By design, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) allows defendants to remove complex class actions to federal court. It avoids the onerous diversity requirements that defendants previously struggled to satisfy, and its $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold is often easy to meet in large class actions. In response, plaintiffs have often thrown up roadblocks to removal
The contours of plaintiff pleading requirements for ERISA fiduciary breach claims sketched by the Supreme Court in Hughes v. Northwestern University continue to evolve. Recent cases suggest that plaintiffs may find ERISA class action lawsuits increasingly vulnerable to motions to dismiss unless they allege context specific defects in the processes followed by defined contribution plan
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) offers a broader avenue for removal of a case to federal court than traditional diversity jurisdiction. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants alike have developed unique strategies to either destroy or maintain federal jurisdiction, depending on their objectives. This GT Advisory explores advanced removal strategies that have arisen in complex
In a much-anticipated decision, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District has ruled that two separate statutes of limitations apply to violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or the “Act”). Specifically, the court in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (Sept. 17, 2021), held that
On Feb. 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC. The opinion answers two important questions: (1) whether “employers can[] engage in the practice of rounding time punches – that is, adjusting the hours that an employee has actually worked to the nearest preset time increment
Employers have faced a tidal wave of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action litigation in the last 15 years, fueled in large part by courts that have made it easy for plaintiffs to quickly obtain “conditional certification,” under a “lenient” standard that results in a grant in the large majority of cases. If the
On Sept. 8, 2020, a New York federal judge struck down substantial portions of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL’s) joint employer final rule, which went into effect March 1, 2020. As reported in a prior GT L&E blog, the DOL’s final rule announced a four-factor balancing test for determining joint-employer status when one
San Francisco employment attorney Charles O. Thompson has moved to global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP as a shareholder, further strengthening the firm’s Global Labor and Employment Practice. Thompson, a seasoned employment trial lawyer, was formerly managing partner of Polsinelli’s San Francisco office and chair of its Class Action Practice. He has extensive experience
On May 21, 2018, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ____ (2018), holding that mandatory employer-sponsored arbitration agreements do not offend the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and
In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court recently determined that the question of “who decides whether [an arbitration] agreement permits or prohibits classwide arbitration” is not subject to a “universal rule [that] allocates this decision in all cases to either arbitrators or the courts.” See Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., Case No. S220812,