People: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner

Photo of Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Partner

Chicago
Direct: (312) 460-5965
Fax: (312) 460-7965
New York
Direct: (212) 218-5500
Fax: (212) 218-5526
0

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. is a partner of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, the leading national employment and labor law firm.  Mr. Maatman is resident in the firm’s Chicago and New York offices.  Mr. Maatman has a primary emphasis in his practice on defending employers sued in employment discrimination class actions, wage & hour collective actions, EEOC pattern or practice lawsuits, and civil rights/denial of access class actions brought in federal and state courts throughout the United States.  Mr. Maatman also pioneered the process of conducting employment practices audits to assist employers in structuring effective and practical personnel policies and protocols.  These audits are designed to minimize the incidence of employment-related class action litigation and to maximize management discretion and workplace productivity.  Mr. Maatman’s work in this area has been profiled in the Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine.

Mr. Maatman represents several leading employment practices liability insurance (“EPLI”) carriers and defends their employer insureds in class actions throughout the United States.  He has also developed EPLI risk management programs for these carriers to assist their employer insureds in reducing and minimizing class actions.  Mr. Maatman created an interactive web-enabled tutorial for the largest EPLI carrier in the U.S., which provides Internet training for management personnel on compliance with employment laws.  Business Insurance Magazine selected the training tutorial for its “Best of the Web” Award for risk management in both 2001 and 2002.

Among his various cases, Mr. Maatman successfully defended one of the largest age discrimination collective actions ever brought in Illinois, as well as the first sexual harassment class action brought by a State Attorney General in the United States.  Further, he served as lead defense counsel in one of the largest EEOC pattern or practice actions ever prosecuted by the U.S. Government.  Mr. Maatman has also defended the governments of France, India, and Spain in lawsuits brought in U.S. courts over their employment of American workers.

Mr. Maatman is often consulted by major news organizations for his views on significant court rulings in class action cases.  He has served as a legal commentator on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), MSNBC, and USA Talk Radio, and his comments have appeared in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Business Insurance, USA Today, Fortune, and Forbes.  Mr. Maatman also writes and lectures extensively on employment discrimination and labor law topics.  He has authored six books on employment law topics, and has spoken to employer groups throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, Europe, Canada, and Mexico.  Mr. Maatman is a Fellow of the American College of Labor & Employment Lawyers.  Based on international surveys of business executives and corporate counsel, Euromoney selected Mr. Maatman as one of the leading employment lawyers in the world in 1999 to 2013.  The International Bar Association selected Mr. Maatman as one of the world’s best employment lawyers in 2004 to 2010.  Chambers selected him as one of the leading class action defense lawyers in its 2006 to 2013 rankings of U.S. lawyers.  In addition, Corporate Counsel Magazine selected him as one of the leading employment lawyers in the United States in the Who’s Who International Guide To Business Lawyers in 2004 to 2013.

 

Honors

  • Named to BTI Consulting Group’s “Super All-Star” list (2014)
  • Named to Law 360 as one of five MVP’s (2013)

Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. is a partner of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, the leading national employment and labor law firm.  Mr. Maatman is resident in the firm’s Chicago and New York offices.  Mr. Maatman has a primary emphasis in his practice on defending employers sued in employment discrimination class actions, wage & hour collective actions, EEOC pattern or practice lawsuits, and civil rights/denial of access class actions brought in federal and state courts throughout the United States.  Mr. Maatman also pioneered the process of conducting employment practices audits to assist employers in structuring effective and practical personnel policies and protocols.  These audits are designed to minimize the incidence of employment-related class action litigation and to maximize management discretion and workplace productivity.  Mr. Maatman’s work in this area has been profiled in the Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine.

Mr. Maatman represents several leading employment practices liability insurance (“EPLI”) carriers and defends their employer insureds in class actions throughout the United States.  He has also developed EPLI risk management programs for these carriers to assist their employer insureds in reducing and minimizing class actions.  Mr. Maatman created an interactive web-enabled tutorial for the largest EPLI carrier in the U.S., which provides Internet training for management personnel on compliance with employment laws.  Business Insurance Magazine selected the training tutorial for its “Best of the Web” Award for risk management in both 2001 and 2002.

Among his various cases, Mr. Maatman successfully defended one of the largest age discrimination collective actions ever brought in Illinois, as well as the first sexual harassment class action brought by a State Attorney General in the United States.  Further, he served as lead defense counsel in one of the largest EEOC pattern or practice actions ever prosecuted by the U.S. Government.  Mr. Maatman has also defended the governments of France, India, and Spain in lawsuits brought in U.S. courts over their employment of American workers.

Mr. Maatman is often consulted by major news organizations for his views on significant court rulings in class action cases.  He has served as a legal commentator on the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), MSNBC, and USA Talk Radio, and his comments have appeared in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Business Insurance, USA Today, Fortune, and Forbes.  Mr. Maatman also writes and lectures extensively on employment discrimination and labor law topics.  He has authored six books on employment law topics, and has spoken to employer groups throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, Europe, Canada, and Mexico.  Mr. Maatman is a Fellow of the American College of Labor & Employment Lawyers.  Based on international surveys of business executives and corporate counsel, Euromoney selected Mr. Maatman as one of the leading employment lawyers in the world in 1999 to 2013.  The International Bar Association selected Mr. Maatman as one of the world’s best employment lawyers in 2004 to 2010.  Chambers selected him as one of the leading class action defense lawyers in its 2006 to 2013 rankings of U.S. lawyers.  In addition, Corporate Counsel Magazine selected him as one of the leading employment lawyers in the United States in the Who’s Who International Guide To Business Lawyers in 2004 to 2013.

 

Honors

  • Named to BTI Consulting Group’s “Super All-Star” list (2014)
  • Named to Law 360 as one of five MVP’s (2013)

Education

  • J.D., Northwestern University School of Law (1981)
  • B.A., Washington and Lee University (1978)
    magna cum laude

Admissions

  • Illinois
  • New York

Courts

  • Bar, State of Illinois
  • Bar, State of New York
  • U.S. District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of Illinois
  • U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • Illinois Supreme Court
  • New York Court of Appeals

 

Trial Experience

Mr. Maatman has tried over 20 cases to verdict in federal and state courts throughout the United States.  Mr. Maatman is also an adjunct professor of law in trial advocacy at Northwestern University School of Law, where he has taught trial practice since 1991

Representative Engagements

Set out below are representative samples of Mr. Maatman’s experience in defending class action litigation.  These cases are divided into categories involving: (A) private plaintiff class actions; (B) pattern or practice lawsuits brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; (C) wage & hour collective actions under 29 U.S.C. §216(b); (D) class actions handled in a monitoring or coordinating defense counsel role for institutional clients and/or employment practices liability insurance carriers; and (E) denial of access/civil rights class actions.
 

A.  Defense Of Private Plaintiff Class Actions

  • Abrajano, et al. v. Interim Services, Inc. (Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida) (multiple employees brought a class action for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract relative to recruitment and promotional practices; settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Adams, et al. v. Brookshire Grocery, No. 98-CV-462 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Texas) (plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a class of female employees for alleged sex discrimination in pay and promotions; class certification defeated on February 10, 1999, and favorable consent decree subsequently negotiated).
  • American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 961 (1986) (retained to file petition for writ of certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court in a class action over alleged First Amendment violations).
  • Arrighi, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, No. 10-CV-237 (U.S. District Court/District of Rhode Island) (ongoing representation in class action brought by employees alleging discrimination by drug testing in the workplace).
  • Blakely, et al. v. Big Lot Stores, Inc., No. 10-CV-342 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Indiana) (ongoing defense of multi-party action involving alleged denials of transfer based on race and age discrimination).
  • Buyuktimkin, et al. v. Nex Med, Inc., No. 03-L-653 (Newark County Superior Court, New Jersey) (favorable settlement obtained in class action by laid off employees alleging age discrimination under New Jersey state law).
  • Carlson, et al. v. CH Robinson, Inc., No. 02-CV-3780 (U.S. District Court/District of Minnesota) (favorable settlement obtained in class action gender discrimination case alleging company-wide claims for pay, promotional opportunities, and terms and conditions of employment).
  • Christian, et al. v. American Huts, Inc., et al., No. 00-CV-8975 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (fifteen plaintiffs asserted claims of race discrimination on behalf of a class of allegedly injured individuals for denial of services and rights of contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; case disposed of by motion to dismiss and judgment entered in favor of the defendants).
  • Colindres, et al. v. Goodman Mfg. Co., No. H-01-4319 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Texas) (favorable settlement obtained in putative class action alleging national origin discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment; class certification defeated on March 31, 2006).
  • Cook, et al. v. New York Mets, Inc., No. 17452/06 (Supreme Court of Queens County, New York) (favorable settlement obtained in age discrimination pattern or practice case alleging discriminatory terminations).
  • Craven, et al. v. Diversified Financial Services, Inc., No. BC 303256 (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California) (obtained denial of class certification in class action for alleged violations of privacy for taping job interviews, and sustained the defense victory in appellate proceedings before the California Court of Appeal).
  • Dade, et al. v. International House of Pancakes, Inc. (U.S. District Court/District of Columbia) (five plaintiffs asserted claims of race discrimination on behalf of a class of allegedly injured individuals for denial of rights of contracts under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; secured dismissal of all claims).
  • Doe, et al. v. The New Yorker Hotel, No. 03-CV-7269 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (favorable settlement obtained in class action alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act).
  • Duffy, et al. v. Sodexho, Inc., No. 05-CV-5428 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (multiple plaintiffs brought a collective action and class action alleging age discrimination in the promotion and lay-off of older workers; class action and collective action certification defeated on October 20, 2006).
  • Eliot Spitzer, On Behalf Of The People Of The State Of New York, et al. v. Garban LLC, et al. No. 98-403179 (Supreme Court of New York County, New York) (in case brought by Attorney General Elliott Spitzer, defeated putative class action alleging sex harassment at Wall Street brokerage firm, and subsequently negotiated a favorable consent decree on individual claims).
  • Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 04-CV-3341 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of California) (ongoing representation in nationwide class action for gender discrimination alleging denial of promotions).
  • Gallas, et al. v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., No. 96-CV-4701 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (female employees accused the defendant of discrimination on the basis of sex and national origin in regard to promotional opportunities and compensation practices; class recovery denied and judgment entered in favor of defendant).
  • Hagemann, et al. v. Accenture, LLP, No. 10-CV-1759 (U.S. District Court/District of Minnesota) (ongoing representation in age discrimination collective action relative to a reduction-in-force).
  • Harden, et al. v. William Wrigley & Co., No. 07-CV-5928 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (favorable settlement obtained in class action alleging race discrimination in pay and promotions, and collective action alleging wage and hour violations).
  • Hassell, et al. v. Interim Services, Inc. and Office Depot, Inc., No. 99-CV-6388 (U.S. District Court/Middle District of Florida) (plaintiff asserted “pattern and practice” allegations of race discrimination on behalf of African-American employees with respect to promotional opportunities; class claims defeated and settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 08-CV-2875 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in class action alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotions).
  • Montoya, et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation (U.S. District Court/District of New Mexico) (plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals alleging disability discrimination in pay and terms and conditions of employment; secured dismissal without any recovery by the class).
  • Perdomo, et al. v. Jaral Properties, Inc., No 4156/03 (Supreme Court of Queens County, New York) (multiple employees asserted claims for national origin discrimination in pattern or practice case; settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Robinson, et al. v. Compass Group, Inc., No. 08-CV-5577 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (multiple plaintiffs brought class action alleging race discrimination in pay, promotions, discipline, and terminations; class certification avoided and settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Saunders, et al. v. Gillette, Inc., No. 04-CV-7455 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (multiple plaintiffs brought a class action alleging racial harassment in the workplace; class certification defeated on March 5, 2007).
  • Smith, et al. v. Nike Corp., No. 03-CV-9110 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (multiple plaintiffs brought a class action alleging race discrimination in hiring, promotions, and compensation; settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 08-CV-540 (U.S. District Court/Western District of North Carolina) (ongoing representation in a nationwide gender discrimination class action alleging discrimination against female managerial employees in pay and compensation in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act ).
  • Stecker, et al. v. Interim Services, Inc. (Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida) (multiple employees brought a class action for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contact relative to recruitment and promotional practices; class certification avoided, and settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • United States of American v. City of Berwyn, Illinois (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (the U.S. Department of Justice sued a municipality for racial discrimination over a hiring requirement that all employees reside within the city limits; the government alleged that the rule exclude African-Americans from consideration for employment based on the segregated nature of the city’s housing patters; consent decree successfully negotiated).
  • Wade, et al. v. Kroger, No. 01-CV-699 (U.S. District Court/Western District of Kentucky) (multiple plaintiffs brought a class action alleging race discrimination in pay and promotions on a company-wide basis; settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Wagner, et al. v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, No. 07-L-6097 (Superior Court of Essex County, New Jersey) (ongoing representation in class action alleging gender discrimination in faculty pay).
  • Walters, et al. v. Midland-Ross Co. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) (plaintiffs brought a class action pertaining to alleged adverse treatment in the workplace and their employer’s improper administration of workers’ compensation benefits; class certification defeated, and case disposed of by a motion to dismiss).
  • Weeks, et al. v. Samsung Heavy Industries Company, No. 93-CV-4899 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (defeated putative class action for national origin discrimination by securing a dismissal of the representative plaintiff’s claim and without any recovery by the class).
  • Wernikoff, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 03-CH-15669 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) (plaintiffs brought a class action for alleged fraud and deceit under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act over tax and coupon practices; defeated plaintiffs’ claims without any recovery by the class).
  • Wynne, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick’s, No. 06-CV-3153 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of California) (favorable settlement obtained in class action alleging race discrimination in the hiring, pay, and promotion of African-American employees).
  • Yates, et al. v. Reliance Electric Co. (U.S. District Court/Central District of Illinois) (multiple plaintiffs brought class-wide allegations of age discrimination and wrongful termination on behalf of 433 workers included in a reduction in force; the class-wide aspects of the complaint were defeated, and the individual claims of the remaining three plaintiffs were defeated by summary judgment and/or settled on favorable terms).

B.   Defense Of EEOC Pattern Or Practice Lawsuits

  • EEOC v. Area Temps, Inc., No. 07-CV-2964 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Ohio) (ongoing representation of EEOC pattern or practice case alleging race, sex, and national origin discrimination in the hiring and placement of temporary employees).
  • EEOC v. AGA, Inc., No. 03-CV-5405 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging hostile environment and sexual harassment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Balance Staffing, No. 09-CV-6004 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging disability discrimination in the hiring of employees; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., No. 11-CV-2184 (U.S. District Court/Western District of Arkansas) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging sex discrimination and harassment of employees by store supervisor).
  • EEOC v. Blood Systems, Inc., No. 99-CV-2060 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (EEOC pattern or practice ADA case; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Chateau Del Mar, Inc., No. 08-CV-5388 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (EEOC pattern or practice lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation on behalf of female current and ex-employees; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Essee, Inc., d/b/a Burger King, No. 02-CV-611 (U.S. District Court/Western District of Oklahoma) (EEOC pattern or practice sex harassment and retaliation case; negotiated favorable consent decree). 
  • EEOC v. Evans Fruit Co., Inc., No. 10-CV-3033 (E.D. Wash.) (ongoing representation in an EEOC pattern or practice lawsuit based on national origin on behalf of a class of females in the fruit harvesting industry alleging sex harassment).
  • EEOC v. GLC Corp., No. 05-CV-618 (U.S. District Court/District of Arizona) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging hostile environment sexual harassment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Hickory Hills Country Club, Inc. and Chateau Del Mar, Inc., No. 08-CV-1720  (EEOC pattern or practice lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation on behalf of female current and ex-employees; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Interim Recruiting, Inc., No. 99-CV-2455 (U.S. District Court/Middle District of Alabama) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging age discrimination in the recruitment of temporary employees; settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • EEOC v. Kaplan, No. 10-CV-2882 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Ohio) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging race discrimination based on the use of credit histories in the application process for the hiring of employees).
  • EEOC v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 07-CV-4085 (U.S. District Court/District of Minnesota) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging religious discrimination; summary judgment granted in favor of the employer).
  • EEOC o/b/o Davis, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick’s, No.11-CV-2695 (D. Md.) (ongoing representation in an EEOC-initiated pattern or practice class action alleging hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation on account of disability discrimination).
  • EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s, Inc., No. 06-CV-7806 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging race discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s, Inc., No. 08-CV-984 (U.S. District Court/District of Maryland) (ongoing representation in EEOC pattern or practice case alleging race discrimination in hiring, pay, and promotions).
  • EEOC v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 03-CV-7526 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Arkansas) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging hostile environment sexual harassment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Medical Systems, Inc., No. 03-CV-2200 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (EEOC pattern or practice case for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Outback Steakhouse Restaurants, Inc., 06-CV-1935 (U.S. District Court/District of Colorado) (ongoing representation of EEOC pattern or practice case alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotions; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC o/b/o Woods v. Outback Steakhouse Restaurants, Inc., 11-CV-1754 (U.S. District Court/District of Arizona) (ongoing representation of EEOC pattern or practice case alleging disability discrimination).
  • EEOC v. PDG, Inc. (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Texas) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging national origin discrimination in promotions and pay raises; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Pine View Living, No. 11-CV-601 (U.S. District Court/Western District of Wisconsin) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging race discrimination and retaliation).
  • EEOC v Pizza Hut, Inc. No. 00-CV-774 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of California) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging company-wide sex harassment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. ProLease, et al., 03-CV-2240 (U.S. District Court/Maryland) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging hostile work environment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Quantum Foods, No. 09-CV-7741 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing EEOC administrative enforcement lawsuit with respect to a subpoena for documents which the Commission had served in connection with an administrative charge). 
  • EEOC v. Renaissance Roofing, Inc., No. 02-CV-50370 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging disability discrimination; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Restaurant Management Co. (U.S. District Court/District of New Mexico) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging company-wide sex harassment; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Russell Enterprises, No. 05-CV-81 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Virginia) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging national origin discrimination; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Savings Oil, No. 10-CV-6072 (U.S. District Court/Western District of Arkansas) (EEOC pattern or practice claim on behalf of allegedly disabled individuals who were denied reasonable accommodations).
  • EEOC v. Spherion Corporation, No. 01-CV-705 (U.S. District Court/District of Maryland) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging age discrimination; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Spherion Corp., No. 04-CV-632 (U.S. District Court/Western District of Texas) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging violations of applicants’ rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 08-CV-706 (U.S. District Court/Western District of New York) (ongoing representation in EEOC pattern or practice case alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotions).
  • EEOC v. Sun-Rich, Inc., No. 00-CV-264 (U.S. District Court/Middle District of Florida) (EEOC pattern or practice national origin discrimination and harassment claim brought by agricultural workers; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • EEOC v. Warren Tricomi Greenwich, et al., No. 11-CV-6837 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (EEOC pattern or practice case alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation by assistant colorist against hair salon).

C.  Defense Of Wage & Hour Collective Actions

  • Agate, et al. v. City of New York, No. 06-CV-238 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in collective action brought by police sergeants alleging FLSA violations over wage and hours).
  • Arrez, et al. v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 07-CV-1289 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (multiple employees brought class action brought by temporary employees alleging claims for vacation pay and holiday bonuses; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • Bamgbose, et al. v. Delta-T Group, No. 09-CV-667 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (ongoing representation in collective action brought by healthcare workers alleging FLSA violations over wage and hours; collective action certification defeated on February 8, 2010).
  • Barfield, et al. v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 05-CV-6316 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (obtained denial of plaintiff’s motion for collective certification under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) in action brought by temporary staffing personnel alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours).
  • Black, et al. v. Broadband Express, LLC, No. 10-CV-23266 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (ongoing representation in collective action brought by current and former employees alleging FLSA violations over wage and hours relative to overtime hours worked and off-the-clock work).
  • Boyd, et al. v. Alutiiq Global Solutions, LLC, No. 11-CV-753 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing representation in nationwide FLSA collective action seeking unpaid overtime, as well as Rule 23 state law claims for unpaid minimum wages; collective action certification denied on August 8, 2011).
  • Cargill, et al. v. Interim Technology, et al., No. BC 194444 (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California) (multiple employees brought a class action for alleged back pay and benefits due to misclassification of their status under federal and state wage and hour laws; case disposed of with a nominal settlement without any class finding).
  • Carletto, et al. v. Quantum Foods, Inc., No. 05-CH-7012 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) (plaintiffs brought a collective action under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for an alleged failure to pay for time spent donning and doffing uniforms; collective action dismissed with prejudice and successfully sustained on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court).
  • Cobbs, et al. v. Mid-City, Inc.,  No. 06-CH-469 (Circuit Court of Cook County, IL) (plaintiffs alleged their employer failed to pay overtime and forced exempt employees to work off the clock in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act; class action dismissed with prejudice).
  • Craig, et al. v. Solutions Southeast, Inc. d/b/a Prologistix, No. 11-CV-3818 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing defense of a FLSA collective action and state law class action brought by temporary employees alleging claims for vacation pay and violations of the Illinois Day & Temporary Labor Services Act).
  • Doe, et al. v. California Pizza LLC (Superior Court of San Jose County, California) (multiple plaintiffs brought claims of wage and hour violations for all managerial assistants; negotiated settlement without a class-wide finding).
  • Duclos, et al. v. Oasis Outsourcing and Interim Health Care Services, No. 10-CV-81224 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (ongoing defense of FLSA collective action alleging wage and hour violations involving health care workers).
  • Feeney, et al. v. Kelly Services, Inc. and Walgreen’s, No. CV-10-S-0844-NW (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Alabama) (ongoing defense of FLSA collective action involving call center workers alleging unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work; class certification defeated on October 27, 2010).
  • Gromek, et al. v. Big Lot Stores, Inc., No. 10-CV-4070 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing defense of FLSA collective action involving assistant store managers alleging unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work; collective action certification denied on December 17, 2010).
  • Hardaway, et al. v. EmployBridge of Dallas, Inc., No. 11-C-3200 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing defense of a FLSA collective action and state law class action brought by temporary employees alleging claims for vacation pay and violations of the Illinois Day & Temporary Labor Services Act).
  • Hassell, et al. v. Interim Services, Inc., No. 98-CV-7455 (U.S. District Court/Middle District of Florida) (plaintiff sued on behalf of himself and a class of “similarly situated” employees in Florida for alleged illegal pay practices under the Fair Labor Standards Act; class claims defeated and settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Hernandez, et al. v. Supermercado Torres, Inc., et al., No. 11-CV-6085 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing defense of FLSA collective action and state law class action brought by grocery store employees).
  • Himmelman, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 06-CV-166 (U.S. District Court/District of New Jersey) (ongoing representation in class action and collective action by insurance adjusters asserting wage and hour violations; class action allegations dismissed upon defense motion on August 11, 2006).
  • In Re C.H. Robinson Worldwide Wage And Hour Litigation, No. MDL 1849 (U.S. District Court/District of Minnesota) (consolidated collective actions by over 500 employees alleging wage and hour violations; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • In Re Wachovia Securities LLC Wage And Hour Litigation, No. MDL 1807 (U.S. District Court/Central District of California) (ongoing representation of consolidated class actions and collective actions by financial analysts and brokers asserting federal and state wage and hour violations).
  • Janofsky, et al. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, et al., No. 05-CV-7660 (U.S. District Court/ Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in class action and collective action by stockbrokers asserting wage and hour violations).
  • Jones, et al. v. Spherion Staffing LLC, et al., No. 11-CV-6462 (U.S. District Court/Central District of California) (ongoing representation in class action brought by temporary employees alleging California labor code violations relative to wage & hour obligations).
  • Louy, et al. v. Thompson & Brock, Inc. (U.S. District Court/District of Arizona) (plaintiffs brought a class action claiming improper payroll procedures and failures to pay overtime wages in alleged violation of Arizona state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act; secured dismissal without any recovery by the class).
  • Martinet, et al. v. Spherion Atlantic Enterprises, LLC, No. 07-CV-2178 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of California) (class action and collective action by temporary employees asserting wage and hour violations; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • Melo, et al. v. Quantum Foods, Inc., No. 06-CV-3386 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (plaintiffs brought an FLSA collective action alleging off-the-clock overtime pay violations; case dismissed with prejudice based on a defense motion).
  • Mullins, et al. v. City of New York, No. 02-CV-2979 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in collective action brought by emergency medical technicians and paramedics alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours).
  • Norris-Wilson, et al. v. Delta-T Group, No. Court of California) (ongoing representation in class action brought by healthcare workers alleging California Labor Code violations over wage and hours).
  • Pang, et al. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., No. 07-CV-8557 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in class action and collective action claiming wage and hour violations).
  • Radinski, et al. v. Dycom Industries, Inc., No. 07-CV-571 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (collective action brought by service technicians alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours; negotiated favorable settlement agreements).
  • Ramirez, et al. v. Groh Works, Inc., Case No.: 11-CV-6784 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing representation in class action brought by landscaping laborers alleging FLSA violations over wage and hours).
  • Richey, et al. v. Spherion Corp., No. 07-CV-1231 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Texas) (collective action brought by temporary employees alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours; settlement secured as to individual claims without any certification of collective action claims).
  • Rouse, et al. v. First Union Securities, et al., No. 05-CV-8852 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in class action and collective action by stockbrokers asserting wage and hour violations).
  • Schaiy, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc., No. 08-CV-4330 (U.S. District Court/Central District of California) (class action and collective action claiming wage & hour violations relative to off-the-clock work and denial of rest and meal periods; obtained dismissal of class claims).
  • Schaefer, et al. v. Walker Bros., No. 10-CV-6366 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing representation in class action and collective action by current and former employees claiming wage & hour violations relative to failure to pay them earned minimum wages).
  • Scott, et al. v. City of New York, No. 02-CV-9530 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (ongoing representation in collective action brought by police officers alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours).
  • Smith, et al. v. ERJ Dining, LLC, No. 11-CV-2061 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing representation in collective action brought by servers alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours).
  • Stewart, et al. v. Prince Telecom, Inc., No. 10-CV-4881 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of New York) (nationwide collective action brought by service technicians alleging FLSA violations over wages and hours).
  • Streeter, et al. v. Interim Services, Inc. (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of Washington) (plaintiff asserted that her employer engaged in inappropriate overtime classifications for payroll purposes in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff used on behalf of herself and a class of “similarly situated” employees in Washington; class certification defeated, and settlement agreement successfully negotiated).
  • Tidd, et al. v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 07-CV-11214 (U.S. District Court/District of Massachusetts (ongoing representation in class action brought by temporary employees alleging nationwide FLSA and state law claims over wages and hours).
  • Watson-Smith, et al. v. Spherion Corp., No. 07-CV-5774 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of California) (ongoing representation in class action and collective action by temporary employees asserting wage and hour violations).
  • Zeferino, et al. v. Tandem Staffing Services, Inc., No. 07-CV-4754 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (class action brought by temporary employees alleging nationwide FLSA and state law claims over wages and hours).

D.  Defense Of Class Actions As Monitoring And/Or Coordinating Defense Counsel

  • Avila, et al. v. Mega Foods, Inc., No. 93-CV-1000 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of California) (multiple employees brought a class action for alleged violations of federal and state labor codes and wage payments obligations; consent decree successfully negotiated)
  • Aguila, et al. v. Diego Foods, Inc. (San Diego County Superior Court, California) (Multiple employees brought a class action under state wage/hour laws seeking overtime wages, payments for rest periods, unpaid wages, and damages for the failure to keep proper wage statements; settlement agreement successfully negotiated and class certification avoided).
  • Bell-Pierce, et al. v. Zale Corp., No. 02-CV-1238 (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee) (plaintiff brought race discrimination class action over pay and promotions; case dismissed with no class determination).
  • Duplessie, et al. v. Zale Corp., No. 04-CV-2361 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Texas) (race discrimination class action over pay and promotions; case dismissed with no class determination).
  • EEOC v. First Midwest Bank (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (the EEOC sued on behalf of a class of female employees against a bank for maintenance of a “glass ceiling” with respect to promotional opportunities; settlement agreement successfully negotiated and class recovery avoided).
  • EEOC v. Kroger Foods (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Illinois) (the EEOC sued on behalf of a class of female employees claiming that the company allowed sexual harassment to take place at its various locations; consent decree successfully negotiated).
  • EEOC v. Sidley & Austin, No. 05-CV-208 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (the EEOC brought an age discrimination pattern or practice lawsuit claiming that a major law firm fired and/or demoted older partners due to their age)
  • EEOC v. Starwood Hotels, Inc. (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Texas) (the EEOC sued on behalf of a class of Hispanic employees claiming that the company allowed national origin discrimination to take place at its various locations and that the company failed to correct workplace conditions after complaints were brought to its attention; negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • Eirheart, et al. v. Libbey Owens Ford, Inc. (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (plaintiffs brought a nationwide class action on behalf of 3,000 employees alleging sex discrimination in the application of hiring criteria at automotive glass assembly plants; consent decree successfully negotiated).
  • ERC, et al. v. Bozzutto Associates, Inc., No. 05-CV-2558 (U.S. District Court/District Court of Maryland) (multiple plaintiffs brought a class action for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Americans With Disabilities Act for barriers allegedly denying access to wheelchair-bound tenants).
  • ERC, et al. v. Archstone Smith Trust, No. 04-CV-3975 (U.S. District Court/District Court of Maryland) (multiple plaintiffs brought a class action for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act for barriers allegedly denying access to wheelchair-bound tenants).
  • Garcia, et al. v. Viratec Thin Films, Inc., No. 01-CV-1978 (U.S. District Court/District of Minnesota) (plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of multiple Hispanic employees claiming discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment; negotiated favorable consent decree without a class-wide finding).
  • Hudson, et al. v. Ocean Spray, Inc. (U.S. District Court/Middle District of Florida) (thirty-four plaintiffs asserted sex and race discrimination claims relative to promotions and pay practices; class recovery denied, and all litigation disposed of by summary judgment for the defendant or with favorable settlements).
  • Jothen, et al. v. Best Buy, Inc., No. 04-CV-4812 (U.S. District Court/District of Minnesota) (plaintiffs brought a collective action for alleged age discrimination in a reduction-force).
  • Pfahl, et al. v. Synthes Corp. (U.S. District Court/District of Colorado) (multiple female employees brought a class action for sex discrimination with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, as well as plant-wide sexual harassment; class certification defeated, and individual claims successfully defended on the merits).
  • Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corp., No. 04-CV-281 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) (ongoing representation in race, national origin, and sex discrimination class action over pay and promotions).
  • Thomas, et al. v. General Investment Development Corp., No. 02-CV-1308 (U.S. District Court/District of Columbia) (multiple plaintiffs brought a class action for alleged race discrimination over pay and promotions; favorable settlement negotiated without any class findings).

E.  Defense Of Denial Of Access Class Actions

  • Access 4 All, Inc., et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 03-CV-61670 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (disability rights organization brought a class action and sued on behalf of itself and a class of disabled individuals over alleged barriers to access; favorable settlement agreement negotiated without any class findings).
  • Access For The Disabled, Inc., et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 02-CV-61255 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (disability rights organization brought a class action and sued on behalf of itself and a class of disabled individuals over alleged barriers to access; favorable settlement agreement negotiated without any class findings).
  • Access 4 All, Inc., et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 03-CV-1326 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (disability rights organization brought a class action and sued on behalf of itself and a class of disabled individuals over alleged barriers to access; favorable settlement agreement negotiated without any class findings).
  • Alliance For ADA Compliance, Inc., et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 06-CV-60990 (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (ADA class action lawsuit over denial of access issues; favorable settlement agreement negotiated).
  • Americans With Disabilities Advocates, Inc., et al., v. McDonald’s Corporation, No. 03-CV-1630 (U.S. District Court/Eastern District of California) (disability rights organization brought a class action and sued on behalf of itself and a class of disabled individuals over alleged barriers to access; favorable settlement agreement negotiated without any class findings).
  • American Disability Association, et al. v. McDonald’s Corporation (U.S. District Court/Southern District of Florida) (plaintiffs and a non-profit advocacy group asserted claims of disability discrimination on behalf of a class of allegedly injured individuals for denial of access and services under the Americans With Disabilities Act; negotiated favorable settlement without a class-wide finding).
  • Brooks, et al. v. Collis Foods, et al., No.: 03-CV-155 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of Georgia) (Plaintiffs and the NAACP sued various franchisees of Waffle House, Inc. in a series of lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas alleging systemic race discrimination and denial of services; negotiated favorable settlement and consent decree in a consolidated multi-case proceeding).
  • Clark, et al. v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02-CV-247 (U.S. District Court/New Jersey) (organizational plaintiffs brought nationwide class action alleging denial of services on account of disability discrimination; case disposed of favorably without any class findings).
  • Celano, et al. v. Marriott Inc., No. 05-CV-4004 (U.S. District Court/Northern District of California) (ongoing representation in nationwide ADA denial of access class action regarding wheelchair accessible golf carts; class certification defeated on April 18, 2007).
  • Lisa Madigan, On Behalf Of The People Of The State Of Illinois, et al. v. Walgreen’s, No. 03-CH-4553 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) (in case brought by Attorney General Lisa Madigan for alleged violations of the Illinois Accessibility Code relative to alleged barriers for disabled individuals, negotiated favorable consent decree).
  • Macedonia Church, et al. v. Fine Hotels Corp., No. 05-CV-153 (U.S. District Court/ District of Connecticut) (ongoing representation in class action alleging race discrimination in the denial of services; class certification defeated on July 20, 2007).
  • Miller, et al. v. SEE, Inc., No. 11-CV-5161 U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois) (ongoing representation in nationwide ADA denial of access class action regarding alleged failure to provide wheelchair accessibility at defendant’s optometry stores).

Presentations

  • "Class Action Developments in 2011 and Trends to Watch for in 2012," Workplace Class Action Webinar sponsored by Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL (February 16, 2012)
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, January 29, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Antoine Jones regarding GPS monitoring).
  • “Workplace Class Action Developments In 2011 & Beyond,”  17th Annual Program on Employment Practices Liability Insurance, sponsored by the American Conference Institute, New York, New York (January 25, 2012).
  • “Class Action Developments In 2011 – The Year In Review From A Wage & Hour Defense Lawyer’s Perspective,”  Annual Telecom Defense Counsel Meeting, Denver, Colorado (January 19, 2012).
  • Interviewed and quoted in SHRM Magazine, January 18, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding workplace class action trends and EEOC litigation in 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Employment Law 360, January 18, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District Carolina dismissing plaintiffs’ class claims in Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Advisen Front Page News, January 13, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the transformation of workplace class action law in 2011, and trends to watch for in 2012).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, January 12, 2012, at pp. 1, 22 (regarding the surge of workplace class action rulings in 2011, and key trends to watch for in 2012).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Corporate Counsel, January 12, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding new developments in workplace class action litigation in 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, January 11, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision inHosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC regarding the application of the “ministerial” exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in InsideCounsel, January 10, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding how 2011 was a transformative year for workplace class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Insurance Journal, January 10, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the prevalence of class arbitration issues in court rulings in 2011, and trends to watch for in the case law in 2012).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Claims Journal, January 10, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the prevalence of class arbitration issues in court rulings in 2011, and trends to watch for in 2012).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Employment Law 360, January 9, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding predictions for workplace class actions in 2012, and key trends in 2011). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in BNA Daily Labor Report, January 9, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on workplace class actions in 2011). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, January 9, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding significant trends in wage & hour collective action and class action litigation in 2011 and predictions for 2012). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Thompson Reuters, January 9, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the prevalence of class arbitration issues in court rulings in 2011, and trends to watch for in 2012).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Am Law Litigation Daily, January 9, 2012, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on arbitrations and workplace class actions in 2011, and trends to watch for in 2012). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Mlive.com, January 9, 2012 (online publication) (regarding significant trends in wage & hour collective action and class action litigation in 2011 and predictions for 2012). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Bankrate.com, January 9, 2012 (online publication) (regarding significant trends in ERISA collective action and class action litigation in 2011 and predictions for 2012). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, December 12, 2011, at p. 18 (regarding Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its implications as the most important employment-related ruling in 2011). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, December 5, 2011, at pp. 4, 33 (regarding the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to accept the petition for certiorari in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. relative to the outside sales exemption for pharmaceutical sales representatives in FLSA collective action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, October 31, 2011, at pp. 1, 18 (regarding the implications of the new strategies pursued by plaintiffs in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling rejecting class certification).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Bloomberg Business Week, October 13, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the increase in lawsuits filed by the EEOC on behalf of workers against their employers alleging race, sex, age, religion, and disability discrimination claims).
  • “The Future Of EEOC Systemic Litigation And Employment-Related Class Actions After Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,”  Bermuda Insurers Conference sponsored by Aon, Hamilton, Bermuda (October 12, 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, September 26, 2011, at pp. 1, 21 (regarding the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the class certification order in Ellis, et al. v. Costco).
  • Interviewed and quoted inHR Morning, August 26, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the court’s decision in EEOC v. Cintas Corp. ordering the EEOC to pay $2.6 million in legal fees and costs for bringing meritless claims against Cintas in a decade-long lawsuit).
  • Interviewed and quoted inInside Counsel, August 2011, at pp. 26-27 (regarding how the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. will impact employers in their defense of workplace class action litigation in the future).
  • Interviewed and quoted inMarket Watch/Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding hiring discrimination with respect to employer’s misleading advertisements for job postings).
  • “Defending Gender Discrimination Pay & Promotion Class Actions,”  American Conference Institute’s Program on Employment Discrimination Law, New York, NY (July 28, 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in American Lawyer, July 25, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion by the federal district court in Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers in the context of barring class claims in an employment discrimination class action).
  • Interviewed and quoted in BNA Class Action Litigation Report, July 19, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the likely fall-out for future class action litigation filings in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.).
  • Interviewed and quoted in ThomasNet News, July 19, 2011 (online publication) (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on future litigation trends).
  • Interviewed and quoted in BNA’s Employment Discrimination Report, July 13, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the long-term impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on Rule 23 certification issues in workplace class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted in American Lawyer, July 11, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the application of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion by the federal district court in Chen v. Goldman Sachs in the context of an employment discrimination class action).
  • “The Future Of Employment Discrimination Class Actions After Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” at webinar sponsored by the Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, D.C (July 8, 2011). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in BNA Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2011,at p. 519 (regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on employers, workers, and future class actions).
  • Interviewed by Voice of America radio, June 23, 2011 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on the future of class action litigation).
  • “The Impact Of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.: How The Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling Will Affect Employer’s And Class Action Litigation In The Future,” at webinar sponsored by Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, Illinois (June 23, 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Corporate Counsel, June 22, 2011,at p. 190 (regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on workplace litigation).
  • “The Implications Of The Supreme Court’s Decision In Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” at webinar sponsored by Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, Illinois (June 21, 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in BNA Daily Labor Report, June 20, 2011,at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on future class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted inLaw360, June 20, 2011,at p. 1 (regarding the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.).
  • Interviewed and quoted in London Sun Herald, June 20, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on class action litigation in the United States).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, June 20, 2011, at pp. 1, 24 (regarding the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on employers, workers, and future class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted in National Underwriter, June 20, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and its impact on employment practices liability insurance).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Reuters, June 20, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on employers, workers, and future class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted in CCH Employment Law Daily, June 20, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on workplace litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Forbes, June 20, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on future litigation trends).
  • Interviewed and quoted in The Republic, June 20, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on employers, workers, and future class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Dow Jones MarketWatch.com, June 20, 2011 (online publication) (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on class certification issues).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Middle East North Africa Financial Network, June 20, 2011(online publication) (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on U.S. litigation trends).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Bloomberg, June 20, 2011,at p. 1 (regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.).
  • Interviewed and quoted inEmployment Law 360, June 16, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Bayer Corp. on the defense of class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted inAmerican Lawyer, June 16, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Bayer Corp. on employers).
  • Interviewed by WBBM Radio, June 6, 2010 (regarding the theories of the wage & hour class action brought in Craig, et al. v. Prologistix).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Crain's Chicago Business, June 6, 2010, at p. 1 (regarding the theories of the wage & hour class action brought in Craig, et al. v. Prologistix).
  • Interviewed and quoted in BNA Class Action Report, January 27, 2012, at p. 71 (regarding the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Northern Carolina dismissing plaintiffs’ class claims and theories in Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Employment Law 360, November 4, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc., granting the defense motions to dismiss in the EEOC’s largest “human trafficking” employment discrimination lawsuit). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Workforce Management, July 1, 2011, at p. 10 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on workplace class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, June 27, 2011, at pp. 1, 21 (regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling denying class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.).
  • Speech, “Gender Discrimination Issues After Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,” at webinar sponsored by the Bureau of National Affairs, June 1, 2011, in Washington, D.C.
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, May 31, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding wage & hour class action litigation trends in 2011 and the implications of wage & hour lawsuits on employers).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Employment Law 360, May 31, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the ruling on May 27, 2011, in EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. relative to discovery allowed against the EEOC regarding its own internal personnel rules and decision-making).
  • Interviewed and quoted in EPLiC, Spring 2011, at p. 13 (regarding trends in complex litigation analyzed in Seyfarth Shaw’s Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report).
  • Interviewed and quoted in The New York Times, May 21, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the implications of a new smartphone application that allows employees to calculate their hours and overtime).
  • Interviewed and quoted in 12 BNA Class Action Litigation Report, May 13, 2011, at p. 364 (regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on the future of class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Employment Law 360, May 11, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the Court's decision in EEOC v. Kaplan, Case No. 11-CV-2882 (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2011), regarding the liability period for an EEOC pattern or practice lawsuit).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, May 10, 2010, at pp. 3, 30 (regarding the Ninth Circuit’s decision in State of Arizona v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc. relative to novel ADA class action claims).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Am Law Litigation Daily, April 27, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on workplace class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in PC World, April 27, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on workplace class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Macworld, April 27, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on workplace class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Daily Labor Report, April 27, 2011, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion on workplace class action litigation).
  • “Litigating Against The EEOC In 2011,” at Claims Professional Webinar for Hiscox Corp., New York, New York (April 14, 2011).
  • "Surviving Government Enforcement Litigation Brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2011," at program sponsored by Allied World National Assurance, Hartford, Connecticut (March 9, 2011).
  • "Strategies For Dealing With The EEOC And The Plaintiffs’ Class Action Bar In 2011,"sponsored by Chartis, Inc., New York, New York (March 3, 2011).
  • "On the Cutting Edge of Workplace Class Actions,” Chicago Bar Association, Class Litigation Committee, Chicago, Illinois (February 23, 2011).
  • Interviewed and quoted in The National Law Journal, August 2, 2010, at p. 1 (regarding the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Inc. on workplace class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Employment Law 360, July 29, 2010, at p. 1 (regarding the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers, relative to prohibiting class arbitration of an employment discrimination pay and promotions class action claim).
  • “Cutting-Edge Issues In Wage & Hour Collective Action And Class Action Litigation,” sponsored by Advisen, Chicago, Illinois(June 16, 2010).
  • “Dealing With The EEOC In 2010: Strategies For Dealing With Governmental Investigations And Litigation,” sponsored by Lexington Insurance Company, Chicago IL (May 20, 2010).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, May 3, 2010, at p. 18 (regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s potential review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart to certify the class).
  • “What’s New On The Workplace Class Action Front In 2010?”  Chartis Claims Advisory Board Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri (April 21, 2010).
  • “Defense Of Employment Class Actions,” National Union Seminar Program, Chicago, Il (May 12, 2005).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, June 28, 2004, at pp. 4, 32 (regarding the ruling in Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart, which certified the largest employment discrimination class action ever).
  • “Defense Of Employment Discrimination Class Actions,”  Employment Law School For Managers sponsored by National Union Insurance Company, New York, NY, (May 5, 2004). 
  • “Handling Employment Discrimination Class Actions,” 9th Annual American Conference Institute Program, New York, NY (February 3, 2004).
  • “Defense Of EPLI Class Actions,” 8th Annual ACI Conference on Employment Practices Liability Insurance New York, NY, (February 7, 2003).
  • “What Business Executives Should Know About New Class Action Exposures,” 6th Annual Senior Executive Retreat, sponsored by Lexington Insurance Company, Chatham, Massachusetts (September 19, 2002). 
  • Interviewed and quoted in Risk & Insurance Magazine, February 2002 at p. 14 (on defense of employment discrimination class actions).
  • Interviewed and quoted in The New York Times, February 9, 2003 at p. 14 (on defense of Texas employment discrimination class action).
  •  “Class Actions And Mass Actions Involving Employment Liabilities,” 7th Annual ACI Conference on Employment Practices Liability Insurance, New York, NY (January 31, 2002).
  • Interviewed and quoted in The Economist, March 2, 2002, at pp. 60-61 (regarding sex harassment and class action employment discrimination claims being brought against multinational employers in various Western and European countries).
  • Interviewed and quoted in Business Insurance, January 28, 2002, at p. 10 (regarding issues involving the defense of employment discrimination class action litigation).
  • Interviewed and quoted in National Underwriter, November 26, 2001, at p. 1 (regarding current developments in employment discrimination class action litigation, and pro-active policies and practices which corporations should adopt to lower their susceptibility to class action litigation over workplace problems).

Publications

  • Co-Author, "Contention Over EEOC Conciliation Continues," Law360 (August 22, 2014)
  • Co-Author, “Compliance: Religious discrimination — It’s on the EEOC’s radar,” Inside Counsel (November 13, 2013)
  • "Guidance For Employers Considering Mandatory Arbitration Agreements With Class And Collective Action Waivers," Strategies and Insights Alert, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (July 3, 2013)
  • Co-Author, “Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Comcast v. Behrend,” One Minute Memo, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (November 5, 2012)
  • Co-Author, “Second Circuit Decision Underscores Risk Of Aggressive Settlement Class Notice Programs,” One Minute Memo, Seyfarth Shaw LLP (August 22, 2012)
  • "EPLI Risk-Management Survival Guide,”  National Underwriter (December 5, 2011).
  • “Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes: Clarification of Rule 23 Standards,” Westlaw Journal Expert Commentary Series, (Fall 2011).
  • “Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes: U.S. Supreme Court’s Clarification Of Rule 23 Standards Means A Win For Employers Facing Class Actions,” 12 BNA Class Action Litigation Report (July 8, 2011).
  • Editor and Contributing Author, Workplace Class Action Blog, available at: www.workplaceclassaction.com.
  • "Lessons From 2010 Workplace Class Actions," 12 BNA Class Action Litigation Report 83 (January 28, 2011).
  • “Dukes v. Wal-Mart Part III - What Employers Need To Know About The Future Of Class Actions Based On The En Banc Ruling,” 11 BNA Class Action Litigation Report 485 (May 28, 2010).
  • "New EPL- Related Laws Cover the Gamut,” National Underwriter Property & Casualty (October 2007).
  • “Managing Workplace Problems With An Employment Practices Compliance Program,” The National Club Association's Club Director (February/March 2007).
  • “Significant Federal Employment Discrimination Class Action And EEOC Pattern Or Practice Rulings,” CCH Labor Law Journal (Spring 2007).
  • "New Plaintiff Tactics Push EPLI Envelope," National Underwriter, (February 19, 2007).
  • "New Workplace Laws Challenge HR Managers," National Underwriter (June 12, 2006).
  • “ ‘Dukes’ Class Action May Be Hazardous; Employment practices exposure cited as courts assess gender discrimination,” National Underwriter – Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition (September 5, 2005).
  • “Litigation Likely? – The Supreme Court, Wal-Mart, And Your Computer All Play A Role,” Staffing Success (March/April, 2005).
  • “Class Action Reform May Hike Settlements,” National Underwriter (March 7, 2005).
  • “EPLI Events Could Have Fallout For 2005 – Class Actions,” National Underwriter (December 13, 2004).
  • “Defense Strategies For Multi-Party And Class Action Employment Practices Liability Litigation,” CCH Labor Law Journal (Fall 2003).
  • “EPLI Risk-Management Survival Guide,”National Underwriter (December 5, 2011).
  • “Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes: Clarification of Rule 23 Standards,” Westlaw Journal Expert Commentary Series (Fall 2011).

Management Positions
Mr. Maatman co-chairs Seyfarth Shaw’s class action defense group.  He is also the editor of the Firm’s annual class action survey of workplace litigation, and editor of the firm’s workplace class action blog.

Editorial Positions
Mr. Maatman is a member of Law 360 Employment Editorial Advisory Board.

Reported Cases At The Trial Level

  • Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4669 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 13, 2012)
  • Norris-Wilson, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143295 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011)
  • Stewart v. Prince Telecom, Inc., et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130364 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Giant Oil of Arkansas, et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129001 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 4, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Giant Oil of Arkansas, et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128996 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 4, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc., et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. 127734 (D. Haw. Nov. 2, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126585 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2011)
  • Hageman, et al. v. Accenture LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121511 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116943 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2011)
  • Boyd, et al. v. Alutiiq Global Solutions, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. 88656 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Giant Oil of Arkansas, et al., 2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80937 (W.D. Ark. July 22, 2011)
  • Blakely, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70930 (N.D. Ind. June 29, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67318 (W.D.N.Y. June 23, 2011)
  • Macedonia Church, et al. v. Fine Hotels Corp., et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62063 (D. Conn. June 9, 2011 )
  • Hageman, et al. v. Accenture LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61727 (D. Minn. June 7, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57829 (N.D. Ohio May 26, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50035 (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44603 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2011)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44255 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2011)
  • Blakely, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37487 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2011)
  • Hageman, et al. v. Accenture LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36579 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2011)
  • EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35258 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2011)
  • Gromek, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134009 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2010)
  • Feeney, et al. v. Kelly Services, Inc., et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129165 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 27, 2010)
  • Norris-Wilson, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104564 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2010)
  • Macedonia Church, et al. v. Fine Hotels Corp., et al., 270 F.R.D. 107 (D. Conn. 2010)
  • Hageman, et al. v. Accenture LLP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99374 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2010)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
  • Arrighi, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121741 (D. R.I. Aug. 30, 2010)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80896 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9,    2010)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71429 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 2010)
  • Bamgbose, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65728 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2010)
  • Bamgbose, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65586 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2010)
  • Riddoch v. McCormick & Schmick’s, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65799 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2010)
  • EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61603 (D. Md. June 22, 2010)
  • Norris-Wilson, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53554 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2010)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48257 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010)
  • EEOC v. Quantum Foods, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41846 (N.D. Ill. April 26, 2010)
  • Tidd v. Kelly Services, Inc., et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24785 (D. Mass. Mar. 16, 2010)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17268 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2010)
  • Bamgbose, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Pa. 2010)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 649 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2010)
  • EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125090 (D. Colo. Dec. 29, 2009)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
  • Bamgbose, et al. v. Delta-T Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126880 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2009)
  • EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122102 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009)
  • Lerman, et al. v. The City of Ft. Lauderdale, 92 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 43,690 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
  • Lerman, et al. v. The City of Ft. Lauderdale, 91 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶43,432 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2008)
  • Curry, et al. v. Chateau Del Mar, Inc., et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103137 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2008)
  • Mullins, et al. v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104435 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008)
  • Wade, et al. v. Kroger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95334 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2008)
  • Scott, et al. v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94075 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2008)
  • Scott, et al. v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96965 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2008)
  • EEOC v. McCormick & Schmick’s, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112283 (D. Md. Nov. 4, 2008)
  • Scott, et al. v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  • Scott, et al. v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  • Scott, et al. v. City of New York, 591 F. Supp. 2d 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  • Mullins, et. al. v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83370 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008)
  • EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63758 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2008)
  • EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63747 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2008)
  • Macedonia Church, et al. v. Fine Hotels Corp., et al., 560 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Conn. 2008)
  • EEOC v. Outback Steak House of Florida, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 603 (D. Colo. 2008)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  • Mullins, et al. v. City of New York, 554 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
  • Norman v. Dell, Inc., 13 W.H. Cases.2d 1554 (D. Or. 2008)
  • Mullins, et al. v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2206 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2008)
  • Mullins, et al. v. City of New York, 523 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
  • Arrez, et al. v. Kelly Services, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Ill. 2007)
  • Amorose, et al. v. C.H. Robinson, 521 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N.D. Ill. 2007)
  • In Re C.H. Robinson Worldwide Overtime Pay Litigation, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2007)
  • Macedonia Church, et al. v. Fine Hotels Corp., et al., 498 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. Conn. 2007)
  • McCants, et al. v. C.H. Robinson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40631 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 2007)
  • Murray, et al. v. C.H. Robinson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18766 (N.D. Ill. March 14, 2007)
  • Burt, et al. v. C.H. Robinson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18755 (N.D. Ill. March 12, 2007)
  • Celano, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
  • Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 240 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
  • Endangered, et al. v. Louisville/Jefferson County, et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10022 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2007)
  • EEOC v. GLC Restaurants, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 399 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2007)
  • In Re Wachovia Securities LLC Wage And Hour Litigation, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94817 (J.M.D.L. Dec. 22, 2006)
  • Wynne, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick’s, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88989 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2006)
  • EEOC v. GLC Restaurants, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86707 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2006)
  • Carlson, et al. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67108 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2006)
  • Barfield v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56711 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2006)
  • Colindres, et al. v. Goodman, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 347 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
  • Colindres, et al. v. Quietflex, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19799 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2006)
  • Colindres, et al. v.Goodman, Inc., 427 F. Supp. 2d 737 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
  • Colindres, et al. v. Goodman, Inc., 97 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 567 (S.D. Tex. 2006)
  • Smith, et al. v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 648 (N.D. Ill. 2006)
  • Himmelman, et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56187 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2006)
  • Duffy, et al. v. Sodexho, Inc.,88 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,621 (E.D. Pa. 2006)
  • Macedonia Church, et al. v. Fine Hotels Corp., et al., 325 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D. Conn. 2006)
  • Saunders, et al. v. American Warehouse Services, Inc., et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20794 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2005)
  • Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 151 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 35,065 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
  • Carletto, et al. v. Quantum Foods, Inc., 10 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d. (BNA) 1661 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2005)
  • Crawford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 86 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 42,052 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
  • Washington v. International Survey Research, 86 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,005 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
  • Ellis, et al v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
  • Colindres, et al. v. Goodman, Inc., 228 F.R.D. 567 (S.D. Tex. 2005)
  • Brooks, et al. v. Collis Foods, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (N.D. Ga. 2005)
  • Colindres, et al. v. Goodman, Inc., 86 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 41,872 (S.D. Tex. 2004)
  • Nese v. Administaff, Inc., 15 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 1108 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
  • Kleen v. McSoifer, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s, 85 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 41,678 (N.D. Iowa 2004)
  • Clark v. McDonald’s Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198 (D.N.J. 2003)
  • EEOC v. Renaissance Roofing, Inc., 14 Amer. Dis. Cas. (BNA) 671 (N.D. Ill. 2003)
  • EEOC v. Blood Systems, Inc., 12 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 1630 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
  • Leatzow v. A.M. Castle & Co., 81 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 40,875 (S.D. Fla. 2001)
  • EEOC v. Blood Systems, Inc., 9 Am. Dis. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 9,048 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
  • Wantanabe v. Loyola University, 83 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 768 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
  • Hermanutz v. Deutsche Luftansa, 80 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 40,465 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
  • Baer v. Interim Occupational Health, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1664 (W.D.N.Y. 2000)
  • Kremer v. Illinois Power Co., et al., 78 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 40,005 (C.D. Ill. 2000)
  • Harris v. University of Illinois, 77 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 40,005 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
  • O’Regan v. Arbitration Forums, 80 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 1742 (N.D. Ill. 1999)
  • Adams v. Brookshire Grocery, 77 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH)  ¶ 46,372 (E.D. Tex. 1999)
  • Smith v. Interim, 77 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 46,252 (Ct. Com. Pleas, Ohio 1999)
  • New York Attorney General v. Garban, 80 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 351 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999)
  • Rollf v. Interim Personnel, 10 Amer. Dis. Cas. (BNA) 1656 (E.D. Mo. 1999)
  • Ray v. Disabled American Veterans, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4797 (N.D. Ill. 1999)
  • Henthorn v. Olsten Corp., 75 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 45,803 (N.D. Ill. 1999)
  • Bishop v. Interim Services, Inc., 11 Emp. Disc. Rep. (BNA) 642 (N.D. Tex. 1998)
  • Szpila v. Amana Refrigeration, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6188 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
  • Orozco v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R., 77 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 1811 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
  • Kay v. FCT, 976 F. Supp. 772 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
  • Thompson v. Olsten Kimberly QualityCare, Inc., 980 F. Supp. 1035 (D. Minn. 1997)
  • Peric v. University of Illinois, 3 Am. Dis. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 3-265 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
  • Kay v. FCT, 966 F. Supp. 750 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
  • Gastineau v. Austin Nichols & Co., 73 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 1409 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
  • Kay v. FCT, 966 F. Supp. 753 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
  • Kolivas v. Credit Agricole, 6 Amer. Dis. Cas. (BNA) 198 (S.D.N.Y 1996)
  • Motta v. Olsten Services, 12 I.E.R. Cases (BNA) 535 (Iowa Dist. Ct. 1996)
  • Cooke v. Illinois Central Railroad, 68 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 44,255 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
  • Peric v. University of Illinois, 71 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 1760 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
  • Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Company, 68 E.P.D. ¶ 44,197 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
  • Vazquez v. FiServ, 68 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 44,225 (N.D. Ill. 1995)
  • Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 901 F. Supp. 1293 (N.D. Ill. 1995)
  • Augenstein v. Superior Graphite Co., 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 932 (N.D. Ill. 1995)
  • Chappelle v. Beacon Corp., 863 F. Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
  • Barnhart v. Mack Trucks, 157 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Ill. 1994)
  • Brantley v. Plastiflex Co., 2 Emp. Disc. Rep. (BNA) 549 (Ill. 1994)
  • Chappelle v. Beacon Corp., 63 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1235 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
  • Greene v. RTO, Inc., 828 F. Supp. 584 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
  • Talley v. Washington Inventory Service, 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1010 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
  • Burke v. American Stores, 818 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
  • Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 61 E.P.D. ¶ 42,182 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
  • Rooney v. Franklin Park, 256 Ill. App. 3d 1057 (1st Dist. 1993)
  • Alber v. Protection & Advocacy, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 1298 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
  • Alber v. Protection & Advocacy, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 1340 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  • Suchodolski v. TMC, 124 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 57,167 (Mich. 1992)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 60 E.P.D. ¶ 41,936 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  • Hedenberg v. Bando American, Inc., 60 E.P.D. ¶ 41,931 (D. N.J. 1992)
  • Sullivan v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 59 E.P.D. ¶ 41,565 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 59 E.P.D. ¶ 41,541 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  • Prachand v. Government of India, 24 Fed. R. Sev. 3d 1128 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 58 E.P.D. ¶ 41,406 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  • Slavich v. Ford Motor Co., 122 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 10,233 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Schnering v. Midlothian Park District, 219 Ill. App. 3d 664 (1st Dist. 1991)
  • Village of Melrose Park v. Nautilus Insurance Co., 214 Ill. App. 3d 864 (1st Dist. 1991)
  • Shabazz v. System Software Associates, 58 E.P.D. ¶ 41,247 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 58 E.P.D. ¶ 41,405 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Fischer v. Medical Imaging Corp., 57 E.P.D. ¶ 41,165 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 56 E.P.D. ¶ 40,728 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Sullivan v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 166 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 56 E.P.D. ¶ 40,729 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Johnson v. Cloos International, Inc., 55 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 1534 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Carpenter v. Ford Motor Co., 761 F. Supp. 62 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
  • Black v. Pfauter-Maag, 54 E.P.D. ¶ 40,118 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
  • Miranda v. Jewel Companies, 192 Ill. App. 3d 586 (2d Dist. 1989)
  • Ray v. Conrail, 721 F. Supp. 1017 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
  • Yates v. Reliance Electric, 53 F.E.P. Cas. (BNA) 330 (C.D. Ill. 1989)
  • Tolbert v. St. Francis Hospital, 189 Ill. App. 3d 503 (1st Dist. 1989)
  • Driver v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 50 E.P.D. ¶ 38,955 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
  • Strandell v. Jackson County, 115 F.R.D. 333 (S.D. Ill. 1988)
  • LeRose v. City of Zion, 696 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Ill. 1988)
  • Pinto v. Village of Alsip, 168 Ill. App. 3d 771 (1st Dist. 1988)
  • Naqvi v. Oudensha America, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. Ill. 1988)
  • Makhija v. Deleuw Cather Co., 666 F. Supp. 1158 (N.D. Ill. 1987)
  • Cooper v. Department of the Army, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3041 (N.D. Ill. 1987)
  • Lefton Iron & Metal Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 146 Ill. App. 3d 799 (1st Dist. 1986)
  • Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain, 650 F. Supp. 1042 (N.D. Ill. 1986)
  • Strandell v. Jackson County, 648 F. Supp. 126 (S.D. Ill. 1986)
  • Strandell v. Jackson County, 634 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Ill. 1986)
  • Yates v. Reliance Electric, 40 E.P.D. ¶ 36,266 (C.D. Ill. 1986)
  • Friedman v. Village of Skokie, 763 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1985)
  • DeFurgalski v. Village of Chicago Ridge, 618 F. Supp. 295 (N.D. Ill. 1985)
  • Cruzat v. Village of Maywood, 126 Ill. App. 3d 717 (1st Dist. 1984)
  • Telegraph Savings & Loan v. Schilling, 703 F.2d 1019 (7th Cir. 1983)
  • Walters v. Midland-Ross, 116 Ill. App. 3d 324 (1st Dist. 1983)
  • Jessup v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co., 456 N.E. 2d 370 (Ill. App. 1983)
  • Christou v. Arlington Park, 104 Ill. App. 3d 257 (1st Dist. 1982)

Reported Appellate Decisions

  • Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011)
  • Cunningham v. Nature’s Earth Pellets, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13935 (11th Cir. July 6, 2011)
  • Jock, et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2011)
  • Lerman v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 346 Fed. Appx. 500 (11th Cir. 2009)
  • Barfield v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008)
  • Carletto, et al. v. Quantum Foods, Inc., No. 1-05-3163 (Ill. App. Ct. June 5, 2006), appeal denied, 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1725 (Ill. Nov. 29, 2006)
  • Crawford v. Indian Harbor Belt Railroad Co., 461 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2006)
  • Nese v. Administaff, 405 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2005)
  • Smith v. J. Smith Lanier & Company, 84 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶41,566 (11th Cir. 2003)
  • O’Regan v. Arbitration Forums, 246 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001)
  • Kolivas v. Credit Agricole, 125 F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1997)
  • Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill. 2d 511 (1997) (filed amicus curie brief on behalf of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association)
  • Barnhart v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 66 Emp. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 43,545 (7th Cir. 1995)
  • Talley v. Washington Inventory Service, 37 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 1994)
  • Ray v. Conrail, 938 F.2d 704 (7th Cir. 1991)
  • Rallo v. The Crossroads Clinic, 206 Ill. App. 3d 676 (1st Dist. 1991)
  • Miranda v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 192 Ill. App. 3d 586 (2d Dist. 1989)
  • Tolbert v. St. Francis Hospital, 189 Ill. App. 3d 503 (1st Dist. 1989)
  • Strandell v. Jackson County, 838 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1988)
  • Pinto v. Village of Alsip, 168 Ill. App. 3d 771 (1st Dist. 1988)
  • American Civil Liberties Union v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 961 (1986) (retained to file petition for writ of certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court/writ denied)
  • DeSeve v. Ladd Enterprises, 137 Ill. App. 3d 796 (2d Dist. 1985)
  • Lenzi v. Morkin, 103 Ill. 2d 190 (1984)
  • Reed v. Village of Shorewood, 704 F.2d 943 (7th Cir. 1983)