Class Action Finder » Employment

Wal-Mart class action given the green light

yuming — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:40:57 +0000

Massachusetts Wal-Mart employees and former staff sued the retail giant in a class action law suit in 2001 for allegedly withholding their wages and cutting their breaks short.

The case was delayed in 2006 after a Middlesex Superior Court judge refused to certify the class action suit and tossed out some evidence. But in Sept 2008, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court overturned that ruling, and the case is now moving forward again.

Attorney Robert Bonsignore of law firm Bonsignore & Brewer is representing the Massachusetts workers, and some of their colleagues who filed similar complaints in other states.

He said the class action includes anyone who worked at Wal-Mart for an hourly wage and the case could go to trial within nine months. Furthermore, the ruling shows that the courts are willing to take the types of allegations made against Wal-Mart seriously.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in its ruling, recognized that Wal-Mart store managers are under a lot of pressure to increase profits by minimizing labor costs.

According to the ruling, store managers are rewarded for keeping salary costs low, and are penalized bonuses or even their jobs if their stores spend beyond Wal-Mart payroll guidelines.

“It makes it clear that at least in Massachusetts the unfair competitive advantage that Wal-Mart has had over other business is not going to be tolerated,” Bonsignore said. “This is not only a victory for the employees, it’s a victory for small and large competitors.”

Wal-Mart, meanwhile, says its policy is to pay workers for all their hours and notes that the verdict was not a decision on the merits of the case.

Bonsignore countered that it is logical to treat the case as a class action. He said if the case succeeds most plaintiffs will probably get awards of just $500 to $1,500, hardly enough to warrant filing individual lawsuits.

Wal-Mart staff win wage-and-hour class action suit

yuming — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:19:41 +0000

In July 2008, Wal-Mart lost a $6.5 million class action lawsuit in a Minnesota court after an arduous three-month trial. A state court judge ruled that Wal-Mart broke state labor laws more than two million times because the supermarket chain failed to provide its employees proper rest breaks. The damages were awarded to approximately 56,000 Wal-Mart employees in Minnesota.

This ruling takes place after a $172 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart in California in 2005 and a $78 million jury verdict in Pennsylvania in 2006. Both cases are being appealed.

A Wal-Mart spokesperson released a statement about the case, “We are pleased that the court in Minnesota ruled in Wal-Mart’s favor on many points before, during, and after trial. We respectfully disagree with portions of the decision. As part of the order, the court invited both parties to file an appeal, and we are considering that option.”

Houston legal eagle Susman Godfrey represented Wal-Mart in both trials and is leading the appeals as well.

There were some positive outcomes for Wal-Mart’s ruling, where the judge did not award the entire $25 million sought by plaintiffs, and found millions fewer violations than the class had alleged.

But the supermarket giant still has a second trial on breaking state labor laws. Minnesota’s statute provides for fines of up to $1,000 per violation of state labor law, so Wal-Mart may have to pay out more than $2 billion.

However, this amount of money will go to the state of Minnesota and not to class members. The jury at the second trial, scheduled to begin in October, will also consider punitive damages, which will go to the class.

Lawyers for the class view the judge’s ruling as a victory for the plaintiffs, even though the class did not get everything they sought after.

On top of the continuing Minnesota trial, Wal-Mart has to deal with at least five more wage-and-hour trials in the next year and a half.

Former Ralph Lauren staff launch class action lawsuit

yuming — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:30:30 +0000

Class action status was granted to four ex-employees of fashion house Polo Ralph Lauren. This compensation suit has the potential to let approximately 5,300 workers to participate in the case.

The complaint states that Polo Ralph Lauren failed to provide rest breaks, wrongly categorized all sales staff as commission-based earners who were excluded from receiving overtime pay and also unfairly used an arrears system that often reduced commission earnings.

San Francisco Judge Susan Ilston certified the case as a class action after hearing testimonies by the four former employees who brought the suit. She further divided two subclasses of plaintiffs: sales employees mislabeled as commissioned salespeople and sales staff that the company took back earned wages through its arrears program. Members of each category could win separate damages.

The class action certification includes any cashier or sales associate who faced this alleged violation from May 30 2002, to the present. According to court documents, Polo Ralph Lauren has 28 stores in the state.

According to the charges filed in May 2006, employees at the stores were discouraged or prevented from taking breaks. They also had to go through bag checks for stolen merchandise after they had clocked out. Apparently, they were kept after work in locked stores for as long as half an hour while their purses and bags were examined to make sure they weren’t stealing. The plaintiffs said they were not compensated for the time they were detained.

Both parties were ordered to enter mediation for the next 45 days, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys are willing to litigate if necessary. Patrick Kitchin, who is representing the plaintiffs, is a well-known attorney who previously successfully led other class actions from employees.

A spokesperson for Polo Ralph Lauren said that the company did not wish to comment on this at all.

For more information on the lawsuit, go to www.poloclassaction.com

Class action claims Sprint Nextel violated overtime labor laws

yuming — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:13:11 +0000

America’s number three mobile phone carrier Sprint Nextel failed to pay their retail store employees overtime wages.

Filed in the state of Illinois, the complaint alleges that Sprint avoided overtime payouts by failing to record the actual time their retail staff worked.

The class members are seeking back pay, damages, and legal fees.

According to Sprint’s spokesman Matthew Sullivan, “Sprint’s practices comply with federal and state law regarding payment of overtime wages. We are confident that the plaintiff in this case was paid accurately for the time worked.”

Representing the plaintiffs is the Progressive Law Group L.L.C., which has offices in Chicago and Madison.

The law firm also filed a class-action lawsuit against Sprint Nextel over text message charges.

Nortel faces pension lawsuit in Ontario

yuming — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:07:22 +0000

Telecommunications equipment maker Nortel Networks Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit because of the changes the company made to its pension plan in 2006.

The class action seeks compensation due to Nortel’s “failure to provide to their employees reasonable notice of the changes to the pension plan.”

The employees also claim the company doesn’t plan to consider future salary increments beyond Jan. 1 when it tallied the value of pension benefits.

The exact number of employees involved in the lawsuit and the procedure for handling claims by individual employees has not been determined nor has this case been certified as a class action lawsuit.

The suit was filed with Ontario Superior Court on Tuesday on behalf of Nortel employees from across Canada.

This is not the first time Nortel is dealing with a class action lawsuit. In 2004, it had a securities lawsuit filed against it.

Sun Microsystems sued in overtime class action

yuming — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:47:32 +0000

Technology giant Sun Microsystems, which makes software, servers, and other technical products, is being sued by its technical writers for overtime wages in Santa Clara county.

Although Sun’s technical writers may earn $100,000 annually, they are still challenging their company’s labor policies and are demanding for overtime pay.

Lead plaintiff Dani Hoenemier claims she put in as much as 60 hours a week Sun when the company released new products.

In 2006, Hoenemier resigned from Sun. The company allegedly told her to improve her performance after she complained about not being paid overtime.

The class period starts in 2002 and the class action lawsuit is pursuing millions of dollars in compensation on behalf of almost 300 technical writers.

Sun argued back with the reasoning that their technical writers are well-paid, professionals who are legally excluded from overtime rules because they are highly skilled, work independently and meet other criteria stated in the law.

According to Hoenemier’s attorney, Aaron Kaufmann of Walnut Creek, Sun could stand to lose approximately $20 million in back pay.

In 2000, California implemented a controversial legislation that exempted “computer professionals” such as software developers from requiring overtime pay if they worked over 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day.

Kaufmann argues that technical writers should not be considered as exempted from overtime pay.

However, it was reported that many of the writers refuse to be seen as hourly workers and have declined to be included in the lawsuit. Sun has fought back in court with the reasoning that this should not be a class action because technical writers do not all have the same duties.

Superior Court Judge Jack Komar disagreed with Sun but he also, Hoenemier’s lawyers to look for a second employee willing to be a co-plaintiff in the case.

HSBC sued for violating labor laws in California

yuming — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:56:12 +0000

Former HSBC employee Steven Levy is suing British bank HSBC for not compensating employees in overtime pay and for missing lunch breaks in California.

Law firm Nichols Kaster & Anderson is representing the lead plaintiff and is seeking class action status for the wage violations.

The complaint is against the misclassification of job positions that are exempt from collecting overtime pay, but should in fact, have the right to be compensated.

Levy and his lawyers alleged that the positions “personal banking officers”, “premier relationship managers”, “small business specialists” and “business banking specialists” should not be excluded from the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act because these four roles are sales-oriented and sell the bank products, like credit cards and loans.

Levy was a personal banking officer and premier relationship manager at HSBC’s Beverly Hills office.

The lawsuit also charges that the bank did not compensate tellers, personal bankers, consumer bankers and misclassified staff when they missed meals, even though HSBC was required to do so by Californian law.

This is the second labor lawsuit against HSBC by employment law firm Nichols Kaster & Anderson. The first one was fairly similar, which concerned loan officers and sales assistants.

The law firm is seeking more class members in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to expand the class action suit.

HSBC declined to comment on their part of the lawsuit.

3M age discrimination suit given class action status

yuming — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:17:59 +0000

A lawsuit was filed against 3M Co. for age discrimination by five plaintiffs three years ago and has been granted class action status last week in a Ramsey County court.

The Maplewood-based company allegedly preferred younger employees by giving them higher pay, promotions and training. The termination policies were highly unfavorable to older staff. When the lawsuit was filed, 3M Co. was run by former CEO Jim McNerney.

This complaint could include as many as 6,000 current and former employees are over 45 years old.

The class members are represented by Michael Lieder, an attorney for Sprenger & Lang in Washington, D.C., who stated, “We believe that the type of environment created by 3M is detrimental to business in general and to employees.”

3M has admitted to no wrongdoing and believes that these claims are groundless. The manufacturing giant will fight the case.

Starbucks appealing against tip-sharing class action

yuming — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:26:07 +0000

In reaction to last week’s ruling that ordered Starbucks to pay California baristas $100 million for tips they had to share with their shift supervisors, the coffee giant is appeal the court decision.

CEO Howard Schultz announced to employees in a voicemail message, “The ruling would take away the right of shift supervisors to receive the tips they earn for providing superior customer service.”

In this same statement released by Starbucks, Schultz criticized the media for “grossly mischaracteriz[ing]” the coffee chain’s system of letting shift supervisors to share in tips left for baristas.

He also said, “We would never condone any type of behavior that would lead anyone to conclude that we would take money from our people.”

Following the California suit, two similar lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts and Minnesota.

The debate surrounds the grey area that shift supervisors fall in — their role crosses over two positions. They make and serve coffee like baristas, but they also direct baristas, set schedules, and take on other managerial work. According to California labor law, tips can be pooled together and distributed among employees, cannot be shared with restaurant owners and their “agents”, who are typically managers or supervisors.

Starbucks argued that this difference in roles is not obvious to the customer, so the shift supervisors should be entitled to the tips.

The original suit was filed in 2004 and was given class-action status in 2006. The California lawsuit was filed in 2004, and was granted class-action status in 2006.

There is a hearing locked in for May 1, 2008 to determine how the California tip money should be distributed.

Walgreen to pay out $24 million discrimination settlement

yuming — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:48:34 +0000

U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy has approved Walgreen’s offer to make a $24 million settlement for a class action suit alleging racial discrimination in its employment practices.

America’s largest drugstore chain will pay approximately 10,000 African American current and former employees.

Walgreen has 230,000 workers in its 6,237 stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico, Bruce said.

It was only last March that 14 African American past and present employees filed the class action lawsuit. The charges were that the Deerfield, Illinois-based company showed bias when making employment and assignment decisions. African American managers, management trainees and pharmacists were posted to low-performing stores and to shops in black neighborhoods, which in turn prevented them from receiving promotions.

The ruling also includes hiring external consultants to review and recommend standardized, non-discriminatory promotion criterion and store assignment procedures.

However, Walgreen still does not admit to doing any wrong. Since July 2007, the chain has been implementing the ruling’s requirements.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a California-based law firm will oversee Walgreen’s observance of the decree, with Murphy presiding over jurisdiction for the next five years, according the EEOC.