BigClassAction.com Legal Blog

Week Adjourned: 7.11.14 – Kindred Healthcare, Suave, Overdraft Fees

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top lawsuits include Kindred Healthcare, Suave and Comerica Overdraft Fees.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Kindred Healthcare, is not taking care of its own… according to California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed this week. You probably know the song sheet by heart by now—but permit me a wee refresher. KH and its affiliates, Professional Healthcare at Home, LLC and NP Plus, LLC are accused, by its caregiver employees in California, of failing to pay minimum wage and overtime (really?), and violating meal and rest period laws.

FYI—Kindred is one of the largest post-acute health service providers in the US.

Ginger Rogers, (not making that up) one of the named plaintiffs in the Kindred Healthcare class action, said “I believe they didn’t pay me all my wages when I was assisting a Kindred client in her home. And when I went to care for another client in a facility, I had to work long shifts without any meal or rest breaks.” Emma Delores Hawkins, another named plaintiff, was allegedly denied overtime pay for work performed, according to the complaint.

This one’s just out the gate. It will be interesting to see how it grows…

Top Settlements

Now it’s Unilever’s turn to have a bad hair day. The chemical manufacturer and maker of Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit and defendant in a defective products class action lawsuit, received final approval of a $10.2 million settlement, which some of the plaintiffs thought to be too low. But—as the judge pointed out—they are free to drop out and file their own lawsuits. The class action alleged that Unilever PLC’s Suave Keratin hair products caused consumers to suffer hair loss and/or scalp injury. Really not the desired effect, I’m betting.

The backstory—the Suave lawsuit was filed in August 2012, claiming Unilever made false and misleading statements about the safety of the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was recalled in May 2012. Specifically, the complaint asserts that Unilever failed to inform consumers that the hair product posed an unreasonable risk of hair and/or scalp injury. The lawsuit is Sidney Reid, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Under the terms of the Suave Keratin settlement, a Reimbursement fund of approximately $250,000 and an Injury fund of about $10 million will be created. The Injury Fund will compensate Class Members who were injured by the Suave Keratin product for medical expenses and emotional distress associated with their Smoothing Kit injuries. Class Members who suffered Smoothing Kit injuries may submit a claim for reimbursement ranging from $40 to $25,000, depending on the extent of their injuries and proof of their treatment expenses.

Class Members who did not suffer an injury from the Smoothing Kit are eligible for a reimbursement of up to $10.

Keratin Suave class members include all persons who purchased the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit in the United States for personal or home use before February 17, 2014.

For detailed information about the settlement, and filing a claim, visit www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com.

We haven’t seen one of these in a while… Final approval has been granted in the $14.5 million settlement of consumer fraud class action involving overdraft fees charged by Comerica Bank NA. The class action involved people who had been charged overdraft fees on their Comerica Bank accounts between 2004 and 2010. The Comerica overdraft class action lawsuit alleged the bank posted debit card transactions in dollar amounts ordered from highest to lowest so as to maximize the number of overdraft fees it could levy against its customers.

According to the lawsuit, rather than declining transactions that would put a customer into overdraft, Comerica authorized the transactions, subsequently processing them in an order that would increase the banks’ overdraft revenue.

Eligible class members include anyone who held a Comerica bank account in Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan or Texas and incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of Comerica’s non-consecutive posting of transactions between 2004 and 2010. Specific class periods vary by state.

The Class Periods by state are:

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Arizona, the period from February 18, 2004 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in California, the period from February 18, 2006 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Florida, the period from February 18, 2005 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Michigan, the period from February 18, 2004 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Texas, the period from February 18, 2006 through August 15, 2010.

Eligible class members must have had two or more Overdraft Fees caused by debits posted to their accounts on a single day during the time period listed above. For further information on the Comerica class action lawsuit settlement, and to download forms, visit: http://comericabankoverdraftsettlement.com/Home.aspx

The case is Simmons v. Comerica Bank NA, Case No. 10-cv-22959, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It is part of multidistrict litigation known as In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Ok Folks—We’re Done Here—Have a wonderful weekend—we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.4.14 – Adobe, Fluidmaster, J. Crew

The week’s top class action lawsuit and settlement stories–4th of July edition! Top stories include Adobe Creative Cloud, Fluidmaster and J. Crew.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads up all you Designers and Creatives out there…Adobe Creative Suite billing may just be a little too creative. Adobe got his with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week alleging the software maker charges an illegal termination penalty for cloud subscription access to its blockbuster applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator.

Filed by Scotty Mahlum, in California Federal Court, the Adobe lawsuit alleges that Adobe’s early termination fee, which can add up to hundreds of dollars, violates California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. It sure seems to be a blatant cash grab—opinion here…

“[The fee] is designed to maintain recurring revenue by preventing subscribers from cancelling, rather than to compensate for any damages sustained by [Adobe],” Mahlum said. [If Adobe] “has suffered any damage upon early cancellation, the ETFs are not a reasonable measure or approximation of such damages.”

According to the complaint, a monthly subscription for access to Adobe’s complete cloud suite is $49.99 or $9.99 per month for access to individual programs. But if consumers end their contracts early, Adobe charges them 50 percent of the remaining value of the contract. “Because Adobe has no expenses after a subscriber downloads Creative Cloud Software to a computer, 50% of the remaining contract obligation is a windfall for Adobe,” the lawsuit states.

The Creative Cloud programs include Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere, After Effects, Audition, Dreamweaver and other programs.

The subscription contract is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition and gives consumers no opportunity for term negotiation, the Adobe lawsuit contends. Mahlum alleges Adobe phased out the option to buy copies of the software outright in the spring of 2013 and that he signed up for a complete plan in October but canceled it in March.

Mahlum seeks a permanent injunction against collection of the ETFs and wants the company to pay back all ETFs it has collected from the class, which he says should include all current or former subscribers in the U.S. who were charged the fee.

In a December earnings report, Adobe revealed it had ended the 2013 fiscal year with 1.4 million Creative Cloud paid subscriptions, an increase of 1.1 million over the course of the year. The lawsuit contends that Adobe’s revenue from the cloud model jumped from $160 million in the second quarter of 2012 to $255 million in the second quarter of 2013.

The case is Mahlum v. Adobe Systems Inc., case number 5:14-cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

It would appear there’s Nothing Fluid about this Crap… at least according to some very pissed off consumers who filed consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against Fluidmaster Inc., this week. The lawsuit claims that the plumbing product and toilet repair company knowingly sold defective toilet connectors that spontaneously broke, causing millions of dollars in property damage at homeowners’ expense. Nice!!!

The Fluidmaster complaint, filed April 24, 2014, in the US District Court for the Central District of California, states that Fluidmaster elected to sell faulty plastic toilet connectors even when it was mechanically and financially feasible for the company to sell an existing, safer alternative design. According to the lawsuit, more than a million defective toilet connectors were sold in the US. Ok—that’s a lot of folks. That’s a lot of damage.

Apparently, upon realizing that its plastic toilet connectors were routinely cracking, leaking and causing significant damage, Fluidmaster responded by lowering its 10-year warranty to five years, according to the lawsuit. The complaint’s two named plaintiffs experienced massive property damage after their Fluidmaster toilet connectors spontaneously failed. One of the plaintiffs, Brian Kirsch, received a call while on vacation from his garbage collector informing Kirsch that water was spilling from an upstairs window of his home and raining into his garage. Kirsch’s home had to be gutted and completely renovated while he and his family were displaced.

Due to the material and design of the toilet connector, the plastic was susceptible to bending with weight and pressure over time, according to the suit. The complaint also cites the company’s poor instructions and warnings that failed to provide the customer with sufficient information to safely and properly install the connectors.

After reducing the product’s warranty, Fluidmaster began to redesign the toilet connector in mid-2011, marketing and selling a new, reinforced connector. According to the complaint, the company never publicized that the product was redesigned and did not recall the defective products from its distribution networks. It also did not notify property owners that the defective products could spontaneously fail and should be replaced, keeping the defective products in use, according to the complaint. That’s just plain shitty (couldn’t resist!)

Top Settlements

J. Crew to pony up for Illegal Zip Code Collection….Yup—a preliminary settlement has been approved in a zip code collection class action lawsuit pending against J. Crew Group Inc. The lawsuit alleged the retailer unlawfully collected customers’ ZIP codes during credit card purchases and used the information to send unsolicited marketing materials to those customers.

According to the terms of the J. Crew settlement, J Crew will provide $20 vouchers to eligible class and a $3,000 award to the class representative, lead plaintiff Lauren Miller, who alleged the company began sending her unsolicited junk mail after she made two credit card purchases in 2011 and 2012. Prior to providing her ZIP code during those transactions, she hadn’t received any promotional materials, according to the complaint.

Miller had urged the judge to approve the settlement earlier in the month, telling the judge that the settlement sufficiently covered the damages stemming from J. Crew’s allegedly improper ZIP code collection.

“The action seeks to redress J. Crew’s alleged unlawful invasion of its customers’ privacy and its alleged violation of the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts designed to protect consumers’ rights to be free from intrusive corporate data collection and marketing. The settlement substantially achieves this goal,” Miller said in a memorandum.

The settlement will put to bed claims of the proposed class of Massachusetts customers who used a credit card at the retailer’s stores after June 20, 2009, and whose ZIP code was subsequently recorded. J. Crew denies any wrongdoing.

The class action is Miller et al v J. Crew Group, case number 1:13-cv-11487, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Ok Folks—Happy Fourth of July—Have a wonderful weekend—and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.27.14 – Ford, Caterpillar, Kashi

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include Ford, Caterpillar and Kashi.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

It was Ford’s turn this week…its turn to face the class action blues…yessiree—they got hit with a consumer fraud lawsuit alleging personal harm from what appears to be a rather serious design defect.

The Ford lawsuit was filed in Florida by Ford Explorer owners and lessors alleging the automaker mislead consumers about the vehicles’ exhaust system that exposes passengers to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.

Filed by lead plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson, the complaint alleges that when the air conditioning is on in the Ford Motor Co. sport utility vehicle, the exhaust leaks into the passenger cabin of the cars. This poses a health risk to those in the cars and a safety risk to people on the road.

Sanchez-Knutson further claims that she and her daughter suffer from chronic headaches as a result of exposure to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide in her 2013 Ford Explorer. She alleges she took the car to the local dealership for repair numerous times because of a sulfuric smell. However, at no point in time was she informed that the odor actually signified exposure to the gas.

An internal technical service bulletin distributed by Ford to its dealerships showed that the automaker was aware that certain Explorer models’ exhaust systems were leaking into the cabins of the cars when the air conditioning was turned on, the complaint states.

The bulletin provided dealerships with instructions on how handle the smell in the vehicles but did not specify that carbon monoxide was seeping into the cabins or provide any remedies to protect consumers from the risk of exposure, according to the lawsuit.

“Ford knew or should have known that the 2011 through 2013 model year Ford Explorers were dangerous and defective such that drivers and passengers of those vehicles may be exposed to carbon monoxide and other dangerous gases while the vehicles are in operation,” the complaint states.

The complaint alleges Ford violated the vehicles’ express and limited warranties, since the contracts guaranteed that the vehicles were defect-free. All of the affected vehicles are still under warranty with the company, the lawsuit states.

As a result of filing the lawsuit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it is looking into the exhaust allegations. The agency said it was aware of complaints involving the vehicles but that it had not initiated a formal investigation.

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of all consumers in Florida who purchased or leased the 2011 to 2013 Explorer models. The suit is Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Company, case number 0:14-cv-61344, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Exhausted yet? Wait–there’s more! Caterpillar Inc. also got hit with a class action lawsuit over claims that its heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines, designed to adhere to 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions regulations, contain a design defect that requires extensive repairs and replacements. Nice!! This is all sounding so familiar!

The Caterpillar lawsuit alleges Caterpillar’s 2007-2010 model C-13 and C-15 engines have defective exhaust emission controls which make the vehicles unreliable for transportation. Further, despite repeated repairs, they cannot be permanently fixed.

According to the complaint, the engines’ exhaust emission control systems regularly detect warning and shutdown readings from the software used to regulate and monitor certain components, causing the vehicle to require authorized exhaust emission control diagnoses that eventually are unable to rectify the problem.

“This caused plaintiff and class members to incur significant damages in the diminution of the value of their vehicles, but also in the cost of replacing the … engines with other EPA 2007 Emission Standard compliant heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel engines.” the lawsuit states.

K Double D Inc, lead plaintiff in the class action, alleges it purchased a vehicle featuring the 2007 heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine that suffered engine and regeneration problems, which resulted in thousands of dollars in damages to the company.

Further, K Double D claims that despite extensive repair work, the engine experienced repeated instances of warning lights illuminating, engine derating and shutdown, regeneration failure and more, as well as other failures that prevented it from working properly.

“Despite defendant’s numerous attempts to correct the … failures, the … engine exhaust emission controls do not function as required under all operating conditions, and will not do so for the expected life of the vehicle,” the lawsuit states.

The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all vehicle owners and lessees who purchased or leased a vehicle containing the engines. The lawsuit alleges claims of breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair and deceptive acts and more.

The suit is K Double D Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., case number 1:14-cv-01760, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Top Settlements

Heads up all you California crunchy granolas! A settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Kashi Co. According to the terms of the settlement, a fund of $5 million will be established by Kashi, which will resolve claims of false advertising, the grounds for the lawsuit.

Ok—so I think we know the tune here—the Kashi lawsuit, Astiana v. Kashi Co., Case No. 3:11-cv-01967-H-BGS, alleged the food manufacturer misled consumers by claiming that certain of its products are “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” even though they contained synthetic ingredients, such as pyridoxine, hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate and/or hexane-processed soy ingredients. Got it?

Class Members of the Kashi class action settlement include California residents who purchased certain Kashi products between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014.

Ok–Folks–we’re done here–have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.20.14 – GM, Petco, Best Buy

Top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week! Top stories include GM, Petco and Best Buy

Top Class Action Lawsuits

What’s your GM Vehicle Worth these Days? Less than it was a few months ago—according to a new class action lawsuit filed against General Motors Co., (GM) this week. The GM lawsuit follows the latest round of GM Recalls, alleging the automotive manufacturer’s reputation has been so badly damaged that even vehicles not included in the recalls have depreciated in value. The lawsuit is seeking in excess of $10 billion on behalf of all GM vehicle owners. The recalls allegedly constitute 25 percent more than what would be seen in a normal year, and almost 20 times more than the number or recalls issued during the same period in 2013, the lawsuit claims.

According to the GM lawsuit, GM marketed its vehicles as safe and reliable which mislead consumers into purchasing or leasing their cars, because the company was, at the same time, intentionally concealing known defects and valuing cost-cutting over safety, eventually leading all GM vehicles to depreciate in value due to its now-ruined brand.

“GM enticed … all GM vehicle purchasers to buy vehicles that have now diminished in value as the truth about the GM brand has come out, and a stigma has attached to all GM-branded vehicles,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit claims that the forced recalls of over 17 million vehicles has severely damaged the company’s reputation. According to the lawsuit there are about 40 different recalls covering 35 separate defects. All the recalls took place in the first few months of 2014.

“GM’s now highly publicized campaign of deception in connection with the ignition-switch defect sent shockwaves throughout the country, and jump-started the ever-burgeoning erosion of consumer confidence in the GM brand,” the complaint states.

The suit alleges that the 2010 and 2011 Chevrolet Camaro models have both been diminished between February, before the recalls began, and now, depreciating $2,000 in value. Further, the 2009 Pontiac Solstice went down $2,900 in value during that time, according to the lawsuit. According to the complaint, GM’s vehicles have depreciated in value because “no reasonable consumer” will pay the price they would have paid when the GM brand meant “safety and success.”

If certified, the class will represent GM consumers nationwide who own or lease a new or used vehicle sold between July 10, 2009, and April 1, as well as consumers who sold their GM vehicles at a “diminished price” on or after April 1. The class excludes consumers who own or lease certain Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac G5s, Saturn Ions and Saturn Sky vehicles.

The suit also seeks to certify a California subclass of GM vehicle owners and lessors, in addition to those who sold their cars at depreciated value.

The suit is Andrews et al v. General Motors LLC, case number 5:14-cv-1239, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

PetCode Problems? Heads up…Petco customers—they got zapped with Zip code class action this week. According to the proposed Petco class action lawsuit the animal supplies retailer is in violation of Massachusetts state law through their collection of customers’ zip codes.

According to lead plaintiffs Jeffrey Scolnick and Leah Crohn,Petco would not allow them to complete credit card purchases without their first providing the retailer with their ZIP codes, even though the store is not required by credit card issuers to collect this information from customers. Consequently, the plaintiffs allege they have received unwanted marketing materials from Petco. Further, they allege the store has sold their information to third parties without their consent and for marketing purposes.

“Petco recorded plaintiffs’ ZIP codes into an electronic credit card transaction form,” the complaint states. “Petco continues to store plaintiffs’ personal identification information, including plaintiffs’ name, ZIP code and credit card number, in its databases.”

The lawsuit, entitled, Scolnick et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Store Inc., case number 1:14-cv-12547, states that Massachusetts’ high court has determined that ZIP codes constitute personal information under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits the collection of personal information by retailers. Consumers place a high value on the privacy of their personal identifiable information, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all customers from whom Petco requested personally identifiable information when making a credit card purchase in Massachusetts, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs said they do not yet know the potential number of class members.

Top Settlements

Best Buy done for less than Best Practices. Plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act TCPA class action lawsuit against Best Buy have finalized a $4.55 million settlement deal. The lawsuit, with a Washington state class of 439,000 members, and a national class of 42,000 members, was initially filed in April 2010 by Michael Chesbro who alleged Best Buy automatically signed customers up for its Rewards Zone program without their knowledge when they purchased electronics under a payment plan. Best Buy then made unsolicited phone calls to those consumers with information about that program.

According to the terms of the Best Buy settlement, filed June 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, class members will receive their pro rata share from the settlement fund, once court-awarded fees, litigation and administrative costs and the class representative incentive award have been deducted. This will leave an estimated $3.2 million for distribution among class members, equally between $50 and $100 per call.

Michael Chesbro is to receive a $5,000 service award for services he has rendered to the classes by stepping forward to bring this case, according to the settlement papers.

Ok – Folks – we’re done here – have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.13.14 – McDonald’s, Coppertone, Lowe’s

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include McDonald’s, Coppertone and Lowe’s home improvement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Supersize this baby! McDonald’s is facing an unpaid overtime lawsuit class action lawsuit brought by four former employees in the Los Angeles area. The lawsuit alleges McDonald’s Corp violated wage and hour laws by “requiring workers to work off the clock, placing their rest and meal breaks at the end of their shifts and not paying final wages in a timely manner.”

The McDonald’s lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiff Maria Sanchez in January 2013, but has subsequently been consolidated into a nationwide group of employment class actions against the fast food chain, all alleging illegal labor practices. The lawsuits claim that McDonalds’ managers falsified time records to erase certain employees’ actual hours of work, prohibited meal breaks, required unpaid work from employees before and after their shifts, and withheld overtime pay.

The lawsuit further alleges that McDonald’s Corporation has tried to reduce “labor costs by requiring its restaurants to limit labor costs to a specific percentage of gross sales, causing managers to violate state labor laws to keep costs in line.”

The case is Maria Sanchez et al., v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California Inc. et al., case number BC499888, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Um—I’m lovin’ It!

Is Merck & Co. Inc, full of S#$PF? According to a recently filed consumer fraud class action lawsuit—it would appear so. The lawsuit alleges the pharmaceutical company is overcharging for its Coppertone sunscreen products with Sun Protection Factors (SPF) of 55 and higher because they contain “virtually identical” active ingredients as the Coppertone SPF 50 products.

Filed by plaintiff Danika Gisvold, the lawsuit claims Merck is participating in a “false, misleading and deceptive” advertising campaign. Specifically, Gisvold alleges the US Food and Drug Administration has reviewed SPF ratings since 1978, and has found that SPF values over 50 don’t provide an increase in protection over SPF 50 products.

According to the Coppertone lawsuit, while SPF value is an indicator of the level of sunburn protection provided by the product, and consumers have learned over time to associate higher SPF with greater protection, the SPF 100+ products do not provide twice the ultraviolet B protection of an SPF 50 product.

“In fact, none of the sunscreen products in the Coppertone SPF 55-100+ collection provide any additional clinical benefit over the Coppertone SPF 50 products,” according to the complaint, which also notes that the FDA had voiced concern about labeling a product with a specific SPF value higher than 50. “The FDA’s findings are based on, inter alia, scientific tests that demonstrate SPF 100 sunscreens block 99 percent of UV rays, while SPF 50 sunscreens block 98 percent, an immaterial difference that provides no additional clinical benefit to consumers against sunburn.”

The Coppertone lawsuit alleges the only reason consumers would purchase an SPF product over SFP 55 is because they believe it provides greater protection than a lesser SPF product, therefore, Merck’s Coppertone SPF 55- 100 are overpriced. “As a result of Merck’s superior UVB protection claims, consumers, including plaintiff and members of the proposed class, have purchased products that do not perform as advertised,” the complaint states.

The plaintiff is seeking to represent a national class of plaintiffs claiming Merck’s representations of superior UVB protection are false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the public, and that Merck spreads the false claims through advertising inserts, the Internet and labels “where they cannot be missed by consumers.”

Of course, if you are really unsure about your SPFs, you could always wear long sleeves and a hat—but that just ain’t as sexy.

Top Settlements

Well Lowe and behold…a $6.5 settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit pending against t Lowe’s—the DIY guys. The deal, if approved, will resolve a labor law class action filed by two former contractors, Ronald Shephard and Henry Romines, who allege Lowe’s violated California labor law.

Specifically, the lawsuit states that Lowe’s treated the independent contractors as employees when they were retained to install garage doors. While Romines voluntarily dismissed the claims Shepard continued with the lawsuit, and the court certified certified a class of: “All persons who installed products for Lowe’s or performed services for Lowe’s in the State of California and who were treated as independent contractors by Lowe’s but over whom Lowe’s exercised control and discretion in the performance of their installation services.” The certified class period runs from 2008 to the present.

According to the Lowe’s lawsuit: “Specifically, plaintiffs assert that Lowe’s had the right to control, and in fact did control all aspects of installation services performed by Shephard and all other Type 1 and general contractor installers,” according to the settlement for preliminary approval proposed to the U.S Northern District Court of California, Oakland division.

“Plaintiffs further allege that Lowe’s misclassification of the installers caused harm not only to the installers who did not receive the benefits attendant with being treated as employees, but also resulted in harm to the installation companies that contracted with Lowe’s,” the lawsuit states.

In discussing the proposed Lowe’s settlement, Shephard’s attorneys write, “Shephard determined that if this action proceeded to trial and if Shephard prevailed on all of his claims, the maximum amount recoverable for the class would have been approximately $33 million. Shephard submits that a recovery of $6.5 million, or approximately 20 percent of the recoverable damages, is an eminently fair and reasonable recovery.”

It is estimated that some 4,029 individual installers and 949 installation companies are eligible to receive settlement funds, and “The maximum settlement amount equates to about $1,613.30 per settlement class member,” court documents state.

Ok, Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.30.14 – Listerine, Daiichi Sankyo, Pradaxa

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Listerine, Daiichi Sankyo and Pradaxa.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Listerine Total Care Missing Something? Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and subsidiaries may have to rebuild their advertising campaign if the allegations in this latest consumer fraud class action lawsuit prove true. The lawsuit claims J&J et al falsely label Listerine Total Care products as being capable of restoring tooth enamel despite the “overwhelming consensus” of experts that tooth enamel loss is permanent.

Specifically, the Listerine lawsuit, entitled Suzanna Bowling v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 1:14-cv-03727, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that J&J, McNeil-PPC Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Products label various Listerine products as capable of enamel restoration. Bowling, who filed the lawsuit, states that the misleading claims are “highly material” to consumers and served to differentiate Listerine’s Total Care line from other mouthwash products. Oh yes.

The lawsuit further claims that the Listerine Total Care labeling enabled the defendants to charge a 35.8 percent price premium for Total Care products. “In fact, Listerine Total Care is essentially identical to Listerine Fluoride Defense Anti-cavity Mouthwash,” the complaint, states. “Both products have the same active ingredient, in the same amount, the same indicated uses, the same warnings, the same directions, and the same inactive ingredients. There are only three differences between Listerine Total Care and Listerine Fluoride Defense: the packaging, the color, and the price.” Terrific.

Bowling seeks an order certifying the nationwide class and the New York subclass, an order finding in favor of the plaintiff and an order of restitution, as well as compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief.

Pharmasexist? Well…it’s been a while since we’ve heard about this one—a nationwide sex discrimination class action lawsuit against of Daiichi Sankyo Inc. It was certified this week. The collective action is brought by about 1,500 female employees of the pharmaceutical company, who claim they were paid less than their male counterparts for the same work.

The sex discrimination lawsuit was brought in February 2013, by current and former sales workers and are seeking more than $100 million in damages. Named plaintiff Sara Wellens and several other current or former Daiichi sales employees sought collective action certification in March under the Equal Pay Act.

FYI—the case is Sara Wellens et al. v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc., case number 4:13-cv-00581, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Pradaxa Settlement…Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH looks set to pony up $650 million, after news a settlement deal has been struck—potentially ending claims in multidistrict litigation that its blood thinner Praxada (dabigatran) caused serious injuries including severe bleeding.

If approved, the Pradaxa settlement will resolve both state and federal personal injury lawsuits. Boehringer said in its statement that it expects the settlement will resolve roughly 4,000 claims over the drug, and noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has reaffirmed the drug’s positive benefit-risk profile.

During the past several years the number of Pradaxa lawsuits has increased, with users alleging they experienced bleeding events and other injuries associated with Pradaxa use. Lawsuits began to be filed in March 2012, according to court records, following the publication of a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine which linked Pradaxa with an increased risk of heart attack compared with other anticoagulants.

Boehringer received FDA approval in October 2010 for Pradaxa, to reduce clotting risks in patients with atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat that causes problems with blood flow, that is not caused by a heart valve problem.

The case is In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:12-md-02385, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Ok – Folks – we’re done here – have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.24.14 – Google, US Foodservice, Citigroup

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 24, 2014. Top stories include Google, US Foodservice and Citigroup.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads Up Google AdWords Users…Google’s been hit with a national unfair business practices class action lawsuit alleging the god of all things Internet unlawfully denies payments to thousands of website owners and operators who place ads on their sites sold through Google AdWords.

The Google AdWords lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Google abruptly cancels website owners’ AdSense accounts often without explanation shortly before payments are due, and refuses to pay for the ads that ran prior to the cancelation.

According to the lawsuit, Google’s popular AdSense program translates annually to billions of dollars payable to website operators that host its ads via AdSense. Google’s AdSense advertising program induces website operators to host space for ads on their websites. Each time a visitor to the website interacts with the ad, the ad publisher who hosts the ad earns payment.

The complaint claims that the contracts and terms of service Google requires web publishers to sign are unconscionably one-sided, giving Google free reign to embark on what the lawsuit claims are actions devoid of good faith or fair dealing.

The complaint states, “Given Google’s contractual terms purportedly permitting it to withhold payment to publishers with disabled accounts, and in light of the experience of the plaintiff in seeing this policy actually effected, the total of earned funds that Google has refused to pay its AdSense publishers could be enormous.”

The lawsuit claims Google is in violation of contracts with users and in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The named plaintiff, Free Range Content, Inc., is a California corporation that owns and operates Repost.us. Free Range Content first noticed a spike in AdSense earnings in Feb. 2014. At the end of Feb. 2014, Google issued a report stating that the plaintiff’s estimated earnings for the covered period were over $40,000–a number that seemed far too high. Then on March 4, 2014, two days before a scheduled March 6, 2014 call with an AdSense representative was slated to occur, the plaintiff received word from the AdSense program that Google had disabled its account.

The lawsuit seeks damages for all U.S. Google AdSense publishers whose AdSense account was disabled or terminated, and whose last AdSense program payment was withheld permanently by Google.

Top Settlements

Major RICO settlement this week…thought to be among the largest civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Law (RICO) class action settlements in recent history: We’re talking $297 million—a preliminary agreement between plaintiffs in a multidistrict unfair business practices class action against U.S. Foodservice, Inc. and its former parent company, Koninklijke Ahold, N.V. The settlement agreement is pending approval by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

This US Foodservice agreement was reached on behalf of a class of customers, primarily hospitals and restaurants, who purchased products from U.S. Foodservice under cost-plus arrangements between 1998 and 2005.

The class claimed that it was defrauded by U.S. Foodservice when it created six companies that it controlled to inflate the “cost component” of the products that were subject to the arrangement.

Citigroup Employee Shareholder Settlement…Bank employees got screwed too—and this week they got some justice, with the agreement of a $8.5 million settlement ending a securities class action lawsuit pending against Citigroup. The lawsuit, brought by Citigroup employee shareholders, alleged the company concealed its exposure to subprime mortgages prior to its stock price dropping.

The settlement class includes over 7,000 Citigroup employees who acquired securities between November 2006 and June 2009. Yikes! The damage seems endless. Probably is.

Under the terms of the agreement a $2.3 million settlement fund will be established, to include six payments of approximately $50,000 each to the six lead plaintiffs, as an incentive award for their service to the case. The Erisa lawsuit was brought in 2009 by former Citigroup employees who alleged the company prevented employees who had purchased the bank’s stock from obtaining information about subprime losses by means of a series of materially misleading statements and omissions concerning its subprime exposure, overall business outlook and financial results.

The lawsuit was originally filed in California, but was later consolidated into a multidistrict securities litigation against Citigroup through New York.

Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.16.14 – Goodman AC, GM, Kashi Cereal

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Goodman air conditioning, GM Financial and Kashi Cereal.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is your air conditioning unit blowing a little defective hot air? Well, according to a class action lawsuit filed against Goodman Global, Inc., and certain affiliated companies, their central air conditioning units and heat pumps sold under the Goodman® and Amana® brands since 2007 are—defective that is. The bit that’s causing the alleged problems is the evaporator coil(s).

For those of us not intimately acquainted with the working innards of an air conditioning unit (most of us, I’m guessing) evaporator coils are generally located inside a consumer’s home and are essential to the proper functioning of any central air conditioning system or heat pump.

So–according to the lawsuit, Goodman and Amana central air conditioning and heat pump systems contain defective evaporator coils that improperly and prematurely leak refrigerant (a.k.a. Freon®). Oh that’s good. Not. The defect allegedly renders the systems inoperable because the cooling cycle will not work without refrigerant.

Although Goodman sells these units with a warranty, that warranty is limited in a way that provides insignificant protection to owners of the units. In particular, the Goodman warranty, by its terms, covers replacement parts, but not the labor costs associated with the replacement. According to the lawsuit, the result is that, when a defective evaporator coil fails, Goodman provides the owner with a replacement coil, but does not pay to have the old coil removed or the replacement coil installed. As alleged in the lawsuit, those labor costs typically run in the hundreds of dollars, and in some cases, thousands of dollars. Thus, in at least some instances, the owner is forced to spend as much or more to replace the defective evaporator coil as the cost to purchase a new Goodman unit.

The complaint also alleges that Goodman has known that its units sold since 2007 contained defective evaporator coils, but the company failed to inform consumers about the problem or issue a recall. Indeed, according to the lawsuit, Goodman continued to tout the quality of its air conditioning systems, claiming they were durable, dependable, and long lasting, even though it was aware that the defective evaporator coils would cause the units to fail prematurely and at rates far above the industry average.

The lead plaintiff in the case acquired his Goodman unit when he purchased his new house in September 2011. According to the lawsuit, in or about July 2013, after only one summer of use, the unit stopped cooling the plaintiff’s home. A service technician allegedly found that the unit was low on refrigerant and added four pounds of refrigerant, which immediately leaked out of the system. After observing this, the technician determined that the evaporator coil was leaking and needed to be replaced. According to the complaint, the service technician returned the old defective evaporator and replaced it with a new one, charging plaintiff approximately $650 for this service.

The civil action was filed on behalf of all consumers in North Carolina that purchased a central air conditioning unit or heat pump bearing the trade names Goodman® and Amana® from 2007 to the present.

GM—AGAIN! GM just cannot seem to get it right these days. No, this time it’s not the auto recalls…this week their loan re-financing subsidiary got hit with a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Brought by Monique Perez of California, the GM lawsuit claims that beginning in late 2013, General Motors Financial Co. Inc. made “virtually daily incessant calls” to Perez’s cellphone regarding a debt allegedly owed by another person named “Melanie.”

Perez claims that by calling from an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), which can store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, GM Financial violated the TCPA. Don’t you love technology?

According to the lawsuit, “Plaintiff has never provided any personal information, including her cellular telephone number, to defendant for any purpose. As such, neither defendant nor its agents were provided with prior express consent to place calls via its ATDS to plaintiff’s cellular telephone.”

The plaintiff alleges members of the class not only suffered privacy violations but also suffered cellular telephone charges or saw a reduction in cellular telephone time that had already been paid for.

Perez is seeking to represent a putative class, made up of all US residents who received any telephone call from the company to a cellphone through the use of an ATDS within the past four years. She is seeking $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per knowing or willful violation of the TCPA for each class member.

Top Settlements

So it was all corn after all… Kellogg’s, the maker of Kashi products, has agreed to a $5 million settlement, potentially ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit that claimed Kashi’s labeling was misleading and fraudulent. Wait—don’t tell me—this stuff is so natural it makes Mother Nature look fraudulent—right?

Right. The Kashi lawsuit alleged that labeling on certain products used labels stating “All Natural” or “Nothing Artificial,” when in fact the products contain a variety of synthetic and artificial ingredients, such as pyridoxine hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, hexane-processed soy ingredients, ascorbic acid, glycerin and sodium phosphate.

Under the terms of the settlement, Kellogg’s has also agreed to stop using the labels “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial”. In a statement, Kellogg Co. said it stood by its advertising and labeling practices but that it would change its formulas or labels on Kashi products, nationally by the end of the year.

The settlement was filed May 2 in U.S. District Court in California and is subject to court approval.

Ok Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.9.14 – CVS, Google, FiveFingers, Medtronic

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include CVS, Google, FiveFingersand Medtronic

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Caremark to get healthy over vitamin E advertising claims? That’s right folks, the pharmacy chain is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the labeling on the pharmacy chain’s vitamin E pills state that they have heart health benefits.

Filed by plaintiff Ronda Kauffman, on behalf a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased vitamin E pills from the major pharmacy chain, and subclasses for customers in Rhode Island and New York, the CVS/Caremark complaint alleges that the CVS labels are misleading to customers, making them think the vitamins could reduce the risk of heart disease.

“The overwhelming majority of scientific studies find no ‘heart health’ benefit to taking vitamin E supplements,” the lawsuit states. Hey – what about the placebo effect?

7,600 CVS pharmacies nationwide carried the vitamins, which retail for approximately $8 to $20 per bottle, the lawsuit states. Kaufman alleges she bought vitamin E tablets from a CVS store in New York after reading the label and lost money on the purchase, which she wouldn’t have made if not for the heart health claims.

The CVS lawsuit mentions several studies that allegedly show vitamin E provides no heart health benefits. Further, it cites data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which show heart disease to be the leading cause of death in the US.

“Defendants have preyed upon these legitimate health concerns by misrepresenting to consumers that its vitamin E products have a ‘heart health’ benefit when they do not,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit claims CVS has violated deceptive business practice laws in New York and Rhode Island.

So, it’s back to eating your veggies.

Do no evil? Isn’t that it? Well, Google Inc. is facing a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit alleging the company is trying to monopolize the search engine feature on Android smartphones and tablets in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

The Google lawsuit, Feitelson et al v. Google Inc., case number 5:14-cv-02007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that Google engages is anticompetitive behavior by allowing Android device manufacturers to preload its popular applications, such as Youtube and Google Maps, only if the companies agree to make Google’s search application the default search engine on their devices. Is that evil—or convenient?

The lawsuit states: “By way of Google’s coercive and exclusionary practice with Android OS device manufacturers … Google restrains and quashes competition for default search engine status before it even can begin. Google’s practice is a pure power play designed to maintain and extend its monopoly in handheld general search.”

Further, the plaintiffs claim that Google’s alleged conduct results in consumers overpaying for certain Android phones and tablets, as the price for the devices may have been lowered if rivals had been given a chance to compete for default search engine status, potentially by paying manufacturers.

“Such payments … would lower the bottom-line cost associated with production of the covered devices, which in turn would lead to lower consumer prices for smartphones and tablets,” the lawsuit states.

The class action seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers of Android phones and tablets made by manufacturers who have entered into an alleged agreements with Google requiring its search engine to be the default search tool on their devices. The suit seeks an injunction on these alleged practices, as well as monetary damages.

Could this end up like Microsoft?

Top Settlements

Can you sue for ugliness, too? Vibram’s set to fork over for false health claims about FiveFingers..Turns out reinventing the wheel may be costly afterall. Vibram, the maker of a glovelike running shoe that purported to have health benefits such as reducing foot injuries and strengthening foot muscles—has agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action lawsuit.

The FiveFingers lawsuit alleges the company’s health claims regarding its FiveFingers running shoes were false and misleading. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the claims were“deceptive” and stated “that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot.” The complaint also stated that the company misrepresented research on barefoot running, claiming “there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers’ claims.”

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Vibram would pay $94 per pair of shoes bought. More than two dozen models of Vibram shoes will qualify for refund.

Further, Vibram has agreed to discontinue some aspects of its advertising and marketing campaigns and, in the absence of verifiable scientific evidence, will make no other statements about the health benefits of FiveFingers.

Medtronic, the maker of a spinal bone graft product called Infuse Bone Graft, has said it will pay $22 million to settle about 1,000 lawsuits stemming from claims of adverse health outcomes related to the product and claims that the manufacturer illegally promoted the Medtronic bone product for off-label uses. Medtronic is also reportedly preparing a further $140 million to settle an even larger number of anticipated claims.

Medtronic allegedly encouraged physicians to use its Infuse bone stimulator off-label in the cervical spine, which helped generate sales of more than $3 billion for the manufacturer. As of September of 2008, about 680,000 units of Infuse Bone Grafts had been used in the US, according to Medtronic. According to a report by the Senate committee investigating the product, the company’s undisclosed manipulation of information through the medical literature included overstating its benefits and downplaying concerns about serious complications. According to MedPage Today, during the past 15 years, Medtronic has paid $210 million in royalties and other payments to a group of 13 doctors and two corporations linked to doctors. Many of the lawsuits claim that it was by paying spinal surgeons the company was able to promote the off-label use of Infuse.

According to a press release Medtronic issued Tuesday, the $22 million will resolve the claims of some 950 people. A further 750 cases brought by 1,200 people are pending across the use, and there could be another 2,600 claims yet to be brought.

Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.2.14 – Baby Powder, Aveda, Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Baby Powder cancer risk, Aveda interns, and the tech worker salary collusion settlement

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Talc Troubles? It’s one thing to file a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging mislabelling infractions regarding “all natural” and “ no preservatives”—for example, but a consumer fraud class action filed this week against Johnson & Johnson alleging its classic baby powder products are associated with a significant increase in the risk of ovarian cancer, well that’s just a whole different level of muckery. Why do I continue to be surprised by these things…

According to the baby powder lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Mona Estrada (Mona Estrada v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 2:14-cv-01051, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California) studies have shown a 33% increased risk for ovarian cancer associated with talcum powder among women who use it on their genitals. Yet the only warnings on the product labels tell users to keep the powder away from their eyes, avoid inhalation and to use externally. Estrada, who has used the product since 1950, claims she expected Johnson’s Baby Powder, made of scented talc, to be safe. Further, the lawsuit claims J&J has failed to disclose the information regarding ovarian cancer risk on its product labels.
“As a result of the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, plaintiff and the proposed class have purchased a product which is potentially lethal,” the complaint states. Estrada alleges she would not have purchased the powder had she been aware of the risk. You think? Thankfully, Estrada is not claiming any personal injury.

Estrada further alleges she has bought J&J’s powder since 1950 and believed all this time that the product was safe to use on any external part of her body, and that J&J encouraged women to use the product daily.

“Although the label has changed over time, the message is the same: that the product is safe for use on women as well as babies,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also states that J&J has known of studies showing that women who used talcum powder on their genital area had a higher risk of ovarian cancer, since at least 1982. Further, the author of a 1982 study was contacted by a J&J doctor who was told the company it should add a warning label to the bottle.

The talc lawsuit goes on to state that the American Cancer Society (ACS) allegedly said that a 2008 study, linking higher usage of talcum powder to increased risk of cancer, showed the powder “probably” increased the risk for cancer. The ACS compared talcum powder to asbestos, postmenopausal hormone therapy and radiation. Oh great.

The lawsuit claims J&J violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, negligently misrepresented its powder and breached its implied warranty. This is going to be interesting.

Beauty Blunder? Aveda Corp, and its parent company, Estee Lauder Inc, and are facing an employment lawsuit filed by a former beauty school student who alleges the beauty companies treat their trainees as unpaid employees in violation of state and federal labor law. There must be some law of physics that works something like—the larger the company the less they pay—or try to pay…

Filed by lead plaintiff Jazlyn Jennings, the lawsuit claims that Aveda uses students at its California cosmetology schools as unpaid workers, requiring them to provide full hair and beauty services to paying clients, while at the same time claiming to provide educational experience to those trainees. Yes—it’s an educational experience alright—just not the kind the students signed up for.

The nitty gritty—“The California defendants led plaintiff and others…to believe that they were paying tuition to learn the skills necessary to succeed in the glamorous profession of beauty and cosmetology. Instead, they converted students into student employees to profit from their free labor.”

According to Jennings, she trained at the Aveda Institute Los Angeles from April 2011 to June 2012, where she provided haircuts, makeup removal, manicures and other services to customers without being compensated for her labor.

Jennings alleges that the institute’s staff did not properly supervise students who shelled out “thousands or tens of thousands” to participate in its yearlong training program, providing just four supervisors for the 40 students working on the salon floor, in violation of state regulations.

In addition to the Aveda institute in Los Angeles, Jennings also names its San Francisco-based school, the Cinta Aveda Institute Inc., and its Southeast institute operator, Beauty Basics Inc., as co-defendants in the employment lawsuit. “[Defendants] could have hired employees who they would have had to have paid at least minimum wage but instead chose to displace such employees with the free labor they demanded of their student employees,” the lawsuit states.

Additionally, according to the allegations, students were compelled to sell Aveda products to the public, effectively transforming students into “non-commissioned salespeople.” And the litany of bad deeds goes on to include handing over of tips and insufficient or completely absent supervision—if that’s not a contradiction in terms… but you get the picture.

So—bottom line—by failing to pay its “student employees,” the complaint claims that Aveda violated the minimum wage requirements of both California labor law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Additionally, Jennings claims Aveda failed to pay overtime, did not provide proper meal and rest breaks, did not provide accurate wage statements and engaged in unfair business practices.

Heads up—Jennings is seeking to represent a class of individuals who provided beauty services or sold products to paying customers in the named Aveda institutes from April 22, 2010, to the present. The class may also include student employees who cleaned or provided support services to Aveda’s beauty institutes in California.

Top Settlements

This settlement almost slipped under the radar this week—surprising given that the named defendants are Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems Inc. The tech worker settlement is, not surprisingly, pre-trial in the amount of $324 million—and it’s meant to end an antitrust class action lawsuit brought by by Silicon Valley tech engineers.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011, alleging that the four tech giants conspired to hold down salaries in Silicon Valley. You may remember some finger pointing at Steve Jobs over this one. In any event, the class action, filed in 2011 by Silicon Valley engineers, alleged that Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems conspired to refrain from soliciting one another’s employees in order to avert a salary war.

The trial, which will not be going ahead, surprise,surprise—was scheduled to begin at the end of May on behalf of roughly 64,000 workers who were seeking $3 billion in damages. Whoa Nelly—now that would have had an impact.
Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!