A special section of our site dedicated to class actions, collective actions, and impact litigation. Featuring selected court cases, news stories, firms, case websites, and cy pres awards.
Get it to go! Our free e-newsletter, The Working Class, keeps you informed about the latest class-action cases and stories. Updated and delivered right to your email inbox every week. Sign up now!
In the Courts
In Re: Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment
United States Third Circuit | Decision Date: June 28, 2012
In a nationwide collective class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging failure to pay required overtime wages, the district court's grant of summary judgment for the sole stockholder of thirty eight domestic subsidiaries is affirmed where it is not a "joint employer" of the subsidiaries' assistant managers within the meaning of the FLSA. Read the decision.
City of San Diego v. Haas
California Court of Appeal | Decision Date: June 29, 2012
In a class action pension case involving San Diego Ordinance No. 0-19567, which amended the San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) to reflect that employees hired on or after July 1, 2005 were not eligible for the Four Benefits, summary judgment against San Diego City Employees Retirement System (SDCERS), is affirmed where: 1) although the Ordinance operates retroactively, it is not invalid because it only amends the SDMC to reflect the City's existing agreements with defendants; 2) no vote was required under City Charter article IX, section 143.1 for the Ordinance to become effective because defendants never accrued rights to the Four Benefits; and 3) Schaefer's individual appeal lacks merit. Read the decision.
L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: March 13, 2013
Judgment awarding damages against defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for breaching their duties as fiduciaries of an employee welfare benefits plan, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiffs have standing; 2) plaintiffs' Underfunding Claim and EOC Suffolk Delinquency Claim are timely; 3) defendants are fiduciaries; and 4) defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Underfunding Claim and the EOC Suffolk Delinquency Claim. Read the decision.
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: March 4, 2013
District court’s certification of plaintiffs' state law claims as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) in a suit brought by newspaper employees for violations of federal and state labor laws, is reversed in part, and the findings of commonality under Rule 23(a) and predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) are vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wal-Mart Stores v. Duke, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). Read the decision.
Pashby v. Delia
United States Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: March 5, 2013
District court's decision granting preliminary injunction and class certification to plaintiffs, North Carolina residents who lost access to in-home personal care services due to a statutory change that imposed stricter eligibility requirements, is remanded where the district court: 1) properly granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction based on plaintiffs' likelihood of success on their the American with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and Social Security Act claims; but 2) erred in determining that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim; and 3) failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Procedure 65, so on remand, must clarify its order and address the issue of security. Read the decision.
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles
United States Supreme Court | Decision Date: March 19, 2013
Plaintiff's stipulation that he and the class would seek less than $5 million in damages does not defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, which gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million in sum or value, because a plaintiff who files a proposed class action cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified. Read the decision.
Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: March 21, 2013
District court improperly denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Parisi's gender discrimination claim, and the order is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the arbitration agreement compelled arbitration of individual claims but not class claims; and 2) private plaintiffs do not have a substantive right to bring a Title VII class action utilizing the pattern-or-practice method of proof. Read the decision.
Tibble v. Edison International
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: March 21, 2013
District court's judgment in a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by plaintiff beneficiaries who alleged that their pension plan was managed imprudently and in a self-interested fashion, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court correctly measured the timeliness of claims alleging imprudence in plan design from when the decision to include those investments in the plan was initially made; 2) mere notification that retail funds were in the Plan menu falls short of providing actual knowledge of the breach or violation; 3) because DOL's interpretation of how the safe harbor functions is consistent with the statutory language, the district court properly decided that section ERISA section 404(c) did not preclude merits consideration of beneficiaries' claims; 4) the revenue sharing as carried out by defendants does not violate ERISA; 5) defendants did not violate their duty of prudence under ERISA by including in the plan menu mutual funds, and a unitized fund for employees' investment in the company's stock; and 5) defendants were imprudent in deciding to include retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the plan menu because they failed to investigate the possibility of institutional-share class alternatives. Read the decision.
Slattery v. US
United States Federal Circuit | Decision Date: March 21, 2013
In litigation relating to the failure of Meritor Savings Bank after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) breached a capital agreement with Meritor, and award for losses, judgment of Court of Federal Claims requiring distribution of the receivership surplus to current shareholders and denying a former employee's motion to intervene is affirmed, where: 1) the lower court erred in applying the current version of 12 U.S.C. section 1821(d)(11) but the error was harmless, as under section 1821(d)(11), current Meritor shareholders are the proper recipients of the receivership surplus; 2) the lower court properly dismissed plaintiff Roth's second amended complaint because he has no rights to the receivership surplus; 3) there is no reason to overturn the lower court's order limiting the government's liability; and 4) the former employee's claim is barred by res judicata. Read the decision.
Compton v. Superior Court (American Managment Services, LLC)
California Court of Appeal | Decision Date: March 19, 2013
Order compelling arbitration of plaintiff's class action complaint for violations of Labor Code provisions governing the payment of wages is reversed and remanded where the arbitration agreement plaintiff signed as a condition of obtaining employment was unconscionable. Read the decision.
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
United States Supreme Court | Decision Date: March 27, 2013
Plaintiffs' class action, alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws, was improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), where: 1) the Third Circuit ran afoul of Supreme Court precedents when it refused to entertain arguments against plaintiffs' damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification simply because they would also be pertinent to the merits determination; and 2) under the proper standard for evaluating certification, plaintiffs' model falls far short of establishing that damages can be measured class-wide. Read the decision.
Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc.
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: March 26, 2013
Judgment dismissing plaintiff's state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and contract, and unfair trade practices is affirmed, where because plaintiffs have failed as a matter of law to allege an agency relationship between defendant and consumers who use defendant's "Name Your Own Price" service to reserve hotel accommodations, they cannot plausibly claim that defendant breached an agent's fiduciary duty in failing to apprise consumers that it might have procured the accommodations at costs lower than their bids, retaining the difference as profit. Read the decision.
Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A.
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: March 27, 2013
Two questions are certified to the New York State Court of Appeals: 1) whether judgment debtors have a private right of action for money damages and injunctive relief against banks that violate the Exempt Income Protection Act's (EIPA) procedural requirements; and 2) whether judgment debtors can seek money damages and injunctive relief against banks that violate the EIPA in special proceedings prescribed by Article 52 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and, if so, whether those special proceedings are the exclusive mechanism for such relief or whether judgment debtors may also seek relief in a plenary action. Read the decision.
Selevan v. New York Thruway Authority
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: March 27, 2013
Summary judgment for defendant in putative class action challenging the constitutionality of defendant's toll policy that allows residents of one island municipality, who must use toll bridges in order to travel by car between their homes on Grand Island, New York, and any location not on Grand Island, to use these bridges at a discounted rate, but denies the same discount to all other motorists is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiffs have Article III standing; 2) the toll policy at issue here was a minor restriction on travel and did not involve "invidious distinctions" that would require strict scrutiny analysis pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment; 3) the district court properly evaluated plaintiffs' constitutional right-to-travel and dormant Commerce Clause claims under the three-part test set forth in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent; and 4) the Grand Island Bridge toll scheme a) is based on "some fair approximation of use" of the bridges, b) is not "excessive in relation to the benefits" it confers, and c) does not "discriminate against interstate commerce." Read the decision.
Perez v. Nidek Co., LTD
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: March 25, 2013
Dismissal of complaint brought by plaintiff-patients who suffered no injuries but who were subject to the off-label use of a medical device for eye surgeries, where the Food and Drug Administration status of the device was not disclosed to the plaintiff-patients, is affirmed where: 1) the complaint did not state a claim under the California Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act because the surgeries were not "medical experiments" subject to the protection of the Act; 2) plaintiff Perez did not have standing to sue for injunctive relief under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and 3) plaintiff Perez's common law fraud by omission claim is expressly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and even if it were not, it is impliedly preempted because it amounts to an attempt to privately enforce the FDCA. Read the decision.
Gonzales v. US Dept. of Homeland Security
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: March 29, 2013
District court's judgment and orders denying plaintiffs' motions to amend class certification and to file an amended complaint are vacated and remanded for reconsideration of plaintiffs' motions to amend to add a challenge to the retroactive application of Duran Gonzales I (which held that plaintiffs were ineligible to adjust status because they were not eligible to receive waivers because the requisite ten-year period had not elapsed since they last departed from the United States), in light of the new retroactivity test set forth in the intervening en banc decision in Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder. Read the decision.
Harden Manufacturing Co. v. Pfizer, Inc.
United States First Circuit | Decision Date: April 3, 2013
Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs' RICO and fraud class action alleging defendant's fraudulent marketing of off-label uses of its drug Neurontin, is: 1) reversed as to the RICO claim where plaintiff presented evidence of causation and injury sufficient to survive summary judgment; 2) vacated as to the state law fraud and common law claims, in light of the determination of the RICO claim; and 3) vacated as to the denial of class certification. Read the decision.
Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc.
United States Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: April 1, 2013
District court's refusal to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in the parties' franchise agreement is vacated and remanded, where the district court erred in concluding that: 1) the class action waiver was an unconscionable contract provision; and 2) the other two challenged provisions regarding splitting arbitration fees, and a one-year limitations period, also rendered the arbitration clause unconscionable. Read the decision.
Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc.
United States Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: April 1, 2013
District court's refusal to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in the parties' franchise agreement is vacated and remanded, where the district court erred in concluding that: 1) the class action waiver was an unconscionable contract provision; and 2) the other two challenged provisions regarding splitting arbitration fees, and a one-year limitations period, also rendered the arbitration clause unconscionable. Read the decision.
Muriithi v. Shuttle Express, Inc.
United States Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: April 1, 2013
District court's refusal to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in the parties' franchise agreement is vacated and remanded, where the district court erred in concluding that: 1) the class action waiver was an unconscionable contract provision; and 2) the other two challenged provisions regarding splitting arbitration fees, and a one-year limitations period, also rendered the arbitration clause unconscionable. Read the decision.
Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors
California Court of of Appeals | Decision Date: April 2, 2013
Plaintiff-employees were entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting for repair work or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer during their work shifts, as well as penalties under Labor Code section 203(a) in a wage and hour law class action, in which plaintiffs challenged defendant-employer's practice of compensating plaintiffs on the basis of repair tasks completed ("piece-rate") and then allegedly supplementing an employee's pay, if necessary, to cover any shortfall between the piece-rate wages and the minimum wage floor. Read the decision.
Akopyan v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
California Court of Appeals | Decision Date: April 4, 2013
Judgment of dismissal of class action complaints arising out of their home mortgage loans are affirmed, where: 1) the limitation on late payment charges in Business and Professions Code section 10242.5(b) applies to home mortgage loans negotiated by mortgage loan brokers, regardless of the exempt status under section 10133.1 of entities that funded and serviced the loans; and 2) plaintiff-borrowers' contract claims against defendant-federally regulated entities that serviced their loan for misapplying payments and charging late fees in violation of section 10242.5(b) which they claim is implied in their loans is preempted by the National Bank Act and the Home Owners Loan Act. Read the decision.
Molchatsky v. US
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: April 10, 2013
In class action alleging defendant US Securities and Exchange Commission negligently failed to adequately investigate Bernard Madoff despite numerous warnings, and in doing so violated federal statutes, regulations and internal polices, dismissal of the suit is affirmed, where the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shield's the SEC's conduct from plaintiffs' claim. Read the decision.
Mayo v. Board of Educ.
United States Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: April 11, 2013
Dismissal of class action brought by plaintiff-temporary employees alleging that they were entitled to the benefits of an arbitration award entered as the result of an arbitration between the School Board and the Union, as well as benefits from the underlying CBA is affirmed, where: 1) the Union adequately consented to the notice of removal; 2) the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for relief; and 3) the district court did not err in striking the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Read the decision.
McDaniel v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC,
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 9, 2013
Dismissal of four class action suits challenging the policies of brokerage firms that forbid their employees from opening outside trading accounts, is affirmed, where the district courts correctly determined that the federal Securities Exchange Act, and related self-regulatory organizations rules, preempt the enforcement of California's forced-patronage statute against brokerage houses that forbid their employees from opening outside trading accounts. Read the decision.
Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc.
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 10, 2013
n consolidated multidistrict litigation involving allegations that defendants manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publications and engaging in wash sales in the energy crisis of 2000-2002: 1) summary judgment for defendants in most of the cases, finding that plaintiffs' state law antitrust claims were preempted by the Natural Gas Act is reversed; 2) the district court's orders dismissing AEP defendants from the Wisconsin and Missouri suits; and 3) all of the other orders at issue in this appeal are affirmed. Read the decision.
Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 12, 2013
Dismissal of plaintiffs' class action suit for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada state law is: 1) reversed in part as to the state law claims, where a FLSA collective action and a state law class action are not inherently incompatible as a matter of law even though plaintiffs must opt into a collective action under the FLSA but must opt out of a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 2) reversed in part, where plaintiffs stated an unpaid wages claim under the FLSA and parallel state law for undergoing a security clearance meant to prevent employee theft at the end of each shift, because plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that this activity was "integral and indispensable" to their principal activities; but 3) affirmed in part as to the dismissal of a claim under the FLSA for shortened lunch periods remanded for the district court to consider the argument that the workers stated a state law claim regarding lunch periods because Nevada defines "work" differently than federal law. Read the decision.
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk
United States Supreme Court | Decision Date: April 16, 2013
A collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) on behalf of respondent and other employees similarly situated, was appropriately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where, after she ignored petitioners' offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, respondent had no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness. Read the decision.
Sams v. Yahoo! Inc.
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 15, 2013
Dismissal of putative class claims alleging that defendant Yahoo! violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) when it disclosed subscriber information to the government pursuant to allegedly invalid subpoenas, is affirmed, where defendant is statutorily immune from suit under the SCA's good-faith immunity provision in 18 U.S.C. section 2707(e) because it produced the requested documents in good faith reliance on grand jury subpoenas Read the decision.
Rodriguez v. Robbins
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 17, 2013
The district court properly granted a preliminary injunction to a certified class of non-citizens who challenged their prolonged detentions, requiring the government to identify those detained as certain criminal or terrorist aliens under 8 USC section 1226(c) or arriving aliens under section 1225(b), and to provide each with an individualized bond hearing, where: 1) petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that section 1225(b) must be construed to authorize only six months of mandatory detention, after which detention is authorized by section 1226(a) and a bond hearing is required; 2) the preliminary injunction is necessary to ensure that individuals whom the government could not prove constitute a flight risk or danger to public safety are not needlessly detained, and therefore, petitioners clearly showed a risk of irreparable harm; 3) the balance of equities favors petitioners; and 4) the public interest benefits from a preliminary injunction that ensures that federal statutes are construed and implemented in a manner that avoids serious constitutional questions. Read the decision.
Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: April 22, 2013
The district court's approval of the settlement of a class action against credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion in approving this settlement where the class representatives and class counsel did not adequately represent the interests of the class; and 2) the settlement agreement created a divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class because incentive awards were conditioned on the class representatives' support for the settlement and significantly exceeded in amount what absent class members could expect to get upon settlement approval. Read the decision.
McWilliams v. City of Long Beach
Supreme Court of California | Decision Date: April 25, 2013
Judgment of the Court of Appeals allowing suit challenging the defendant's telephone users tax (TUT) and seeking refund of the taxes paid to proceed, is affirmed, where: 1) the Government Claims Act permits a class action claim by taxpayers against a local government entity for the refund of an unlawful tax "in the absence of a specific tax refund procedure set forth in an applicable governing claims statute"; and 2) defendant's local ordinance purporting to prescribe the procedures for the refund of a local tax, is not a "statute" within the meaning of the Government Claims Act. Read the decision.
Unspam Technologies, Inc. v. Chernuk
United States Fourth Circuit | Decision Date: May 3, 2013
Dismissal of four foreign banks from a class action in which plaintiffs allege that defendants participated in a global Internet conspiracy to sell illegal prescription drugs, is affirmed, where plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the banks has constitutionally sufficient contacts with Virginia, or with the United States, to subject them to personal jurisdiction in a court in Virginia. Read the decision.
Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
United States Ninth Circuit | Decision Date: May 2, 2013
The district court's approval of the settlement of a class action against credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion in approving this settlement where the class representatives and class counsel did not adequately represent the interests of the class; and 2) the settlement agreement created a divergence of interests between the named representatives and the class because incentive awards were conditioned on the class representatives' support for the settlement and significantly exceeded in amount what absent class members could expect to get upon settlement approval. (Amended Opinion) Read the decision.
Choate v. Celite Corporation
California Court of Appeals | Decision Date: May 2, 2013
A collective bargaining agreement "otherwise provides" and thereby abrogates an employee's statutory right under Labor Code section 227.3 to immediate payment for vested vacation time only if the agreement clearly and unmistakably waives that right, and because the agreement in this case lacked this clarity, defendant was required to immediately pay terminated employees for all their vested vacation time, but the trial court's judgment imposing waiting time penalties is reversed because defendant nonpayment was not "willful." Read the decision.
US v. City of New York
United States Second Circuit | Decision Date: May 14, 2013
In civil rights action brought by the United States, alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of New York City firefighters: 1) summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim against defendant-city is vacated; 2) dismissal of the federal claims against Mayor Bloomberg is affirmed; 3) dismissal of the state law claims against Mayor Bloomberg and the Fire Commissioner is affirmed; 4) dismissal of the federal law claims against the Fire Commissioner is vacated; 5) the injunction against defendant-city with respect to the hiring of entry-level firefighters is modified, and, as modified, is affirmed; and 6) the bench trial on the liability phase of the discriminatory treatment claim against defendant-city is reassigned to a different district judge. Read more... Read the decision.
New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation v. NLRB
United States Third Circuit | Decision Date: May 16, 2013
Summary judgment for nurses union against plaintiff on a charge of unfair labor practices, and subsequent orders affirming the same, are vacated, where: 1) the Recess of the Senate in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks, i.e. breaks between sessions of the Senate; and consequently, 2) the NLRB panel below lacked the requisite number of members to exercise the NLRB's authority because one panel member was invalidly appointed during an intrasession break. Read more... Read the decision.
In the News
Overhill Farms Suit Denied Class Action Status
A class action lawsuit filed by several former employees of Overhill Farms Inc. has been denied class action status in Los Angeles Superior Court. Several former Overhill Farms employees filed suit against their employer, claiming that they were required to change into their work uniform on company premises, yet were not paid for this time. Judge David Minning denied class action certification due to potential questions about the credibility of the former employees. The former employees allegedly lied to their employer about certain facts related to their employment. Read the full story.
Class Action Lawsuit Against Advertising Agency Alleges Gender Discrimination
A group of female employees working for Publicis Groupe, the world’s third largest advertising agency, have secured class action certification for their lawsuit against their former employer. Female employees at Publicis Groupe alleged gender discrimination against their employer, arguing that they were paid less than their male counterparts for the same work. The former employees submitted evidence that showed that many of the executive positions at Publicis Groupe paid women approximately ten percent less than male employees working in the same positions. Read the full story.
Employees File Class Action Lawsuit Against Pharmaceutical Company
The law firm of Sanford Wittels & Heisler has filed a class action lawsuit against Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals on behalf of a group of former employees. The lawsuit alleges that Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals engaged in discriminatory treatment of female employees, particularly those with family obligations. The lawsuit also alleges that those female employees who took maternity leave were denied employment incentives provided to other employees. The lawsuit is seeking damages in the range of $100 million. Read the full story.
Male Employees File Class Action Lawsuit Against Michigan Department of Corrections
A Circuit Court Judge in Michigan has certified a class action by male employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging gender discrimination. The Michigan Department of Corrections has implemented regulations limiting opportunities for male employment at Michigan’s only prison for female inmates. The employees represented by the class action lawsuit allege that female employees face no similar limitations in working at the state’s numerous prisons for male inmates. The Michigan Department of Corrections has stated that the limitations were in response to lawsuits filed by female inmates who have accused male employees of sexual assaults. Read the full story.
Former Employees File Class Action Lawsuit Against Northern California Construction Company
Former employees of a Northern California construction company have filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, Ghilotti Bros, alleging violations of wage and hour laws. Ghilotti Bros, who hire predominately Spanish speaking employees of Mexican descent, allegedly has refused to pay employees for time worked outside the official job site. The former employees of Ghilotti Bros have alleged that they were forced to clean company vehicles off site, and were not paid for this work. Read the full story.
Class action suit targets Pizza Hut
A Memphis law firm has filed a federal class action suit against a firm that owns 1,200 Pizza Hut restaurants, including one in Alton. The suit claims the firm, NPC International Inc., encourages shift managers to work "off the clock," resulting in working for less than minimum wage. NPC International Inc. is the world's largest franchisee of Pizza Huts and operates more than 1,200 in the United States. Along with the Alton restaurant, it also has locations in Bethalto, Collinsville, Edwardsville, Godfrey, Granite City, Jerseyville, Troy and Wood River. Read the full story.
Law Office Or Intern Mill? Class-Action Suit Against NYC Law Firm Expands Ongoing Unpaid Internship Debate [EXCLUSIVE]
In what could be the first-ever unpaid-internship lawsuit filed on behalf of aspiring attorneys, a New York City law firm is being accused of acting as an intern mill amid the ongoing debate over the legality of unpaid internships. A class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York alleges that the Portela Law Firm, a relatively low-profile operation located in Manhattan’s Washington Heights neighborhood, violated state and federal labor laws by providing no educational experience for its unpaid interns and failing to compensate them for what was essentially grunt work. The suit was filed on behalf of Eddie Poff, a recent law-school grad from the Bronx, and as many as 40 former interns who worked for the firm from approximately March 2007 to the present. Read the full story.
Rite Aid, LexisNexis Face Class Action Over Worker Info
Rite Aid Corp. and LexisNexis Search Solutions Inc. were hit with a putative class action in Pennsylvania federal court Friday alleging the drugstore giant used damaging or inaccurate information to make adverse hiring decisions in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Read the full story.
Supreme Court Shows Skepticism About Class Arbitration
The Supreme Court took up the question of arbitration again yesterday in the case of Oxford Health Plans vs. Sutter, and once again the conservative justices seemed skeptical that the process designed to keep disputes out of court should be open to class actions at all. Read the full story.
United States: Second Circuit Reverses Denial Of Individual Arbitration In Title VII Class Action
Since Concepcion, the plaintiffs' bar has been exhorting courts to recognize exceptions to its holding that courts may not refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement on the ground that it precludes class actions. In the employment context, the plaintiffs' bar thought that it had a winner with Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, in which a magistrate judge concluded (and a district court agreed) that Title VII bars enforcement of such agreements when the named plaintiff seeks to rely on "pattern-or-practice" evidence of discrimination. Last week, however, the Second Circuit reversed Chen-Oster and closed the loophole in Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. Read the full story.
Class Claims Hospital Chain Shorts Pensions
Health-care workers claim in a class action that Catholic Health East underfunded 60,000 workers' pension plans by $438 million, using a bogus claim that they are "exempt from ERISA's protections because they are 'Church plans.'" Read the full story.
Judge defers class action in US tech 'poaching' case
A judge on Friday cited strengths of a suit charging Silicon Valley giants with secretly agreeing not to "poach" each other's workers but shot down a request for broad class action status. Read the full story.
Junior Seau Lawsuit Joins NFL Concussion Class Actions
Lawsuits filed against the National Football League by the family of deceased star Junior Seau have been merged with an existing class action suits covering thousands of former players. Read the full story.
Verizon retirees granted class action status over Prudential pension deal
Retired Verizon Communications workers have won the right to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the telecom giant over its decision last year to transfer parts of its pension obligation to Prudential Financial. Read the full story.
Local hospital nurses victorious in class-action lawsuit against wage fixing
Nurses at five hospitals across the Capital District are getting something extra this pay period, after a settlement was reached in a lawsuit that alleged wage fixing by administrators. Read the full story.
Nearly 6,300 Dollar Tree employees seek class certification for lawsuit over wages
Nearly 6,300 Dollar Tree employees are waiting to hear whether a federal judge in Norfolk certifies a lawsuit over wages as a class action. The workers claim they often worked through their unpaid half-hour lunch breaks and are now seeking overtime for those hours. Read the full story.
Fisker Faced With Class-Action Suit Over Mass Layoffs
The same law firm that successfully sued Solyndra LLC over similar issues has filed a class action suit based on U.S. and California laws against Fisker Automotive for failure to provide 60 days notice to those culled by its mass layoffs on Friday. Read the full story.
Class action filed against Home Depot in Jefferson County
Former employees are alleging in a recently filed class action lawsuit that Home Depot doesn’t pay their final wages quickly enough. Read the full story.
Strippers face arbitration agreement in class action against Paradise City
A mandatory arbitration clause stands in the way of three strippers who filed a class action lawsuit against the club they say unfairly took a percentage of their tips, while a federal judge has preliminarily approved $138,000 in fees for attorneys in a similar case. Read the full story.
Judges OK class actions for NYC tenants claiming rent overcharges
Tenants who claim landlords illegally deregulated their rent-stabilized apartments can bring class actions seeking reimbursement for rent overcharges, a New York state appeals court ruled in a trio of decisions on Thursday. Read the full story.
U.S. Supreme Court raises threshold for class action certification
Alleged damages suffered by a class must be measurable on a class-wide basis before U.S. courts may certify a class action, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. Read the full story.
Ramirez v. Balboa Thrift and Loan
The trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion to certify a class on her unfair competition claim (UCL) alleging defendant violated the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the trial court's reliance on California Civil Code section 2983.3(b)(1) was not a proper basis for denying class certification; and 2) the trial court's conclusion was based on an improper legal assumption, i.e., that defendant would be entitled to assert this statutory exception as a valid affirmative defense to the UCL claim alleged by class members who were given a reinstatement right in the Notice of Intention to Dispose of Motor Vehicle. Read the full story.
Featured Firms
Initiative Legal Group
Initiative Legal Group is a 40-plus attorney law firm based in Los Angeles. ILG prosecutes class actions on behalf of employees, consumers, and others who have had their rights violated. ILG has the experience and resources to handle the most complex class actions, and we make the necessary investments to certify our class actions and maximize settlement value. Since 2006, we have won contested certification motions in 20 class actions and have settled 53 class actions. Visit our website at www.initiativelegal.com/.
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
At Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, our California labor attorneys strive to maximize the settlement and ease the experience of you employment law claim. Our lawyers help employees recover the full amount of compensation they are owed for all of the time they worked and, in the process, put a stop to their employer's illegal pay practices. The workplace attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik has a long, successful record of aggressively protecting workers rights from our offices in San Francisco, San Jose & San Diego. Whether you are looking for a discrimination attorney, sexual harassment lawyer, or even a wrongful termination attorney, our employment law firm has the experience and expertise to represent employees in workplace issues. Visit our website at www.bamlawca.com/.
The Impact Fund
The Impact Fund is a public foundation dedicated to providing representation, technical assistance and funding for complex, public interest litigation. Through our grants, trainings, and programs, we seek to address systemic problems of social and environmental injustice, human and civil rights and poverty. The Impact Fund's Equal Justice Litigation Program provides direct litigation support as co-counsel and amicus counsel in public interest, class action cases. Our legal team provides advice and counseling on procedural, trial, settlement, attorneys fees and related issues that arise in large scale, public interest litigation, such as class actions. We also conduct training programs and conferences. Visit our website at www.impactfund.org/.
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll
For over 37 years, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has been a pioneer in plaintiff class action lawsuits on behalf of victims of such abuses. By creating a group or class, individuals join to fight companies in court and enhance their ability to fight corporations who often have larger resources. As one of the premier firms in the country handling major complex class actions, Cohen Milstein, with more than 50 attorneys and offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and London, is a firm that specializes in cases concerning: Antitrust; Securities Fraud/Investor Protection; Civil Rights & Employment; Consumer Protection; Employee Benefits; Unsafe Drugs & Environmental Health Threats; International Antitrust, Securities, Human Rights and Unsafe Drugs & Environmental Health Threats. Visit our website at www.cmht.com/.
Case Websites
Kaiser Site Support Specialist Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/08/Kaiser.pdf
Eighth Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report
http://www.seyfarth.com/publications/Eighth-Annual-Workplace-Class-Action
Now in its eighth annual edition, Seyfarth’s Workplace Class Action Litigation Report examines the theoretical and strategic uncertainties stemming from the Supreme Court’s employment law and class action rulings in 2011, and the challenges they pose for companies and their defense counsel. The Report also makes clear that workplace lawsuit filings rose on nearly every front last year, from Fair Labor Standards Act and ERISA to government enforcement actions, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission setting a new record for discrimination charges brought against private-sector employers in a single year. Seyfarth notes that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, handed down last June, has already been cited more than 260 times in federal and state court opinions, and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion has been cited 215 times - remarkable figures for rulings less than a year old. Dukes, which established a new standard for certifying class actions, and Concepcion, which held that federal arbitration law supersedes limitations imposed by individual states, opened the floodgates to a wave a new case law developments in class actions and class arbitrations, which will continue to evolve in the coming year and impact litigants for years to come.
Wal-Mart Class Website
Attention - present and former female employees of Wal-Mart or Sam's Club: Wal-Mart Case Is Not Over: Regional Class Actions filed in California and Texas and EEOC charges may still be filed
Cy Pres Awards
Velez v. Novartis (Sanford Wittels & Heisler)
Workplace Fairness was a recipient of a cy pres award in Velez v. Novartis. Velez is the largest gender discrimination case to ever go to trial, and ended in the jury finding on behalf of a class of 5,600 female sales representatives in their gender pay and promotion and pregnancy discrimination claims. The jury also awarded 12 testifying current and former Novartis sales reps $3.36 million in compensatory damages and the class of 5,600 women an additional $250 million in punitive damages. In addition, the May 2010 verdict from the jury meant that the remaining 5,600 women in the class were also entitled to additional awards of backpay and to seek compensatory damage awards up to $300,000 each. In July 2010, Class Counsel Sanford Wittels & Heisler announced a settlement on behalf of all female sales reps to present, increasing the class size to approximately 6,200 women in total. On November 30, 2010 Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York, approved the final settlement agreement valued at $175 million. $22.5M earmarked for broad-reaching systemic reforms is believed to be among the largest non-monetary settlements ever reached. These systemic reforms will address: (1) the way Novartis promotes women into management; (2) the way Novartis evaluates its employees; (3) the way Novartis compensates its employees; (4) the way Novartis investigates and responds to complaints of discrimination and unfair treatment. $60M is set aside for back pay awards -- 100% of the value of back pay damages to the class. Approximately $40M is set aside for compensatory damages, with each class member having the right to seek payments up to the full $300,000 allowed under law. The remainder of the monetary fund provides service payments to class representatives and class members who helped prosecute the case, attorneys’ fees and case expenses, the administrative costs of implementing the settlement terms, and cy pres awards such as the one received by Workplace Fairness. The presiding judge noted that SWH achieved “extraordinary” and “one of a kind” results for the class in both the trial and the later settlement.
Caffarelli & Siegel, Lichten & Liss-Riordan
Marc Siegel and Brad Manewith of Caffarelli & Siegel and Shannon Liss-Riordan and Hillary Schwab of Lichten & Liss-Riordan worked on behalf of a class of plaintiffs in a wage case and provided a cy pres award to Workplace Fairness. Due to confidentiality restrictions, we are unable to disclose more about the case, but are very grateful for their generosity.
