Eli Lilly has emphasized that resolving this issue at the certification stage is critical, as waiting until after the second step of the process would make it impossible to address the divided judicial opinions on this matter. The company believes that the Seventh Circuit should clarify whether a more stringent standard is required before collective certification is granted.
Background of the Age Discrimination Claims
Monica Richards, who filed her complaint in February 2023 at the age of 53, claims she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a younger, less experienced candidate after leading a top-performing sales team. Richards asserts that her case is part of a broader pattern of age discrimination at Eli Lilly, with the company allegedly prioritizing millennials—defined as those born between 1981 and 1996—over older employees.
Richards is represented by attorneys from Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC and Macey Swanson LLP, while Eli Lilly is defended by lawyers from Jones Day.
Eli Lilly Age Bias Suit : Implications of the Appeal
The Seventh Circuit’s decision to take up Eli Lilly’s appeal could have significant implications for how collective certification is handled in age discrimination cases. If the court decides to tighten the standards for certification, it could make it more challenging for plaintiffs in similar cases to form collective actions. The case also highlights ongoing debates within the federal judiciary over the appropriate threshold for granting collective certification, particularly in cases involving employment discrimination.
