- Law firms
The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) - Here are some upcoming events of interest to the employment law community. All times are local unless stated otherwise.
Monday, July 26
9 a.m. - Lawyers for UnitedHealth Group Inc will urge a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to rule that a lawsuit claiming the insurance company violated federal law by not giving employee health plan participants "full and fair review" of their claims is not suitable for class-action treatment. United, represented by Reed Smith, says the judge who certified a class in the case was wrong to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the basis that United sent plan participants a generalized notice of claims before engaging in a more individualized process. The case is Condry v. UnitedHealth Group Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-16823. For the plaintiffs: Kimberly Donaldson of Chimicles & Tikellis. For UnitedHealth: Raymond Cardozo of Reed Smith.
9 a.m. - A different 9th Circuit panel will consider whether an arbitration agreement that a trucking firm required its drivers to sign was unenforceable because it required arbitration to take place in Dallas and provided that the losing party pay the prevailing party's legal costs. A judge said the agreement between TForce Logistics and driver Santiago Lim, who claims he was misclassified as an independent contractor, was unconscionable and allowed his proposed class action to proceed in court. The case is Lim v. TForce Logistics LLC, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-55564. For Lim: Joshua Konecky of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky. For TForce: Steven Rice of Marron Lawyers.
9 a.m. - The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena will hear, by videoconference, an appeal by medical staffing company Aya Healthcare seeking to revive its antitrust lawsuit against rival AMN Healthcare. Aya alleges that AMN suppressed competition in the travel nursing market by preventing its former employees from using the names of any travel nurses in AMN's database and through no-poaching agreements. U.S. District Judge Michael Anello in San Diego granted summary judgment to AMN. The case is Aya Healthcare Services Inc et al v. AMN Healthcare Inc et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-55679. For Aya Healthcare: William Markham of Law Offices of William Markham. For AMN: David Bamberger of DLA Piper.
Wednesday, July 28
10:30 a.m. - A panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will consider reviving a proposed class action claiming 7-Eleven Inc franchisees were actually the convenience store operator's employees. A federal judge in Boston said Massachusetts' strict test for worker classification was preempted by its franchise law, which allows franchisors to exert control over certain aspects of franchise businesses in order to maintain brand quality and uniformity.
The case is Patel v. 7-Eleven Inc, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-1999.
For the plaintiffs: Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan.
For 7-Eleven: Norman Leon of DLA Piper.
Thursday, July 29
10:30 a.m. - A Manhattan federal judge will preside over a settlement conference in a lawsuit accusing Google of paying a female executive less than men and demoting her after she complained. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield recently warned Google and plaintiff Ulku Rowe, who is director of engineering for Google Cloud, that she was unlikely to grant summary judgment to either side and the 2019 lawsuit would head to trial absent a settlement.
The case is Rowe v. Google, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-8655.
For Rowe: Cara Greene of Outten & Golden.
For Google: Kenneth Gage of Paul Hastings.
Friday, July 30
8:30 a.m. - A federal judge in Chicago will hold a status hearing in a lawsuit claiming Tyson Foods Inc subsidiary Hillshire Farms Co targeted a high-ranking Black IT employee for termination because of her sex and race. Tyson, which has moved for summary judgment, says Annitre Edison treated the company as her "personal piggy bank" by seeking reimbursement for $15,000 in illegitimate expenses. But Edison claims male and white employees were not disciplined for submitting similar reimbursement claims.
The case is Edison v. Tyson Foods Inc, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:20-cv-2484.
For Edison: Jaz Park of Chicago-Kent College of Law.
For Tyson: Chad Moeller of Neal Gerber & Eisenberg.
Know of an event that could be included in an upcoming Week Ahead in Employment? Contact Dan Wiessner at firstname.lastname@example.org.