Timeline of Developments
Last development: July 22, 2024
- July 22, 2024
Case settles and closes
Baker and CVS reach a confidential, individual settlement. The case is terminated on the federal docket. The settlement resolved Baker's own claim - it wasn't a class-wide settlement, so it doesn't resolve whether other CVS applicants who went through the same HireVue process have valid claims of their own.
Source: Bloomberg Law - March 1, 2024
CVS formally answers the complaint
Having lost its bid to get the case thrown out, CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. file a formal Answer to the Second Amended Complaint, responding to Baker's allegations point by point.
Source: CourtListener Docket - February 16, 2024
Judge rules the case can proceed
U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris denies CVS's motions to dismiss. On standing, the judge finds Baker suffered a real, concrete injury simply by being denied information he had a legal right to - the required notice about the lie-detector test - regardless of whether he could show any further harm. On the merits, the judge reads the Massachusetts statute's plain language as clearly covering CVS's alleged conduct, with no need to dig into legislative history.
- November 9, 2023
Baker files a Second Amended Complaint
Baker files an updated complaint (his second amendment since the original filing), refining the claims against CVS.
Source: CourtListener Docket - June 30, 2023
Brendan Baker sues CVS over its AI interview tool
Brendan Baker, a Massachusetts resident who applied for a supply chain job at CVS in January 2021, files a proposed class action against CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. The case was originally filed in Massachusetts state court (Suffolk Superior Court) and removed to federal court by CVS. Baker alleges CVS's job application didn't include the notice required by Massachusetts' decades-old Lie Detector Statute, before requiring him to complete a HireVue video interview that analyzed his facial expressions and speech to assess honesty and integrity.
Source: CourtListener Docket