Estee Lauder's Leave Policy Allegedly Biased Against Men
In June 2015, charging party Christopher Sullivan was informed by his employer, Estée Lauder Cos. Inc., that it had rejected his application for primary caregiver leave under the company's parental leave policies.
September 06, 2018 at 01:21 PM
3 minute read
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Estée Lauder
$1.1 Million Settlement
Date of Verdict: July 17.
Court and Case No.: U.S. E.D. of Pa. No. 2:17-cv-03897-JP.
Type of Action: Civil rights, employment.
Injuries: Back pay, compensation.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Maria L. Morocco and Thomas D. Rethage Jr., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Defense Counsel: John M. Nolan and Angela Quiles-Nevarez, Jackson Lewis, Philadelphia.
Comment:
In June 2015, charging party Christopher Sullivan was informed by his employer, Estée Lauder Cos. Inc., that it had rejected his application for primary caregiver leave under the company's parental leave policies. The company had created parental leave policies for eligible biological mothers and fathers in July 2013. The parental leave at issue was separate from medical leave received by mothers for childbirth.
Sullivan asserted that the company, under the policies, provided lesser parental leave benefits for purposes of child bonding to biological fathers than to biological mothers. Whereas all eligible biological mothers were provided up to six weeks of paid primary caregiver parental leave and were entitled to the transition back-to-work benefit, all biological fathers were provided only two weeks of paid secondary caregiver leave, and were not entitled to the transition back-to-work benefit, Sullivan claimed.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, acting on behalf of Sullivan and 210 others similarly situated, sued Estée Lauder, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC maintained that Estée Lauder unlawfully denied new fathers return-to-work benefits provided to new mothers, such as temporary modified work schedules, to ease the transition to work after the arrival of a new child and exhaustion of paid parental leave.
Estée Lauder denied the allegations. According to the company, it had recently expanded its family-related benefits, including its paid parental leave benefits, for all its employees.
The company maintained that it had expanded paid parental leave to 20 weeks for all eligible employees irrespective of gender, and added or enhanced benefits around adoption, child and elder care, and infant transition support.
The EEOC sought to recover back pay and unspecified amounts in compensatory and punitive damages. The EEOC further sought to have Estée Lauder institute anti-discrimination policies and provide training on employee rights under Title VII.
The parties settled for $1.1 million, prior to trial. Under a decree, Estée Lauder will pay the settlement to a class of 210 male employees, who, under Estée Lauder's parental leave policy, received two weeks of paid parental leave as compared to the six weeks of paid leave for child-bonding received by new mothers after their medical leave ended.
The decree also requires Estée Lauder to administer parental leave and related return-to-work benefits in a manner that ensures equal benefits for male and female employees and utilizes sex-neutral criteria, requirements and processes.
Estée Lauder is also required to provide training on unlawful sex discrimination and allow monitoring by the EEOC.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff's and defense counsel. —This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
- 222-Count Indictment Is Just the Start of SCOTUSBlog Atty's Legal Problems, Experts Say
- 3Judge Rejects Walgreens' Contractual Dispute Against Founder's Family Member
- 4FTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
- 5Greenberg Traurig Litigation Co-Chair Returning After Three Years as US Attorney
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250