Skip to main content

Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.

S.D.N.Y.August 14, 2014No. No. 12-cv-5224 (RA)Cited 56 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Abrams
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
motion to dismiss
Circuit
2nd Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationHarassmentRetaliationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Court found Plaintiffs plausibly alleged pattern or practice of gender-based discrimination in pay and promotions and disparate impact claims, allowing those claims to proceed; however, Court dismissed certain individual claims and narrowed the putative class scope.

What This Ruling Means

**Barrett v. Forest Laboratories: Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Partially Moves Forward** This case involved female employees at Forest Laboratories who claimed the pharmaceutical company systematically discriminated against women in pay and promotions. The workers also alleged pregnancy discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. They wanted to bring their case as a class action lawsuit representing multiple female employees. The court issued a mixed ruling on the company's request to dismiss the case entirely. The judge allowed the most significant claims to proceed, finding that the women had provided enough evidence to suggest Forest Laboratories may have engaged in a pattern of paying women less and promoting them less frequently than men. The court also let stand claims that company policies had a discriminatory impact on women. However, the judge dismissed some individual claims and limited which employees could be part of the group lawsuit. This ruling matters for workers because it shows courts will allow discrimination cases to move forward when employees can demonstrate patterns of unequal treatment. It reinforces that companies can be held accountable for systematic gender-based discrimination in compensation and advancement opportunities. The decision also highlights the importance of gathering strong evidence when challenging workplace discrimination policies.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
Sheet Metal Workers
U.S. Supreme CourtJul 1986
Mixed Result
Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP Mari Newman and Towards Justice v. BKP, Inc. Ella Bliss Beauty Bar LLC Ella
Colo.Sep 2023
Settlement

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.