Lindsey A.Lusk

A Jenner team represented a client in a Section 1983 action against Wexford Health Sources, the former medical provider for the Illinois Department of Corrections, and several Wexford employees. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act allows individuals to sue state actors, including private companies contracted to perform state functions, such as prison healthcare providers, for violations of their constitutional rights. Here, the client alleged that Wexford's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Jenner & Block elevated nine lawyers to the partnership and seven lawyers to special counsel, promoting 16 individuals overall in the firm’s Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC offices.

For more than two years, a Jenner & Block team has tirelessly represented John Hudson in his Section 1983 action against Wexford Health Sources, the medical provider for the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), and Wexford employees. In February 2020, John began to experience extreme pain in his thumb, which was ignored by physicians at Danville Correctional Center. It wasn’t until a year later that medical professionals diagnosed him with an aggressive form of cancer in his hand, which re

Partners David M. Kroeger, Wade A. Thomson, and Andrew W. Vail, Of Counsel Robert L. Byman, and Associates Catherine L. Doyle and Lindsey A. Lusk author chapters in Business and Commercial Litigation’s 2022 Edition.

A class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reveals the egregious living conditions for approximately 1,000 prisoners at the Northern Reception Center in Crest Hill, the point of entry for most prisoners into the Illinois Department of Corrections prison system.

Jenner & Block Partner Terri L. Mascherin is one of the primary authors of The American College of Trial Lawyers Handbook of Electronic Evidence. The handbook helps judges and lawyers identify issues posed by electronic evidence, review existing precedent, and determine the proper foundation to admit electronic evidence.

New York federal courts have recently shown a willingness to dismiss implausible mislabeling claims on the pleadings. The recent dismissal of three consumer class actions—all filed by the same plaintiff’s counsel—suggests that these federal courts are increasingly skeptical of lawyer-driven claims regarding alleged confusion over the labeling of popular food products.

The Pro Bono Institute (PBI) honored Jenner & Block with its Corporate Pro Bono (CPBO) Partner Award for the collaborative efforts with McDonald’s Corporation and the National Immigration Justice Center (NIJC) in achieving asylum for several pro bono clients.For several years, volunteers from the legal department of McDonald’s have partnered with Jenner & Block and Goldberg Kohn Ltd. on approximately 20 cases referred by NIJC, working collaboratively to represent immigrants applying for asylum.B

A legal battle over a charter to allow Fintech companies to become special purpose national banks has been put on pause. But for how long will the future of the charter remain in limbo? On June 16, 2021, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (the CSBS) and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) agreed to stay the litigation, and the district court approved a motion formalizing the parties’ agreement to put the litigation on hold for 90 days,[1] though some analysts have warned that t

Consumers seeking to hold companies accountable for differential pricing of allegedly materially identical products have recently faced push-back from several federal courts. In May 2021, two federal courts dismissed consumer-protection claims based on price differentials between such products.

Since our last update, a number of states across the United States have implemented new numerous orders restricting the operations of “nonessential” businesses in an effort to curb the spread of COVID-19 (the Essential Business Orders).  These include Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.  Please check our trackers for more information.

Over the course of the last week, states and municipalities across the United States have implemented numerous orders restricting the operations of “nonessential” businesses in an effort to curb the spread of COVID-19 (the Essential Business Orders).  Given the disparate approaches across various jurisdictions, businesses are being forced to navigate a patchwork of directives impacting whether they are considered “essential”—and therefore may continue in-person operations—or not.