Nilan Johnson Lewis has an established track record of successfully defending individual and class-based employment discrimination demands, charges, and lawsuits for both big and small employers in many industries, including in the retail, insurance, financial services, health care, higher education, logistics, and manufacturing sectors.
Our experience includes defense of private and government agency actions from the charge stage, to trial or arbitration, and through appeal. Our substantive expertise includes defense of discrimination and retaliation claims under numerous anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), as well as their state-law corollaries.
Our team also advises employers on how to avoid discrimination claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including claims of citizenship status and national origin discrimination in recruitment, hiring and firing, as well as claims of unfair practices in the employment eligibility verification (I-9) process.
- Farrell v. U.S. Bank (MN state court): secured complete defense verdict in jury trial on age discrimination and retaliation claims.
- Communications Workers of America, et al. v. T-Mobile, et al. (N.D. Cal.): Defending multiple national Fortune 50 employers against novel nationwide plaintiff and defendant class action alleging age discriminatory social media recruiting advertisements. This matter is still in confidential administrative proceedings.
- Moldenhauer v. Honeywell (D. Minn.): Defending against a class action alleging age discrimination in the context of a reduction in force. Named plaintiff agreed to dismiss all class claims; the individual claim is still in litigation.
- Lloyd v. X Corporation (Iowa Civil Rights Commission): Defending a Fortune 500 insurance company against a class gender pay equity claim. This matter is still in confidential proceedings.
- Payne v. X Corporation (Minneapolis Office of the EEOC): Defending a Fortune 500 technology company against a gender pay equity class claim. This matter is still in confidential proceedings.
- EEOC (Atlanta Office) v. X Corporation (Directed Investigation): Defended a Fortune 50 employer against a nationwide Directed Investigation alleging age discrimination in hiring. Negotiated a resolution with the EEOC.
- EEOC (Philadelphia Office) v. Target Corporation (E.D. Pa.): Defended against a class claim alleging racial discrimination in hiring, promotion, discipline, and discharge as well as race-based harassment. Successfully concluded the defense with a favorable settlement.
- EEOC (Chicago Office) v. X Corporation: Defended Fortune 50 employer against a nationwide investigation alleging that the employer’s criminal background check policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC agreed not to commence litigation.
- EEOC (Minneapolis Office) v. X Corporation (Commissioner’s Charge): Defended a Fortune 500 employer against a nationwide Commissioner’s Charge alleging violations of Title VII and the ADA. Negotiated a settlement that did not include any payment to the EEOC or any individual.
- EEOC (Minneapolis Office) v. X Corporation (ADEA Directed Investigation): Defended a Fortune 500 employer against a nationwide Directed Investigation alleging violations of the ADEA and EPA. Negotiated a settlement that did not include any payment to the EEOC or any individual.
- EEOC (Minneapolis Office) v. X Corporation (Commissioner’s Charge): Defended a Fortune 50 employer against a Commissioner’s Charge of discrimination alleging a nationwide class claim. The EEOC claimed that the employer’s pre-employment tests constituted a medical examination in violation of the ADA and had a disparate impact based upon gender, race, and national origin. Negotiated a resolution with the EEOC.
- McDade, et al. v. Target Corporation (S.D.N.Y.): Defended a Fortune 50 employer against a nationwide Title VII class claim alleging that its criminal background checks had a disparate impact on African American and Hispanic applicants. Negotiated a settlement that was far lower than comparable claims against other employers.
- Martin, et al. v. ING (D. Minn.): Participated in the defense of a nationwide class action race discrimination lawsuit against eight ING entities. The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the class claims, and a confidential settlement of individual claims was reached.
- EEOC v. FMI, et al (D.N.D.): Defended Applebee’s franchisee against EEOC class action alleging sexual harassment. Reached a confidential settlement.
- EEOC (Minneapolis Office) v. Hobby Lobby (D. Minn.): Defended a nationwide retailer against EEOC lawsuit alleging violations of the ADA. Obtained a favorable resolution.
- EEOC (Milwaukee Office) v. Target Corporation (E.D. Wis.): Defended against a class claim alleging racial discrimination in hiring and promotion. Obtained summary judgment on the EEOC’s individual and class claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed a portion of the grant of summary judgment pertaining to just four individual claims, which were then resolved.
- Johnson, et al. v. The Gap (D. Minn.): Defended against a multi-plaintiff sexual harassment claim. Negotiated a confidential settlement.
- Villarreal v. RJR (11th Cir.): Filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Retail Litigation Center in support of a successful effort to obtain rehearing of a panel decision accepting disparate impact applicant claims under the ADEA. The en banc Court became the first Circuit Court of Appeals to hold that no such claim is cognizable under the ADEA.
- Kleber v. CareFusion (7th Cir.): Filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Retail Litigation Center in support of a successful effort to obtain rehearing of a panel decision accepting a disparate impact applicant claim under the ADEA. The en banc Court followed the 11th Circuit and agreed that the ADEA does not authorize disparate impact claims by job applicants.
- Politics in the Workplace: When Political Speech Goes Against Employer Policies
- The Impact of Bostock: LGBT Discrimination is Prohibited in Workplaces. Is Healthcare Next?
- EEOC Issues Updated ADA Guidance Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic
- EEOC Finds Age-Restricted Advertisements Violate ADEA
- AI & “Algorithmic Bias” in Hiring
- Appellate Court Rules that Age Bias Disparate Impact Theory Pertains to Employees, Not Applicants
- Employers Should Immediately Review Recruitment Ad Practices Due to Facebook Class Litigation
- Court Rules Unintentional Age Discrimination Can Occur During Application Process
- Nilan Johnson Lewis Creates Holistic Anti-Harassment Program for Employers
- Despite Attorney General’s Memo, Employers Should Prohibit Gender Identity Discrimination
- First District Court in 8th Circuit Holds Religious Accommodation Requests Alone Not Basis for Retaliation Claim Under Title VII
- First Trial on Website Accessibility Under Title III Points to Likely Outcome for Future Lawsuits
- New Minnesota Law Aims to Curtail Opportunistic Disability Lawsuits by Mandating 60-day Notice Period
- Is the Tide Shifting on Whether Title III of the ADA Covers Websites?
- “How Much Did You Make in Your Last Job?”
- Webinar: Website Accessibility Compliance
- Religious Discrimination on the Rise
- Navigating the ADA in the Digital World
- 2016 Upper Midwest Employment Law Institute
- Public Affairs Series: Contribution & Collaboration: A Conversation Centered On Immigration
- Are Transgender Employees Now Covered Under the ADA Due to Evolving Science?
- Abercrombie Decision Raises the Bar for Accommodating Employees of Faith
- The 30% Rule: Proposed EEOC Guidance on Corporate Wellness Programs Would Set Cap on Incentives