The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc.
Overview
Plaintiff is challenging Defendant’s “Breakthrough Fellowship Program” reserved for applicants that increase the pipeline for Black, Latino, and Native Americans.
Details
The district court held that Plaintiff had failed to establish standing and dismissed its application for a preliminary injunction.
On March 6, 2024, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case, finding that Plaintiff lacked standing because it failed to name at least one member harmed by Defendant’s alleged discrimination.
On January 10, 2025, a full panel of judges in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the earlier decision. The court held that the earlier court of appeals decision applied the wrong test for determining standing. The court sent the case back to the district court to assist Plaintiff's standing according to the proper test.
Court
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Status
Filed January 04, 2023 | Settled
On January 31, 2025, the parties settled the lawsuit, noting that in 2023, Pfizer had opened the eligibility criteria to applicants regardless of whether they were Black, Latino, or Native American, and had now decided to no longer accept new classes of fellows.
Topic
Targeted programsLitigation History