Posts Tagged ‘ Employment ’

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.

Tags: Consumer Fraud, Debt Collection, Destination Maternity, Employment, Labor Lawsuit, LVNV Funding LLC, mercedes benz, Motherhood Maternity, Pea in the Pod, Tele-Aid, wage and hour lawsuit
Posted in Class Action, Settlement, Week Adjourned | 8742No Comments »Week+Adjourned%3A+9.16.112011-09-16+21%3A27%3A21LucyC

Week Adjourned: 6.17.11

June 17th, 2011. By LucyC

Top Class Actions

Logistical Error? Nothing like a lawsuit to improve your company’s standing—or attract quality employees—as FTDI West is about to find out. The company, located in California and Florida, got hit with an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit this week.

The gist of the lawsuit is labor code violations, well, that’s a no-brainer. Specifically, the lawsuit states that FTDI West Inc, violated: Sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code by failing to provide adequate meal breaks to employees involved, section 226.7 of the California Labor Code by failing to provide adequate rest breaks to employees involved, Section 510 of the California Labor Code by failing to pay proper overtime wages, Sections 203 and 226 (a) of the California Labor code by providing involved employees paystubs not in compliance with California law and not paying “waiting time” penalties, as well as two other causes of action as related to Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and the common law tort of unjust enrichment.

The overtime claims asserted deal with non-payment of “double time” wages. Double time wages are due for any work over 12 hours in a workday or any work beyond eight hours on any seventh consecutive day of a workweek.

The lawsuit defines its class members as “All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as non-exempt employees at any of Defendants’ locations anywhere in California, at any time from four years prior to the initiation of this action until the present.”

Top Settlements

Drywall Might Settle but the Dust Surely Hasn’t… Remember all the defective Chinese drywall lawsuits of not so very long ago? Well, they are slowly making their way through the courts to settlement land. Case in point—Banner Supply has agreed a $54.4 million settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by homeowners in the Orlando, FL area. In fact, the agreement covers 2,000 to 3,000 homes south of Orlando.

According to Builderonline something like 95 companies have been implicated as distributors of the sulfur-tainted drywall and named in subsequent lawsuits filed against the Chinese manufacturers. The defendants are accused of being the source of tainted drywall. While Banner Supply tops the list, others suppliers reportedly include ProSales L&W Supply, ProBuild, Stock Building Supply, and 84 Lumber.

While $54.5 million might seem a large settlement, it may only work out to between $18,000 and $24,000 per home, and estimates suggest the cost of repairing the affected properties could reach $100,000.

Defective Boat Injury leads to $31M Award. Ok. There’s bad design, and BAD DESIGN. In this case, I’m not talking about an infraction of the Home & Garden variety, but rather something that warranted a $31 million award. Two women brought a defective product and personal liability lawsuit against MasterCraft, after suffering some pretty horrendous injuries that good design likely would have prevented.

Short version, in 2006 Nichollette Bell and Bethany Wallenburg were among 12 passengers riding in a MasterCraft X-45 wakeboarding craft. They were sitting on the bow of the boat when it was suddenly submerged as the driver of the boat went to retrieve a fallen wakeboarder. As a result the women were swept off the boat by the force of water and into the lake. The boat’s propeller struck Bell on the head, ripping out an eye and leaving her with brain damage. The propeller also slashed Wallenburg’s left elbow and lower back, resulting in muscle and nerve damage. In their lawsuit, the women alleged the boat was defectively designed. They also alleged the driver handled the boat negligently. Not surprisingly, the jury found MasterCraft 80 percent at fault and the driver 20 percent at fault.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar.

Tags: Banner Supply, California Overtime, chinese drywall, Defective Product, Employment, Employment lawsuit, Florida, FTDI West, MasterCraft, Meal Breaks, overtime lawsuit, Unpaid Overtime, Wakeboarding, Week Adjourned
Posted in Week Adjourned | 8102No Comments »Week+Adjourned%3A+6.17.112011-06-17+20%3A48%3A20LucyC

Employers vs Sick Employees: Whose Side Are You On?

September 14th, 2010. By Hunter West

The recent spate of incidents where employees have been unjustly fired for health issues through no control of their own leaves an unsavory aftertaste, and paints employers guilty of such conduct as mean-spirited. A case in point is the former employee of a Michael’s store who felt pressured to return to work early after a double mastectomy, only to be fired soon after while continuing to undergo chemotherapy.

As inconvenient as it might be to have a vital employee sidelined for health issues, basic human rights suggest that the employer has a moral obligation to stand behind an employee who is suffering. There are also legal requirements to that end.

Nor should an employee who has health issues through no fault of his own—but still capable of working—find himself shut out by an employer, and from a job he needs and is quite capable of doing, just because he is not the pristine specimen that may fit the company profile.

Employees who suffer health discrimination in the workplace can, and do fight back. Recently a breast cancer patient sued her former employer for what she claimed to be an unjust firing and was awarded millions in compensation.

But there are two sides to every issue—and it can go both ways.

To wit, employees have to take some responsibility for their own health. When they fail to do so, who can blame an employer for feeling angry and betrayed?

How long have we known that smoking kills? And yet there are those who smoke like a Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Employment, Job Discrimination, Sick Workers, Wellness, Workplace Discrimination
Posted in Employment | 4942No Comments »2010-09-14+12%3A48%3A07Hunter+West

Riddle: How Many Make a Class for a Wal-Mart Class Action?

September 1st, 2010. By LucyC

Question: How many people does it take to make a class in a class action lawsuit?

Answer: That depends on how much money you have to spend.

Faced with a potential class action lawsuit over allegations that the world’s largest private employer discriminated (discriminates?) against its female employees, Wal-Mart has so far managed to avoid a trial by insisting that the roughly 1 million women who worked for them since 2001 don’t constitute a class. That’s nine years of legal wrangling and it ain’t over yet.

Just as a quick reference, according to one legal dictionary I checked the definition of a class is: “a lawsuit that allows a large number of people with a common interest in a matter to sue or be sued as a group.” That seems fairly straight forward to me. As indeed it did to a federal court judge in 2004, who ruled that the women do constitute a class. Wal-Mart, apparently having the funds available to drag this out—appealed the decision, but in April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the 1 million women constitutes a class, and that the case could proceed.

But no. Not yet. Wal-Mart—the harbingers of “Save Money. Live Better.”—seem to be following their own advice to the letter, figuring it’s likely cheaper to fight this now than risk going to court or paying a settlement—both outcomes they are very familiar with—is taking the matter to the Supreme Court.

A recent editorial in the NY Times states this is “probably a smart legal move, given the Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Discrimination, Employment, Fair Pay, Wal-Mart, Walmart
Posted in Employment | 48452 Comments »2010-09-01+15%3A31%3A16LucyC

In Charlton MA, A Case for Suing Your Current Employer?

July 9th, 2010. By Hunter West

In 2003 Curt Meskus had a long-standing commitment to the Charlton Fire Department as a call firefighter. At any time of the day or night he could be called in to help fight a fire, or help manage some other emergency the fire department might respond to. He would be paid an hourly rate by the fire department, a service provided by the municipality.

Then, seven years ago, Meskus was hired as the Building Commissioner for that same municipality. The latter would be a full-time job v. the on-call, as-needed structure of his fire department gig that he intended to keep.

Why not do both? Months could go by without a whiff of smoke. If he was, indeed called out during regular hours of his building commissioner job, he could always make up the lost time after hours.

Some may say Meskus has initiative. Others might call him greedy—you know, double-dipping*. But no one could argue Meskus’ status as an honest citizen who is completely above-board. When he was hired by the municipal selectmen for the building commissioner job in 2003, Meskus was up-front about his firefighting responsibilities, which he had no intention of abandoning. In fact, Meskus was the assistant call fire chief.

The municipality didn’t appear to have a problem. In fact, Meskus has been re-appointed to the position of Building Commissioner every year since by the municipal selectmen in Charlton, MA, without hesitation or debate.

Then someone complained. Another municipal employee questioned if the arrangement Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Charlton MA, Curt Meskus, Employment, FLSA
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment | 43384 Comments »2010-07-09+14%3A47%3A14Hunter+West