Top Class Actions
Coulda Used Employee Directory Assistance? Seems the masters of directory assistance could’ve used some help with their own employee directory—or at least with how they classified certain employees. So, they finally called “overtime” on unpaid overtime at AT&T and its subsidiaries BellSouth Telecommunications Co, and Pacific Bell Telephone Co. The telecom giant got hit with a couple of class action lawsuits this week, alleging that they withheld as much as $1 billion in overtime wages from 5,000 plus first level managers who worked for PacBell in the states where BellSouth does business.
Although most of us can likely guess what the charges are, just for the record AT&T allegedly violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as California State Laws by deliberately misclassifying thousands (yes, thousands) of level one managers as being exempt from overtime wages. Yeah, that would probably save shareholders a bundle. Other allegations include not paying for meal and rest breaks—how predictable.
So, who’s eligible? There are two classes:
1) The “Off-the-clock” class consists of “All First Level (or Level One Managers) employed by BellSouth from December 2006 and thereafter who were assigned technicians as direct reports and who were classified by the company as non-exempt employees under the FLSA.”
2) The misclassification class consists of “all First Level (or Level One Managers) employed by BellSouth from December 2006 and thereafter who were assigned technicians as direct reports and who were classified by the company as exempt employees under the FLSA.”
We’re Sorry, the Number You Have Dialed…allegedly ain’t a part of our plan. This one was all over the media this week. MetroPCS has been accused of false advertising— dare we say downright misleading advertising—around its ‘unlimited international calling plan.’
The advertising went something like $5 a month on top of the $45 per month flat fee will get you unlimited international calling. Well, if it sounds too good to be true…Apparently, MetroPCS neglected to mention that the international calling plan excluded calls to many foreign destinations.
So, a class action has been filed, but has yet to be certified, representing anyone who purchased the aforementioned calling plan without knowing that it was pretty much bogus (my words, not theirs). The class period is between June 1, 2009 through and including December 9, 2009.
Top Settlements
Cleaning Solution? Cintas laundry workers in LA got an early Christmas present this week, with the announcement of a $6.5 million settlement of their class action against the industrial launderer, but it does need to be approved in court.
The suit had alleged that Cintas violated the City of Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance. It was filed in 2004. I’ll bet those workers thought the suit would never end—that’s nearly six years of litigation…
The settlement is reportedly the largest monetary amount ever paid for alleged violations of a living wage ordinance. It includes $3.3 million in back wages and interest for more than 500 Southern California Cintas laundry workers at the company’s Ontario, Pico Rivera, and Whittier locations.
But this isn’t a new thing for Cintas. Approximately one year ago, the company had to fork over $1.4 million in back wages, interest and penalties to hundreds of their laundry workers in Northern California—for—you guessed it—violating another city’s Living Wage Ordinance.
That’s it for this week. See you at the bar!
RE: “We’re Sorry, the Number You Have Dialed…allegedly ain’t a part of our plan.”
This lawsuit is completely bogus and unfounded. I have a number of friends that have metro’s international plan and for most of them the international plan was the single reason they became MetroPCS customers….and they love it.
“So, a class action has been filed, but has yet to be certified, representing anyone who purchased the aforementioned calling plan without knowing that it was pretty much bogus”
This suit will most likely be DOA.
Why don’t you do a little research before you start forming these assumptions?
On metro’s site it clearly states that the international plan is for 100 countries. In addition, on their site they have a phone number lookup application that enables potential customers to input an international number to see if it is covered under the plan.
http://www.metropcs.com/ild/findrate.aspx
From MetroPCS.com:
“Unlimited International Calling
To determine if Unlimited International Calling is available for your calling destination, simply enter the phone number you wish to call in the field below and click the search button.
Instructions:
Enter your destination phone number in the Search box below in this format: 011 + country code + city code + phone number (Ex. 0111212312345)
For calls to the US, Canada, or the Caribbean enter 1 + area code + phone number (Ex. 11231231234).”
Hi J, Thanks for your comment. While I appreciate that MetroPCS does have that phone number lookup function, I think the issue is not about whether you can go look up a number. You mention that the Metro site "clearly states that the international plan is for 100 countries." Well, not to mince words (and perhaps you should go back and do some more research on the site), but the actual headline is this: "Unlimited international calling to over 100 countries worldwide!" (my bold) And, as anyone who's logged part of their career in advertising knows, the proverbial asterisk with its little mice type footnote down below is the go-to pre-emptive escape hatch for situations such as this. The folks at MetroPCS didn't seem to think that was necessary–i.e., to include a footnote disclaimer to alert folks to the countries/locations that are not included in the "unlimited calling". Even their FAQs don't spell out what locations are not included.
I'm not here to be the arbiter of whether this lawsuit will go forward or not–we're just reporting that the lawsuit's been filed. And, in my response to your comment, I'm only presenting the "other side of the coin" and that MetroPCS–from a purely marketing/advertising perspective could've stepped up to the plate a bit more. I'm glad your friends are highly satisfied with MetroPCS' plan.
All MetroPCS employees whenever we offer the International LD plan, inform the customers to check the phone numbers they are calling at http://www.metropcs.com/ild to see if it's part of the plan or not. If it's not, we can take it away from their bill. When customers inquire about certain countries, we inform them about certain countries not included i.e. Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, Ecuador, etc. We always advice the customers to check http://www.metropcs.com/ild to make sure thay can call their destination and since we are a "No Contract" company, we can take away the $5.00 charge without any penalties. Thank you and Happy Holidays
Hi Metro411, Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your customer service efforts on the back end–but, why not just apprise potential customers of the countries/locations included in the plan (or not) at the get-go?…i.e., right in the advertising–before the customer has to make a phone call to you–or worse, request a billing adjustment? I respect the fact that you “do right” by the customer once they pick up a phone to call your call center–but you may well have fewer calls to respond to if MetroPCS were more straight-up in promoting the service. Happy Holidays back at you.