We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Ari N. Stern Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC

Results 1 to 5 of 5



No harm, no foul? First Circuit departs from trend narrowing Chapter 93A injury requirement, reverses dismissal of claim arising from failed price-fixing conspiracy *

USA - June 4 2012
State unfair competition laws can sometimes provide a vehicle to permit consumers to bring certain types of claims arising from violations of the Sherman Act – for example, indirect purchaser price fixing claims – that such consumers might otherwise lack standing to bring.

Co-authors: Bruce D. Sokler, Kevin M. McGinty, Robert G. Kidwell.


Immigration-related discrimination alleged based on I-9 violations *

USA - August 31 2011
On August 26, the Department of Justice reached a settlement with Kinro Manufacturing Inc. with regard to allegations that it “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against work-authorized non-citizens in the employment eligibility verification process” by requiring certain new hires to provide proof of employment eligibility beyond that required by law.

Co-authors: Douglas Hauer.


Immigration audits: coming to a business near you *

USA - August 17 2011
As reported earlier in the week by the Wall Street Journal, over 2,300 businesses this year have been subject to a worksite audit by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Co-authors: Douglas Hauer.


Lessons learned from initial “say-on-pay” litigation *

USA - July 18 2011
While the “say-on-pay” provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) is not even a year old, it has already spawned several derivative suits against corporate officers and directors.

Co-authors: Pamela B. Greene, Breton Leone-Quick, Peter M. Saparoff.


The future of class action suits after Wal-Mart v. Dukes *

USA - June 23 2011
In a historic decision, the Supreme Court decertified a plaintiff class in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which asserted claims on behalf of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees alleging that Wal-Mart discriminated against women on matters of pay and promotion.

Co-authors: Daniel T. Pascucci, Kevin M. McGinty, Nathan R. Hamler.