Posts Tagged ‘ Employment ’
Week Adjourned: 1.6.12
January 6th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Pay your staff overtime? Just do it! A former employee of the San Francisco NikeTown Store has filed a wages and overtime class action complaint against Nike alleging that the sporting goods manufacturer failed to compensate him for overtime, meals and rest breaks as well as any additional shifts he worked. The lawsuit has two (2) potential classes: “All employees of Defendants who worked as Sales Associates, or any other non-exempt job position, who were subject to Defendants’ policy of searching Defendants’ employees upon exiting one of Defendants’ store locations in California from December 28, 2007, to the date of filing this Complaint.” This group is hereinafter referred to as the “California Class.” This period of time is hereinafter referred to as the “California Class Period.”
And, “All employees of Defendants who worked as Sales Associates, or any other non-exempt job position, who were subject to Defendants’ policy of searching Defendants’ employees upon exiting one of Defendants’ store locations in the United States of America from December 28, 2008, to the date of filing this Complaint.” This group is hereinafter referred to as the “Nationwide Class.” This period of time is hereinafter referred to as the “Nationwide Class Period.”
The employment lawsuit was filed by Webster Proctor, on behalf of himself and behalf of others similarly situated. According to the complaint, Proctor was employed by Nike from approximately April 2010 until approximately May 2011. During that time he alleges in the lawsuit that he generally worked four (4) 8-hour shifts per week and was deprived of pay for all the hours he worked, meal and rest breaks, and proper overtime pay.
Specifically, the wages and hour class action lawsuit alleges: failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; failure to maintain employee time records; and unfair competition.
Top Settlements
Is it snake oil? An unfair business practices lawsuit against dietary supplement distributors Iovate Health Sciences Inc., and Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc., look certain to be settled as the companies have agreed to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties and costs. This is reportedly the second largest multidistrict attorney dietary supplement settlement of its kind in California.
The lawsuit was brought by the District Attorney’s Office in Santa Cruz, Napa, Alameda, Marin, Monterey,
Week Adjourned: 12.17.11
December 19th, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
What Happened to that ‘Good Will Toward Men’ Thing? ‘Tis the season–and this thing called good will towards men apparently hasn’t caught on yet–in some parts. Case-in-point–Capital One. They’re facing a class action over allegations that they illegally obtain background checks on folks applying for jobs with the company. What’s in your wallet indeed!
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Kevin Smith and seeks to represent a class of all Capital One employees and job applicants for the past three years.
Essentially, the lawsuit accuses Capital One of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“the Act”) Act in a two ways. First, the lawsuit alleges that Capital One’s authorization form is flawed. The law imposes strict formatting requirements on companies who do background checks. The lawsuit alleges that by burying its background check authorization in a job application, including extraneous information, Capital One violated the law. On this claim, Capital One may be liable to all employees and prospective employees who signed Capital One’s standard job application.
Second, the lawsuit also alleges that Capital One failed to provide copies of the reports when it used them to take adverse employment actions, such as refusing to hire an applicant, refusing to promote an employee or terminating an employee. This practice also violates the Act, which requires companies to provide employees with copies of their background checks.
The lawsuit is potentially valuable to class members. Employees and prospective employees may be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each violation. “Based on our understanding of Capital One’s practices, everyone who has applied or worked for Capital One in the past three years should be eligible to receive statutory damages if our lawsuit succeeds,” attorneys for the plaintiff(s) state.
Next up–Apple. All I have to say about this is Really? Here’s the skinny…
Cheap to the (Apple) Core? The uber cool icon of new technologies for the 21st century has been hit with an employment class action lawsuit. The suit alleges that Apple devised an illegal scheme of classifying at-home call center employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying Apple’s share of payroll taxes and other business related expenses through the use of a Yellow Dog Contract.
According to the lawsuit, Apple “hires workers to answer calls from its customers in regard to billing questions and technical support” but has devised an unlawful scheme of classifying the employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying for regular and overtime hours worked as well as the “the cost of the employer’s share of tax payments to the federal and state governments for income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance, unemployment insurance and payments for workers’ compensation insurance.” The complaint specifically alleges that in order to avoid the payment of these costs as required by law, the at home call center employees “are required by APPLE to each form a separate Virtual Services Corporation to act as a shell corporation as part of the scheme to insulate APPLE from APPLE’s liability for APPLE’s Business Related Expenses.” The class action lawsuit against Apple refers to these agreements between Apple and the employees as “Yellow Dog Contracts” that violate not only employment laws, but also fundamental public policy.
Top Settlements
A Fee-for-All at Walmart? Walmart has agreed to a $13.5 settlement of a securities class action this week. The lawsuit was brought by employee Jeremy Braden, and others, who alleged that the retail giant, together with Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch unit, passed along “unreasonably high fees and expenses” to its 2 million workers who had 401(k) plans. As with many 401(k) plans, Walmart’s contained a mixture of mutual funds representing investments in the bond and stock markets. The costs of managing those funds were passed along to employees.
According to a report in the AARP Bulletin the Walmart “settlement is a legal landmark because Walmart provides one of the largest 401(k) plans in the world and is the nation’s largest private employer, with more than $400 billion in annual sales.”
The timing is interesting in that the US Department of Labor is currently refining regulations around “fiduciary duty” and fee disclosure in 401(k) plans. And, the government is pressing for full disclosure of all fees paid to middlemen such as savings plan managers and wants stricter legal guidelines on how to provide the most prudent offerings at the lowest possible cost.
“I believe my account has experienced a loss in value, due to the reduced return on my investment in those plan investment options caused by the unreasonably high fees and expenses in those funds,” Braden stated in the lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, Braden will collect $20,000. “Other employees covered by the class action suit will not receive payouts, but will benefit in the form of up to $9 million in reduced fees going forward. Lawyers for the plaintiffs will collect as much as $4 million,” AARP Bulletin reported.
Ok–That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar.
Week Adjourned: 11.19.11
November 21st, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Under-performing, under investigation and in trouble–that could be the new tag line for Olympus, who got served with a securities lawsuit this week. And, to make matters worse for the Japanese manufacturer of imaging equipment–they are now under investigation by the SEC and FBI. Nice. That ought to keep them up at night…
The securities class action lawsuit was filed against Olympus Corporation (“Olympus”), on behalf of purchasers of Olympus American Depository Receipts (pinksheets: OCPNY, OCPNF) between November 7, 2006 and November 7, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
According to the lawsuit, Olympus falsely represented its finances for over five years and hid large losses by characterizing them in its financials as “fees” paid to investment advisers for work on corporate acquisitions.
Olympus’ false statements and material omissions, according to the lawsuit, artificially inflated its stock price and investors suffered heavy losses after Olympus disclosed the truth about its financial statements on November 7, 2011. Investors’ American Depository Receipts dropped dramatically from $13.72 on November 7, 2011, the last day of the Class Period, to $9.05 on November 8, 2011, or 34%. Olympus’ top executives resigned in what has become a financial scandal in Japan.
Recently, on its webpage, Olympus admitted discovering that it had been wrongfully “engaging in activities such as deferring the posting of losses on investment securities.” Olympus offered its “deepest apologies” to shareholders for the “inconvenience” caused by the fall of its share price. Uh–I don’t think an apology is going to cut it in this instance…
Top Settlements
Wal-Mart Netflix Antitrust Lawsuit News…A potential settlement agreement looks possible in an antitrust class action lawsuit brought by current and former Netflix customers against Wal-Mart and Netflix. Emails were recently sent out announcing that Wal-Mart wants to settle. Netflix has decided to continue its fight. Really?
The potential settlement would see Wal-Mart pay $27.25 million in cash and gift cards. The Wal-Mart settlement class includes anyone in the U.S. or Puerto Rico who paid a Netflix subscription fee for DVD rentals from May 19, 2005, through September 2, 2011. More details on the lawsuit are available at OnlineDVDclass.com.
FYI–in case the details of the Wal-Mart – Netflix lawsuit don’t immediately come flooding back to mind…(because it was filed in 2009 maybe) the allegations are basically: “This antitrust class action arises out of a conspiracy among defendants Netflix, Wal-Mart stores, and Walmart.com to divide the markets for the sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States in order to avoid competition, monopolize, and illegally restrain trade in at least the online DVD rental market.”
Oracle Overtime Lawsuit Preliminary Settlement…Ah–this old chestnut, again. A California unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought against Oracle reached preliminary settlement through a court in California last week, to the tune of $35 million.
The plaintiff class includes some 1,725 Oracle employees who alleged that they were not paid overtime and meal allowances. The suit was filed by quality software assurance engineers, customer support engineers and project managers who worked for Oracle and Peoplesoft in Redwood City and Pleasanton from 2003 to 2006.
According to California County law, staff working more than eight hours a day or 40 hours in a week are eligible for time-and-a-half. However, Oracle incorrectly classified the three groups of workers as administrative roles, making them exempt from the payments.
Oracle did not change its overtime policy for customer support engineers and project managers until 2007, though quality assurance engineers still do not qualify for overtime and the settlement for them extends to November 2010. A final hearing is set for March and will allow any workers to raise objections or go after individual claims against the software giant.
Ok–That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar. Bottoms Up!
Ruth’s Chris Steak House Faces Discrimination Class Action
October 18th, 2011. By AbiK
Been to a Ruth’s Chris Steak House? Aside from it being a tongue twister (try saying “Ruth’s Chris” fast ten times), once you get inside you’ll notice it looks very…boys’ club.
It’s that solid wood thing going on that’s characteristic of most bigger name steak houses. Like Smith & Wollensky. Or Peter Luger (though Luger’s is missing those white lint-producing tablecloths). Outback, Longhorn’s, Morton’s…same drill. And the handles on those steak knives—if you didn’t know any better you’d think you were handling a Winchester Model 1895.
No, not much feminine going on there. So it seems almost apropos that a sexual discrimination lawsuit would somehow crop up in the midst of all that manliness. And so one has—for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.
A group of current and former female employees has filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Ruth’s Chris. Their complaint alleges that female employees have been subjected to: lower compensation than their male counterparts; sexist comments; and harsher disciplinary action than that which is doled out to the guys there.
The women are seeking class action status for this one, and if gets certified the class would include all female Ruth’s Chris employees who worked at the restaurants or the company headquarters from September, 2006 to the present.
To quote from the lawsuit (Bush v. Ruth’s Chris Steak House, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 10-01721): “The work environment at RCSH [Ruth's Chris Steak House] is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination.”
What’s interesting here is that the “Ruth” in Ruth’s Chris was actually Ruth U. Fertel, who purchased Chris Steak House in New Orleans in 1965 and got the whole thing going. She passed away in 2002. One can only wonder what the successful, entrepreneurial businesswoman who created this businessman’s beefery would think of this…
Week Adjourned: 9.16.11
September 16th, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Destination Maternity could find itself rerouted—make that destination courthouse as they got hit with an employment class action lawsuit this week. Why, you ask? Sadly, nothing very original. The lawsuit claims that the international retail clothing store violated both federal labor laws and New York labor laws by routinely requiring its sales associates to undergo off-the-clock bag checks and security screenings for which they were not compensated.
The lawsuit also claims that Destination Maternity, A Pea in the Pod, Motherhood Maternity (what other kind is there?), and Edamame stores all require their sales associates to have their bags checked before they leave the stores to have lunch and before they go home for the evening. These checks occur off-the-clock, adding as much as 30 minutes to sales associates’ workdays for which they receive neither overtime nor straight time pay. Of course the point of the lawsuit is to recover the wages and overtime pay each sales associate is due under the law.
So, if you work or have worked as a sales associate at either a Destination Maternity, A Pea in the Pod, Motherhood Maternity, or Edamame store, you may request to be included in the proposed class. Check it out.
Top Settlements
The Best or Nothing? Guess it’s nothing… Mercedes Benz will be shelling over some cash shortly, following federal approval of a $15 million settlement of a recent consumer fraud class action lawsuit. It seems that Mercedes Benz USA failed to inform buyers of its luxury vehicles with analog Tele Aid communication systems that they planned to phase out the analogue emergency communications systems altogether on its models from 2003-2006. Yes—that could influence your decision to buy, no doubt.
Back to the good news. Well, sort of. Under the terms of the Mercedes-Benz settlement purchasers of 2003 to 2006 Mercedes-Benz models with the analog Tele Aid systems installed in their vehicles could receive either a certificate for up to $1,300 off a new vehicle or $650 in cash. Ummm.
You’re Forgiven! I love this one! Thousands of people have been forgiven their debts in a historical unfair business class action settlement reached last Friday in Maryland. The class action lawsuit was brought by Jason Hauk and Freddy Velazquez who led the class action lawsuit, against LVNV Funding LLC, a Greenville, SC-based company that buys consumer debt.
According to the terms of the settlement some 3,500 people in the class will receive about $2000 each, for a total of $7 million. The total settlement forgives about $10 million in debt, according to filings in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
Further, LVNV will not pursue the 3,500 debtors in order to collect the debt, nor will they be able to sell those debts to other third party collection agencies. And LVNV have to remove information it gave to the major credit bureaus for each of those debtors, a step taken to improve their credit ratings. The settlement is being hailed as historic, and a major win for the class. You gotta love the system when it works!
OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar—and safe travels getting home.
Popular Categories
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Celebrity (RSS)
- Complaints/Comments (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Criminal Law (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (RSS)
- Discrimination (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Elder Care Abuse (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Human/Civil Rights (RSS)
- Insecurities (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lawyers Giving Back (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Real Estate (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Tort Reform (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
- Whistleblower (RSS)
Loading ...
