty.’”
Just ten days ago, on May 6, the same court rejected CITGO’s motion for summary judgment on three of four counts and partially denied the motion on the fourth count. Specifically, the court rejected CITGO’s arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the basis of the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims in Counts 1 through 3, and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count 4. Further, the court rejected CITGO’s argument that the plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court, stating that it was “not persuaded that requiring exhaustion would serve any useful purpose in this case.” Finally, the court also held that plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently meritorious to proceed to trial and supported by expert testimony.
The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al. (N.D. Ill.), was filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. It was brought on behalf retirees in the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Salaried Employees Pension Plan and the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Hourly Employees Pension Plan who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity.
This is one of six such “marriage penalty” ERSIA class actions the firm has recently filed against several of the largest companies in the United States, including AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica, and Southern Company.
###
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.