- strategic use of discovery and dispositive motions
- persuasive use of statistical data
- cost-efficient strategies for producing electronically stored information
- effective deployment of consulting and testifying experts.
We also represent clients with respect to compliance with a variety of workplace statutes, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), and state and local employment statutes, among others.
Weil represented Forest Laboratories, LLC and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, Forest), in a massive putative gender class and collective action brought on behalf of eleven former sales representatives, Barrett, et al. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al. Forest, now known as Allergan and a subsidiary of Actavis plc, is a global pharmaceutical company. Plaintiffs are represented by leading class counsel, Sanford Heisler Kimpel, which has had prior success in bringing class claims of gender discrimination against pharmaceutical companies, including a $250 million gender discrimination verdict several years ago against pharmaceutical giant, Novartis. After having successfully narrowed the scope of the case through a motion to dismiss and/or strike, which resulted in the dismissal of several individual claims and a significant narrowing of the putative Title VII class period (a rare achievement at the pleadings stage), Weil scored another significant victory in July 2015 when Judge Abrams denied Plaintiffs’ motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for potential collective action members’ claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The full denial of this motion significantly limited the size of the putative EPA collective as well as the potential damages arising from the EPA collective action claim. Weil also successfully battled Plaintiffs in various discovery disputes, including Plaintiffs’ motion seeking to compel Forest to produce the names of the putative class members, which the court denied in its entirety. This litigation matter is a bellwether case due to, among other reasons, the more nuanced gender claims it alleges including family responsibility discrimination, “sex plus” discrimination, “sex stereotyping,” pregnancy-related issues, and compensation disparities based on neutral pay practices.
Weil also represents Sterling in a separate matter commenced by the EEOC that alleges many of the same allegations as in Jock. In 2008, the EEOC issued a determination finding that Sterling subjected female employees working at its retail stores to a pattern or practice of sex discrimination by paying women less than men doing the same work, and denying women the same chance for promotion into salaried jobs. Later that year, the EEOC filed its own lawsuit against Sterling in federal court in Buffalo, NY, alleging a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in its pay and promotion decisions. The EEOC case seeks principally equitable remedies requiring the company to implement programmatic relief including the imposition and monitoring of programs and policies to eradicate the alleged discrimination. In March 2014, the US District Court for the Western District of New York granted Sterling’s motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the EEOC’s claim of a nationwide pattern or practice of employment discrimination.
- We represented Merrill Lynch in a high-profile nationwide class action alleging that African-American financial advisors were discriminated against in every aspect of their employment.
- We also secured a victory in a case alleging discrimination in a “stay bonus” program adopted in connection with Merrill’s merger with Bank of America.
The firm has a reputation for handling large class and mass action litigation.
Legal 500 US
Weil’s Employment Litigation practice is “particularly noted for its handling of class and collective actions”.