employment discrimination



Bank of America and Merrill Lynch Gender Discrimination

Outten & Golden LLP and our co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, represent three financial advisors who filed a national class action lawsuit on March 30, 2010 in federal court in Brooklyn. The suit charges that Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, which merged in late 2008 to form the nation’s largest bank and brokerage firm, engaged in sex discrimination against female stock brokers. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all female Financial Advisors employed by Bank of America or Merrill Lynch during the relevant period. If certified, the lawsuit would be the largest gender discrimination class action on behalf of female brokers.

The case, Calibuso, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 10 Civ. 1413, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charges that Bank of America and Merrill Lynch have engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination against female financial advisors with respect to business opportunities, compensation, professional support, and other terms and conditions of employment. The women allege that Merrill Lynch, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America, discriminates against female Financial Advisors in account distributions; partnership opportunities; upfront money, pay-out rate, and other benefits in its compensation plan; as well as in other opportunities for brokers to increase their income. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York and Florida anti-discrimination laws.

People interested in the lawsuit may provide information by visiting: www.bofagenderlawsuit.com, or calling 1-888-886-9359 to leave a message for plaintiffs’ counsel. They can also contact Adam T. Klein or Cara Greene at (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Bellevue Hospital and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation - Race Discrimination Based on Results of Criminal Background Check

On January 23, 2009, Outten & Golden’s client filed a class-wide race discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Bellevue Hospital and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation alleging that HHC/Bellevue discriminates against African-American and Hispanic job applicants by illegally using criminal history reports in making hiring decisions. The charge alleges that Outten & Golden’s client interviewed for a clerical job at Bellevue/HHC, Bellevue/HHC offered her the job, but later revoked the offer of employment because she did not meet its “background requirements.” A blanket ban on hiring formerly incarcerated individuals has a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics because a disproportionate percentage of ex-offenders are racial minorities. An employer may not use hiring criteria that have a disparate impact on racial minorities unless it can show that those criteria are “job related” and “consistent with business necessity.” New York City and State laws also prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants on account of their criminal convictions unless there is a “direct relationship” between the conviction and the job at issue. Outten & Golden is currently investigating similar claims at major retail chains and companies.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Ossai Miazad for more information or to discuss similar matters.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Census Bureau - Race Discrimination Based on Results of Criminal Background Check

A New York federal court approved the settlement of a landmark class action in which African American and Latino job applicants alleged illegal criminal background check policies and practices at the U.S. Census Bureau denied them access to more than a million temporary jobs for the 2010 decennial census.

Adam T. Klein, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and the head of the class action practice group at O&G, said, “This historic settlement requires the Census Bureau to replace its arbitrary and racially discriminatory use of criminal records and develop a rational job-related method to determine whether an applicant has a criminal history which justifies his or her rejection from these essentially entry-level jobs.”

During six years of hard-fought litigation, the plaintiffs asserted that the Census Bureau’s flawed procedures – which relied on an often inaccurate and incomplete FBI arrest and convictions database – violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of their substantial adverse impact on African Americans and Latinos who were arrested at much higher rates than whites, often for the same crimes, such as minor drug possession and use.

Approved by the Hon. Frank Maas of the Southern District of New York, the $15 million settlement contains a $5 million fund to help African American and Latinos who were rejected for the 2010 Census because of criminal records or arrests with their records to ease their ability to obtain jobs in the future.  The ILR School at Cornell University has agreed to provide that expert help to African American and Latino applicants to avert future hiring issues related to their criminal records. From the settlement proceeds, the school will establish the Records Assistance Program, which will provide educational support to help these applicant class members understand the details and correct their criminal records.  Program Director Esta Bigler said, “The hope is that this settlement will help people learn how to read their records, resolve discrepancies, and enable them to present potential employers with accurate and understandable documents, increasing employment prospects.”

In addition, the settlement offers class members an option for advance notice and information related to hiring for the temporary jobs which will become available for the 2020 census.

Ossai Miazad, attorney for the plaintiffs and the head of the discrimination and retaliation practice group at O&G, said, “This settlement commits the federal government, the nation’s largest employer, to a hiring process for one of its largest and most important operations – the decennial census – that does not unfairly and arbitrarily deny access to jobs to millions of Americans who have had some interaction with the criminal justice system.” Miazad added, “We anticipate that both private companies and government agencies will develop new ways to weigh employers’ need to ensure that applicants with criminal records will have a fair chance when they seek employment opportunities, both to their benefit, the benefit of their communities, and to the general as employment of those with past records has been shown to greatly reduce recidivism.”

Class members or members of the public who have questions or seek more information about the case should contact Adam T. Klein or Ossai Miazad or call 212-245-1000.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Driver Solutions

On April 30, 2010, Outten & Golden filed a class action lawsuit against Driver Solutions, a company that provides training and placement for over-the-road truck drivers, alleging that Driver Solutions discriminates against African-American and Latino job applicants by illegally using criminal history reports in making hiring decisions. The charge alleges that, by rejecting applicants for employment based on their criminal record, Driver Solutions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and engaged in a policy or pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American job applicants. A corporate policy that bans hiring formerly incarcerated individuals has a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics because a disproportionate number of ex-offenders are racial minorities. An employer may not use hiring criteria that have a disparate impact on racial minorities unless it can show that those criteria are “job related” and “consistent with business necessity.” Outten & Golden is co-counsel in this matter with Community Legal Services, Inc.

Please contact Rachel Bien for more information or to discuss similar matters.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Easterling v. State of Connecticut Department of Correction

On May 30, 2008, Outten & Golden and Public Citizen Litigation Group filed a sex discrimination class action on behalf of Cherie Easterling, and all other women denied a position as a Correction Officer with the Connecticut Department of Correction because they failed the 1.5 mile run aspect of the application process.

The lawsuit sought declaratory, injunctive, and additional equitable monetary relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of 124 women who applied for a Correction Officer position in 2004 o4 2006.  The complaint alleged that the use of the 1.5 mile run test disproportionately excluded women from obtaining the Correction Officer position and was not supported by business necessity.

The Court granted class certification on January 4, 2010, and shortly thereafter, on May 5, 2011, found the Department’s use of the 1.5 mile run test had a discriminatory disparate impact on female applicants in violation of Title VII.

On July 14, 2011, following these rulings, the Department filed a motion seeking to decertify the class.  The Court denied this motion on November 22, 2011.  However, the Court adjusted its previous class certification order to provide for a bifurcated proceeding under Rule 23(b)(2)-(b)(3), (c)(4), in which the determination of liability and individual relief would be litigated separately.

As a result of these decisions, any woman who applied for a Correction Officer position with the Connecticut Department of Correction between 2004-2006, and who failed only the 1.5 mile portion of the physical fitness test, is presumptively entitled to an award of their lost wages and the value of lost benefits.  Class members may also be entitled to front pay or priority hiring with retroactive seniority.

Class members or members of the public who seek more information about the case should contact Adam T. Klein or call 212-245-1000.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Geo Group, Inc. Background Check Lawsuit

On October 30, 2015, Outten & Golden LLP filed a nationwide class action against The Geo Group, Inc. (“Geo Group”), and Accurate Background, Inc., on behalf of plaintiff Eric Keels and all similarly situated applicants for employment with Geo Group. The lawsuit alleges that Geo Group and Accurate Background, Inc. systematically violated federal law in the way they conducted criminal background checks of Geo Group job applicants.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that, before denying or revoking a job offer based on background check results, employers must provide the applicant with a copy of the background check and a statement of rights under the FCRA, and give the applicant a reasonable amount of time to respond. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that Geo Group and Accurate Background, Inc. have failed to comply with the FCRA, which deprives Geo Group job applicants of important protections meant to ensure that background checks are conducted in fair and accurate manner, and are used appropriately.

The case is “Eric Keels v. The Geo Group, Inc. and Accurate Background, Inc.,” 15 Civ. 6261, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To view a copy of the complaint, please click here.

The Geo Group, Inc. job applicants who wish to report their experiences or learn more about the lawsuit may – Contact Us, call Ossai Miazad or Christopher M. McNerney, attorneys at Outten & Golden LLP, at (212) 245-1000, or email cmcnerney@outtengolden.com



Goldman Sachs Gender Discrimination

On September 15, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP, together with our co-counsel Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a class action complaint in New York district court against Goldman Sachs on behalf of three highly credentialed women. The lawsuit accuses Goldman Sachs, a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm, of engaging in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its female associates, vice presidents, and managing directors. The women allege violations of federal and city laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The case is pending before United States District Court Judge Leonard Sand. According to the complaint, the “violations of [Goldman Sachs’] female employees’ rights are systemic, are based upon company-wide policies and practices, and are the result of unchecked gender bias that pervades Goldman Sachs’ corporate culture. They have not been isolated or exceptional incidents, but rather the regular and predictable result of Goldman Sachs’ company-wide policies and practices.”

Please visit www.goldmangendercase.com or call 1-800-998-3469 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Gristedes Supermarket Gender Discrimination

On October 23, 2006, Outten & Golden filed a class action gender discrimination lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gristede’s supermarket, its affiliates.  The Plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 19, 2010 to add Gristede’s owner, John Catsimatidis, as a named Defendant and additional claims of interference with the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) restoration rights and pregnancy discrimination.  The named plaintiffs- Susan Duling, Margaret Anderson, and Lakeya Sewer – alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. All three women worked as part-time cashiers at Gristedes in Manhattan.

Plaintiffs alleged that Gristedes steered female job applicants into cashier and bookkeeper positions, while it steered male applicants into clerk positions. The Complaint alleged that Gristede’s offered the male clerks more opportunities for extra hours, full-time work, and promotion to management than it offered to female cashiers and bookkeepers.

The Court certified the class on March 8, 2010 which included current and former female employees of Gristede’s. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which is currently pending Court approval, on behalf of all current and former female employees of Gristede’s from November 2004 through the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement.

The case is “Duling v. Gristede’s Operating Corp.” (No. 06 CV 10197) (LTS)(HBP) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Please email Adam T. Klein or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Hertz Background Check Lawsuit

On June 9, 2015, Outten & Golden LLP and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area filed a nationwide class action against the Hertz Corporation and Sterling Infosystems, Inc., on behalf of plaintiff Peter Lee and all similarly situated applicants for employment with Hertz. The lawsuit alleges that Hertz and Sterling systematically violated federal law in the way they conducted criminal background checks of Hertz job applicants.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), employers must provide job applicants with a clear written disclosure in a standalone form and get job applicants’ express written consent before conducting a background check. The FCRA also requires that, before denying or revoking a job offer based on background check results, employers must provide the applicant with a copy of the background check and a statement of rights under the FCRA, and give the applicant a reasonable amount of time to respond. The lawsuit alleges that Hertz and Sterling have failed to comply with the FCRA, which deprives Hertz job applicants of important protections meant to ensure that background checks are conducted in fair and accurate manner, and are used appropriately.

The case is “Lee v. The Hertz Corporation, et al.,” 15-cv-02545, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. To view a copy of the complaint, please click here.

Hertz job applicants who wish to report their experiences or learn more about the lawsuit may – Contact Us , call Jahan Sagafi, partner, at Outten & Golden, at (415) 638-8800, or email jsagafi@outtengolden.com.



Jacqueline Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — $7.5 Million Class Settlement

UPDATE 5/16/2017—A federal district court has granted final approval of the $7.5 million class action settlement in Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an action brought by former Walmart associate Jacqueline Cote and her lawyers, including Outten & Golden LLP, challenging Walmart’s lack of health insurance benefits for same-sex spouses of Walmart associates prior to 2014.

More information on the Settlement can be found here.

The $7.5 million proposed settlement will pay for claims by Walmart associates in the United States and Puerto Rico that they were unable to obtain health insurance coverage for their same-sex spouses from Walmart from Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2013, as well as the costs of administering the settlement and legal fees and expenses. In 2014, Walmart voluntarily made the same health insurance benefits available to same-sex spouses of its associates that it offered to opposite-sex spouses. As part of the proposed settlement, Walmart commits to continuing to do so in the future.

If you would like to know more about your rights, we would be happy to speak with you.  Please email Peter Romer-Friedman, Juno Turner, or Sally Abrahamson, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

Outten & Golden is serving as co-counsel in this action with GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and Arnold & Porter LLP.

Jacqueline Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Preliminary Approval Motion

Jacqueline Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Class Certification Motion

Jacqueline Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Settlement Agreement

Jacqueline Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Press Release

Jacqueline Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - Settlement Order 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Madison Square Garden - Race Discrimination Based on Results of Criminal Background Check

On August 14, 2008, Outten & Golden’s client filed a class-wide race discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Madison Square Garden alleging that MSG discriminates against African-American job applicants by illegally using criminal history reports in making hiring decisions. The charge alleges that, by revoking an offer of employment to Outten & Golden’s client, MSG violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and engaged in a policy or pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American job applicants. A corporate policy that bans hiring formerly incarcerated individuals has a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics because a disproportionate number of ex-offenders are racial minorities. An employer may not use hiring criteria that have a disparate impact on racial minorities unless it can show that those criteria are “job related” and “consistent with business necessity.” New York City and State laws also prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants on account of their criminal convictions unless there is a “direct relationship” between the conviction and the job at issue. Outten & Golden is currently investigating similar claims major retail chains and companies. Outten & Golden is co-counsel in this matter with Manhattan Legal Services. 

Please contact Justin M. Swartz for more information or to discuss similar matters.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Microsoft Gender Discrimination

On September 16, 2015, Outten & Golden LLP and our co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in federal court in the Western District of Washington.  The case, Moussouris v. Microsoft Corporation, was brought by a former female Microsoft technical professional on behalf of herself and all current and former female technical professionals employed by Microsoft in the U.S. since September 16, 2009.

The class action complaint alleges that Microsoft has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against female employees in technical and engineering roles with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment. The unchecked gender bias that pervades Microsoft’s corporate culture has resulted in female technical professionals receiving less compensation than similar men, the promotion of men over equally or more qualified women, and less favorable performance evaluation of female technical professionals compared to male peers.

The complaint alleges that the disadvantage to female technical employees in pay and promotion is not isolated or exceptional, but rather the predictable result of Microsoft’s policies and practices and lack of proper accountability measures to ensure fairness, and that Microsoft has implemented these policies and practices despite knowing that they have a long-standing disparate impact on female technical employees.  “The gender-equality issues raised by this lawsuit are all too familiar — Microsoft systematically undervalues the efforts and achievements of its female technical employees. This is an important step in our efforts to lift the glass ceiling for women working in what once were traditionally male-dominated professions,” said plaintiff’s attorney Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP.

To view a copy of the complaint, please click here.

Individuals interested in learning more about the lawsuit may visit http://microsoftgendercase.com/ or call toll free at 1-800-254-3079.  Interested individuals may also contact Ossai Miazad at 212-245-1000 for more information.



Morgan Stanley Race Discrimination

Outten & Golden LLP and our co-lead counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP, represent a former Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. in a national class action race discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco. The case charges that Morgan Stanley's retail brokerage arm engaged in a pattern and practice of race discrimination against its African American and Latino Financial Advisors and trainees with respect to their compensation.  Plaintiff alleges that African American and Latino Financial Advisors and trainees are disfavored in the distribution of business opportunities accounts and other terms and conditions of employment. A proposed settlement has been filed with the Court that provides for a class fund and substantial injunctive relief.

Please email Adam T. Klein or Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



NAACP suit against Class of Employers Discriminating Due to Conviction Status

On June 25, 2015, Outten & Golden LLP, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and NAACP attorney James Meyerson filed a New York City class action on behalf of the NAACP New York State Conference Metropolitan Council of Branches against employers who use leading job search sites Monster, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter to illegally post hundreds of job listings in New York with blanket bans on applicants with felony convictions.


It is illegal under New York State and City law to deny employment to job applicants because they have criminal records without evaluating the factors set forth in Article 23 of the New York Correction law.  The employers named in this Complaint exemplify the wide-range of companies engaged in this illegal practice and include large employers in the technology and information management industry like Philips, NTT Data and Recall and smaller employers like Advance Tech Pest Control.  The lawsuit seeks an injunction forbidding the defendants from posting and disseminating these illegal listings on job search websites.  Monster, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter have been joined as enablers of employers’ illegal activities that are necessary to effectuate the relief sought and make sure the injunction is effective and enforced.


The case is “NAACP New York State Conference Metropolitan Council of Branches v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al.,” in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. To view a copy of the complaint, please click here.   Job applicants who wish to report their experiences with blanket felony bans to employment, and those who simply wish to learn more about the lawsuit, may contact Ossai Miazad or Christopher M. McNerney, attorneys at Outten & Golden, at (212) 245-1000, or email convictionjustice@outtengolden.com.



Noel v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission: Settlement

New York, NY - December 2013, Outten & Golden LLP is counsel in a historic class action settlement agreement to increase wheelchair accessible yellow medallion taxicabs by 50% by the year 2020. The agreement significantly improves the mobility of men, women, and children who use wheelchairs and scooters throughout the city and makes New York’s yellow taxi fleet the most accessible in the nation.

The case was filed in 2011 against the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (“Taxi Commission”) and Taxi Commission Chairman and Commissioner David Yassky (together “Defendants”), on behalf of  two individuals, Christopher Noel and Simi Linton and four nonprofit organizations: United Spinal, The Taxis for All Campaign, 504 Democratic Club, and Disabled in Action.

Plaintiffs allege Defendants are in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to provide adequate transportation to persons with mobile disabilities. Currently, only 1.8% of Defendants’ medallion taxis are wheelchair accessible throughout the city. Without adequate and accessible medallion taxis New Yorkers with mobile disabilities are greatly restricted to access, enjoy, and explore the city as their nondisabled peers do.

The case is Noel v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 11-cv-0237, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. To view a copy of the complaint please click here.

Please contact Adam T. Klein, attorney at Outten & Golden, at (212) 245-1000 for more information on the case.



Northwestern Mutual Alienage Discrimination

On November 14, 2014, Judge Forrest denied Northwestern Mutual’s motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed, concluding that Mr. Juarez had stated a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because Northwestern Mutual had denied him the ability to contract for a financial representative internship on the same terms and conditions as U.S. citizens. Specifically, the Court found that Northwestern Mutual’s policy of requiring Mr. Juarez to demonstrate he had a “green card” because he was not a U.S. citizen imposed an additional burden on him in violation of the statute.

On July 9, 2014, Outten & Golden LLP, together with our co-counsel the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (“MALDEF”), filed a class action complaint in New York federal court against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. on behalf of Ruben Juarez, a 25-year-old honors college graduate. The lawsuit accuses Northwestern Mutual, the nation’s largest direct life insurance provider, of discriminating against qualified non-U.S. citizen job candidates without permanent resident visas. Northwestern Mutual blocked Juarez, who has a valid work permit and Social Security number through the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”), from obtaining a financial representative internship. Juarez alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, one of the oldest federal civil rights statutes, which protects anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States from interference from employers like Northwestern Mutual in the making or enforcement of contracts on the basis of citizenship and residency status.

The case is pending before Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York. According to the complaint, Northwestern Mutual advertises its discriminatory policy on its website. The policy requires prospective applicants to be U.S. citizens or have permanent resident status (i.e., a “green card”). This policy discriminates not only against those with DACA status like Juarez, but those granted asylee, refugee, or temporary status who are also authorized to work. This lawsuit seeks an end to this practice.

Please send an email to nwmutuallawsuit@outtengolden.com, or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



PricewaterhouseCoopers Age Discrimination

On April 27, 2016, Steve Rabin, an older CPA who was denied employment at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), filed an age discrimination class and collective action on behalf of himself and all other unsuccessful PwC accountant applicants aged 40 and over from 2013 to the present.  The lawsuit is titled Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Case No. 3:16-cv-02276, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The class and collective action complaint alleges that PwC has engaged in systemic discrimination against older applicants for accounting positions.  For instance, PwC primarily hires entry-level accountants through campus recruiting, does not post entry-level accountant positions on its website, and provides no ready mechanism for individuals no longer affiliated with a college to apply for these positions.  Moreover, PwC prides itself on maintaining a young workforce, focusing on attracting and maintaining “Millennials,” and requiring partners to retire by age 60.  The ageism that pervades PwC’s recruitment system and corporate culture has resulted in older accountant applicants being almost completely shut out of accounting positions at PwC. 

The complaint alleges that PwC’s continuing policy, pattern, and practice of age discrimination against older accountant applicants violates federal and state laws, including Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Visit http://www.pwcagecase.com or call (415) 638-8800 for more information.



Raley’s Pregnancy Discrimination

On April 9, 2015, Outten & Golden LLP and our co-counsel, The Liu Law Firm P.C. and Equal Rights Advocates, filed a pregnancy discrimination class action lawsuit against Raley’s Family of Fine Stores in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento. The case, Borrego v. Raley’s Family of Fine Stores (Case No. 34-2015-00177687), was brought by two former Raley’s workers on behalf of themselves and all current and former female Raley’s employees who were denied reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions since 2011.

The class action complaint alleges that Raley’s has violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) by denying pregnant workers the same “light duty” accommodations as they provide to workers injured on the job. Raley’s denial of reasonable working accommodations to pregnant workers has negatively affected the economic stability of pregnant workers and their families.

The complaint states, “Pregnant workers rely upon their jobs to earn income to support themselves and their families. Without reasonable accommodations to help them stay in the workforce, many pregnant women are forced to take unpaid leave or are deprived of their jobs altogether. Given the difficulties that unemployed pregnant workers and new mothers often encounter when looking for new jobs, these women often end up out of work for many months.”

As a result of Raley’s denial of reasonable accommodations, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered lost wages, employment benefits, and other compensation and benefits obtained through employment at the supermarket. Plaintiffs, Lucianna Borrego and Kirsten Kelly, seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for themselves and all Class Members.

Raley’s operates 115 supermarkets in California and employs roughly 13,000 workers company-wide, averaging 100 employees per store.

To view a copy of the complaint, please click here.

Individuals interesting in learning more about the lawsuit may contact Jahan C. Sagafi or Relic Sun at (415)638-8800 for more information.



Sandia Gender Discrimination

On February 7, 2017, Outten & Golden LLP and our co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, filed a gender discrimination class action lawsuit in federal court in New Mexico against Sandia National Laboratories, a Department of Energy research and development contractor operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. The case, Kennicott v. Sandia National Laboratories, was brought by three current and former employees on behalf of themselves and all current and former female employees employed by Sandia since December 17, 2008.  

For more information, please see our press release: http://www.outtengolden.com/sandia-national-laboratories-sued-in-class-action-alleging-gender-discrimination, contact David Lopez or call 202-847-4400.

 



SEPTA Background Check Discrimination

Outten & Golden LLP and our co-counsel, Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Public Interest Law Center, and Willig, Williams & Davidson, represent job applicants who filed a class action lawsuit on April 27, 2016, in federal court in Philadelphia.  The suit charges that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly inform job applicants that it was running a background check and of the results of the background check, and violated Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act by disqualifying job applicants with unrelated convictions from employment at SEPTA.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of job applicants denied employment at SEPTA because of their criminal records.

The case is Long v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 16 Civ. 1991 (PBT) (E.D. Pa.).                                                                                                                                  

People interested in the lawsuit may provide information by visiting http://www.septaconvictiondiscrimination.com. They can also contact Ossai Miazad, Christopher M. McNerney, or Cheryl-Lyn Bentley at (212) 245-1000 for more information.

 



Smith Barney Gender Discrimination

Outten & Golden LLP represents four female financial consultants who filed a national class action lawsuit on March 31, 2005 in federal court in San Francisco. The lawsuit charges sex discrimination at Smith Barney, the retail brokerage arm of Citigroup, which is the nation's largest financial institution. Our co-counsel on this case are Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of San Francisco and Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, of Washington, DC.

The lawsuit, Fassbender Amochaev v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., dba Smith Barney, alleges that Smith Barney has engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its female financial consultants in account distribution, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment throughout the company. The women allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California law.

The complaint charges that, among other things, Smith Barney discriminates against women in the account distribution process, routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts to female brokers, including those who outperform their male counterparts; fails to provide women with the same level of sales and administrative support as it provides to men; and maintains a corporate culture hostile to female professionals.

People interested in the lawsuit should visit http://www.genderlawsuitagainstsmithbarney.com/, where they can submit information, or call 1-800-642-8330 to leave a message for plaintiffs' counsel. They can also contact Adam T. Klein or Justin M. Swartz at (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Target Criminal Background Check Discrimination

On April 5, 2018, Outten & Golden LLP along with our co-counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., filed a disparate impact class action lawsuit Target Corp. in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The case, Times v. Target Corp., was brought by Plaintiffs Carnella Times and Erving Smith and an Organizational Plaintiff, The Fortune Society. The lawsuit alleges that Target violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by utilizing a job applicant screening process that systematically eliminated qualified African-Americans and Latinos from jobs based on their race or national origin. The lawsuit also claims that Target systematically eliminated from consideration job applicants who it contends falsified their criminal histories without probing the nature of the discrepancy between the application and the criminal history search result.

The case is Times v. Target Corp., No. 18 Civ. 2993 (S.D.N.Y.).

Individuals interested in the lawsuit may provide information by visiting https://www.targetcriminalhistorydiscrimination.com. Individuals may also contact Ossai Miazad, Cheryl-Lyn Bentley or Christopher M. McNerney at (212) 245-1000.



Uber Equal Pay Lawsuit

Outten & Golden LLP represents current and former Uber engineers who filed state and federal lawsuits in October 2017 in San Francisco challenging Uber’s pay practices as discriminatory. Specifically, the engineers allege that Uber violates California and federal law by paying female, Latino, African American, and American Indian engineers less than their peers.

The lawsuits, Avedaño v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and del Toro Lopez v. Uber Technologies, Inc., allege that Uber discriminates against women and people of color by paying them lower salary, bonus, stock awards, and stock options, and that Uber hires and promotes them less favorably than their peers. The lawsuits allege that these shortfalls result from Uber’s policies and practices, including its use of unreliable and discriminatory means of evaluating employee performance.

These claims arise under the California and federal Equal Pay Acts, which protect women and people of color from being paid less than their colleagues for substantially equal work.

To learn more about the lawsuit or to see if it applies to you, visit www.fairpayforengineers.com, or contact Jahan C. Sagafi or Rachel W. Dempsey at (415) 638-8800.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.