Unpaid Overtime

Week Adjourned: 12.29.17 – Apple, Testosterone, CSC

Top Class Action Lawsuits

High-Speed Slow-Down? Fair to say – can’t end the year properly without a class action lawsuit against Apple? Try nine and counting! Unless you’ve been directly involved in space exploration—it is highly unlikely you’ve missed this little scandal. Apple’s been hit with a litany of allegations including consumer fraud following the tech giant’s admission in mid-December that it deliberately slowed down certain iPhones, including the iPhone 6. The slowdown was managed through Apple’s software updates. Apple claims the software was intended as a fix to deal with degraded lithium-ion batteries that could otherwise suddenly die. Ain’t that handy.

Other allegations include Apple’s failure to disclose its messing with your mobile in a timely fashion, and the fact that its software updates deliberately slowed down older-model phones so batteries would last longer. Apple said it released the fix for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE and later extended it to iPhone 7, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Filed in US district courts in California, New York and Illinois, the iPhone slow-down lawsuits all allege that Apple’s failure to notify customers of the battery issues, and subsequent software slowdowns, led iPhone owners to wrongly conclude they needed to buy newer, more expensive iPhones instead of simply replacing the battery.

Allegations include consumer fraud, unfair business practices and breach of implied contract, specifically, asserting that when people buy iPhones, they do so with the assumption that Apple won’t “purposefully interfere with” the phones’ “usage or value.” The lawsuit states Apple did not get iPhone owners’ consent before interfering, through software updates, with the phones’ speed. Another lawsuit claims fraud, false advertising and unjust enrichment.

North Carolina resident Kirk Pedelty, a plaintiff in the Illinois lawsuit, contacted Apple when he noticed his phone slowing down. However, the lawsuit states: “Nobody from Apple customer support suggested that he replace his battery to improve the performance of his iPhone. … Frustrated by slowdowns and intermittent shutdowns of his iPhone 7, Pedelty purchased an iPhone 8.”

Every year we say this—and it remains true this year—you just cannot make this stuff up.

Top Settlements

Testosterone Deal. A global settlement deal has been reached by Eli Lilly and plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation alleging the company’s testosterone replacement therapy is associated with cardiovascular adverse health events.

The testosterone lawsuit deal comes about one month before the first bellwether trial was set to go to court. The judge cancelled two upcoming trial dates in January and March over Tracy Garner and John DeBroka Jr.’s cases alleging that Eli Lilly’s Axiron caused them to suffer from a heart attack and deep vein thrombosis, respectively.

More than 6,000 cases are pending against Eli Lilly, Auxilium and several other pharmaceutical companies in the MDL, all alleging the testosterone replacement therapies caused serious if not irreversible adverse health effects.

The MDL is In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:14-cv-01748, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Overtime just in time! Here’s hoping it’s the way forward for 2018. A jury has found in favor of current and former employees who filed an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit against Computer Sciences Corp (CSC). The plaintiffs alleged the defendant had misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay.

According to court records, the jury deliberated for just two days before finding “unanimously” for the employees. The employees alleged that CSC classified certain so-called system administrators as exempt from overtime pay under federal and state law. In fact, the plaintiffs should have been classified as non-exempt and compensated for time worked that exceeded 40 hours per week.

Damages have not yet been established, however a news release by the employees’ counsel states that the jury found CSC’s violations to be willful, which triggers additional damages.

CSC system administrators provide support to clients, including installation and maintenance of computer hardware and software, in addition to server maintenance and troubleshooting, according to the new release.

The case is Strauch et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., case number 3:14-cv-00956, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

So folks – on that happy note – this year’s a wrap –A Very Happy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2018 to All!!

Week Adjourned: 12.8.17 – #metoo, Xarelto, Unpaid Overtime

Top Class Action Lawsuits

#metoo. Organized sexual assault? Think organized crime. That’s the underlying allegation in a new class action lawsuit filed against Harvey Weinstein and affiliates this week. The lawsuit claims the defendants engaged in an illegal organized enterprise to conceal and further Weinstein’s pattern of sexual assault.

The six plaintiffs, namely Louisette Geiss, Katherine Kendall, Zoe Brock, Sarah Ann Masse, Melissa Sagemiller and Nannette Klatt are representing a proposed class of hundreds of actresses who suffered sexual assault, false imprisonment, battery, rape and other heinous sexual acts at the hands of Harvey Weinstein.

According to the plaintiffs bringing the case, they were lured by Miramax or TWC employees and isolated with Weinstein at industry events, hotel rooms, Weinstein’s home, office meetings and/or auditions or to discuss involvement in a project. The lawsuit filed against Weinstein, Miramax, The Weinstein Company Holdings and the members of its Board of Directors states that these entities colluded together to perpetuate and conceal Weinstein’s widespread sexual harassment and assaults.

Further, the complaint states that Miramax and The Weinstein Company (which Weinstein co-founded) facilitated Weinstein’s organized pattern of predatory behavior, equating to an enterprise that violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act, the same law brought against members of the Mafia for organized criminal behavior.

Each of the lawsuit’s six plaintiffs allege they were separately and systematically lured into isolating and intimidating environments by Weinstein, under false pretenses of industry-related meetings. They were assaulted, imprisoned in hotel rooms, airplanes and his home, and faced career-ending threats if they refused his unwanted advances and requests. In the instance of plaintiff, Sarah Ann Thomas, “Weinstein conducted the interview in his underwear, embraced Thomas in a sexual manner, and did not give her the job when she did not take him up on his sexual propositions.”

“Weinstein’s widespread sexual misconduct did not occur without the help of others,” the lawsuit states. “Rather, over time, Weinstein enlisted the aid of other firms and individuals to facilitate and conceal his pattern of unwanted sexual conduct. This coalition of firms and individuals became part of the growing ‘Weinstein Sexual Enterprise,’ a RICO enterprise.”

The complaint highlights reports from The New Yorker detailing “Weinstein’s Army of Spies” that Weinstein engaged to harass, threaten, extort, investigate and mislead his victims and the media to prevent the prosecution, reporting or disclosure of his sexual misconduct. This included members posing as fake journalists, and in the case of Plaintiff Katherine Kendall, contacting her, causing significant additional distress. These enterprise members also destroyed and concealed records and other evidence, the complaint states.

The lawsuit brings various charges against Weinstein, his companies, and members of The Weinstein Company’s Board of Directors for violating the RICO Act, witness tampering, mail and wire fraud, assault, civil battery, negligent supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

It also seeks retribution for class members’ loss of work opportunities and devastating damage to their careers, the damages for which can be tripled under RICO law. Plaintiffs also seek damages for the significant physical and emotional distress they endured then, and continue to endure now.

The lawsuit highlights that at all times, Weinstein’s victims and those who met to discuss projects or audition for him “operated under duress and the threat of being blacklisted” by Weinstein and major producers at Miramax if they refused, or spoke up.

Top Settlements

Xarelto settlement news… This week saw a turnaround for plaintiffs suing units of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Bayer AG in the fourth bellwether (Rivaroxaban) case being heard as part of a Xarelto mass tort. The plaintiffs won, in fact they were awarded nearly $28 million. This is the first Xarelto jury verdict favoring a plaintiff, in this case Lynn Hartman, who alleged she suffered a serious gastrointestinal bleed while using the blood thinning medication.

The jury found that the pharmaceutical companies failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the risks for bleeding associated with Xarelto.

Hartman’s case is one of more than 1,500 pending lawsuits, constituting a mass tort program in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to consolidate Xarelto-related product liability claims.

Those claims essentially state that Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc, failed to provide information about the significantly higher rate of bleeding among US patients compared with those elsewhere in the world, reported in a clinical trial.

Evidence provided during the trial indicated that the annual rate of bleeding in US patients was 8.1 percent compared with 3.6 percent among study participants globally.

Further, Hartman claimed that the defendants did not provide adequate warning concerning the increased risk for bleeding in patients using aspirin as well as Xarelto, and that the companies failed to tell doctors that some patients end up with significantly higher levels of the medication in their blood than others.

Hartman’s attorneys also argued that the risk of adverse events associated with Xarelto was significantly higher than that of two other popular blood thinners Eliquis (apixaban) and Pradaxa (dabigatran).

Testimony from former Food & Drug Administration chief David Kessler, added gravitas to Hartmann’s allegations, when he told jurors that he believed the warning label for Xarelto lacked key information about the severity of the potential risk for bleeding associated with its use.

Xarelto (known generically as Rivaroxaban) is a new-generation anticoagulant, in a class of drugs known as direct thrombin inhibitors. It is a blood thinner used to reduce the risk of blood clots and strokes. Xarelto has also been marketed as being easier to use than warfarin (known by the brand name Coumadin), an older anticoagulant, because it does not require medical monitoring.

The case is Hartman v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number 160503416, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Raising the stakes for unpaid overtime violation! Four fracking crane operators in Pittsburgh, who sued a drilling company for failing to compensate them for overtime worked, have had their compensation awards doubled by the federal judge hearing their case. Now that’s gotta feel good.

The decision follows a jury finding from October, stating that Oil States Energy Services “willfully and recklessly” failed to pay overtime wages to the operators. The jury awarded each of the plaintiffs tens of thousands of dollars in compensation. The company argued they were “highly compensated” and exempt under the Motor Carrier Act.

To avoid liquidated damages, Oil States would have had to prove that it tried to reasonably comply with the act, and it argued that its payment plan did just that.

“Oil States argues paying crane operators a salary and a job bonus, instead of hourly with overtime, conformed to industry standard practice and thus shows good faith. … Oil States offered no evidence it independently researched whether the industry standard salary and job pay plan for crane operators complied with the act,” the judge wrote.

The judge also found that Oil States did not act in good faith by determining that the employees were exempt under the highly compensated exemption.

Ok Folks – That’s a wrap! See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 12.2.16 – Oil Workers, DePuy Hip Implant, AMEX

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Overworked Oilers? Another week, another several employment lawsuits. This one, an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit, has been filed against oilfield services company Schlumberger Tech Corp, by workers who allege the company is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the lawsuit, the defendant schedules workers for long shifts but pays them salaries plus a day rate, instead of overtime rates as required by both state and federal labor law. The laborers are not exempt from overtime as they perform manual duties that fit within a checklist set by their superiors, the lawsuit states.

“All these workers are regularly scheduled to work 84 hours per workweek, but often worked more,” attorneys for the plaintiff Andrew Fritchman state. “Instead of paying them overtime, SLB paid its [measurement while drilling] employees a base salary plus a day rate.”

According to the complaint, Fritchman worked as a “measurement while drilling” employee, a largely manual job that didn’t leave room to deviate from the company’s outlined plan for how each day was to be conducted. Measurement while drilling workers are tasked with recording data gathered during drilling operations. A college education is not required to do this work, the plaintiff asserts.

Fritchman is claiming that he and other workers performing the same job worked grueling schedules, working and living in the field sometimes for weeks. Typically, a schedule would require one worker on the “day” shift and the other on the “night” shift. Those shifts were 12 hours, and the employees worked seven days a week. Ah, yeah, that doesn’t sound good…

The plaintiffs assert that instead of paying its workers overtime as required by FLSA, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the company paid them a salary plus a day rate.

The lawsuit is seeking back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs under FLSA for the company’s misclassifying its workers as exempt from overtime rules.

The case is Fritchman v. Schlumberger Tech Corp., case number 2:16-cv-01752, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Top Settlements

$1B Hip Award. I’m willing to bet Johnson and Johnson is not celebrating this weekend. A jury in Dallas this week awarded $1 billion to six plaintiffs who are suing Johnson & Johnson (J&J) alleging the DePuy Pinnacle hip implant made by the company’s subsidiary, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., was defective and has caused them adverse health effects and subsequent surgeries to remove the device.

The DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant has an unreasonably high failure rate. The lawsuits filed against DePuy, claim the metal-on-metal design allows metal debris to come loose from the device, ultimately being absorbed by the patient’s surrounding tissue.

Although J&J won the first case in 2014, in March of this year another federal jury in Dallas awarded $502 million to five plaintiffs whose suits were combined. The DePuy Pinnacle hip award was later reduced to $150 million under Texas law. However, because this latest set of lawsuits was tried under California law, the award won’t be subject to a punitive damages cap.

J&J is currently facing 8,500 similar lawsuits brought together in an MDL in federal court in Dallas. All the plaintiffs allege the company failed to adequately warn of the side effects associated with the hip implant.

According to media reports, evidence presented in court showed J&J paid kickbacks to surgeons to promote the device, even though the company was aware that the implant was associated with greater risks than other similar devices.

DePuy stopped selling the metal-on-metal Pinnacle devices in 2013 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration strengthened its artificial hip regulations.

It would be interesting to know how many hours J&J spends in court each year, defending itself against defective products litigation…

AMEX Calling? A $9.25 million settlement has received final approval this week, ending a class action lawsuit against American Express. The lawsuit claimed the company made numerous unsolicited telemarketing calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA). You think?

According to the terms of the AMEX settlement, the funds will be distributed between two plaintiff classes, specifically, those who received debt collection calls on AmEx accounts and those who received telemarketing calls on behalf of the credit card company.

$1 million will be distributed among the debt collection class, defined as those who received calls from third-party vendor West Asset Management Inc. between 2009 and 2013 hoping to collect on AmEx debt. Attorneys for the plaintiffs state that as only 135 members of that class filed claims, each plaintiff will receive over $4,400 from the fund. That’s a nice little pay day.

The class of plaintiffs who received telemarketing calls from vendor Alorica Inc. between 2009 and 2016 will share up to $8.25 million after attorneys’ fees have been paid. There are a reported 55,000 members of that class who filed claims, so the payment per class member will be $88.

The case is Ossola et al. v. American Express Co. et al., case number 1:13-cv-04836, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Well, that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 3.20.15 – Homejoy, Target, Drywall Pricing

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Uhh…Maybe not Everyone Deserves a Happy Home? You’d think with a name like ”Homejoy Inc”, there’d be a lot of joy to go around. Well, maybe for the customer and business owners, but maybe not so much for the workers. The company is facing two potential employment class action lawsuits, alleging the company is in violation of California labor laws.

The house-cleaning business allegedly fails to pay its workers minimum wage or overtime, denies workers legally mandated breaks and requires house cleaners to incur their own business-related expenses, among other infractions, according to one lawsuit. Specifically, the lawsuit claims Homejoy misclassifies its workers as “cleaning professionals”–as independent contractors–rather than employees.

Additionally, the lawsuits allege Homejoy workers must wear a shirt with the Homejoy logo on it while servicing homes and can be subject to “performance improvement plans” if their ratings are too low. The complaints further claim that “cleaners are an integral part of Homejoy’s business of providing cleaning services, among other services, to its customers.”

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum-wage compensation, unpaid reimbursed business expenses, one hour of additional pay for each workday completed without meal breaks and another hour of compensation for each work day without rest breaks” all with interest. The Private Attorneys General Act action seeks civil penalties and attorney fees. Go get’em!

Top Settlements

Heads up all Target Customers: A $10 million settlement has been reached in the Target data breach class action lawsuit. If approved, the settlement will resolve multidistrict litigation (MDL) resulting from one of the largest data breaches to date, affecting as many as 110 million Target customers.

The data breach occurred late in 2013—one of many data breaches we’ve been reporting on recently—and compromised customers’ personal information including bank and debit card information. The settlement motion requests certification of a nationwide class of an estimated 110 million consumers whose credit or debit card information or other personal information was compromised following the breach.

If you ever needed a reason to keep your paperwork—this would be it. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, affected Target customers who can document their losses will be eligible for up to $10,000 in damages. For those who cannot produce documentation, a payment will be made from the remainder of the settlement fund, once outstanding costs are deducted. The remaining balance will be divided equally.

Additionally, the agreement stipulates that Target makes a greater effort to safeguard its customer data, which would include appointing a high-level executive as chief information security officer and maintaining a written information security program, as well as a process to monitor for information security events and to respond to any such events determined to present a threat.

Well, the proof is in the doing… we can only wait and see.

Sheetrock Settlement. A $55 million settlement has been reached in an antitrust multi-district litigation (MDL) alleging price-fixing among companies that make gypsum board, commonly called drywall, sheetrock or plasterboard. While that might seem like a lot for drywall—it’s reportedly a $5 billion dollar a year industry in the US.

Preliminary approval was granted by US District Senior Judge Michael Maylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He has been overseeing the case since consolidation two years ago.

The defendant TIN has agreed to pay $5.25 million to settle claims from direct purchasers of drywall and $1.75 million to settle with indirect purchasers. Similarly, USG has agreed to pay $39.25 million to settle with the direct purchasers and $8.75 million to settle with indirect purchasers. The action isn’t quite over yet—as several defendants still need to settle.

Judge Baylson has also certified several classes of plaintiffs for the explicit purpose of facilitating the settlement and without having any effect on the still-ongoing litigation.

According to the complaint, the defendants account for more than 99 percent of drywall sold in North America. They are USG, National Gypsum, CertainTeed, Georgia-Pacific, American Gypsum, Lafarge, Temple-Inland (TIN) and PABCO. Well, if it wasn’t price-fixing it was certainly one hell of a coincidence.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.30.15 – Wal-Mart, Conesys, Wendy’s

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Wal-Mart, Conesys and Wendy’s.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Taxing Trip to Wal-mart? Wal-Mart’s made our list this week—this time it’s a breach of contract class action, alleging the discount retailer shortchanged customers over four years with respect to sales tax, is seeking certification. The lawsuit claims Wal-Mart defrauded its customers by as much as $9 million.

Filed in 2014, the Wal-Mart complaint specifically alleges that the retailer incorrectly applied lower sales tax rates to consumer returns. Plaintiffs are contending that Wal-Mart violated the terms of its sales agreement by refunding its customers less than the purchase price.

The lawsuit claims that an analysis done by Wal-Mart showed that there were nearly 20 million returns to stores with lower sales tax rates from 2007-09. During that time, the retailer used a flawed formula to recalculate how much customers spent, based on the sales tax of the store where the return was processed. The complaint alleges that Wal-Mart should have looked up how much customers paid for the items in the stores where they were purchased.

“Because the plaintiffs’ claims meet the requirements of Rule 23, and the representatives class counsel demonstrated the capacity to adequately represent the class, the court should certify the class and appoint the attorneys as class counsel,” plaintiffs Shaun Brandewie and John Newbrough state in the motion for certification. Both plaintiffs made several purchases at Wal-Mart, returned them to other locations, and were not refunded their full return. All of the discrepancies described in the complaint are for less than $1.

According to the motion for certification, the class is readily discernable because it includes anybody who purchased an item at Wal-Mart and was refunded an amount less than what they paid. Wal-Mart tracks sales and return data such that the amounts paid for items and the amounts refunded are easily ascertainable, the motion said. Hey—every penny adds up…

Defend this, Conesys… Conesys Inc, an aerospace and defense electronics parts manufacturer, is facing a potential unpaid wages and overtime class action lawsuit filed by employees who allege the company fails to pay them overtime or compensate them for meal and rest breaks.

Filed in California state court, on behalf of plaintiff Rafael A. Lozano, a machine operator at AEC, the Conesys lawsuit claims that for at least four years had a “consistent” policy of failing to pay all wages owing to their California-based employees, as well as failing to provide meal and rest breaks required under California labor law.

“As a result of the defendants’ unlawful conduct, plaintiffs and other members of the…class have suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent that they were not paid for all wages earned,” the lawsuit states.

Torrance, California-based Conesys, based in Torrence, CA, has over 1,000 workers worldwide, including several facilities located in Torrance. The lawsuit alleges that in California, the company unevenly rounds out the amount of time employees’ work, which denies them compensation for any time worked beyond that of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week.

Additionally, the lawsuit states that Conesys’ corporate practice of rounding out hours worked has resulted in its employees being issued with inaccurate wage statements, and, in some cases, being effectively paid below minimum wage.

Further, the complaint also states that Conesys failed to provide the necessary breaks, which in California requires employers to provide a short, paid rest break for shifts of at least four hours, and at least one uninterrupted 30-minute meal break when employees work a shift of more than five hours, and two, if the shift runs for longer than 10 hours.

The plaintiff is asking for compensation for missed pay for himself and other employees allegedly shortchanged by Conesys going back up to four years, as well as penalties against the company and “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs.

The case is Lozano et al. v. Conesys Inc. et al., case number BC570320, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Top Settlements

Here’s a Happy Ending. The fast food chain Wendy’s has reached a proposed settlement in a pending discrimination class action lawsuit. The complaint maintains that Wendy’s Pittsburgh-area restaurants have architectural barriers that limit access to wheelchair-bound individuals, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Plaintiff Christopher Mielo and Wendy’s reportedly reached the settlement on January 26th. Meilo, a mobility disabled man who regularly used a wheelchair to get around, filed the lawsuit in 2014, alleging that within the Pittsburgh area 17 Wendy’s restaurants had excessively sloped parking spaces and access aisles, accessibility barriers that make it difficult for wheelchair users to access the restaurant’s facilities independently. According to the lawsuit, these accessibility barriers are a violation of the ADA.

The lawsuit states, “The architectural barriers described above demonstrate that defendant’s facilities were not altered, designed or constructed in a manner that causes them to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals who use wheelchairs.”

Under the terms of the settlement, Wendy’s would be required to remove the alleged architectural barriers in order to come into compliance with ADA standards and requirements. More specific terms have not been made public.

The Wendy’s Wheelchair Access Class Action Lawsuit is Christopher Mielo v. Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00893, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.18.14 – Prime Healthcare, Wells Fargo, Compass Health

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories from Prime Healthcare, Wells Fargo and Compass Health.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Not Paid for Prime Time? What would the week be without an employment class action? This week, among several employment class actions filed, is one against Prime Healthcare Centinela LLC alleging California labor law violations, specifically underpayment of overtime and failure to provide meal and rest breaks to 400 employees at its 12 California hospitals.

In the Prime Healthcare class action, a social worker for Prime Healthcare’s subsidiary since March 2011, alleges “In violation of state law, defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations to compensate plaintiffs for all wages earned and all hours worked.” And “As a direct result, plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages.”

The lawsuit, Beauchamp et al. v. Prime Healthcare Centinela LLC et al., case number BC542351, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, claims that Prime Healthcare established policies under which hourly employees would be “taken off the clock” for a variety of reasons, including the indicating the end of a worker’s official shift or falsely accounting that a meal break was taken when the employee was actually forced to continue working.

According to the allegations, while Prime Healthcare frequently required its employees to work in excess of eight hours per day and over 40 hours per week, it failed to pay them one and a half times the regular hourly rate as required under California law.

Further, the lawsuit claims Prime Healthcare failed to provide its employees with accurate wage statements and failed to pay separated employees the amounts they were owed in a timely manner.

Beauchamp filed the lawsuit on behalf of all hourly, nonunionized social workers and others in similar positions, claiming the company established policies for employees to clock out when they were still working and did not compensate them for overtime hours worked.

The class action seeks to represent all hourly nonexempt social workers, discharge planners, case managers and others who worked for Prime Healthcare since April 2010, a class she estimates to include 400 people at 12 hospitals.

De-Fault of the Bank? Maybe…If the allegations in this new consumer banking and lending violations class action lawsuit prove true, then yes. Wells Fargo Bank NA is facing a potential lawsuit alleging it violated California consumer laws by billing late fees to, or foreclosing on, state homeowners who had loan modification applications pending with the bank. Something referred to as Dual Tracking. Read on.

The Wells Fargo lawsuit, Garcia et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al., case number 8:14-cv-00558, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges Wells Fargo practices “dual tracking”, which is when a bank pursues a foreclosure while simultaneously processing loan modifications. On January 1, 2013, the California Homeowner Bill of Rights was enacted, forbidding this behavior.

“Because the dual-tracking system prevents homeowners from being evaluated for appropriate loan modifications before foreclosure, it has resulted in many unnecessary foreclosures,” the lawsuit states.

Lead plaintiffs, Orange County residents Henry and Renee Garcia, allege they applied for a loan modification with Wells Fargo but that the bank charged them $840 in late fees and prepared to foreclose on the property before the application process was complete. The bank later rejected the application, verbally denied their appeal, and scheduled the home for trustee sale.

According to the lawsuit, the Garcias defaulted on the mortgage for their San Juan Capistrano, CA, home on March 6, 2013. The following month they submitted a loan modification application to Wells Fargo and over the next several months they stayed in frequent communication with bank officials.

However, simultaneous to the processing of the Garcias’ application Wells Fargo recorded a notice of trustee sale on their home, moving forward with the foreclosure process in violation of the state’s consumer protection law, according to the lawsuit. It wasn’t until the following January that the Garcias loan application was denied, according to the complaint. Garcias appealed, but the bank denied the appeal in February and scheduled a trustee sale of the property for March 5, 2014.

In their lawsuit, the Garcias seek to establish two classes: one for alleged victims of dual tracking and another for homeowners who were illegally charged late fees.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights’ restrictions on dual tracking and late fees and the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, unspecified damages and restitution, and injunctive relief forbidding the bank from engaging in the alleged activity.

Top Settlements

Next Time Ask for Directions? With a name like Compass, you’d think they’d already know how not to go astray… At any rate, here’s proof that employment class actions are worth the effort—a proposed $1.1 million settlement has been reached in a class action accusing Compass Health Inc. of California labor law violations, specifically of underpayment of overtime. Heard that one before?

Under the terms of the settlement, Compass would pay a net settlement amount of up to $700,500 to all members of the settlement class, which is approximately 2,500 current and former hourly nonexempt employees in California who worked for Compass Health between March 29, 2009 and January 6 2014.

According to the lawsuit, the workers alleged Compass miscalculated the regular rate of pay because it didn’t properly include the value of annual safety bonuses. They also claimed meal and rest period violations on the part of the defendant, as well as derivative penalty claims.

Court documents indicated that based on the number of valid claims filed, the average settlement payment would be about $425, with the highest payment being roughly $1,050, which is “an excellent result for the settlement class, particularly when compared to other, similar wage and hour class action settlements involving similar-wage workers.”

Ok—Let’s celebrate that news—Happy Easter—and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.11.14 – Dog Treats, Hilton Hotels, Actos

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include deadly dog treats, Hilton hotels and Actos diabetes drug settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Dog treats manufacturer to be treated to a little justice perhaps? IMS Trading Corp, aka IMS Pet Industries—maker of Cadet duck jerky treats, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging it sold products containing duck jerky imported from China that caused dogs to become sick or die. The dog treat lawsuit alleges the company, IMS Trading Corp, aka IMS Pet Industries, is in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and is guilty of unjust enrichment as they falsely assured consumers through the product packaging that the treats were healthy for dogs. Several unnamed companies involved in the manufacture and sale of the dog treats are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff, Marie Dopico, who owns several small dogs, alleges her dogs nearly died after she fed them Cadet duck jerky dog treats she bought in October from a ShopRite grocery store in New Jersey. She claims she had to pay veterinary expenses and other related costs to save her dogs’ lives.

The proposed lawsuit claims that there could be thousands of plaintiffs, as other consumers in New Jersey and across the US have suffered similar damages as a result of defendants’ conduct. The putative class and subclass includes consumers who, up to six years prior to the January filing of the lawsuit, purchased IMS dog treats and whose dogs got sick or died as a result of consuming the allegedly unhealthy and dangerous treats.

According to the lawsuit, the packaging for IMS’ dog treats allegedly states the products do not contain artificial colors, additives, fillers or by-products. The packaging also states that the treats are “healthy and natural treats with only the finest ingredients.” The same claims are found on the company’s website, the plaintiffs allege.

The lawsuit states that in November 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration issued warnings stating that dogs can become ill after eating treats containing duck jerky made in China. The agency has said that more than 3,600 dogs in the US have become ill after eating Chinese jerky treats. This information was not fully disclosed on the company’s website, plaintiffs allege, and they accuse the defendants of hiding the warnings to increase or maintain sales.

“No reasonable person would feed dog treats to their dogs knowing that there was a substantial risk of death or illness from doing so,” the lawsuit states. “Dog owners consider their pets to be members of the family, and become very distressed when their dogs pass away or become seriously ill.”

Hey—no reasonable manufacturer would consider producing food that makes animals ill.

Hilton not honoring wage & hour laws? Maybe. They got hit with a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit this week, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California labor law Act. In addition to Hilton Worldwide, named defendants include Doubletree LLC, and Crestline Hotels and Resorts LLC.

Filed by Nelson Chico, the Hilton wage & hour lawsuit, entitled Nelson Chico v. Hilton Worldwide Inc. et al., case number BC541043 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleges failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal or rest breaks. Chico, a former employee, claims the defendants also allowed or required employees to work off the clock.

Further, the lawsuit states the defendants failed to provide itemized statements for each pay period, failed to keep accurate records and failed to compensate employees for necessary expenditures.

Heads up people—the potential employment class action seeks to represent aggrieved employees who worked for the defendants within the past four years.

Top Settlements

Actos maker ordered to pay up huge. Japanese drug maker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, got hit with a heart-attack inducing jury award this week—they were ordered to pay $6 billion in punitive damages in settlement of allegations the company concealed information regarding the risk for cancer associated with its diabetes drug Actos. Eli Lilly and Co, a co-defendant in the case, was ordered to pay $3 billion in punitive damages and $1.45 in compensatory damages by the jury in Louisiana on Monday.

According to Lilly, 75 percent of the liability was allocated to Takeda and 25 percent to Lilly. Takeda plans to dispute the awards, stating that judgments were entered in its favor in all three previous Actos trials. This was the first federal case to be tried in a consolidated multidistrict litigation comprising more than 2,900 lawsuits. Germany and France suspended use of the drug in 2011 due to concerns of a possible link to cancer.

More to come on this? Very possibly. Stay tuned.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.21.14 – Fitbit, McDonald’s, Canon

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Fitbit Force, McDonald’s and Canon.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Fitbit ‘n Burn? We all know the benefits of exercise, and let’s face it—anything we can find to help motivate us has to be a good thing, right? This week, the makers of an activity tracker got hit with a class action…Fitbit, the manufacturer of the Fitbit Force, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over advertising claims that the device is an “advanced activity tracker.” The device was recalled following reports of skin irritation including blisters, rashes, burns and more. The firm has received about 9,900 reports of the wristband causing skin irritation and about 250 reports of blistering.

According to the lawsuit, Fitbit advertised that the Force is a safe, comfortable, nonhazardous device but at no time during the promotion or marketing of the Force product did Fitbit warn its customers or the general public of any adverse health consequences.

“Fitbit promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed and sold the Fitbit as a health and wellness product to consumers specifically interested in tracking, monitoring, measuring, and improving their overall health and wellness,” the lawsuit states. “When worn and operated as intended, the Force product causes physical injuries included but not limited to skin irritation, rashes, burns, blisters, cuts, boils, open wounds, redness, itching, cracking, peeling, or any other physical injuries.”

The lawsuit, entitled The case is Jim Spivey v. Fitbit Inc. et al., case number 37-2014-00007109, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, seeks class action status and damages for consumers who bought the Force as a result of Fitbit’s alleged misrepresentations about the product’s safety.

More for McDonald’s….McDonald’s got served with two wage and hour class action action lawsuits in Michigan claiming the fast food giant is systematically stealing employees’ wages by forcing them to work off the clock, shaving hours off their time cards, and not paying them overtime among other practices.

In the lawsuits, filed against McDonald’s Corp., its U.S. subsidiary and two Detroit-area franchisees, workers assert McDonald’s regularly forces workers to show up for work at a scheduled time but then has them wait without pay until the store gets busy enough, and that it routinely violates minimum wage laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan’s minimum wage law.

The suits contend that, using McDonald’s franchisor standards and corporation-provided software, McDonald’s franchisees closely monitor the ratio of labor costs to revenues. When it exceeds a corporate-set target, managers tell workers arriving for their shifts to wait for up to an hour to clock in, and sometimes direct workers who have already clocked in for scheduled shifts to clock out for extended breaks until the target ratio is again achieved. Workers are not paid for these wait times, and McDonald’s Corporation knowingly tolerates this practice, in violation of federal labor law.

The lawsuits also allege that McDonald’s forces its low-paid workers to buy their own uniforms. Because McDonald’s restaurants pay at or near the minimum wage, this drives some workers’ real wages below the legal minimum, in violation of federal labor law.

Top Settlements

Canon Techs Win preliminary wage and hour settlement… Preliminary approval has been granted for a $4.4 million settlement in a wage and hour class action lawsuit pending against Canon Business Solutions. The lawsuit was brought by a group of service technicians who alleged the defendant docked workers for lunch breaks they didn’t take and failed to pay them for overtime worked.

The lawsuit, Steven Jones, et al. v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc, case number 2:12-cv-07195, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was filed by named plaintiffs Steven Jones and Javier Crespo, who will each receive $8,500 in incentive awards. Filed in July 2012, the lawsuit claims Canon violated New York labor law as well as California labor laws, in addition to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiffs also allege that Canon’s time-keeping system automatically accounted for breaks of 45 minutes, even in the event the service technicians took shorter breaks. In some cases, the lawsuit contends, the workers “took no meal period because [Canon’s] practice of scheduling work assignments, and its own directives to [the workers], did not permit them to take those meal breaks.” Even in that instance, they said, Canon docked the workers’ pay.

The settlement, if approved, will establish a fund of $4.4 million for the service technicians in the class, and lawyers’ fees. Cha Ching!

According to the terms of the settlement, there are three classes of eligible plaintiffs, namely: New York, service technicians who worked in that state at any time from October 9, 2006, until March 14, 2014; California, service technicians who worked in that state at any time between July 19, 2008, and March 14, 2014; and FLSA, those who worked as service technicians in any other state from June 12, 2010, through to March 14, 2014.

A final hearing is set for September.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.14.14 – McDonald’s, Geico, Suave Professionals

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including top stories from McDonald’s, Geico and Suave Professionals Hair Care.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Mickey D’s served up a supersized set of wage and hour class action lawsuits…Yup McDonald’s workers in California, Michigan and New York this week filed wage and hour class action lawsuits in federal and state courts claiming the fast food giant is systematically stealing employees’ wages by forcing them to work off the clock, shaving hours off their time cards, and not paying them overtime among other practices

In three California wage and hour suits, workers claim that McDonald’s and its franchise owners failed to pay them for all time worked, failed to pay proper overtime, altered pay records and deprived them of timely meal periods and rest breaks. A fourth case makes similar claims on behalf of a statewide class of workers in McDonald’s corporate-owned restaurants, who are adding their claims to a lawsuit for unpaid wages, penalties, and other relief that is already pending against McDonald’s in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In two Michigan lawsuits, filed against McDonald’s Corp., its U.S. subsidiary and two Detroit-area franchisees, workers assert McDonald’s regularly forces workers to show up for work at a scheduled time but then has them wait without pay until the store gets busy enough, and that it routinely violates minimum wage laws.

The lawsuits contend that, using McDonald’s franchisor standards and corporation-provided software, McDonald’s franchisees closely monitor the ratio of labor costs to revenues. When it exceeds a corporate-set target, managers tell workers arriving for their shifts to wait for up to an hour to clock in, and sometimes direct workers who have already clocked in for scheduled shifts to clock out for extended breaks until the target ratio is again achieved. Workers are not paid for these wait times, and McDonald’s Corporation knowingly tolerates this practice, in violation of federal labor law.

The case filed in New York federal court seeks to redress McDonald’s blatant failure to compensate and reimburse workers at its New York stores for the time and cost of cleaning uniforms which McDonald’s requires them to wear and to keep clean.

The plaintiffs contend that McDonald’s failure to reimburse employees for uniform cleaning violates the New York state requirement to pay workers weekly for uniform maintenance and often also violates both federal and New York state state minimum wage laws.

FYI McDonald’s reportedly brought in nearly $5.6 billion in profits last year, so why the problem with paying its employees?

Geico policy of bad faith? A Geico class action lawsuit, alleging bad faith insurance has been filed against the auto insurance giant in New York federal court. The lawsuit claims the insurer “deliberately and systematically” misrepresented information about the plaintiffs’ accident histories and risk tiers to stop them from going to competitors. Really?

The New York class action alleges Geico either assigned “at-fault” status to policyholders who bore no reasonability for the accidents or misclassified their risk tiers.

“As a result of Geico’s misclassification schemes, plaintiffs and the class have had difficulties purchasing insurance from other insurance companies, have been captive to Geico, and have paid inflated premiums,” the lawsuit states. Well, that’s the last time I believe a cute little gecko.

But let’s not stop there—a second bad faith class action was filed against a unit of Geico Corp, alleging the company has been arbitrarily denying personal injury protection claims for years. The Geico lawsuit claims the defendant uses software that reduces or eliminates claims payments without “reasonable basis or justification.”

Filed in Delaware Chancery Court, by plaintiff Yvonne Green, the complaint states that the only factors taken into consideration by the fully automated PIP claims-processing system Geico General Insurance Co, uses are the date of an accident and the date and geographic location of medical treatment.

“By employing these rules to deny benefits, Geico violates Delaware law and breaches its contractual and legal obligations,” the lawsuit states. “The only justification for Geico’s conduct is to contain Geico’s costs and to maximize Geico’s profits.”

The lawsuit, (Green v. Geico General Insurance Co., case number 9431), further claims Geico makes no effort to determine what a reasonable fee ought to be for a specific doctor providing a particular treatment but has a computer system that sets a “hidden cap” at the 80th percentile of what the insurer has been charged by other medical providers. Instead, price recommendations are generated by the software based on a provider’s location. However, it doesn’t consider other factors such as a doctor’s level of expertise, inflation, rent or cost of staff, the lawsuit states.

Green further alleges that claims for certain passive treatments that occur eight weeks after an accident are automatically denied without any review by an actual agent.

“Geico uses this rule even though it has information that treatment and healing times for injuries vary,” the lawsuit states. “Further, Geico enforces this rule without making any inquiry into facts or treatment.”

Green is basing her complaint on her 2011 car accident in which she sutained injuries. She alleges her PIP benefits were denied despite having submitted records detailing her injuries and that they were related to the crash, and that her treatment was reasonable.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a proposed class of plaintiffs who, three years prior to the filing and up to the date of final judgment, had claims on Delaware policies that were either reduced or denied under similar circumstances, according to the complaint.

Top Settlements

Get a little more than you bargained for with Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit? Like scalp injuries? If so, you may be interested to know that a settlement has been reached in the defective product personal injury class action lawsuit pending against Unilever United States, Inc. (“Unilever”) and two other companies (collectively, “Defendants”). The Suave lawsuit represents customers who purchased or used the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit (“Smoothing Kit”) in the United States before February 17, 2014. FYI—the kits must have been purchased for personal or household use.

The allegations are that Unilever misled consumers into purchasing and using the Smoothing Kit by making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of the Smoothing Kit, and by failing to disclose that the Smoothing Kit posed an unreasonable risk of hair and/or scalp injury when used by consumers in accordance with the product warnings and instructions, or when misused by consumers in ways that were foreseeable. All Defendants deny that they did anything wrong and deny that the Smoothing Kit posed an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers. Of course.

The settlement includes a one-time reimbursement of up to $10 and/or reimbursement for the costs of treating class members who suffered bodily injury to their hair or scalp, and who does not timely request exclusion.

For complete details on how to file a claim, visit: http://suave30daysmoothingkitlawsuit.com/info/claim.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 2.21.14 – Minor League Baseball, Jimmy John’s, Royal Bank of Scotland

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements, including actions against Minor League Baseball, Jimmy John’s gourmet sandwich shops and Royal Bank of Scotland.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Minor League Baseball Players Hoping for Home Run? A federal class action lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of minor league baseball players who allege they are paid less than the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) federal minimum wage. Aaron Senne, former Marlins player and lead plaintiff in class action, together with Co-plaintiffs Michael Liberto and San Jose Giants pitcher Oliver Odle filed the lawsuit, which claims: “Most minor leaguers earn between $3,000 and $7,500 for the entire year despite routinely working over 50 hours per week (and sometimes 70 hours per week) during the roughly five-month championship season. They receive no overtime pay, and instead routinely receive less than minimum wage during the championship season.” Who knew?

Here’s the skinny—according to the minor league class action—“Since minor leaguers do not belong to a union, nothing has prevented the defendants from artificially and illegally depressing minor league wages. Indeed, MLB’s exemption from antitrust laws has only made it easier. Given that MLB carefully controls the entryway into the highest levels of baseball, and given the young minor leaguer’s strong desire to enter the industry, MLB and the defendants have exploited minor leaguers by paying salaries below minimum wage, by not paying overtime wages, and by often paying no wages at all.” The lawsuit is seeking class certification and damages for FLSA minimum wage and overtime violations, recordkeeping requirements, state wage and hour violations, payday requirements, waiting time penalties, itemized wage statement violations, unfair business practices and quantum meruit.

The plaintiffs are also seeking an injunction preventing the defendants from implementing their unlawful practices and requiring them to pay all wages pursuant to state and federal law.

The named plaintiffs all wish to represent to Minor League Collective class, and classes that play in Florida, North Carolina and New York (Senne), Arizona (Liberto), and California (Odle). This should be interesting.

Is Jimmy Johns Under-Delivering on Wages? The delivery drivers think so. They filed a federal unpaid wage and hour class action lawsuit against Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwich shop this week. In fact, it was filed by Scott Lewis of Witchita, a delivery driver from Witchita, Kansas. The Jimmy John’s lawsuit alleges that Bushwood Investments LLC, which owns and operates more than 30 Jimmy John’s restaurants throughout the country, failed to properly compensate its 300 delivery drivers for the use of their own vehicles, and numerous other allegations. Read on.

According to the lawsuit (Lewis v. Bushwood Investments LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-02610, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas), Bushwood, which operates more than 30 Jimmy John’s restaurants across the country, makes its delivery drivers “use their own automobiles to deliver sandwiches and other food items to customers…Instead of compensating delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, defendant used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates.”

“[Jimmy John’s] delivery drivers incur costs for gasoline, vehicle parts and fluids, automobile repair and maintenance services, automobile insurance, depreciation, and cell phone use while delivering sandwiches for the primary benefit of the defendant,” the lawsuit states.

AND—the lawsuit states that Jimmy John’s delivery drivers are allegedly required to cover the costs of maintaining their vehicles in safe and in good working condition as well as paying for insurance coverage for the automobiles.

AND the lawsuit claims that Jimmy John’s does not reimburse its delivery drivers for insurance costs nor does it provide its drivers with GPS systems to use while driving but rather leaves drivers to rely on GPS systems the driver’s cell phones, for which they are also not reimbursed. Additionally, the lawsuit claims the defendant pays its employees through direct deposit or a payroll card from inTrust Bank, and so do not receive a paycheck stub which details how deductions and reimbursements are made. In order to get this information, the drivers must make special requests from the defendant.

Top Settlements

RBS Pays Up on Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud….A consumer financial fraud class action lawsuit pending against Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC has reached preliminary settlement,with the bank agreeing to pay $275 million.

The lawsuit was brought by New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund et al against the financial institution alleging it misled investors regarding mortgage-backed securities.

Specifically, the lawsuit relates to over $15 billion of the issued mortgage-backed securities which the plaintiffs claimed were sold despite not meeting underwriting guidelines. No comment.

Ok—that’s it for this week—see you at the bar!