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.

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.

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.

On January 24, 2012, Judge Ernest Hiroshige of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a tentative approval of a $5 million settlement agreement between Staples Inc. and a class of employees who allege that the office supply chain failed to pay them for floating holidays and vacations.

A former Staples employee, Vikki Park, filed the class action lawsuit in November 2010, claiming that Staples violated California laws which mandate that employers pay employees for their unused accrued vacation hours. The lawsuit alleges that Staples’ policy of requiring part-time workers to be actively employed on their employment anniversary dates in order to receive their annual vacation pay constitutes, in effect, “an illegal forfeiture”.

The settlement agreement provides awards to three classes of employees:  those who were denied vacation pay since July 2008, those who did not receive wages upon termination since November 2008, and those who were denied floating holiday pay since November 2006.

The $5 million settlement also resolves two other similar lawsuits brought by employees of Staples stores in California.

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

On January 20, 2012, Starbucks Corporation agreed that it owes roughly $7.5 million to baristas in Massachusetts for allowing shift supervisors to share in employee tip pools since March 2005. The class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of 11,000 Starbucks baristas throughout Massachusetts.  The settlement was reached one day before the scheduled trial. The plaintiffs initially sought over $20 million in damages.

In March 2011, Judge Nathaniel M. Gordon for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts certified a class of the Massachusetts baristas who had worked for Starbucks during the past six years.  The court also ruled that Starbucks’ tip policy violated state law.

In June 2011, the US. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to review the ruling of the district court. The class action dispute continued through the summer and fall of 2011, as Starbucks argued that the state tip law was unfair and deprived supervisors of their pay. In response, the plaintiffs argued that Starbucks could have raised its supervisors’ wages by $2 an hour.   

The damages award will be divided into two time periods. The judge decided not to treble damages for the period prior to July 11, 2008, but did treble the damages for the period after July 11, 2008, as required in an amendment to the Massachusetts tip sharing statute.

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

On December 14, 2011, Lady Gaga’s former personal assistant, Jennifer O’Neill, filed a lawsuit against Lady Gaga’s Mermaid Touring Company seeking nearly $380,000 for alleged unpaid overtime. The 41-year-old O’Neill worked for Lady Gaga for 13 months during Gaga’s 2010 Monster Ball world tour.  O’Neill claims that she worked 7,168 unpaid hours.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that non-exempt employees receive minimum wage and overtime pay. O’Neill claims that although she was a salaried employee, she was misclassified as exempt from FLSA protections.

O’Neill filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  She alleged that Gaga expected her to be on call at any time of the day or night, which often interfered with O’Neill’s ability to sleep and eat meals. In addition, O’Neill was responsible for “ensuring the promptness of a towel following a shower and serving as a personal alarm clock to keep [Gaga] on schedule” and was not compensated beyond her salary of $75,000 a year. A spokeswoman for Gaga said that the lawsuit is “completely without merit.”

The Employment Law Group^® law firm has an extensive employment practice and represents employees nationally who have been victims of nonpayment.

Alaska residence managers who are employed to house and care for mentally ill children petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the residence managers were not covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The FLSA requires that employers pay employees  a minimum wage and overtime pay.  Congress amended the FLSA in 1966 to cover employees of hospitals, schools and institutions “primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution.”

The appellants assert in their brief that they provide “care” for the mentally ill children by administering psychotropic medications and by providing for the children’s basic needs, working up to 98 hours a week and being on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  They further argue that the residence housing the mentally ill children constitutes an “institution” for the purposes of the FLSA, because the federal Medicaid regulations define an “institution” as “an establishment that furnishes. . . food, shelter, and some treatment or services to four or more persons unrelated to the proprietor.”  Numerous other federal and state statutes (including Alaska’s) would also define these homes as “institutions.”

Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari and agree to hear this case, the Supreme Court could very well decide the wage and tax treatment for employees throughout the country – there are currently similar facilities in every state.  The case is Probert v. Family Centered Services of Alaska, Inc.

California passed a new law authorizing the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to stiffen penalties for employers that misclassify their employees.

Many employers misclassify their employees as independent contractors in order to cut costs. Employers attempt to save on their Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) costs, unemployment contributions, workers’ compensation insurance costs, and benefit contributions by misclassifying their employees as “independent contractors.” Employers also try to avoid paying “independent contractors” minimum wage, overtime, payroll tax, and paid and unpaid leave.

Under California’s new law, LWDA will fine employers who misclassify $5,000 to $25,000 for each violation. Those companies that repeatedly misclassify employees will be fined from $10,000 to $25,000 for each violation. Additionally, an officer or the owner of the company must post a signed notice, somewhere visible to all employees, stating that the company has violated the law and will effectively change their practices.

The strengthened penalties will further deter negligent and scrupulous employers from cheating employees out of their duly earned wages and benefits.

Four U.S. Open umpires filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging the U.S. Tennis Association (USTA) misclassifies them as independent contractors instead of employees and failing to pay them overtime.  The USTA pays umpires roughly between $115 and $200 a day without regard for the number of hours worked each day, which often exceeds 8 hours.

The case is Meyer v. U.S. Tennis Association, Case No: 11-CIV-6268.