Richard SPERLING, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC., Defendant, 118 F.R.D. 392

Summary

Former employees of a pharmaceutical company filed a class action suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq., the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq., and the common law of contracts, after a reduction in force by the company. The court: 1) denied the company's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on the employees' disparate impact claims; 2) granted the employees' request for names and addresses of putative class members; 3) granted the employees' request to mail notice to newly discovered class members, provided the notice came from the employees or their counsel and was court-authorized; 4) denied the employees' request to post notice on the company's premises as their request was too vague; 5) postponed deciding whether the employees and putative class members were similarly situated; 6) denied the company's motion to invalidate the prior consents to join the class; 7) ...