ACLU, Dads Reach Historic Paid Parental Leave Class Action Settlement with JPMorgan Chase
Chase to Pay $5 Million to Male Employees Who Allege They Were Denied Parental Leave on the Basis of Sex
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and Outten & Golden LLP announced a first-of-its-kind class action settlement with JPMorgan Chase (Chase) on behalf of male employees who allege they were unlawfully denied access to paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers from 2011 to 2017.
Under the proposed class settlement, filed today in an Ohio federal court, Chase will continue to maintain its current gender neutral parental leave policy, which was clarified following the filing of Mr. Rotondo’s discrimination charge, train those administering the policy on its gender neutral application, and pay $5 million to fathers who claim they were denied the opportunity to take additional paid parental leave as primary caregivers.
The Chase settlement is the first class action lawsuit to settle sex discrimination claims for a class of fathers who claim they were denied the opportunity to receive equal paid parental leave given to mothers.
“I love my children, and all I wanted was to spend time with them when they were born,” said Derek Rotondo, the Chase employee who filed the sex discrimination charge that led to the class settlement. “I’m proud that since I filed my charge, Chase has clarified its policy to ensure that both male and female employees who wish to be the primary parental caregiver have equal access to those benefits.”
In a class complaint filed today along with the settlement, Mr. Rotondo alleges that when he sought to take 14 weeks of “primary caregiver” leave after his son was born, he was told by Chase’s H.R. department that mothers were presumptively considered primary caregivers, eligible for the full 16 weeks of paid parental leave, while fathers were eligible for two weeks of paid parental leave unless they could show that their spouses or partners were incapacitated or had returned to work.
In 2016, Chase increased the overall amount of paid parental leave available to its employees from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, with non-primary caregivers receiving two weeks of paid parental leave. This was far above the average paid parental leave available at most American companies. (As of mid-2018, Chase provides nonprimary caregivers with six weeks of paid parental leave.) Mr. Rotondo’s lawsuit recognizes the generosity of Chase’s parental leave policy, but insisted that the full amount of primary caregiver leave should be equally available to men and women.
“We are pleased to have reached an agreement in this matter and look forward to more effectively communicating the policy so that all men and women employees are aware of their benefits,” said Reid Broda, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Associate General Counsel. “We thank Mr. Rotondo for bringing the matter to our attention.”
In June 2017, Mr. Rotondo filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that Chase’s policies and practices constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and state law. Shortly after the charge was filed, Chase granted Mr. Rotondo the full 16 weeks of caregiver leave, and in December 2017 Chase clarified its policy to ensure equal access to all those seeking to serve as the primary caregiver to their new child, regardless of gender.
“While sixteen weeks of parental leave is quite generous, and we wish more companies would follow Chase’s lead, caregiving leave must also be offered on an equal basis to men and women,” said Galen Sherwin, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Unfortunately, the gender stereotype that raising children is a woman’s job is still prevalent, and is reflected in far too many corporate policies. We are pleased that Chase is committed to ensuring that its parental leave system meets the needs of today’s families.”
“All parents, regardless of their sex, deserve fair paid leave,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, an Outten & Golden civil rights attorney. “Even as some companies like Chase expand the amount of paid leave to their employees, it is important for all to remember that these policies must follow our historic civil rights laws. We hope that other fathers like Derek Rotondo will take a stand for gender equality at their companies. Derek’s courageous action in this case will benefit thousands of families.”
“Paid parental leave is crucial for all parents, and it should be up to families, not employers, what their caregiving arrangements will look like,” said Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio. “In order for women to compete on an even playing field at work, we need to ensure that men can play an active role at home.”
In today’s filing, Mr. Rotondo is seeking approval from the court to certify a class of male Chase employees who were denied paid primary caregiver leave and preliminarily approve a settlement between the class of dads and Chase. The settlement creates a $5 million fund to compensate the class members, as well as to pay legal fees and administrative costs. Before the settlement can go into effect, the district court will need to provide notice to the class members about their rights under the settlement, allow the class members to file claim forms to receive compensation from the settlement fund, and hold a hearing to determine whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Chase is not admitting liability in the settlement.
The ACLU mourns the tragic loss of Lenora Lapidus, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, who was one of the senior attorneys on this case. The Women’s Rights Project was co-founded by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1970. Lenora saw the Rotondo v. Chase case as a continuation of Justice Ginsburg’s strategy during her tenure at the ACLU of representing men as caregivers in order to break down gender stereotypes. She was very pleased with the result in this case, and hoped that it would have a ripple effect and cause other companies to adopt more equitable parental leave policies. Chase extends its condolences on Lenora’s tragic passing.
The Complaint, Settlement Agreement, and Motion for Preliminary Approval can be found here: /cases/jp-morgan-chase-eeoc-complaint
More information about the case can be found here:
Women's Rights
J.P. Morgan Chase EEOC Complaint
Women's Rights
J.P. Morgan Chase EEOC Complaint
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090