Today’s Groupon Discount: $8.5 Million

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Brooke Palm
Expired Groupon Coupons

When did my Groupon expire?

A class action lawsuit against Groupon has been settled for $8.5 million.  Groupon partners with other retailers or businesses to sell coupons for services or products at discounted prices.  The offer to purchase the Groupon is only good for a limited time period.

The lawsuit alleged that the expiration dates on Groupon coupons were in violation of the 2009 Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Electronic Funds Transfer Act requires expiration dates of over five years from purchase.

Groupon coupons typically have an expiration date a few months after purchase.

The complaint also argued that Groupon’s practice of pressuring consumers to purchase the coupons soon or they will not be able to get the discount was illegal.

The crux of the allegation is that Groupon customers purchase the coupons and never use them before the expiration date. This leaves the consumer with a useless discount coupon. Consequently, the sellers enjoy a windfall from the receipts of the unused coupons.

The complaint argued the expiration dates were deceptive. In California gift cards and other items purchased in advance cannot carry an expiration date.

The class action litigation consisted of 17 different lawsuits which were consolidated as one class action case.

The U.S. District Court still needs to approve the settlement.

Have you ever lost out on a Groupon coupon due to an expired expiration date?

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Car Wash Employee’s History of Getting Soaked

Posted on March 20, 2012 by Brooke Palm
Car wash employee lawsuits

Car wash employee class action lawsuits

The car wash industry is notorious for violating state labor codes and for shoddy record keeping. Recent class action lawsuits against car wash companies have shown that employee’s rights are systematically being violated.

Back in 2008 in Nashville, Shur-Brite car wash was sued for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act wage and hour laws. Workers were clocked in by management when the car wash was busy and then clocked out when there were no customers.

In some instances, employees would be at work for over 40 hours in a week but get paid for only 15. Workers could be clocked in and out over a dozen times in a day.

The employees sued for back pay due to the unfair and illegal timecard practices. The final settlement of $130,000 went to 120 current and former employees.

California has also seen its share of class action suits against car washes.

In 2010, two Los Angeles car wash owners were sentenced to jail for labor law violations. The two owners, brothers Benny and Nissan Pirian plead guilty to conspiracy, grand theft and labor code violations in the treatment of their employees.

Workers at the Pirian brothers car washes were expected to arrive at least 15 minutes early and stay for at least a half hour after closing. None of the workers were paid overtime. Employees also contended that their employer denied them rest breaks throughout the day.

The Pirians additionally violated minimum-wage laws by paying their employees $35 to $40 a day with some employees working only for tips.

Recently three more car wash owners are being sued for violations of the California Labor Code. The three Los Angeles based companies, Rosecrans King Car Wash, Wilshire Car Wash and Vermont Auto Spa, are being accused of record keeping violations.

The employers are accused of failing to properly and accurately keep employee records and failing to provide workers with an itemized wage deduction statement. By not providing an itemized wage deduction statement, employees have no way to verify if the pay they are receiving is correct or if they have been paid for all hours worked. This is commonly known as wage theft.

These lawsuits share several egregious violations of basic employee rights – the right to be paid for the hours worked, the right to rest breaks and the right for accurate record keeping.

Have you ever been or are you currently a victim of wage theft?

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News, Employee Rights | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How the National Labor Relations Board Protects your Rights

Posted on February 8, 2012 by Brooke Palm

Know your rights as an employeeThe National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is in charge of enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing the protection of rights for both employees and employers in the private sector.

The National Labor Relations Act was signed during the height of the Great Depression on July 5, 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt.  At that time President Roosevelt stated that the law sought to achieve “common justice and economic advance.”

Collective Bargaining

The NLRB works to guarantee the rights of those employees who want to bargain collectively with their employer.

Collective bargaining is how employers and a select group of employees come to an agreement regarding various working conditions.  A collective bargaining negotiation can include discussions on wages, work hours, training, health and safety, grievance procedures and overtime.

Some of the protected employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act include:

  • Forming or working towards forming an employee union.
  • Joining a union whether or not your employer recognizes the union.
  • Assist other employees in organizing a union.
  • Engaging in “protected concerted activity” – where a group of employees are protected when they are seeking to change either wages or working conditions.

Non-Union Employees

Of course these same rights are afforded to all employees in the United States, whether in a union or not. Each state has their own laws governing wages, hours, safety and overtime.

When the rights of non-union employees are violated there are still ways to receive justice and back wages from their employer.

Every day there are stories of companies who violate their employee’s rights, even though the laws are very specific and well-known.

Class action claims are designed to help a group of employees who have had their rights infringed upon by their employer.

If you believe you and your fellow employees have had your rights violated, contact an employee rights law firm which can file a class action lawsuit on your behalf to recover any lost wages or other compensation.

Posted in Employee Rights | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

False Labeling Claim Against Frito-Lay

Posted on December 28, 2011 by Brooke Palm

 

False Labeling?

Potato chips in the past few years have become a very sophisticated snack food. Chips can be organic, less salt, less fat, made from vegetables, artisan or all natural. Two of those claims have initiated a class action lawsuit against food giant Frito-Lay.

Law firm Millberg LLP has filed a class action suit against Frito-Lay for false and misleading labeling of their Tostitos and Sun Chips products.

The complaint against Tostitos is for using fake “artisan” labeling and against Sun Chips for their using a false “all natural” label.

Both products use genetically modified seeds corn and vegetable oil.  The Food and Drug Administration describes natural as “ingredients extracted directly from plants or animal products as opposed to being produced synthetically.”

Does seeing the words “artisan” or “all natural” on a product carry any weight in your shopping decision? Do you think Frito-Lay is using false labeling?

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Day in Court

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Casey Gerry Law
Pharmaceutical Sales Reps

Overtime Pay Debate

Pharmaceutical industry sales reps are preparing to take their overtime pay case to the U.S. Supreme Court. A class action lawsuit was filed against GlaxoSmithKline seeking back pay for thousands of pharmaceutical sales reps. Currently, sales reps are not paid overtime but receive either a base plus commission or purely commission.

Other cases where pharmaceutical sales rep overtime pay has come into question, have wound their way through the court system in the last few years. The courts have differed in their interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) definition of outside salespeople. Some court rulings have been in favor of the pharmaceutical companies and some in favor of the sales reps. This will be the first time a sales rep overtime dispute case will come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The FLSA has what is referred to as the “white collar exception,” 29 CFR Part 541. Persons employed in Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer and Outside Sales employees are considered exempt employees and are usually not eligible for overtime pay.

With regards to outside salespersons, subsection 541.500(a) of the FLSA states

The outside sales exemption is applied to any employee:

“with a primary duty of  (i) making sales within the meaning of section 3(k) of the Act, or      (ii) obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer.” In addition, to qualify for exemption the outside sales employee must be “customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such primary duty.”

And in determining the primary duty of an outside sales employee, subsection 541.500(b) states

“Work performed incidental to and in conjunction with the employee’s own outside sales or solicitations, including incidental deliveries and collections, shall be regarded as exempt outside sales work.”

The plaintiffs are seeking a ruling as to whether they are outside salespersons that are not eligible for overtime or pharmaceutical sales reps that promote products and do not “close the deal.”

Paying pharmaceutical sales rep overtime could cost the industry billions of dollars.

The case is likely to be heard this spring with a ruling expected by the end of June.

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News, Discrimination in the Workplace, Employee Rights | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defective Asbestos Respirators Lawsuits Keep Multiplying

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Fred Schenk

Asbestos Safety Gear

Working with asbestos is a dangerous proposition. Breathing in the small asbestos fibers can lead to lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Asbestos has been banned in the U.S. for the most part, except for certain applications. Asbestos is still used as a fire retardant in insulation for boilers, pipes and doors. It is also found in roofing and construction materials. For years workers in shipyards, railroads and construction sites have suffered long-term exposure to asbestos.

To protect workers against exposure, companies have developed asbestos respirators to safeguard employees from the inhalation of asbestos fibers.  Unfortunately, reports of defective asbestos respirators have increased dramatically in the last few years.

The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) and the Centers for Disease Control have implemented strict regulations and safety requirements for asbestos respirators. In spite of these regulations, defective respirators are still on the market and causing untold health problems.

The respirators have a design defect which causes them to leak so they fail to filter out the asbestos fibers and other dangerous toxins. They also give the worker a false sense of security believing that they are protected prompting them to increase exposure time.

It is estimated that over 84,000 lawsuits for defective asbestos respirators have been filed against 3M and over 140,000 against American Optical.

If you or a loved one is suffering from the damaging effects of asbestos exposure due to the design defect of any safety equipment, you should not hesitate to contact an experienced asbestos exposure attorney.

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roto-Rooter Troubles Not Going Down the Drain

Posted on November 15, 2011 by Brooke Palm

Roto-Rooter Class Action Lawsuit?

A lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in Minnesota against Roto-Rooter, the plumbing and drain cleaning service, for using deceptive sales practices. There have been a number of consumer complaints in the Minneapolis area for over a year.

So far three individuals have stepped forward, but based upon reports by the city of Minneapolis there could be 30 or more customers which could be added to the suit. Roto-Rooter has been accused of deceptive sales practices and violating state “truth-in-repair” laws. The company has been criticized for taking advantage of consumers under stressful times. The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages.

The lawsuit stems out of instances where Roto-Rooter was contracted for drain cleaning services where one cost was quoted, but then the customer was charged thousands of dollars for repairs which the City then determined to be unnecessary.

In one example, a consumer was quoted for $234 drain cleaning repair. The Roto-Rooter employee was unable to clear the clog, so additional services were done; a camera inspection for $500 and repair of a broken sewer line for $8,750. A city inspector reviewed the work and alerted the consumer that she had overpaid for the work.

The city of Minneapolis is still investigating more claims against the company. The Minneapolis Police Department has already searched Roto-Rooter offices seizing customer files, DVDs of drain lines and computers. The investigators have also obtained invoices from a pipe company that served as a subcontractor for Roto-Rooter.

Roto-Rooter issued a written statement saying it does not comment on pending litigation. The statement also said the company has an ongoing commitment of addressing service inquiries.

Roto-Rooter Services, Inc. is based in West Des Moines, Iowa, and its parent company, Chemed Corp. is in Cincinnati.

Have you ever had an issue with Roto-Rooter overcharging for services? Share your experience.

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Wal-Mart Class-Action Sex Discrimination Case 2.0

Posted on November 1, 2011 by Jay Rosenlieb

Back in June the U.S. Supreme Court rejected by a vote of 5-4 the granting of class-action status to a lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart for sex discrimination.  Representing 1.5 million women nationwide, this would have been the largest number of class-action plaintiffs to ever file suit at one time. The Court ruled that the lawsuit did not satisfy the requirements of class-action status because the group of people in the class did not have enough commonality to go forward as a class-action.

This ruling did not address the merits of the case – whether Wal-Mart had discriminated against the plaintiffs because of their sex.

Wal-Mart sex discrimination lawsuit

Sex Discrimination in Wages

Now a new lawsuit has been filed by the same group of plaintiffs, this time only against California Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores. The new filing was drafted specifically to address the Court’s concerns about commonality.  The number of class-action plaintiffs, current or former employees of Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club, is estimated at 90,000. The women are seeking back pay.

The lawsuit claims the California Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores operated under a “good old boy philosophy”; the commonality basis being the women were subject to the same decision-makers.

Under this operating environment, position opportunities were not posted but were passed along word-of-mouth to male employees.

One California regional vice president suggested that women did not seek management positions because of their “family commitments”. A district manager for Sam’s Club paid a female employee less than a male employee in the same position because the male employee “supports his wife and two kids”.

The egregious incident which began the sex discrimination suits against Wal-Mart began in 1999 when a female employee found out she was paid $23,000 less a year than a male counterpart in the same position with less experience.

Wal-Mart has dismissed the lawsuit as more of the same; it should not be granted class-action status because of the different circumstances of each individual.  They also claim that the women leading the suit are not representative of the vast majority of women who work for Wal-Mart.

The lawyers representing the plaintiffs are promising more regional lawsuits aimed at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club for sex discrimination.

Have you and your fellow workers been denied back pay by your current or former employer? Contact an experienced employee rights law firm to review your case.

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News, Discrimination in the Workplace, Employee Rights | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Whole Foods Settles Class Action Suit

Posted on October 24, 2011 by Casey Gerry Law

Whole Foods Market has settled a class action lawsuit for failing to provide wheelchair access to customers. Anyone who visited a California Whole Foods Market between December 21, 2006 and September 15, 2011, and used a wheelchair or other mobility device, can file a claim to receive as much as $4,000 from the settlement.

The lawsuit alleged that Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, owned by Whole Foods, had physical barriers and other conditions which did not allow customers in wheelchairs full access. The case alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Whole Foods denied any wrong-doing but agreed to a $500,000 settlement.

Class members can receive a maximum of $4,000 from the settlement if there are less than 125 eligible claimants. If there are more than 125, the amount of money each class member will receive will be based on a pro rata basis.

Claim forms must be filed before December 15, 2011.

Do you think you have a class action claim against a company? Contact the Class Action attorneys at Casey Gerry.

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook’s Cookie Monster

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Brooke Palm

Facebook and privacy are not two things that always go together.

A new class-action lawsuit claims Facebook violated federal wiretap statutes by using a cookie which tracked a Facebook users internet browsing history after they had logged off the social networking site.  A cookie tracks your browsing history when you visit a site, but isn’t supposed to after you have left. The lead plaintiff, an attorney from Kansas, is seeking class action status for all 150 million (and counting) US users of Facebook.

The lawsuit claims that Facebook has been gathering and storing information on users after they have logged off. When visiting a website that has a Facebook “Like” button, information is tracked back to Facebook about the pages viewed, what you clicked on and more.

The class action lawsuit also alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, trespassing and invasion of privacy.

Do you believe your privacy has been violated by Facebook?

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Class Action News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment