Author Archives: admin

DSW Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action with 3,000 Employees for $625,000

Posted on by

Shoe retailer DSW Inc. has reached a $625,000 settlement to resolve a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit filed in August 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of 3,000 nonexempt hourly employees in California.

The suit, filed by DSW Sales Associate and Merchandise Manager Olga Aguirre on behalf of herself and the other employees, alleged that DSW violated various wage and labor code violations by failing to allow its hourly employees to take mandated meal and rest breaks, using an inappropriate method of withholding wages, not providing itemized wage statements, and failing to provide reasonable seating accommodations for its employees. The settlement will pay the 3,000 employees for each week they worked between May 30, 2009 and August 9, 2012.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Law360 Interviews Nicholas Woodfield, Principal of The Employment Law Group®, on Favorable Decision in Collective Action Suit Against Farmers Insurance

Posted on by

Law360 recently interviewed Nicholas Woodfield, principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm, following a favorable decision in MacGregor, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, which will allow a collective action lawsuit alleging overtime violations by Farmers Insurance to proceed.  The decision granted conditional certification to a class of property claims representatives who worked for a particular Farmers Insurance supervisor in the company’s Atlanta zone.

Last week, Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina chose not to apply Supreme Court’s ruling in Dukes v. Walmart in his decision granting the plaintiffs the chance to notify other potential plaintiffs of the opportunity to join in the suit.  In a prior decision, the court used the Dukes case to deny the plaintiff’s request under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) to notify other potential plaintiffs of the opportunity to join the suit.

Mr. Woodfield, an attorney for the employees, told Law360 that “[we're] very pleased that the district court apparently no longer thinks that Dukes is relevant in the analysis of whether conditional certification is appropriate. It seems to have fallen out of the equation.”

This most recent decision will permit more insurance adjusters who allege that they were not paid for overtime hours to join the suit against Farmers Insurance.

The article, entitled “Leaner Class Gets Conditional Cert. In Farmers OT Suit”, appeared in the July 20, 2012 edition of Law360.

The Employment Law Group® law firm represents the insurance adjustors in MacGregor and has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Farmers Insurance Adjustors Alleging Overtime Pay Violations Win Conditional Class Certification

Posted on by

On July 20, 2012, Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, granted conditional certification to a group of Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”) property claims representatives who alleged that Farmers has a policy that discourages the representatives from accurately reporting their hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In the case, MacGregor et al v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, the insurance adjustors claim that Farmers maintained a policy requiring them to keep records of all time worked and that the company also required prior approval to work overtime.  Additionally, in many instances, according to the plaintiffs, the company did not approve the overtime and employees worked overtime without being able to claim the time worked.

The court’s decision comes nearly a year after the same court denied a broader motion for certification by the plaintiffs.  In its earlier denial, the court cited the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision as “illuminating” and held that Farmers had no systematic policy of denying overtime pay, rather that there may have been, at best, occasional decisions by individual supervisors that violated the company’s policies.

The most recent decision does not cite the Dukes decision and only grants conditional certification to a class of Farmers adjustors who shared a specific supervisory chain in Farmer’s Atlanta region.

The Employment Law Group® law firm represents the insurance adjustors in MacGregor and has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Wal-Mart to Pay $4.8 Million in Back Wages to More Than 4,500 Workers Improperly Denied Overtime

Posted on by

On May 1, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has agreed to pay $4,828,442 in back wages and damages to over 4,500 employees, and $463,815 in civil penalties, as a result of an investigation by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division.  The investigation found that Wal-Mart violated overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to compensate vision center managers and asset protection coordinators for their overtime work at Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam’s Club.

In addition, the Labor Department found that Wal-Mart misclassified certain employees as exempt from FLSA’s overtime requirements, even though the employees were entitled to overtime pay for any hours worked above 40 in one week.  Wal-Mart agreed to pay all back wages and liquidated damages to the misclassified employees, plus a penalty to the Department.  Wal-Mart corrected its classification practices in 2007 and spent 5 years negotiating the back pay issues before agreeing to the terms of the settlement.

“Thanks to this resolution, thousands of employees will see money put back into their pockets that should have been there all along. The damages and penalties assessed in this case should put other employers on notice that they cannot avoid their obligations to their employees by inappropriately classifying their workers as exempt,” said Nancy J. Leppink, deputy administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Boston Market to Pay $3 Million to Settle Class Action FLSA Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime

Posted on by

Boston Market Corp., a food chain based in Golden, Colorado, agreed to pay $3 million to settle a class action Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit. According to the suit, Boston Market misclassified their assistant general managers, hospitality managers, and culinary managers as exempt from overtime pay.  Because of the misclassification, Boston Market failed to pay the restaurant managers working in New York and Connecticut for hours worked over 40 hours a week.

The suit was filed in 2010 after the restaurant managers were asked to perform mundane tasks such as cleaning ovens, mopping floors, and serving food but were not properly paid for their overtime work. The workers involved in the class action lawsuit will each receive up to $12,000 in compensatory damages.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Former GNC Managers Seek Class Action Suit for Unpaid Overtime

Posted on by

On April 11, 2012, attorneys representing two former GNC store managers argued in court that the company’s policies illegally required store managers to work overtime without pay.  GNC fired the two managers, claiming that they committed “time fraud” by recording hours on their time cards that they had not worked.  The former managers claim they added a few hours to their time cards to compensate for extensive overtime hours they worked.

Attorneys for the two former managers filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania.  They presented U.S. District Judge Terrence F. McVerry with e-mails purportedly showing how upper level management treated overtime as something that should be “eliminated.”  The attorneys also said that they have pay records and store security records that show managers entering the store but not clocking in until hours later in order to avoid submitting over 40 hours a week.

Two other previous store managers, one from Pennsylvania and one from North Carolina, sued GNC in 2010 when they were also fired for “time fraud.”  Since the resolution of that case, 15 other managers have claimed  GNC fired them for the same reason.  The attorneys representing the fired managers in the most recent suit are encouraging former GNC store managers nationwide to step forward so that they may pursue a class action law suit against GNC.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Fair Labor Association Audit Finds Violations of Labor Laws by Foxconn, Apple’s Major Supplier; and Apple and Foxconn Agree to Improve Working Conditions

Posted on by

This month, Apple and its major supplier, Foxconn, agreed with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) to improve working conditions for employees after an audit revealed suspected employment law violations.  The violations, which occurred in Foxconn factories in China, included excessive working hours, unpaid overtime, and inadequate safety conditions.  FLA secured a commitment from both Apple and Foxconn to reduce working hours, protect employees’ pay, and improve health and safety conditions.

“If implemented, these commitments will significantly improve the lives of more than 1.2 million Foxconn employees and set a new standard for Chinese factories,” said Auret van Heerden, President and CEO of the FLA.

The new agreement initiated by FLA with Apple and Foxconn will most likely become a benchmark in the global technology industry.  Apple was the first technology company to join FLA in January, after Apple received criticism about the working conditions at Foxconn.   Foxconn will now have to hire thousands of additional employees in order to compensate for lost working hours, and will also have to provide greater housing and canteen capacity to its workers.

“We appreciate the work the FLA has done to assess conditions at Foxconn and we fully support their recommendations.  We think empowering workers and helping them understand their rights is essential,” said a representative from Apple in a written response to the FLA’s audit.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

Sales Representatives File $70 Million FLSA Class Action Lawsuit Against Novartis Pharmaceuticals for Unpaid Overtime

Posted on by

A class of sales representative this month filed a $70 million suit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., a subsidiary of Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The sales representatives allege that Nordisk violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) by failing to pay overtime to the class, which is comprised of possibly 2,000 people. McKenzie Stepe and Karen Woolen, the lead plaintiffs, claim that they regularly worked over 40 hours per week and did not receive overtime compensation.

Steven L. Wittels, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said:

“[Novartis] misclassified its sales representatives as salaried employees exempt from the benefits of federal and state overtime laws, when in fact, they are not exempt at all. There is something rotten about a company that earned more than $3 billion in 2011 profits, and at the same time refuses to pay its employees the overtime pay that is their due.”

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.

La Quinta Hotel Operator Agrees to Pay $1.5 Million to Settle Claims that it Denied Overtime Payments and Rest Breaks to Housekeepers

Posted on by

LQ Management LLC, a Texas-based operator of the La Quinta hotel chain, has agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a putative class action suit claiming that the hotel failed to provide housekeepers with meal and rest breaks and failed to pay proper amounts of overtime pay.

The proposed class action includes over 1900 housekeepers who worked at La Quinta locations in California and involves claims of inaccurate overtime wage payments dating back to 2006. LQ Management operates more than 800 La Quinta hotels, with more than 50 locations in California alone.

The initial lawsuit was filed in October 2010 and alleged that the nonexempt La Quinta housekeepers did not receive compensation for the overtime hours they worked. The suit was original brought in California Superior Court but was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on the basis of jurisdiction provided by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs also claim that La Quinta did not allow them to take 10 minute rest breaks, a violation of California employment law, and intentionally failed to itemize employees’ wage statements. If approved, class members may be entitled to receive upwards of $4000 in penalties under state employment law.

La Quinta denies all wrongdoing alleged in the lawsuit and claims to have agreed to settle the lawsuit due to the “protracted and expensive” costs of litigation.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated.

Home Depot to Pay $1.6 Million to Resolve Allegations it Failed to Pay Accrued Vacation Time to Terminated Workers

Posted on by

Last week, Home Depot USA Inc. agreed to pay $1.6 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to compensate employees for their vacation pay after terminating them.

According to the motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking preliminary  approval of the settlement, the former workers are to receive compensation for the unpaid vacation time, “as well as additional payment for interest and waiting time penalties.” The plaintiff class includes more than 1300 former Home Depot employees terminated since August 2006.

The lawsuit was lodged as a proposed class action in August 2010 in California Superior Court and was removed to federal court in September 2010. The former workers alleged that Home Depot maintained a policy according to which employees were allowed to carryover an unlimited amount of vacation time from year-to-year and, upon separation from the company, Home Depot would then pay employees all accrued vacation time. The plaintiffs, however, allege that Home Depot often failed to fully compensate employees for their accrued vacation time.

For example, two of the lawsuit’s named plaintiffs – Martin Henshaw and Vern Souza – alleged that Home Depot only paid them a fraction of their accrued vacation hours upon their termination from employments, with Mr. Henshaw claiming that the company only paid him 35% of an accumulated 528 hours’ vacation, and Mr. Souza claiming he only received 45% of an accumulated 1210 hours’ vacation pay.

Despite agreeing to settle the lawsuit for $1.6 million – an amount reached after mediation between the parties last year – Home Depot denies all claims of liability or wrongdoing.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide wage and hour practice representing employees whose rights have been violated, including nonpayment of wages and denial of overtime pay.