Employment Legal News Articles & Interviews

Los Angeles, CA  On April 15, a federal court in the Central District of California is expected to approve a $3.3 million settlement in Christina Epstein v. Walgreens Pharmacy Services Midwest LLC. The settlement will end a California labor lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of 6,745 pharmacy technicians who allege that Walgreens failed to compensate them for off-the-clock work and pay overtime wages, as required by California state labor law.

Cincinnati, OH  On March 23, the Sixth Circuit revived an ERISA lawsuit that alleges that Detroit Edison Co. misled plan participants about the benefits they could expect at retirement when the plan design was changed in 2002. The Appeals Court’s decision in Nolan v. Detroit Edison Co. gives the participants a fresh opportunity to show that the disclosure to participants about the plan’s conversion to a cash balance plan failed to meet basic ERISA requirements. Nolan seeks class action status.

Los Angeles, CA Who is minding the store? 7-Eleven franchisees say they aren’t; they claim that Seven-Eleven, Inc. is in complete control and treats them like “glorified managers” rather than business owners. The franchise owners say they have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. At the heart of this matter is the AB5 law.

Detroit, MI On March 4, The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that Great American Fidelity Insurance Co. (Great American) could renew its argument that it should not be required to defend Stout Risius Ross (Stout) against a claim by Appvion Retirement Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Appvion ESOP). Great American Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Stout Risius Ross Inc., an insurance contract claim, is one piece of the fallout from the sprawling ERISA lawsuit that includes Appvion v. Buth. The facts are complicated.

LaCrosse, WI On March 4, the City of La Crosse filed a lawsuit in the Wisconsin Circuit Court alleging that 3M Company and 22 other defendants produced and marketed products containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS/PFOA) with knowledge that these substances were likely to contaminate public and private wells throughout the city.

Los Angeles, CA A two-year old California labor lawsuit just took a new turn. Plaintiffs in Rasmussen v. Disney have been permitted to amend their complaint to add allegations that Disney “maintains a strict policy of pay secrecy” in violation of California labor law. If proved at trial, the allegation could establish a link between prohibited conduct and widespread pay discrepancies between men and women who perform similar jobs at Disney – giving lie to the claim that the pattern can be explained by differences in performance. Pay secrecy is thought to hurt female workers because it deprives them of the information they need to demand equal pay.

San Francisco, CA On February 23, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld a District Court grant of summary judgment to flight attendants in their class action lawsuit against Virgin America. Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc. alleged that the airline had failed to pay minimum wage and overtime and permit meal and rest breaks, as required by California labor law. The Ninth Circuit did, however, reduce certain penalties assessed against Virgin America.

Philadelphia, PA On March 8, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class action status to plaintiffs in Boley v. Universal Health Services. The ERISA lawsuit claims that fiduciaries of the Universal Health Services Inc. Retirement Savings Plan mismanaged the 401k plan in violation of ERISA.

Fresno, CA On February 23, a group of Walmart workers brought an unpaid wages lawsuit against Walmart, claiming that they should have been paid for time spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings that were required before they were allowed to clock-in. Haro v. Walmart alleges that Walmart’s practice violates both the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Los Angeles, CA Former motel employee William Hang filed a wage and hour lawsuit against his employer, but when Hang’s attorney sought the employer’s payment and obtained a default judgment of $255,000, he discovered that the employer had coerced Hang into a substantially less settlement: $20,000 cash.