Fifty years of labor and employment litigation experience is what Vedder Price brings to the table. With more than 50 labor and employment attorneys in Chicago, New York and Washington, D. C., we are well equipped to effectively and creatively defend any type of employment litigation.
What is more, we have an unparalleled track record in the area of defending employment class action claims. We have seen such cases successfully through from the investigative phase to victories in the trial and appellate courts. Together with our clients, we have defended cases involving issues such as race discrimination, national origin discrimination, fair labor standards and equal pay act claims, age and sex discrimination, and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Armstrong v. Amsted Industries, Inc.
The federal district court granted summary judgment in this ERISA class action lawsuit brought by employee participants in an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) against their employer Amsted Industries, Inc., which is wholly owned through ESOP, and its individual directors and officers as well as against the plan trustee LaSalle Bank. The court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims, which were for breach of fiduciary duty and exceeded $160 million.
The claims of the plaintiff class focused on three corporate activities: Amsted’s obtaining a $1 billion loan to acquire another company in 1999; Amsted’s assessment of the obligation to repurchase shares of ESOP stock at the time an employee retired; and the valuation of Amsted stock by the ESOP trustee. The plaintiff class maintained that Amsted did not sufficiently weigh the impact of the acquisition on its financial health and, especially, on Amsted’s stock price and ability to repurchase ESOP shares.
The court held that the defendants did not violate ERISA’s prudent person standard in any respect. While the acquisition created significant debt for the company, the court found that the acquisition in and of itself was not the cause of subsequent cash flow problems Amsted experienced and that Amsted had acted prudently in the amounts it allocated for the repurchase of ESOP shares. The court also held that, although the plaintiffs may have been disappointed by the company’s earnings and/or by subsequent valuations of the ESOP stock, there was neither wrongdoing nor self-dealing on the part of the company, its officials or the trustee.
Note: This decision was reversed as to a co-defendant by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Coates v. Johnson & Johnson
This class action case under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleged that Johnson & Johnson engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-Americans in discharge. The case arose from a large unionized manufacturing facility and covered an 8-year period. In addition to the class, which was represented by private counsel, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened as a plaintiff. After a trial lasting nearly three weeks, the plaintiffs’ claims were rejected in their entirety; and Johnson & Johnson’s win was upheld on appeal.
Daniels v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
This class action was brought by 14 named plaintiffs against the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, alleging systemic race discrimination in pay, promotion, training and a host of other terms and conditions of employment. Although the judge initially certified a broad class covering all claims alleged in the complaint, on a motion for reconsideration, he significantly reduced the certified class to one involving only African-American employees up to the level of manager, and only involving promotion claims.
EEOC v. Rockwell International Corp.
This lawsuit was one of the first class actions brought by the EEOC under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC challenged Rockwell’s practice of applicant nerve conduction testing as a violation of the ADA.
At the outset the EEOC considered this to be a standard testing issue case. As part of our defense strategy, we instead recast the case as one of medical/ergonomics issues. As the case progressed, it became clear that the EEOC was unable to fully grasp the medical and ergonomic issues. The number of depositions and the subpoenaing of the medical records of all the plaintiffs appeared to overwhelm the EEOC. As to the ergonomic aspects of the case, we were able to file a Daubert motion that resulted in the exclusion of the EEOC’s vocational expert. The EEOC’s case collapsed after four years of litigation and Rockwell won on a summary judgment motion.The Court of Appeals affirmed Rockwell’s victory.
Garcia v. Rush Presbyterian St. Luke’s Medical Center
Three Hispanic employees of the largest hospital and medical center in Chicago alleged that the Medical Center discriminated against the individuals and the class in virtually every aspect of employment, from hiring to promotion to discharge.
After a five week trial, judgment on all claims was entered in favor of the Medical Center and affirmed on appeal.
Gerlib v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons
This class action by 340 plaintiffs under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act arose from the closing of the Chicago Manufacturing Division of the defendant employer R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company. As a part of the closing, Donnelley offered division employees the opportunity to transfer to other Donnelley locations around the country. The plaintiff class alleged that Donnelley had engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination by failing to inform them of transfer opportunities and by failing to select them for transfer. After a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict for Donnelley rejecting all of plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination.
Kostecki v. Dominick’s Finer Foods
The plaintiff, a former Dominick’s employee, brought a class action on behalf of all hourly-paid Dominick’s employees under multiple Illinois laws, seeking allegedly unpaid wages for "off the clock" work, meal periods and overtime. We obtained early dismissal of the entire case on the grounds that the plaintiff and putative class members were required to adjudicate their claims pursuant to the grievance and arbitration provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, rather than in court. The Illinois appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal.
Patterson v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company
This claim of racial discrimination was brought by bricklayer helpers who charged that the company permitted systemic discrimination with respect to opportunities for helpers to enter mason craft training programs.
The company received partial summary judgment on all but one claim in the case. At the appellate level, the central issue to be determined was the appropriate scope of remedies for the single violation found by the district court. The company prevailed with respect to all remedy issues on appeal.
Short v. FMC Corp.
This class action lawsuit was brought by three African-American clerical employees alleging class wide, systemic discrimination in promotion and discipline, including discharge.
Although class certification was denied before trial, the case was tried over a period of five weeks before a jury, and a verdict was rendered for FMC on all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including over 40 assertions of discriminatory promotional denial.
Williams v. Quebecor Eagle Printing Co.
In this racial harassment class action, the plaintiffs attempted to certify a facility-wide, and subsequently a nationwide, class action. The employer was able to defeat the attempt to broaden the action into a nationwide class action and prevented the plaintiffs from adding other class representatives. Summary judgment was ordered in favor of the employer, dismissing the case in its entirety.
