The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to revisit Eli Lilly & Co.‘s midsuit appeal in an age discrimination lawsuit, challenging a lower court’s decision to grant collective certification to a sales representative who claims the company discriminated against older employees. The appellate court’s decision marks a shift from its earlier stance in July, where it declined to take up the appeal due to an incomplete record.
Eli Lilly Age Bias Suit : Dispute Over Collective Certification Standards
Eli Lilly’s appeal stems from a lawsuit filed by Monica Richards under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Richards alleges that Eli Lilly systematically favored younger employees, particularly millennials, for promotions, passing over older, more experienced workers. The case gained traction in March when U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted collective certification, potentially impacting thousands of employees.
Eli Lilly has challenged the certification, arguing that the standard used by the Seventh Circuit for granting such certifications is too lenient. The company contends that courts in other circuits, like the Fifth and Sixth, require a more rigorous analysis of whether proposed collective members are similarly situated before allowing notice to be sent to potential class members. In contrast, the Seventh Circuit’s two-step process permits notice to be sent based on a “modest factual showing,” which Eli Lilly argues is insufficient and almost impossible not to meet.
Eli Lilly Age Bias Suit : Seventh Circuit’s Decision to Reconsider
The three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, composed of Judges David F. Hamilton, Thomas L. Kirsch II, and John Z. Lee, decided on Thursday to revisit its earlier decision and consider Eli Lilly’s interlocutory appeal. While the panel did not provide detailed reasoning, it is now set to examine whether the Seventh Circuit’s current approach to collective certification in age discrimination cases needs refinement.
