|
|
Class Action & Impact Litigation"New York's Outten & Golden is famed in the market for its successful advice on class actions. Discrimination claims, and wage and hour issues form just a portion of the cases it undertakes against corporate giants like MetLife and Wal-Mart." Class action and impact litigation are potent tools for curbing employer abuses from economic exploitation to gender-based glass ceilings. Through our class-based litigation efforts, we have obtained well in excess of $100,000,000 in back wages, together with substantial injunctive relief and other benefits on behalf of tens of thousands of workers throughout the United States. Currently, we are actively working on systemic discrimination class actions against major employers – such as Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley – as well as litigating nationwide overtime class actions in courts in New York and California. O&G presently serves as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, with lawyers from the National Employment Law Project (NELP), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in economic exploitation impact litigation. In addition, O&G is co-counsel with nationally-recognized law firms from California, Washington D.C., and Texas, on class action cases to enforce workers' civil rights and rights to payment. Just Filed
Employment Discrimination Class Actions
Wage and Hour Class Actions
WARN Act
Just FiledEOS AirlinesOutten & Golden, filed suit against EOS Airlines Inc., in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to secure the rights of former EOS Airlines’ employees in connection with the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). EOS Airlines terminated approximately 350 employees at its facilities in Purchase, NY and JFK on or about April 27, 2008 without providing them with advance written notice. Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. EOS Airlines terminated employees on April 27, 2008, without providing them with advance written notice. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.warnlawyers.com. ATA AirlinesOutten & Golden filed suit against ATA Airlines, Inc., Global Aero Logistics, Inc. and MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings, LLC., seeking to recover 60 days wages and benefits for former employees of ATA Airlines who were terminated in violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). ATA Airlines terminated approximately 1000 employees at their facilities in Chicago, IL, Bedford Park, IL, Dallas, TX, Honolulu, HI, Indianapolis, IN, Oakland, CA, Phoenix, AZ, and Jamaica and Flushing, NY, on or about April 3, 2008, without providing them with advance written notice. The case is now pending in the Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Indiana. Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.warnlawyers.com. Tyson Foods Meat Processing Plant Workers Unpaid Overtime ActionOutten & Golden, along with co-counsel Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, has filed a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods alleging that employees in Tyson’s Garden City, Kansas meat processing plant did not receive wages and overtime pay as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Kansas state law. The case is called, “Garcia et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc. et al” (No. 06-2198-JWL) and is pending in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas. The workers allege that they were not paid for work duties including donning and doffing required work uniforms, putting on safety equipment (work pants; safety jump suits; safety boots; hair nets; face nets; hard hats; aprons; belts, holsters and knives; and hand and arm protection), and walking to and from the changing area, work areas, and break areas. More than 800 workers have joined the case as opt-in plaintiffs. On February 16, 2007, the Judge presiding over our case denied Tyson’s request to dismiss the case. This decision clears the way for our clients to request that the case proceed as a class action. The Judge’s decision cites the United States Supreme Court’s 2005 decision holding that any activity that is “integral and indispensable” to a “principal activity” performed by workers is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Please email Justin M. Swartz jms@outtengolden.com or Linda A. Neilan lan@outtengolden.com or call (212) 245-1000 for more information. Gristede’s Supermarkets Sued for Gender DiscriminationNEW YORK, October 24, 2006 /PRNewswire/ - Gristede’s Operating Corp., which owns Gristede’s supermarkets, faces allegations by former employees that the grocery store chain violated civil rights laws by segregating women into lower-paying jobs and failing to promote them to management positions, according to the New York law firm representing the former employees. In a case filed Monday in New York federal court, the named plaintiffs – Vanessa Hill and Margaret Anderson, both of the Bronx – allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Both women worked as part-time cashiers at Gristede’s in Manhattan. Hill worked for Gristede’s from February 1999 to January 2004, and Anderson worked there from November 2004 to December 2004. The law firm of Outten & Golden LLP will seek to have the case certified as a class action that includes current and former female employees of Gristede’s. According to the Complaint, Gristede’s steers female job applicants into cashier and bookkeeper positions, while steering male applicants into clerk positions. The Complaint alleges that Gristede’s offers the clerks more opportunities for extra hours, full-time work, and promotion to management than it offers to cashiers and bookkeepers. Attorney Piper Hoffman, of Outten & Golden, said, “We allege that the discrimination has been company-wide and pervasive. We believe the evidence will show that Gristede’s intentionally segregates women into positions that pay less and keeps them out of management.” Hoffman estimates that the lawsuit could include more than 3,000 women. The case is “Hill v. Gristede’s Operating Corp.” (No. 06 CV 10197) (LTS) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney Contact: Piper Hoffman (ph@outtengolden.com) Shelly’s New York / Fireman Hospitality Group Withheld Tips, Minimum Wages, and Overtime CaseOutten & Golden LLP and our co-counsel, the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, represent a group of workers from Shelly's Prime Steak, Stone Crab & Oyster Bar, an upscale restaurant in Midtown Manhattan, in a lawsuit charging that Shelly’s, and its parent company, Fireman Hospitality Group, misappropriated tips, failed to pay overtime, and paid workers less than the minimum wage. Servers, runners, bussers, and bartenders who have worked at Shelly’s between June 7, 2000 and the present may be eligible to be part of the lawsuit. The four named plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Restaurant Opportunities Center in New York (ROC-NY), an organization that fights for New York restaurant worker's rights. Outten & Golden LLP is currently investigating reports of similar practices at other restaurants in the Fireman Hospitality Group, and at other New York City restaurants. More than 50 current and former employees of the Redeye Grill, another Fireman Hospitality Group restaurant, filed a federal lawsuit in January 2006 alleging similar violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs in the Redeye Grill lawsuit are also members of ROC- NY. Please email Justin M. Swartz (jms@outtengolden.com) or Anjana Samant (as@outtengolden.com) or call (212) 245-1000 for more information. Washington Mutual Loan Consultants, Loan Officers, and Loan Originators Overtime Pay CaseNEW YORK, June 6 /PRNewswire/ - Washington Mutual Inc. (NYSE:WM) faces allegations by former employees in New York, California and Illinois that the company violated labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages and the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour worked, according to two law firms representing the former employees. In a case filed Monday in New York federal court, the named plaintiffs - Dewone Westerfield, of Grand Rapids, Mich., Charlotte Machado of Trussville, Ala, and Patricia Kemesies, of East Islip, N.Y., allege violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and various state labor laws. The law firms of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Outten & Golden LLP, of New York, will seek to have the case certified as a collective action that includes current or former home loan consultants (also referred to as loan officers and loan originators) who worked for Washington Mutual nationwide. Ms. Kemesies worked as a home loan consultant at a Washington Mutual center in Hauppauge, N.Y. Ms. Machado worked for the company in Modesto, Calif. Mr. Westerfield worked for the company at a Chicago office. According to the Complaint, the Washington Mutual home loan consultants regularly work hours in excess of 40 per week and have not received overtime compensation for all hours worked. If the loans they handle are not approved, the consultants may receive no pay for the long hours they work, and this practice violates the minimum wage law, according to the law firms. Attorney Paul J. Lukas, of Nichols Kaster & Anderson, said, “We allege that the unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent. We believe that Washington Mutual has willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA, and that the company knew that these employees and others performed work that required overtime pay and minimum wages.” Attorney Jack A. Raisner, of Outten & Golden said, “The law does not allow employers to avoid paying overtime compensation to people who handle mortgages and loans on a strictly commission basis. Paying them less than minimum wage when their commissions dip is particularly harsh given the long hours these people work.” The case is “Westerfield v. Washington Mutual Inc.,” (No. 06 Civ 2817 CBA) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Attorney Contacts: Jack Raisner Donald H. Nichols Food Bazaar Minimum Wage and Overtime CaseNine workers have filed suit for egregious violations of Federal and New York Labor laws at the Food Bazaar Supermarket in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn. The suit, filed yesterday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asks the court to award them more than $1.5 million in damages resulting from unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation. The nine workers, employed as grocery baggers, received no wages despite work schedules that exceeded fifty to sixty hours per week. Although they received tips from customers, the workers’ earnings from tips fell well below the required minimum wage. Under both New York and Federal law, the supermarket was required to pay the full minimum wage plus additional overtime pay for work weeks that exceeded forty hours. Dinora Aybar, one of the nine plaintiffs and who worked at the supermarket for more than seven years, said, “They took advantage of our fears and made us compete with one another for crumbs. We worked there because this supermarket is in our community; we helped their business and they rewarded us for our hard work by firing us after not paying us for so many years.” “The complaint alleges that, in addition to bagging groceries, Plaintiffs were required to fill in for cashiers, clean the check-out aisles, and restock unwanted grocery items—all at the direction of the Defendants,” explained Linda Neilan, an attorney with Outten & Golden LLP, who together with the Urban Justice Center represents the Plaintiffs. According to David Colodny, an attorney with the Urban Justice Center, “The law is very clear that when an employer suffers or permits someone to work, the employer has to pay that person for the work.” Added Cara Greene, another Outten & Golden LLP attorney, “The federal and state labor laws were enacted to address situations exactly like this.” The Bushwick Food Bazaar Supermarket is located at 454 Wyckoff Avenue, and is owned and operated by Bogopa, Inc. and Bogopa Service Corp. The Chief Executive Officer of both companies is Hwee Ill An. Bogopa Service Corp. is the parent company of eleven supermarkets in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and New Jersey, doing business under the trade names Food Bazaar and Food Dimensions. The Plaintiffs are represented by Outten & Golden LLP and the Urban Justice Center. Please email Linda A. Neilan (lan@outtengolden.com) or Cara E. Greene (ceg@outtengolden.com) or call (212) 245-1000 for more information. Employment Discrimination Class ActionsMorgan Stanley Race DiscriminationOutten & Golden LLP and our co-lead counsel, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP, represent a former Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. in a national class action race discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco. The case charges that Morgan Stanley’s retail brokerage arm engaged in a pattern and practice of race discrimination against its African American and Latino Financial Advisors and Financial Advisor Registered Trainees in compensation by favoring African American and Latino Financial Advisors and Registered Trainees in the distribution of business opportunities, accounts and other terms and conditions of employment throughout the company. A proposed settlement has been filed with the Court that provides for a class fund and substantial injunctive relief. Smith Barney Gender DiscriminationOutten & Golden LLP represents four female financial consultants who filed a national class action lawsuit on March 31, 2005 in federal court in San Francisco. The lawsuit charges sex discrimination at Smith Barney, the retail brokerage arm of Citigroup, which is the nation's largest financial institution. Our co-counsel on this case are Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP of San Francisco and Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, of Washington, DC. The lawsuit, Fassbender Amochaev v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., dba Smith Barney, alleges that Smith Barney has engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its female financial consultants in account distribution, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment throughout the company. The women allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California law. The complaint charges that, among other things, Smith Barney discriminates against women in the account distribution process, routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts to female brokers, including those who outperform their male counterparts; fails to provide women with the same level of sales and administrative support as it provides to men; and maintains a corporate culture hostile to female professionals. People interested in the lawsuit should visit www.genderlawsuitagainstsmithbarney.com, where they can submit information, or call 1-800-642-8330 to leave a message for plaintiffs' counsel. They can also contact Adam T. Klein, Piper Hoffman, or Justin M. Swartz at (212) 245-1000 for more information. Media coverage of this case:
Wage and Hour Class ActionsUPS Supervisor/Specialist Overtime Pay Class ActionCurrent and former United Parcel Service (NYSE:UPS) human resources department employees allege in a federal lawsuit that the company violated federal and New York state labor laws by misclassifying employees as exempt from federal overtime requirements, according to the law firm representing the employees. Joseph Dorfman, of Amenia, N.Y., and Maryann Barone, of West Babylon, N.Y., allege in a lawsuit filed Feb. 16 that current and former employees at New York state facilities, including supervisors, part-time supervisors, specialists and part-time specialists, were misclassified by UPS as salaried employees exempt from the overtime requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The law firm of Outten & Golden LLP, of New York, represents Mr. Dorfman and Ms. Barone, and will seek to have the case certified as a class action that includes current or former misclassified supervisor/specialist employees of UPS in the state of New York. According to the Complaint, Mr. Dorfman, who has been employed by UPS since 2000, worked at the company’s Maspeth, N.Y., facility, and Ms. Barone, who worked for the company for about five years until 2005, was employed at UPS human resources department facilities in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. Jack A. Raisner, an attorney at Outten & Golden’s New York office, said, “We allege that UPS committed over a period of several years widespread violations of the FLSA by misclassifying New York employees in supervisor/specialist positions as exempt. We also allege that UPS reclassified certain employees as non-exempt early in or about January 2005, but has not paid them for overtime worked during several years prior to the filing of this suit.” The case is “Joseph Dorfman and Maryann Barone v. United Parcel Service” (No. 06 CV 00703) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Please contact Jack Raisner by e-mail (jar@outtengolden.com) or phone (212) 245-1000 for more information. Nationwide IBM Tech Worker Overtime Pay Class ActionOn January 24, 2006, current and former IBM technical support employees filed a class action lawsuit against IBM alleging it failed to pay overtime wages in violation of federal and state labor laws. The suit, entitled Rosenberg et al. v. IBM, was filed in federal court in San Francisco. The complaint charges that IBM illegally treats its employees who install, maintain or support computer software or equipment as "exempt" under federal and state labor laws so it does not have to pay them overtime. Who Is In This Class? The proposed classes in the class action include current and former IBM technical support workers with the primary duties of installing, maintaining, or supporting computer software and/or hardware for IBM who were not paid for their overtime work because IBM wrongly classified these employees as exempt. What The Plaintiffs Want The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to order IBM to pay technical employees for the overtime they have worked in the past, and to start paying overtime to employees who are eligible for it. Share Your Experience/Contact an Attorney The plaintiffs are represented by Outten & Golden LLP along with a several other firms nationwide including Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP in San Francisco, CA; Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C. in Oakland, CA; Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP in San Francisco, CA; Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge, LLP in Los Angeles, CA; Lee & Braziel, LLP in Dallas, TX; Bruckner Burch, PLLC in Houston, TX; and Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian in Oakland, CA. Please visit the case website at www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstibm.com, email Justin M. Swartz (jms@outtengolden.com) or Piper Hoffman (ph@outtengolden.com), or call toll free (877) 468-8836 for more information. Home Depot Overtime Class ActionO&G represents a former computer room supervisor and a former bookkeeper at Home Depot's Flushing, New York store, in a suit for unpaid regular and overtime wages for all current and former Flushing store workers dating back to July, 1999. The case, Hernandez v. Home Depot, has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn and seeks to force Home Depot to pay hundreds employees the regular and overtime wages that they earned. The workers are seeking class action status. These former Home Depot workers allege that, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York wage and hour law, a Flushing Home Depot store manager pressured them to alter payroll records and shave overtime hours from other Home Depot workers store-wide, with the intent to reduce labor costs and thereby boost the manager's perceived performance. One of the plaintiffs, Dora Hernandez, alleges that Home Depot terminated her for complaining about this practice. The Flushing Home Depot store was at one point the largest-grossing store in the home improvement superstore's chain. O&G is currently investigating the extent and impact of this alleged hour-shaving scheme, which is estimated to have affected hundreds of Home Depot workers. Please contact Tarik Ajami (tfa@outtengolden.com) or Jack Raisner (jar@outtengolden.com) for more information. HSBC Call Center Overtime Class ActionO&G represents two former HSBC call center workers from HSBC's call center facilities in Buffalo, NY and Depew, NY in a lawsuit alleging that HSBC denied them and their coworkers overtime pay required by federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York state wage and hour laws. Our clients, James Stefaniak and Keith Panaccione, in their Class Action Complaint, allege that they were required to perform work outside their scheduled shifts, for HSBC's benefit, without compensation, and without the overtime premium that the wage and hour laws require employers to pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Based on O&G's investigations into similar overtime practices at other call centers, it appears that HSBC is part of a larger industry trend -- requiring low-paid call center workers to work outside of their scheduled shifts without compensation or overtime pay. O&G's clients have filed class action lawsuits against several other companies that run call centers, including TeleTech, JP Morgan Chase, GEICO, and ClientLogic for similar practices that would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws. O&G is currently investigating similar practices at other call centers in the Buffalo, NY area and nationwide, including an Adelphia call center in the Buffalo, NY area. The case, James Stefaniak and Keith Panaccione v. HSBC Bank USA Inc., No. 05 CV 6528 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeks to force HSBC to pay thousands of employees the wages that they earned. The workers are seeking class action status. HSBC runs call centers in Buffalo, N.Y.; Depew, N.Y.; Chesapeake, Va.; Wood Dale, Ill.; Las Vegas, Nev.; and other locations. ClientLogic Call Center Overtime Class ActionDid you receive a notice in the mail? Click here for FAQs, More than 175 current and former ClientLogic call center workers have joined a federal lawsuit against ClientLogic alleging overtime violations. O&G has been contacted by more than 200 current and former ClientLogic call center workers from its call center facilities in Buffalo, NY; Lake City, FL; Kingstree, SC; and Starkville, MS; Huntington, WV and Las Vegas, NV. In May 2005, two workers from ClientLogic’s Buffalo, NY call center filed a class action lawsuit alleging that they were required to perform work outside their scheduled shifts, for ClientLogic's benefit, without being paid regular pay or overtime pay. In investigating the claims against ClientLogic and other companies that run call centers, including TeleTech, JP Morgan Chase, GEICO, and HSBC, O&G has found this requirement to be a common practice in the call center industry. This violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law which require ClientLogic to pay its hourly workers time and a half for all hours that they work beyond forty hours in a workweek - including time that they work outside of their scheduled shifts. The case, Hens v. ClientLogic Operating Corporation, No. 05 CV 0381, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, seeks to force ClientLogic to pay thousands of employees the wages that they earned. The workers are seeking class action status. ClientLogic's call center customers include Sony, Microsoft and DirectTV. ClientLogic runs call centers in Buffalo, NY; Kenmore, NY; Tonawanda, NY; Andalusia, AL; Hamilton, AL; Winfield, AL; Milford, DE.; Lake City, FL.; Bogalusa, LA.; Starkville, MS; Las Vegas, NV.; Bloomfield, NJ; Clifton, NJ; Fairlawn, NJ; Weehawken, NJ; Albuquerque, NM; Asheville, NC; Columbus, OH; Bartlesville, OK; Norman, OK; Kingstree, SC; Nashville, TN; Oak Ridge, TN; Dallas, TX; Port Arthur, TX; and Huntington, WV. Please contact Justin M. Swartz (jms@outtengolden.com), ReNika C. Moore (rcm@outtengolden.com), or Cara Greene (ceg@outtengolden.com for more information.  Return to TopDuane ReadeO&G represents Kelvin Damassia, who filed a class action lawsuit against Duane Reade, Inc. for overtime violations in its drug stores throughout New York State. The suit, which was filed in federal court in New York, charges that the drug store chain, the largest in the New York metropolitan area, has engaged in a pattern of denying overtime to many of its employees by improperly categorizing them as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. Return to Top Constantin Control Associates Class ActionO&G represents former Constantin Control Associates employees who filed a class action lawsuit in federal court seeking unpaid overtime and related remedies. The suit alleges that Constantin Control Associates has avoided paying overtime wages by misclassifying certain employees as hourly "consultants" in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York's Labor Law. The employees contend that they were placed into clerical positions at various financial institutions such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of New York, Trust/Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, and ABN-AMRO while only receiving payment at their straight hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in the work week. Return to Top JP Morgan Chase Class ActionsCustomer Service and Call Center Workers O&G represents current and former J.P. Morgan Chase customer service employees in New York who filed a class action lawsuit in state court seeking unpaid overtime and related remedies. The suit alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase has avoided paying overtime wages by misclassifying certain employees under New York's Labor Law. The employees contend that their jobs entail routine customer service functions for which J.P. Morgan Chase properly had paid them time-and-a-half overtime in the past. But after J.P. Morgan promoted them into re-titled positions, it stopped paying them overtime, although their functions remained the same. The claimants' job titles include client service officer, account officer, and assistant treasurer. According to Adam Klein, a lawyer with Outten & Golden LLP, one of the firms representing the employees: "There's been a lot of renaming of positions at J.P. Morgan, given the recent mergers. Along the way, the company has been converting positions from overtime-paying jobs, to exempt ones. The problem is that the employees are doing the same work as before. Employers are not relieved from their overtime obligations by 'promoting' employees into fancier-sounding positions that are different in name only." The lawsuit also alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase requires its telephone-dedicated employees to work prior to and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay in call centers located in New York State. Call Center Workers O&G represents a former J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. call center worker in Texas who filed a collective action lawsuit in federal court pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Outten & Golden has teamed up with two of Texas' top plaintiffs' law firms, Edwards & George and Bruckner Burch, to represent plaintiffs who worked in Texas, Florida, Arizona, Delaware, and several other states. The suit alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase requires its telephone-dedicated employees to work prior to and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay in call centers located in numerous states. The case seeks recovery of unpaid wages and overtime premium pay for telephone-dedicated employees, who had to work before and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay. GEICO Class ActionTillman et al. v. GEICO is a class action lawsuit filed on July 25, 2003, in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County. Outten & Golden has joined with two of Texas' top plaintiffs' law firms, Edwards & George and Bruckner Burch, to represent the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have brought the case under New York State law on behalf of all telephone-dedicated hourly employees who have been, or will be, employed by GEICO in its Woodbury, New York, facility at any time after July 25, 1997, through the date of final disposition of the action, who worked as telephone-dedicated employees in the Sales, Service, Direct Handling, or Claims Department. Those positions include: Sales Counselor, Sales Associate, Sales Representative, Liability Examiner, Direct Handler, Claims Representative, Liability Representative, Insurance Counselor, and Customer Service Representative. The case seeks recovery of unpaid wages and overtime premium pay for telephone-dedicated employees who had to work before and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay. A settlement has been reached that provides for substantial monetary relief to the class. The terms of the settlement were approved by the court in late 2004, and the case is now closed. Wal-Mart Class Actionwww.lieffcabraser.com/wal-mart.htm We serve as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, in a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging that a class of approximately 80,000 hourly-rate employees in NY state have not received proper compensation for all hours worked (off-the-clock) or overtime premium pay in violation of the New York State Labor Law. A&P Class ActionFoster et al v. Food Emporium We serve as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, in a lawsuit against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) alleging that a class of hourly-rate employees within the New York Metropolitan area have not received proper compensation for all hours worked (off-the-clock) or overtime premium pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A settlement has been approved by the court that provides for a total payment of $3,110,000. Lamarca et al v. A&P On June 24, 2004, Outten & Golden LLP filed a second class action lawsuit against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., which operates A&P, The Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's. The plaintiffs, former employees of the supermarkets, charge that the chains fail to pay employees overtime wages and delete hours actually worked from time records in violation of New York labor law. The case covers all hourly full-time employees who were employed by A&P, The Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's in the State of New York from June 24, 1998, to the present. Gristede's, A&P, and Duane Reade Deliverymen Class ActionWe serve as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel with the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in a class action lawsuit against Gristedes, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P), Duane Reade, and two labor agents alleging that a class of deliverymen have worked six or seven days a week, 10 to 12 hours a day, delivering groceries for sub-minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law. The Attorney General of the State of New York has also filed a lawsuit against A&P and is investigating these practices against the other defendants. A class-wide settlement has been reached with four defendants in the total amount of $8.1 million plus additional job-related benefits. TeleTech/Verizon WirelessO&G represents call center workers in a collective/class action arbitration against TeleTech before the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and other state laws. Outten & Golden LLP has teamed up with the Kansas City, Missouri, law firm of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP to represent plaintiffs who work in call centers located in New York, Kansas, Virginia, and other locations. The arbitration demand, initially on behalf of some 900 workers, alleges that TeleTech requires its telephone-dedicated employees to work prior to and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay. The case seeks recovery of unpaid wages and overtime premium pay for telephone-dedicated employees, who had to work before and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay. Gristede'sO&G represents current and former Gristede's grocery store employees in New York who filed a class action lawsuit in federal court seeking unpaid overtime and related remedies. The suit alleges that Gristede's has avoided paying overtime wages by misclassifying co-managers and night managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York's Labor Law. The suit also alleges that Gristede's failed to pay other employees for all hours worked. The Complaint was recently amended to add a fraud claim based on allegations in the complaint that Gristede's systematically cheated workers out of millions of dollars in earned wages by falsifying payroll records. The Amended Complaint also added claims against the owner of Gristede's, John Catsimatidis, and two senior managers. On September 29, 2006, Judge Crotty certified this case as a class and collective action. In deciding the motion for class certification in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court observed that “Given Gristede’s practice of treating co-managers and department managers as hourly workers, it is irrelevant that some individual plaintiffs or others similarly situated may have assumed duties that would otherwise make them exempt under the regulations. . . . Gristede’s clearly sought to treat workers as “hourly” for some purposes (i.e., docking them for hours not worked during the workweek), but “salaried” for other purposes (i.e., not paying them overtime for hours worked in excess of the workweek). The Court also noted that: “Here, the two provisions at issue expressly require that executive and administrative employees be paid a salary. Such salaried compensation, by definition, cannot be the hourly wages Gristede’s admitted company policy dictates. Since Plaintiffs have adduced convincing evidence that Gristede’s acknowledged company policy treated co-managers and department managers as hourly employees, Defendants cannot defeat commonality by pointing to individualized exemption determinations on the basis of duties.” According to published sources, Gristede's, a leading New York City supermarket chain, is a subsidiary of the Red Apple Group. Another subsidiary of the Red Apple Group is United Refining, which processes 65,000 barrels of oil a day, distributes fuel to its 372 Country Fair/Red Apple gas stations/convenience stores in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The Red Apple Group also has real estate, aircraft leasing, and newspaper operations. Donna Karan Garment Workers' Class ActionWe serve as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) in a lawsuit against Donna Karan alleging that a class of garment workers were forced to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day, sewing high-priced clothing for Donna Karan at a unionized factory in New York's fashion district and that they did not receive minimum wage & overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law. The case is now settled. New York Apple Tours Class ActionWe serve as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in a lawsuit against New York Apple Tours alleging that a class of drivers and tour guides did not receive overtime premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other wage and hour violations of the New York State Labor Law. The court certified this as a class action under both Federal and State Law. The case is now settled. We are investigating a number of potential employment discrimination class actions and class-based wage and hour claims. Please contact Adam T. Klein for further information. New York Sports Club Class ActionOn February 24, 2005, O&G filed a New York Supreme Court class action lawsuit against Town Sports International, Inc., the owner of the New York Sports Club, Boston Sports Club, Philadelphia Sports Club, and Washington Sports Club health and fitness clubs alleging that New York Sports Club has failed to pay its New York-based personal trainers and assistant fitness managers for all of the time that they worked and failed to pay them overtime compensation to which they are entitled under the New York Labor Law. Please contact Piper Hoffman for further information. PrecisionSettlement Agreement in Junes Santos v. Precision Pharma Services, Inc. and V.I. Technologies, Inc., 05/02446 (Suffolk Cty) Outten & Golden LLP has reached a preliminary settlement on behalf of a class of technicians and mechanics employed by V.I. Technologies, Inc. between January 26, 1999 and August 14, 2001 (“class period). Class members are entitled to recover unpaid overtime premiums from V. I. Technologies during the class period. Class members should receive notice of the amount of their claim by March 14, 2006. The settlement agreement with V.I. Technologies is available here. WARN ActQuaker Fabric CorporationOutten & Golden has filed suit in Delaware bankruptcy court to secure the rights of Quaker Fabric employees in connection with the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. The company shut down its Fall River, Massachusetts' operations on July 2, 2007 terminating its more than 900 employees without providing any advance written notice. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.warnlawyers.com. HomebancOutten & Golden with Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, filed suit in Deleware bankruptcy court to secure the rights of Homebanc employees in connection with the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. HomeBanc terminated its more than 1,000 employees on August 10, 2007 without providing them with advance written notice. On December 17, 2007, the Court certified the case as a class action. Our co-counsel, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, will mail notice of the lawsuit to each affected employee in January 2008.] To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.masslayoff.com. American Home Mortgage Loan Class ActionsLoan Officers Unpaid Overtime Outten & Golden, along with co-counsel Nichols Kaster & Anderson PLLP, has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against American Home Mortgage alleging that loan officers were not paid overtime pay and minimum wage as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the state laws of California, New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington, Colorado and New Jersey. The case is called, “Abrams et al. v. American Home Mortgage. et al” (No. C07-03252) and is pending in U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco. The loan officers allege that they were paid on a commission-only basis for originating mortgage loan that they submitted to the company for processing. They worked in excess of 40 hours a week for which they received no extra compensation, and sometimes no compensation at all. WARN Act - For information, go to www.masslayoff.com.Outten & Golden with Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP and other co-counsel have filed suit against American Home Mortgage on behalf of employees who were terminated on August 3, 2007 without any advanced written notice. If you worked at an AHM site with 50 or more employees and were terminated on August 3, 2007, you may be entitled to 60 days wages and benefits. If you believe that AHM has violated your WARN rights, you can contact our firm immediately at 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.masslayoff.com First MagnusOutten & Golden with Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP , filed suit against First Magnus in Arizona bankruptcy court seeking to recover 60 days wages and benefits on behalf of former employees of First Magnus who were terminated on August 16, 2007 without advance written notice, as required by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.masslayoff.com. Delta Corporation/Fidelity MortgageOutten & Golden with Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, filed suit against Delta/Fidelity seeking to recover 60 days wages and benefits on behalf of former employees who were terminated in violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). The case is titled “Bressmer, et al. v. Delta Financial Corporation, et al.” and is pending in Delaware bankruptcy court. Bressmer and approximately 700 other similarly situated employees worked at Delta/Fidelity’s corporate headquarters in Woodbury, New York until terminated without advance written notice on August 22, 2007 and November 8, 2007. The WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with written notice 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.masslayoff.com. Alliance BancorpOutten & Golden with Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, filed suit in Delaware bankruptcy court to secure the rights of Alliance Bancorp and Alliance Bancorp, Inc. employees in connection with the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. Alliance terminated employees on July 13, 2007, without providing them with advance written notice. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.masslayoff.com. Kitty HawkOutten & Golden filed suit against Kitty Hawk, Inc. seeking to recover 60 days wages and benefits for former employees of Kitty Hawk, Inc. who were terminated in violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). The case is now pending in the Northern District of Texas bankruptcy court. Generally, the WARN Act requires companies to provide their employees with 60 days written notice in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. In the absence of such notice, employers may be liable to each affected employee for 60 days wages and benefits. Kitty Hawk terminated more than 700 employees at their facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana and Dallas, Texas on or about October 29, 2007, without providing them with advance written notice. To contact us regarding this matter, please call 1-877 4-OUTTEN and ask for René Roupinian or email her at rroupinian@outtengolden.com or go to www.warnlawyers.com. For links to other legal resources, click on www.outtengolden.com/resources/links |
|
| case websites . search . contact us . site map . disclaimer . privacy . home © 2007 Outten & Golden LLP . Attorney Advertising |