Digital Discrimination and Tech Accountability *

• Liapes v. Facebook, Inc., 95 Cal. App. 5th 910 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) – Obtained a published opinion from the California Court of Appeal that an older woman plaintiff stated a claim that Facebook violated California’s public accommodations law by denying insurance ads to women and older people based on their gender and/or age, that Facebook did not have Section 230 immunity against such claims, and that the Plaintiff had standing to pursue such claims.

• Mobley v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 06440 (N.D. Cal.); Communication Workers of America v. Facebook (EEOC), Spees v. Facebook (EEOC); National Fair Housing Alliance v. Facebook, 18-cv-02689 (S.D.N.Y.)– Negotiated groundbreaking settlements of four class and organizational actions on behalf of a union, a fair housing group, and workers challenging discrimination on Facebook’s ad platform in jobs, housing, and credit based on age, gender, race, and national origin, with Facebook agreeing to make far reaching changes to its ad platform to prevent discrimination, including creating a special mandatory portal for the creation of job, housing, and credit ads without discriminatory filtering options.

• Bradley v. T-Mobile and Amazon.com, No. 17 Civ. 07232 (N.D. Cal.) - Settled the first federal court action to challenge an employer’s practice of steering digital job ads away from workers based on a protected status.

• Communications Workers of America v. Target (EEOC) - Settled claims over how Target directed job ads on social media only to younger workers within certain age ranges, with Target committing to maintain and expand its practices to advance the recruitment and hiring of older workers.

• Job Advertising Discrimination Charges (EEOC) - Obtained the first-of-its-kind decision from the EEOC that employers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by steering their digital job ads away from women and older people, and won numerous cause findings from the EEOC against employers who steered job ads away from women or older people on Facebook.

• Bride v. Snap Inc., No. 21 Civ. 06680 (C.D. Cal.) - Negotiated a settlement with Snap in a lawsuit challenging dangerous anonymous messaging apps that led to the bullying of teenagers and the suicide of a teenager. In response to the action, Snap decided to ban anonymous messaging apps from its social media platform.

• REAL Women in Trucking v. Meta Platforms (EEOC) – Filed first-of-its-kind action that challenged how Meta’s ad delivery system discriminated against women and older people in distributing job ads to Facebook users and alleged that this practice violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

• Doe, et al. v. the Trump Corporation, et al., 18-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y) - Represented class of consumers defrauded by representations by the Trump Corporation and its officers regarding investments in a multi-level marketing scheme.

Employment Discrimination

• Briskin v. City of New York, No. 24 Civ. 3557 (S.D.N.Y.) – Filed first-of-its-kind civil rights class action lawsuit challenging the City of New York’s practice of denying IVF benefits to gay male employees and their spouses as unlawful sex and sexual orientation under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination law and federal and state constitutional law.

• REAL Women in Trucking et al. v. Stevens Transport (EEOC) – Filed a class action charge on behalf of a non-profit group and several women truck drivers alleging that a major trucking company denied entry-level trucking jobs to women because it would not allow women to train with men and did not have enough women trainers to train women drivers.

• Veneszee et al. v. Facebook, Inc. (EEOC) – Filed a class action charge on behalf of Black applicants and employees of Facebook, alleging that the company has a pattern or practice of denying jobs and promotions to Black workers. 

• Rotondo v. JPMorgan Chase, No. 19 Civ. 2328 (S.D. Ohio) – Obtained the first class action settlement of a case in which fathers claimed gender discrimination based on the denial of parental leave to fathers, with Chase paying $5 million to settle with over 1,000 fathers and modifying its policy to make it fully gender neutral.

• Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 12945 (D. Mass.) – Obtained a $7.5 million settlement on behalf of a class of current and former Wal-Mart employees who challenged Wal-Mart’s prior policy of not providing spousal health insurance benefits to employees with same-sex spouses as a Title VII violation, with all Class Members who submitted claim forms receiving payments that were at least several times the value of the health insurance benefits they were denied over a three-year period.

• Levs v. CNN & Turner Broadcasting, No. 410-2014-00427 (EEOC) – Obtained a settlement in an action that challenged the amount of paid parental leave biological fathers were given by CNN and Turner Broadcasting as a violation of Title VII’s sex discrimination ban.

• Awan v. House of Representatives – Obtained an $850,000 settlement for five former House of Representatives IT staffers who became the target of conspiracy theories and were wrongfully terminated by dozens of House offices.

• Dukes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 2252 (N.D. Cal.) – Defeated Walmart’s attempt to dismiss and strike the largest gender discrimination employment class action in U.S. history following the Supreme Court’s denial of class certification.

• Goldstein v. RTX Corp., No. 24 Civ. 1169, 2025 WL 3754428 (D. Del. Dec. 29, 2025) – Defeated the defendant’s motion to dismiss on eight of nine counts in a class action in which the plaintiffs allege that a major defense contractor discriminates based on age against older applicants by requiring applicants to be recent college graduates, and obtained conditional certification of a collective action.

• Hoover v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 144970(NY Supreme Ct.) – Obtained a settlement in an action that challenged Walmart’s attendance policy for penalizing workers for pregnancy-related absences as a violation of New York’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

•  Garcia v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 2014 Civ. 000297 (D.D.C.) – Won a $550,000 jury verdict in a pregnancy discrimination case on behalf of a low-wage worker at Chipotle who was fired for leaving her shift to attend a prenatal medical appointment, including $50,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. In addition to the $550,000 in verdict for the plaintiff, the Court awarded over $825,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

• Holmes v. District of Columbia, No. 15 Civ. 02169 (D.D.C.) – Obtained a settlement on behalf of a University of the District of Columbia (UDC) employee whose employer criticized her marital status, questioned her need for time off for her high-risk pregnancy, and terminated her just before she gave birth. Defeated a motion to dismiss filed by UDC.

• Cetrone v. District of Columbia, No. 16 Civ. 01576 (D.D.C.) – Obtained a settlement on behalf of District of Columbia government employee who was denied paid family leave benefits because she was misclassified as an independent contractor and was terminated after she complained about it.

Public Accommodations, Credit Discrimination, Fair Housing, & Disability Rights

• Liapes v. Facebook, Inc., 95 Cal. App. 5th 910 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) – Obtained a published opinion from the California Court of Appeal that an older woman plaintiff stated a claim that Facebook violated California’s public accommodations law by denying insurance ads to women and older people based on their gender and/or age, that Facebook did not have Section 230 immunity against such claims, and that the Plaintiff had standing to pursue such claims.

• Snyder v. Washington Nationals, No. 24 Civ. 01183 (D.D.C.) – Obtained a settlement worth $3.6 million for tens of thousands of older customers of the Washington Nationals who were denied an age-based discount for tickets during the 2023 baseball season. The settlement provided tens of thousands of class members the opportunity to receive ticket credit that was multiple times the value of the discount the class members were denied or a cash payment of 62% of the discount they were denied.

• Keepseagle v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 99 Civ. 03119 (D.D.C.) – Obtained a $760 million settlement for Native American farmers and ranchers who were denied farm loans by the Department of Agriculture from 1981 to 1999, as well as far-reaching programmatic relief.

• Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. 08 Civ. 01938 (D.D.C.) – Obtained $469 million of voluntary reforms in response to the lawsuit and negotiated a $62 million settlement in a Fair Housing Act class action challenging racial discrimination in the nation’s largest housing rebuilding program in post-Katrina New Orleans.

• National Fair Housing Alliance v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 09-12-0708-8 (HUD) – Obtained a $42 million settlement with Wells Fargo in a Fair Housing Act action brought by 13 fair housing groups challenging the failure to properly maintain and market foreclosed properties in predominantly Black and Latino communities nationally.

• Fair Housing Justice Center v. Pelican Management, Inc., 18-cv-01564 (S.D.N.Y) 23-7348 (2d. Cir.) - Won a first-of-its kind bench trial against a large New York City and Westchester County landlord where the Court determined that the landlord’s use of minimum income requirements violated New York City’s prohibition against source-of-income discrimination, ordered widespread injunctive relief, and ordered the landlord to pay nearly $1 million compensatory and punitive damages. The full verdict was upheld on appeal by the Second Circuit.

• Housing Rights Initiative’s Source of Income Complaints in Chicago – Filed numerous source of income discrimination complaints with the Illinois Human Rights Department regarding brokers, agents, and owners who denied housing to applicants in Chicago based on their use of a voucher to pay for housing. 

• Equal Rights Center v. Equity Residential, No. 06 Civ. 01060 CCB (D. Md.) – Represented a local fair housing organization in massive accessibility Fair Housing Act lawsuit involving hundreds of properties, defeating summary judgment on organizational standing and winning summary judgment on the merits, which led to a landmark settlement.

• Farmer v. Sweetgreen, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 2103 (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented a putative class of blind persons who claimed a large restaurant chain had an inaccessible web site to order food in an action that settled with the chain making its web site accessible.

Police Misconduct and Constitutional Rights

• Miller v. City of New York, No. 23 Civ. 65 (S.D.N.Y.) – Defeated motion to dismiss Excessive Fines Clause and Equal Protection Clause claims in a federal class action lawsuit that alleges that the New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission has engaged in a pattern or practice of targeting thousands of people of color at the NYC airports in sting operations that causes ordinary drivers to receive $1,500 civil penalties for allegedly agreeing to provide rides to undercover officers.

• Bell v. City of New York, et al., 22 Civ. 03251 (E.D.N.Y.) - Reached a $17.5 million settlement, the largest wrongful conviction settlement in the history of New York City, on behalf of a man who spent 24 years incarcerated and faced the death penalty for a double homicide he did not commit.

• Gibson v. City of Chicago, No. 19 Civ. 4152 (N.D. Ill.) – Represented a client who claimed in his federal civil rights action that he was wrongfully convicted and served more than 29 years in state prison because he was tortured by Chicago Police officers under the supervision of the notorious Jon Burge, and that the City of Chicago had a pattern or practice of torturing Black people in the 1980s to secure false confessions. The case was settled for $14.75 million.

• Camacho v. City of New York, et al., No. 19 Civ. 11096 (S.D.N.Y) - Negotiated significant settlements on behalf of a group of persons wrongfully detained based on faulty tests for K2 when visiting their loved ones in New York City correctional facilities.

• Yunus v. Lewis-Robinson, et al., No. 17 Civ. 05839 (S.D.N.Y.) - Obtained federal court injunction holding that it is unconstitutional to require people who have never committed sexual misconduct to have to register as sex offenders.

Defamation

• Awan v. Daily Caller, Inc. et al., 301 A.3d 633 (D.C. 2023) - Obtained a confidential settlement with the Daily Caller, former Daily Caller reporter Luke Rosiak, and Salem Media Corp. in an action alleging that five former House of Representatives IT staffers were defamed by a book published by Salem Media and authored by Rosiak, defeated Rosiak and Salem’s special motions to dismiss under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, and won an affirmance by the D.C. Court of Appeals on the defamation Anti-SLAPP order regarding the defamation claim.

Servicemembers and Veterans Rights

• Sheffield v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 23 Civ. 11757 (D. Mass.) – Filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Veterans’ policy of denying IVF benefits to lesbian veterans based on their sex and sexual orientation, which led the federal government to end its discriminatory policy at the VA and Department of Defense, and obtained a settlement for a lesbian veteran who had been denied IVF coverage by the VA.

• Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 19 Civ. 00083 (N.D. Cal.) (Huntsman II) – Obtained $18.5 million settlement USERRA for Southwest Airlines employees who were denied pay during short-term military leave from 2004 to 2026, after defeating a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion to transfer venue, and obtaining certification of a nationwide class.

• Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, 59 F.4th 424 (9th Cir. 2024) – Won class certification in a class action in which the plaintiffs claimed that Alaska and Horizon Airlines have an obligation to provide paid leave to reservists during periods of short-term military leave, won a published decision from the Ninth Circuit reversing the district court’s order that had granted summary judgment on the merits to the defendants, and obtained a class action settlement of $4.75 million for reservists who were denied paid leave.

• Scanlan v. American Airlines, 102 F.4th 164 (3rd Cir. 2024) – Won class certification in a USERRA class action in which the plaintiffs claimed that American Airlines has an obligation to provide paid leave to reservists during periods of short-term military leave, and won a published decision from the Third Circuit reversing the district court’s order that had granted summary judgment on the merits to the defendants.

• Travers v. Federal Express Corp., 8 F.4th 198 (3rd Cir. 2021) – Won the reversal of a dismissal of a class action in which the plaintiffs claimed that Federal Express has an obligation to provide paid leave to reservists during periods of short-term military leave, with the Third Circuit holding in a published decision that paid leave is right or benefit that must be provided equally to employees on military leave and comparable non-military leaves. Later obtained a $1.5 million class action settlement for the class.

• White v. United Airlines, Inc., 987. F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2021) - Won the reversal of a dismissal of a class action in which the plaintiffs claimed that United Airlines has an obligation to provide paid leave to reservists during periods of short-term military leave, with the Seventh Circuit holding in a published decision that paid leave is a right or benefit that must be provided equally to employees on military leave and comparable non-military leaves.

• Tsui v. Walmart Inc., No. 20 Civ. 12309 (D. Mass.) – Obtained USERRA settlement worth up to $14 million for thousands of potential class members who alleged they were wrongly denied paid leave during periods of short-term military leave from 2004 to 2020.

• Huntsman v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 17 Civ. 3872 (N.D. Cal.) (Huntsman I) – Obtained USERRA settlement worth $19 million, including $5.8 million in cash, for up to 2,000 Southwest Airlines pilots who were denied pension and sick leave benefits between 2001 and 2018.

• Hall v. L-3 Communications, No. 15 Civ. 231 (E.D. Wash.) – Obtained the first class settlement of a USERRA hiring bias pattern-or-practice case, with each class member receiving over $28,000 from a $2 million settlement fund and the defense contractor making pro-reservist reforms to its hiring and leave policies.

• Tuten v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 01561 (D. Colo.) – Obtained a $6.15 million settlement for 1,200 United Airlines pilots in a USERRA action that challenged the failure to make the proper pension contributions during periods of military leave from 2001 to 2012, with all Class Members receiving at least 100% of their potential lost benefits.

• Martin v. Washington, No. 14-2-00016-7 (Wash. Super. Ct.) – Obtained a settlement worth about $15 million in wages and pension benefits for 878 Washington State Patrol Troopers who were denied veterans’ preferences in hiring and promotions over several decades.

• Allman v. American Airlines, Inc. Pilot Retirement Program Variable Income Plan, No. 14 Civ. 10138 (D. Mass.) – Obtained about $6.5 million settlement for over 1,200 American Airlines pilots in a USERRA / ERISA action challenging the failure to make the proper pension contributions during periods of military leave from 1997 to 2011, with all Class Members receiving at least 100% of their potential lost benefits.

• Cunningham v. Federal Express Corp., No. 17 Civ. 845 (M.D. Tenn.) –Obtained a class settlement for over 4,000 reservists who claimed they were denied proper pension credit for periods of military leave from 1996 to 2008, providing benefits to the Class worth at least several million dollars, and all Class Members receiving at least 100% of their potential lost pension benefits.

• Hill v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 4H310009104 (EEOC Federal Sector) – Obtained an $11 million settlement in a nationwide class action challenging the Postal Service’s pre-offer medical inquiries that violated the Rehabilitation Act.

• Podliska v. House Benghazi Committee and Rep. Trey Gowdy, No. 15 Civ. 2037 (D.D.C.) – Obtained a settlement for a former investigator of the House Benghazi Committee who alleged that he was terminated in violation of USERRA due to his military service, which the Washington Post reported as one of the largest discrimination settlements with a House of Representative office.

• Savage v. Federal Express, 856 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2017) – Briefed and argued a successful appeal in one of the first appellate decisions on the formula that employers must apply to determine the pension or retirement benefits of reservists who take military leave, and later obtained a settlement of the case.* ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

  * DISCLAIMER. The cases listed on this page were litigated or worked on by current lawyers at Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, both during their work at PRF Law and at prior firms or organizations before joining PRF Law.