Category Archives: Lost Wages

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 Quotes Attorney Nicholas Woodfield on Landmark Unpaid Wages Victory

Posted on by

Law360 quoted The Employment Law Group attorney Nicholas Woodfield regarding the law firm’s landmark unpaid wages victory in Randolph v. ADT Security Services, Inc. Judge Chasanow from the District Court of Maryland held that ADT violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when it fired two commissioned salespeople because they complained to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (DLLR) that they believed they should be paid for overtime.   The plaintiffs purportedly submitted confidential documents to the DLLR to support their FLSA complaint.

Law360 wrote:

The court… determined that whether or not the plaintiffs’ [submission of confidential documents] were reasonable did not matter in this case because lodging an FLSA complaint is participation rather than opposition, and the Fourth Circuit has refused to apply any reasonableness requirement to participation in employment cases.

“[The decision] very clearly vocalizes that you have an absolute right to go to the DLLR or Department of Labor state agencies and support your claim with whatever documents you want,” said Nicholas Woodfield of The Employment Law Group, who represents the plaintiffs.

Noting that Thompson and Randolph were likely properly classified as exempt from the FLSA’s wage requirements based on the commissioned salesperson exemption, Woodfield told Law360 that the decision was especially important for employees because it clarified that their complaining activities — including providing supporting materials to agencies — are protected even if the underlying wage claim doesn’t pan out.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

TELG attorney quoted in Fiscal Times Story on the Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors

Posted on by

Attorney Nicholas Woodfield was quoted in a Fiscal Times story titled Stripper ‘Consultant’ Strikes Back against Boss on the misclassification of employees as independent contractors:

“Shortly after the recession started, we started getting calls from people saying, ‘My employer has shifted me to being an independent contractor,’” said Nicholas Woodfield, principal at [T]he Employment Law Group, a Washington, D.C. law firm representing workers. “The employers, whether they’re intending to or not, are fee shifting the expenses of having a workforce onto the employees and the federal, state and local governments.”

The recession has caused many employers to seek new ways to cut costs, and unfortunately some employers have chosen to misclassify employees as independent contractors.   Until the employer is caught, misclassification temporarily saves the employer from

  • paying minimum wages,
  • paying overtime,
  • paying the payroll tax,
  • paying worker’s compensation,
  • paying unemployment,
  • paying social security,
  • offering or subsidizing employee health benefits,
  • offering paid leave, and
  • offering Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) unpaid leave.

By misclassifying employees as independent contractors, employers reduce their Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) costs, unemployment contributions, workers’ compensation insurance costs, and benefits contributions.  As the result, misclassified employees from restaurant employees to construction workers to even exotic dancers are wrongly denied access to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and other protections, and taxpayers are deprived of tax dollars.

The federal government and each state have tests used to determine a worker’s status and the IRS may even provide a business with their opinion on the classification of a company’s workers.  These tests often consider factors such as

  • how much control he worker has over how and when to perform work,
  • whether the worker is economically independent from the company, and
  • whether the worker uses his or her own equipment.

Employers caught misclassifying employees are often subject to severe fines and sued for back pay and benefits by the misclassified employees.  Because of the pressure for businesses to cut expenses, undoubtedly employers will unlawfully misclassify, leading to more lawsuits by employees reasserting their workplace rights.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

New California Bills Combat Employer Minimum Wage Violations

Posted on by

According to Law360, the California Senate passed two bills, AB 1881 and AB 2771, attempting to crackdown on minimum wage violations in the underground economy.   AB 1881 would allow employees to recover twice the amount of unpaid minimum wages from their employer, and AB 2771 would criminalize employers’ failure to issue itemized wage statements to their employees.  Violating AB 2771 would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1000 or up to one year in jail or both.  The bills now proceed to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. 

For more information The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Wage and Hour Practice, click here.

DOL Issues Administrator’s Interpretation Defining “Clothes”

Posted on by

On June 16, 2010, the Department of Labor issued its second Administrator’s Interpretation of 2010, defining “clothes” under section 3(o) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C § 203(o).   Under this new Interpretation, “clothes” refers to apparel and not protective safety equipment generally worn over one’s clothes.  Employees required by law to don and off protective gear must be paid for the time spent doing so.  A copy of the Administrator’s Interpretation is available here.

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® have extensive experience prosecuting claims for unpaid wages including individual claims and class actions.  To learn more about TELG’s Non Payment of Wages Practice, click here.

Tyson Foods Agrees to Settle FLSA Lawsuit

Posted on by

On June 3, 2010, the Department of Labor announced that Tyson Foods has agreed to pay employees for donning and doffing protective wear as well as time spent washing and sanitizing themselves and their gear.  Tyson Foods also agreed to compensate employees for the time spent walking and waiting that occurs throughout the workday.  In addition, Tyson Foods will pay $500,000 in overtime back wages to 3,000 employees at its Blountsville, Alabama plant. 

For more information about the Fair Labor Standards Act and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

Staples Agrees to $42 Million Settlement for Unpaid Overtime

Posted on by

Staples has agreed to a $42 million settlement to resolve 12 wage-and-hour class action lawsuits related to its misclassification of assistant store managers.  The settlement comes after several years of litigation, and the claims of unpaid overtime go back to 2002.  The settlement includes an agreement that Staples will not appeal a February 2009 jury decision awarding $4.9 million to 343 Sales Mangers.  It also resolves a pending case in Massachusetts state court, as well as 10 other cases previously centralized in the District of New Jersey under by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Non-Payment of Wages Practice, click here.

UPS Settles Overtime Suit for $12.8 Million

Posted on by

Late last week a class action suit brought by UPS delivery drivers against their employer was settled for $12.8 million.  The suit alleges that the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors and wrongfully denied benefits and overtime as a result.  At least 83% of the $12.8 million is to go to the approximately 660 employees.  The plaintiffs are expected to request about $2.02 million in costs and fees.  A copy of the complaint is available here.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

IBM Agrees to Settle Unpaid Overtime Class Action for $7.5 Mil.

Posted on by

The settlement was reached in a putative class action suit originally filed on April 17, 2008.  The suit, Danieli et al. v. IBM Corp., alleged that IBM misclassified thousands of employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime pay requirements.  The plaintiffs claim that as a result of this misclassification, they were underpaid and failed to receive credit for overtime compensation for their retirement plan as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The settlement provides $7.5 million including up to $2.5 million going towards attorney’s fees and $150,000 for litigation expenses.  The settlement also stipulated that employees in California will receive a higher share due to the stronger claims made under California state law.

According to the settlement agreement, the motivation for the settlement on both sides included the uncertainty in the duration of future litigation as well as amount recovered.  Excess costs predicted and accounted for but not spent as well as un-cashed settlement checks will be donated to the Habitat for Humanity.

A copy the Settlement is available here.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Overtime Practice, click here.

Illegal Alien Can Sue Employer for Lost Wages

Posted on by

In Coque v. Wildflower Estates Developers, Inc., the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division held that illegal aliens injured on the job can recover damages for lost wages from their employer, where the employer failed to properly verify the employee’s eligibility to work.  In reaching its decision, the court concluded that employees should not forfeit their right to recover lost wages simply because they submitted a false document when applying for a job.  Instead, recovery for lost earnings should be barred only where the plaintiff’s submission of fraudulent documents actually induced the employer to hire the plaintiff.  Finding that the defendant hired the plaintiff despite knowledge of the employee’s undocumented status and ineligibility to work, the court permitted the plaintiff to sue the defendant and recover damages for injuries sustained on the job.  For more information about claims for lost wages, click here.