wage & hour



230 Fifth Avenue Tips, Minimum Wages, and Overtime Wages

On September 8, 2008, Outten & Golden filed a class action lawsuit against 230 Fifth Avenue, an upscale restaurant, bar, and party venue that has the distinction of being New York City’s largest rooftop bar. The plaintiffs allege that 230 Fifth Avenue withheld from workers mandatory tips or “service charges” collected from customers who were contracting with the restaurant for private parties and functions. The plaintiffs also allege that 230 Fifth Avenue failed to pay workers the minimum wage as well as overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week, required employees to work off the clock without pay, and failed to keep accurate records of all hours employees worked. Servers, runners, bussers, bartenders, barbacks, and cocktail waitresses who worked at 230 Fifth Avenue may be eligible to be part of the lawsuit.

Outten & Golden LLP is currently investigating reports of similar practices at other New York City restaurants.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



A&P Class Actions

Foster 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.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



A-1 International, Inc. and Subcontracting Concepts, LLC

Outten & Golden LLP and AndersonDodson, P.C. represent a group of current and former delivery drivers with A-1 International, Inc. and SCI (Subcontracting Concepts, LLC) in a nationwide class and collective action lawsuit in federal court, which alleges that A-1 and SCI wrongly misclassified drivers as independent contractors, did not comply with the overtime requirements of federal and New York law, and took unlawful deductions from drivers' pay.  The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unlawful deductions on behalf of all drivers.  On July 8, 2013, Judge Nathan certified the federal claims as a collective action. The case is Oudraogo v. A-1 International, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 5651, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.   
 
For more information, email Molly Brooks or call (212) 245-1000.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Affinity Health Plan

Plaintiffs in this case were Marketing Representatives and Marketing Specialists who alleged that Affinity failed to compensate them for overtime hours worked "off the clock" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.  In July 2011, the parties agreed to a $2.5 million class action settlement to resolve the lawsuit.  Outten & Golden LLP became involved in the case during the settlement approval process, when an objector opposed the settlement.  Along with co-counsel Shulman Kessler LLP, Outten & Golden succeeded in obtaining  preliminary and final approval of the class settlement.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Alliance Bernstein Entry-Level Associate Portfolio Managers Misclassification Lawsuit

Outten & Golden LLP, along with co-counsel, the Law Offices of Gregory R. Fidlon, P.C. of Atlanta, Georgia, represents a group of AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers. AllianceBernstein is a global investment management firm providing investment services to clients. The Plaintiffs brought this case as a collective action under the FLSA and a class action under the New York Labor Law on behalf of themselves and other current and former APMs. Plaintiffs allege that AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers were misclassified as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and seek unpaid overtime back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

The Plaintiffs allege that at AllianceBernstein, the associate portfolio manager position is an entry-level position with a standard job description that does not vary from office to office or department to department within the company. AllianceBernstein employs APMs in three portfolio management groups (“PMGs”): institutional equity, fixed income, and private client. The primary job of all AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers is entering trade orders, which are clerical, data entry functions that involve minimal, if any, discretion or independent judgment. AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers in all three sub-groups perform the same job duties and operate under the same reporting structure and deadlines. AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers have no managerial job duties—they do not manage or supervise anyone, nor do they have authority to make operational decisions but must stay within AllianceBernstein's set parameters. AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers have little or no direct contact with clients and do not recommend investment options; AllianceBernstein's research department and the client’s financial advisor perform those tasks.

On July 20, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, asking the Court to require AllianceBernstein to provide them with contact information for all AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers who worked at AllianceBernstein during the past three years and to authorize them to send them notice. In response, Defendants argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (“Dukes”) precluded a collective action. Plaintiffs responded that Dukes, an employment discrimination class action not an misclassification overtime lawsuit, has nothing to do with whether a collective action is appropriate in this case. The Plaintiffs here, unlike the plaintiffs in Dukes, challenge a specific, company-wide misclassification policy that applies to all AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers in the same way - misclassifying AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers as exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. AllianceBernstein's primary defense (the FLSA's administrative exemption) also unites all class members because it turns on a common legal issue - whether the AllianceBernstein associate portfolio managers' primary duty is administrative work or production work. Plaintiffs argued that it is production work under Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529, 531-34 (2d Cir. 2009), and is perfect for collective adjudication.

On August 24, 2011, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the case should be certified as a an FLSA collective action and granted Plaintiffs' motion. Notice was mailed to all APMs within the relevant period on October 19, 2011.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Allstate Insurance Company No-Fault Claims Adjusters Misclassification Overtime Lawsuit

Outten & Golden LLP represents two Allstate no-fault claims adjusters in a class action and collective action lawsuit against the nation’s largest publicly-held personal insurance company. The plaintiffs, who allege that Allstate violated overtime laws, seek to represent a nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective of no-fault claims adjusters and a New York State-wide class of no-fault claims adjusters who worked overtime in New York.

Allstate has over $133 billion in assets and earned more than $26 billion in 2010. It is an international company with offices in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 14,000 agents and representatives. The lawsuit alleges that Allstate improperly denies its no-fault claims adjusters overtime pay they are entitled to under State and Federal law by misclassifying them as exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. Allstate no-fault claims adjusters spend well over 40 hours a week performing their primary duty - paying no-fault insurance claims by telephone. Their work is closely supervised and highly regulated by state insurance law and by Allstate’s own policies, which do not permit them to negotiate the settlement of claims or to determine fault.

In addition to their class action overtime claims, the Plaintiffs both allege that Allstate retaliated against them for questioning Allstate’s policy of misclassifying them as exempt and denying them overtime wages, and for filing this lawsuit. Both Plaintiffs worked for the company for over ten years.

The defendant is Allstate Insurance Company. The case is “Perez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company,” U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 11 Civ. 1812.

Attorney Contacts: Justin M. Swartz, Ossai Miazad, and Michael J. Scimone, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, 212-245-1000.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



American Home Mortgage Loan Officers Unpaid Overtime

Outten & Golden 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.

 (Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Amerigroup Facilitated Enrollers (Marketing Representatives) Misclassification Overtime Lawsuit

Along with Morgan & Morgan PA, Outten & Golden LLP represents a group of Amerigroup facilitated enrollers (marketing representatives) who enroll low-income New Yorkers in Medicaid and other free health insurance programs in a class action and collective action overtime lawsuit. They seek to recover unpaid overtime wages from Amerigroup Corp. and Amergroup New York, LLC (“Amerigroup”), a national health insurance company that they allege misclassified them under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs, Amerigroup facilitated enrollers whom Amerigroup classifies as outside salespeople, are denied overtime pay for the many overtime hours they work each week. They are prohibited by state and local law from engaging in aggressive sales practices or door-to-door solicitation. Instead, they are stationed at pre-approved marketing sites in low-income neighborhoods, where they educate people about free and low-cost insurance options. Most applicants are never required to pay anything for this insurance; Amerigroup is paid directly by New York State for each Medicaid enrollment.

The Plaintiffs allege that they worked many overtime hours, well in excess of 40 hours per week, in order to attempt to meet aggressive enrollment quotas imposed on them by Amerigroup. Although they were limited in their ability to approach potential applicants, they were required to work at scheduled marketing locations every week, visit applicants’ homes to collect documents at the end of the work day, and assist applicants in completing Medicaid applications.

The defendants are Amergroup Corp. and Amerigroup, New York LLC. The case is “Toure, et al. v. Amergroup Corp.,” U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 10 Civ. 5391.

Attorney Contacts: Rachel Bien and Michael J. Scimone, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, 212-245-1000.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Anthropologie

Outten & Golden LLP, along with our co-counsel the Shavitz Law Group, represent a group of current and former Assistant Department Managers (“ADMs”) who have worked for Anthropologie in a collective action lawsuit alleging that, before February 2012, Anthropologie misclassified ADMs, who spent almost all of their time performing customer service and manual tasks, as exempt from federal overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages.  The case is Ramirez et al. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., d/b/a Anthropologie, No. 13 Civ. 1074, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Ossai Miazad, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.



Artisanal and Terrence Brennan

On January 17, 2010, Outten & Golden filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Artisanal Fromagerie & Bistro, LLC and its owners.   The plaintiffs alleged that Artisanal violated the wage and hour laws by engaging in improper tip-pooling practices; redistributing portions of employees’ tips to non-tip eligible employees; unlawfully taking a tip credit and paying class members less than the minimum wage; failing to pay for spread-of-hours pay when they worked ten or more hours in a day; and failing to reimburse workers for the cost of purchasing and laundering required uniforms.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement which the Court approved on September 16, 2011, on behalf of all servers, runners, bussers, barbacks and bartenders who work or have worked at Artisanal during the Class Period.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Batali & Bastianich Hospitality Group Restaurants Tip Misappropriation

On July 29, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP and their co-counsel, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, filed an amended class and collective action complaint against Mario Batali and Joseph Bastianich. Mr. Batali and Mr. Bastianich own a restaurant empire that includes Babbo Ristorante e Enoteca, Bar Jamon, Casa Mono, Del Posto, Esca, Lupa, Otto Enoteca Pizzeria, and Tarry Lodge. The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime, misappropriated tips, and spread-of-hours pay for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers – hourly food service workers who work or worked at the critically acclaimed New York restaurants owned by Mr. Batali and Mr. Bastianich.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that Mr. Batali, Mr. Bastianich, and their restaurants unlawfully confiscated a portion of their workers’ tips in order to supplement their own profits. Specifically, it alleges, at the end of every shift, instead of distributing customers’ credit card tips to the workers who earned them as the law requires, Mr. Batali, Mr. Bastianich, and their restaurants took from the tip pool an amount equal to approximately 4% or 4.5% of the restaurants’ wine sales (and sometimes other beverage sales) for the night and put it in their own pockets.

On May 9, 2011, the judge overseeing the case, known as Capsolas v. Pasta Resources, No. 10 Civ. 5595, conditionally approved Plaintiffs to proceed as a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The judge authorized Plaintiffs to send notice about the case to other current and former workers at Babbo, Bar Jamon, Casa Mono, Del Posto, Esca, Lupa, Otto, and Tarry Lodge, so that other workers may join the case.

In February 2012, the parties settled the case for $5,250,000. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement in May 2012.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Bimmy's

On August 3, 2010, Outten & Golden and Make the Road New York filed a wage and hour lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Bimmy’s, one of New York City’s largest wholesalers of “premium” sandwiches, wraps, salads, and other pre-packaged food items, and its owner Elliot Fread. The plaintiffs alleged that Bimmy’s and Mr. Fread failed to pay the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked; failed to pay proper overtime compensation to employees who worked more than 40 hours in a work week; failed to reimburse workers for the cost of purchasing and laundering required uniforms; and failed to pay workers “spread of hours pay” for days on which they worked more than ten hours.  The parties reached a settlement of their claims in February 2012 for the full back wages and damages owed. 

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel M. Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Bobby Flay Restaurants

On January 16, 2009, Outten & Golden filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Bold Food, LLC, the company that operates celebrity chef Bobby Flay’s restaurants – Bar Americain in New York, Mesa Grill NYC in New York, Mesa Grill Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., and Bobby Flay Steak at the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J., and formerly owned and/or operated Bolo in New York. The plaintiffs allege that Mr. Flay’s company violated the wage and hour laws by engaging in improper tip-pooling practices; failing to properly distribute the “mandatory gratuities” it charged its private party customers; redistributing portions of employees’ tips to non-tip eligible employees; failing to pay proper overtime compensation to employees who worked more than 40 hours in a work week; failing to reimburse workers for the cost of purchasing and laundering required uniforms; and failing to pay workers “spread of hour pay” for days on which they worked more than ten hours. The complaint also charges that Bar Americain suspended one named plaintiff, Patrick deMunecas, in retaliation for raising concerns with management about the restaurants’ tip policies.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Boston Market

Outten & Golden LLP, the Hayber Law Firm LLC, and Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP represent a group of former assistant general managers who worked for the Boston Market restaurant chain in a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that Boston Market misclassified assistant general managers as exempt from federal and state overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and other assistant general managers regularly worked over 50 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation. The plaintiffs have asked the court to certify a nationwide collective of assistant general managers, with the exception of managers in California. The case is “Alli, et al. v. Boston Market Corporation,” No. 10 Civ. 4, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Bovis Lend Lease

A federal lawsuit alleges that Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., managers of many of New York City's famous construction projects, including the Mets' Citi Field and the 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero, did not pay workers overtime wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

Renee Sewell, a former employee from Hoboken, N.J. who worked at Bovis' work sites in New York City and New Jersey, filed suit on Thursday in New York federal court on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees. The Complaint alleges that Bovis misclassified Ms. Sewell and other similarly situated employees as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, NYLL, and NJWHL, and failed to pay them overtime for the hours they worked over 40 during many workweeks.

Attorneys Adam T. Klein, Justin M. Swartz, Jack A. Raisner, and Rachel M. Bien, of Outten & Golden LLP in New York, represent Ms. Sewell. They will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action that includes similarly situated Assistant Project Managers, Project Engineers, and other salaried employees below the level of "Project Manager" with different titles who performed similar duties to Ms. Sewell.

 (Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Bowery Bar

On January 12, 2010, Outten & Golden filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Eric Goode, Sean MacPherson, and several corporate entities, including Defendants Garden Café Associates LLC, Sulcata Corp., Bowery F&B LLC, Bowery Hotel LLC, and BD Stanhope LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Goode’s and Mr. MacPherson’s companies violated the wage and hour laws by engaging in improper tip-pooling practices; redistributing portions of employees’ tips to non-tip eligible employees; failing to pay proper overtime compensation to employees who worked more than 40 hours in a work week; and failing to reimburse workers for the cost of purchasing and laundering required uniforms.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement for $1,500,000 which the Court approved on March 4, 2011, on behalf of anyone who worked at B Bar & Grill, Gemma, La Bottega, and/or Matsuri as cooks, dishwashers, servers, bussers, runners, porters, and/or receivers from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



BP Oil Spill Support Workers

On February 17, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP, along with co-counsel Burr & Smith LLP and Barrios, Kingsdorf, & Casteix LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against British Petroleum (“BP”) and BP sub-contractor The Response Group LLC. The plaintiffs are current and former oil spill response workers who were assigned to do cleanup work along the Gulf Coast following the April 20, 2010 oil spill. The lawsuit alleges that BP and The Response Group violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying the plaintiffs and other workers as independent contractors, denying them overtime compensation, requiring them to sign unlawful employment contracts, and denying them other employment benefits. The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants took unlawful retaliatory actions against two plaintiffs after they raised concerns over their pay and retained counsel to explore their claims.

The plaintiffs seek back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Individuals who were hired by The Response Group to work for BP on the oil spill response may be eligible to be part of the lawsuit.

Outten & Golden LLP, along with attorneys from Burr & Smith LLP and Barrios, Kingsdorf, & Casteix LLP, are currently investigating reports of similar practices by employers hired by BP to retain oil spill response workers.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Molly Brooks or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Charlie Rose

Talk show host Charlie Rose has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of unpaid interns, as detailed in a settlement agreement that Outten & Golden LLP filed in New York Supreme Court on December 18, 2012. The settlement provides for a substantial payment to the approximately 190 unpaid interns who worked on Mr. Rose’s PBS talk show, “The Charlie Rose Show,” between March 14, 2006 and October 1, 2012.   The settlement is not yet final because it must first be approved by the Court. If the Court approves the settlement, settlement awards will be mailed to all interns who return claim forms.

The class action, Bickerton v. Rose, No. 650780/2012, was filed on March 14, 2012 by former intern, Lucy Bickerton. She alleged that she regularly worked at least 25 hours per week without pay while interning for The Charlie Rose show in 2007. As an intern, Ms. Bickerton alleged that her responsibilities included performing daily background research from print and online sources to prepare Mr. Rose for guest interviews, assembling press packets, escorting guests through the studio, breaking down the set after filming, and cleaning up the green room.

Please email Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Chase Financial Advisors

On December 19, 2011, Outten & Golden filed a class and collective action complaint on behalf of two former Financial Advisors who worked for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Investment Services Corp.  The amended complaint alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Investment Services Corp. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the state laws of New York and New Jersey by misclassifying Financial Advisors as exempt from overtime pay, and failing to pay them for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours a week.  On August 14, 2012, the district court judge presiding over the case denied the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California.  On January 14, 2013, Outten & Golden filed a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking conditional certification of the action under the FLSA.  They will also seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for Financial Advisors who worked for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Chase Investment Services Corp. between January 1, 2009 and the date of final judgment.

Earlier this year, Chase filed a motion to compel certain plaintiffs to submit their claims to individual arbitration, arguing that they signed a binding arbitration agreement waiving their right to bring claims collectively.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a charge with the NLRB, arguing that the class/collective action waiver violated their right to participate in a collective action for mutual aid and protection.  On August 22, 2013 Administrative Law Judge Steven Fish of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s arbitration agreement violated federal labor law by requiring employees to waive their right to participate in a class and collective action in court or arbitration. 

The Director of the Region 2 office of the NLRB issued a complaint against Chase, and Judge Fish held a hearing on the matter in May.  In his decision, Judge Fish agreed that Chase violated the NLRA by maintaining the arbitration agreement and seeking to enforce it.  Following the Board’s earlier decision in D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184, Judge Fish concluded that the arbitration agreement “clearly inhibits and interferes with [protected] conduct” by requiring that “employees waive their rights to pursue class actions in court or arbitrations as a condition of their employment, which . . . must be found unlawful.”  Judge Fish ordered Chase to withdraw its motion to compel arbitration in Lloyd, to reimburse the plaintiffs for any expenses incurred in opposing the motion to compel, and to rescind or revise its arbitration agreement, among other remedies.

The case is Lloyd v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 11 Civ. 9305, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Please email Adam Klein or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Chipotle Mexican Grill

Outten & Golden LLP, along with our co-counsel Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP and the Shavitz Law Group, represent a group of current and former Apprentices who worked for Chipotle Mexican Grill in a lawsuit alleging that Chipotle misclassified Apprentices as exempt from federal and state overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages. According to the amended complaint, brought as a class and collective action, the plaintiffs and other Apprentices regularly worked over 50 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation, and spent the majority of their time performing customer service and food preparation duties. The case is Scott et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8333, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

After 516 plaintiffs opted in to the nationwide federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, on March 29, 2017, the judge presiding over the case issued an order decertifying the collective, and denying certification for six classes of Apprentices under Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, and Washington state law. The decision is available here.

On April 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a request for permission to file an immediate appeal of the district court’s order with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Ossai Miazad, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Chris Cannon; Altamarea Group, LLC; and ALTO 53, LLC

On August 31, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP filed a class and collective action complaint against Chris Cannon, Altamarea Group, LLC, and Alto 53, LLC. The lawsuit seeks to recover misappropriated tips, minimum wages, spread-of-hours pay, and uniform-related expenses for hourly food service workers, including assistants (servers), captains, bussers, and runners, who work or worked at Alto, an upscale Italian restaurant, located at 11 East 53rd Street in New York City. Alto, along with several other restaurants, including Marea and Convivio, are owned and/or operated by restaurateur Chris Cannon and chef Michael White.

Since 2006, when Cannon asked White to take over the kitchens of Alto and Convivio (then called L’Impero), the two have swiftly built an empire of high-end Italian restaurants that will soon expand to include two new restaurants, Osteria Morini and Ai Fiori. In addition to earning critical acclaim, including glowing reviews in the New York Times, the complaint alleges that Cannon’s and White’s restaurants have earned them millions.  Marea, which opened in 2009, reportedly grossed $13.5 million in its first year, notwithstanding the recession.

The lawsuit alleges that, despite their great success, which Cannon and White achieved on the backs of their waitstaff, they required their waitstaff to share their hard-earned tips with tip ineligible workers, including the General Manager of Alto, that they unlawfully took a tip credit and paid less than the full minimum wage, that they denied their waitstaff spread-of-hours pay, and that they required them to purchase and launder required uniforms.

On December 22, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a collective action on behalf of waiters, bussers, and runners. The plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss on January 18, 2011. The case was settled in May 2011 for $300,000. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on August 16, 2011.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Cipriani Tips, Minimum Wages, and Overtime

On December 21, 2009, Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Cipriani event, catering and restaurant enterprises. The plaintiffs are current and former servers who worked at Cipriani events at Cipriani 42nd Street, Cipriani Wall Street, Cipriani 23rd Street, and the Rainbow Room. The lawsuit alleges that Cipriani withheld from workers mandatory tips or “service charges” collected from customers who were contracting with the restaurant for private parties and functions. The plaintiffs also allege that Cipriani failed to pay workers the minimum wage, required employees to work off the clock without pay, shaved time worked from plaintiffs’ time records, and paid them for fewer hours than they worked. Plaintiffs allege that Cipriani failed to pay plaintiffs call-in pay when they reported to work and were sent home. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Cipriani failed to pay for the purchase and maintenance of their required uniforms. Servers who worked for Cipriani staffing agencies Exquisite Staffing, CBI Personnel, and CTI Staffing, Inc. may be eligible to be part of the lawsuit.

Outten & Golden LLP is currently investigating reports of similar practices at other New York City restaurants.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Molly A. Brooks or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Citigroup, Inc., and Judge Technical Services, Inc.

Outten & Golden LLP, Stephan Zouras, LLP, and Burr & Smith, LLP, represent a group of current and former IT hourly contractors in a nationwide class and collective action lawsuit in federal court, which alleges that Citigroup did not comply with the overtime requirements of federal and various state wage and hour laws.  The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages on behalf of all non-exempt, hourly paid, IT employees, who were classified by Citi as contractors.  The lawsuit alleges that these workers were routinely required to work off the clock but were not paid anything for hours worked over 40.

The case is Caroline Alana Lewis-Gursky, and Ruben Chez, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., and Judge Technical Services, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 2887, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. To read the complaint filed in this case, click here.


For more information, email CitiOfftheClock@outtengolden.com or call (212) 245-1000.



ClientLogic Call Center Overtime Class Action

More than 175 current and former ClientLogic call center workers have joined a federal lawsuit against ClientLogic alleging overtime violations. Outten & Golden 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, Outten & Golden 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 or Cara Greene for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Conde Nast

On June 13, 2013, Outten & Golden LLP filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., d/b/a Conde Nast Publications, on behalf of two former Conde Nast interns. The complaint alleges that Conde Nast violated federal and state labor laws by failing to pay minimum wages to interns who performed productive work for its magazines.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and, on November 13, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary court approval of the settlement.  Please email Rachel Bien, Juno Turner, or Michael Litrownik or call 212.245.1000 for more information.



Constantin Control Associates

Outten & Golden 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.

Please email Jack Raisner or call (212) 245-1000 for more information

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)

 

CVS


CVS

On September 4, 2009, Outten & Golden LLP filed a class and collective action lawsuit against CVS Caremark, Cruz, et al. v. Hook-SuperX, L.L.C., et al., No. 09 Civ. 7717 (PAC), in the Southern District of New York, on behalf of current and former Assistant Store Managers nationwide (except Florida and California). The lawsuit alleged that CVS misclassified Assistant Store Managers as exempt workers under federal and state wage and hour laws. CVS claimed that Assistant Store Managers were “executives” who were not entitled to overtime. The lawsuit claimed that Assistant Store Managers are not really “executives,” but that they performed mostly manual labor and customer service duties.

The lawsuit sought to recover unpaid overtime for Assistant Store Managers for all the hours they worked over 40 each week. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2010. The amended complaint included nationwide (except Florida and California) overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law overtime claims on behalf of Assistant Store Managers in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Connecticut, Maryland, Illinois, and Ohio.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement for $34,000,000 which the Court approved on April 9, 2012.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Deloitte & Touche

A consolidated lawsuit, In Re Deloitte & Touche LLP Overtime Litigation, No. 1:11-cv-02461-RMB-THK, alleges that Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) violated federal and state labor laws by enforcing a policy of classifying all of their unlicensed audit team members as “exempt” from the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, and fails to pay them overtime for the many hours they work in excess of forty in a workweek. to deprive its Auditors of earned overtime wages. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for current and former unlicensed audit team members: Audit Assistants, Audit Senior Assistants, Audit In-Charge and Audit Seniors (also known as Staff 1, Staff 2, or Senior 1, Senior 2). The employees are represented by Outten & Golden LLP, Folkenflik McGerity, The Wynne Law Firm, Hoffman and Lazear, and other firms.

Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP is one of the largest professional service firms in the world and one of the “Big Four” accounting firms in the United States. Deloitte currently maintains numerous offices throughout the United States, employing over 50,000 supervised staff and approximately 16,000 administrative staff. Deloitte’s services include issuing opinions to clients on their financial statements.

In order to avoid paying unlicensed audit team members overtime premiums for hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, Deloitte has uniformly misclassified these employees as exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA federal and New York Labor Laws. Unlicensed audit team members perform their duties under the close supervision of more senior certified Deloitte employees (i.e. Certified Public Accountants) and exercise little, or no, independent judgment and discretion as required by accountant licensing laws, professional regulations, and Deloitte’s internal audit rules.

Unlicensed audit team members perform rudimentary tasks such as: looking at underlying financial documents, such as invoices, comparing the numbers on the documents to be sure they match the numbers on the company’s financial records, and adding the numbers to be sure that the “totals” on the company’s books have been accurately added. Unlicensed audit team members also spend time doing “administrative” work, which is simply ministerial work: photocopying, stuffing envelopes, printing, hole punching, addressing envelopes, filling-out forms, filing, keeping track of papers, following up on missing items, and organizing.

On December 16, 2011, the Judge presiding over In Re Deloitte & Touche LLP Overtime Litigation issued an order conditionally certifying a nationwide collective of Deloitte Audit Assistants, Audit Senior Assistants, Audit In-Charge and Audit Seniors (also known as Staff 1, Staff 2, or Senior 1, Senior 2) under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and authorizing the plaintiffs to send notice to all potential members of the FLSA collective to inform them of their right to join the lawsuit and attempt to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA. In conditionally certifying the class, the Judge found the Audit Class Members are “(1) similarly situated with respect to their job requirements, (2) similarly situated with regard to their pay provisions, and (3) classified as exempt pursuant to a common Deloitte policy or scheme.” Accordingly, the Judge held that the “propriety of the [exempt] classification may be determined on a collective basis.” In support of this finding, the Judge determined that Audit Class Members at Deloitte “each perform non-exempt clerical work to assist Certified Public Accounts . . . in the performance of audits and they each received training on how to complete an audit using [the Company’s] audit methodology and procedures.” Further, Deloitte’s Audit Assistants share in “their inability to exercise independent judgment and discretion with respect to matters of significance” and are “uniformly limit[ed]” by accounting licensing laws and professional rules from doing anything more than “assisting [the Company’s] CPAs in providing public accountancy services.” Finally, Deloitte has a common policy of classifying “all Audit Class Members as exempt from FLSA’s overtime protections . . . without making any person-by-person exemption determination.”

The defendant is Deloitte & Touche LLP. The case is In Re Deloitte & Touche LLP Overtime Litigation, No. 1:11-cv-02461-RMB-THK, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 11 CIV 02461 (RMB)(THK).

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Ossai Miazad or call (212) 245-1000 for more information or go to our Deloitte overtime lawsuit website.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Donna Karan Garment Workers' Class Action

Outten & Golden served 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.

Please email Adam T. Klein or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)

 



Duane Reade

Outten & Golden 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.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Duane Reade Overtime Wages

On January 7, 2011, Outten & Golden filed a class action lawsuit against Duane Reade, the ubiquitous New York drug store with hundreds of locations throughout the state. The plaintiffs allege that Duane Reade failed to pay Assistant Store Managers overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week, while requiring them to work at least 55 hours each week. Assistant Store Managers who worked at Duane Reade since 2009 may be eligible to be part of the lawsuit.

Please contact Adam T. Klein for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



E*trade

On July 16, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP and the Shavitz Law Group, P.A. filed an amended collective action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of relationship managers who work in E*TRADE call centers and branches. The plaintiffs allege that E*TRADE misclassified them as exempt from federal overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Ecolab

Outten & Golden LLP, along with their co-counsel Getman & Sweeney, PLLC, recently filed a class action lawsuit in New York federal court against Ecolab, Inc., a Fortune 500 company that has approximately 27,500 employees who serve customers in equipment care and a wide range of other industries. The Complaint alleges that Ecolab denied overtime pay to route managers nationwide by misclassifying them as exempt from wage laws. Route managers perform maintenance, installation, and repair services on commercial dishwashing equipment on Ecolab’s business customers’ premises nationwide. The plaintiffs worked well in excess of 40 hours per week and received no overtime pay. Individuals from New York and New Jersey have already joined the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay (back wages) for route managers for all the hours they worked over 40 each week, liquidated damages, and other relief.

Outten & Golden LLP and Getman & Sweeney, PLLC previously litigated three class actions against Ecolab, Inc. for denying overtime pay to route managers by misclassifying them as exempt from wage laws.  On May 11, 2010, the Court endorsed the parties’ settlement agreement for those three cases.  Those cases, collectively, settled on behalf of approximately 345 class members for $6 million.  Clark v. Ecolab Inc., No. 07 CIV. 8623, 2010 WL 1948198 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010).

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Molly Brooks or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Eddington Security

On January 26, 2009, Outten & Golden LLP and The Ottinger Firm, PC filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of security guards who worked for Eddington Security, Inc., Mark Eddington, and Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. The plaintiff worked for defendants at 130 Liberty Street, the former Deutsche Bank Building site that was destroyed in the attacks of September 11. He alleged that the defendants failed to pay him and other security guards overtime pay, spread of hours pay, and reimbursements for mandatory uniform maintenance and license fees, and that they also made unlawful deductions from their pay for uniforms and licenses.

A class-wide settlement has been reached with all defendants in the total amount of $1.0 million. The settlement is awaiting final approval by the court.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Juno Turner or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



FedEx Ground Package System

Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action lawsuit against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a multi-billion dollar, package shipping company with over 40,000 employees.  Plaintiff alleged that FedEx fails to pay its salaried service managers, who spend almost all of their work time performing customer service and other non-managerial work, any overtime compensation for hours they work in excess of 40 in a workweek. The case, Bozak v. FedEx Ground Package System (No. 3:11 Civ. 00738-RNC), was brought in the District Court for the District of Connecticut before District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny. 

Please email Ossai Miazad or Melissa Pierre-Louis, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Food Bazaar Minimum Wage and Overtime Case

Nine 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 Cara E. Greene or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Fox Searchlight

On September 28, 2011, Outten & Golden LLP filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Fox Searchlight, the specialty and independent film division of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, on behalf of Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, two former Fox Searchlight interns. The complaint alleges that Fox Searchlight violated federal and state labor laws by failing to pay any wages at all to unpaid interns who perform the work of production assistants, bookkeepers, secretaries and janitors on films produced and co-produced by Fox Searchlight. These workers are owed the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked, overtime for the hours that they work over 40 in a workweek, spread of hours pay on days on which they work more than 10 hours, and reimbursement for the use of their personal cell phones and laptop computers on film production work. Outten & Golden will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, unreimbursed expenses, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for unpaid interns who worked for Fox Searchlight between September 28, 2005 and the date of a final judgment.


On October 9, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to expand the scope of the case to include all interns who participated in the Fox Entertainment Group internship program, to add Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. as a Defendant, and to add two additional interns as named Plaintiffs. The Fox Entertainment Group internship program covers such entities as 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, Fox Searchlight, 20th Century Fox Television, and other Fox divisions. The Court’s decision significantly expanded the scope of the case and the number of interns who could potentially recover if the Plaintiffs prevail.


On February 15, 2013, the Production Intern Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they are employees entitled to wages for their work on the Fox Searchlight films Black Swan and 500 Days of Summer. Also on February 15, 2013, the Corporate Intern Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a nationwide collective and New York class of individuals who had unpaid internships between September 28, 2005 and September 1, 2010 with one or more of the following divisions of FEG: Fox Filmed Entertainment, Fox Group, Fox Networks Group, and Fox Interactive Media (renamed News Corp. Digital Media). The Court will hear oral argument on the motions on May 3, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.

On June 11, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III, of the Southern District of New York held that Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. ("FEG") are liable for failing to pay interns in violation of federal and state labor laws.  In the first ruling of its kind, the judge concluded that named plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman were employees of Defendant Fox Searchlight Pictures protected by federal and state wage and hour law.  Judge Pauley also held that Plaintiff Eden Antalik may prosecute her claims as a class action against the defendants on behalf of interns employed by FEG subsidiaries Fox Filmed Entertainment, Fox Group, Fox Networks Group, and Fox Interactive Media (renamed News Corp. Digital Media). Current or former unpaid interns who believe they may be part of the class should contact the Outten & Golden attorneys listed below, who have been appointed class counsel, to ensure they receive updates on developments on the case."

Click here to read the Judge's decision

The case is “Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, et al., v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.,” Case No. 11 Civ. 6784 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Please email Adam T. Klein, Rachel M. Bien or Juno Turner or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



GEICO

Tillman 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.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Gristedes

Outten & Golden represents current and former Gristedes 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 Gristedes 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 Gristedes 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 Gristedes, 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 Gristedes 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. . . . Gristedes 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 Gristedes admitted company policy dictates. Since Plaintiffs have adduced convincing evidence that Gristedes 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, Gristedes, 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.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Gristedes, A&P, and Duane Reade Deliverymen

Outten & Golden serves 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.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Ground Zero

On September 12, 2007, Outten & Golden filed a class action lawsuit against a group of companies that relied on thousands of low-wage workers to clean World Trade Center-area buildings after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Nine named plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid overtime pay and other wages allegedly earned by workers who risked their health and safety to perform heavy cleaning work in offices, stores, hospitals, churches, apartments, and other public and private buildings near Ground Zero.

According to the Complaint filed in New York state court, “Defendants profited handsomely from these clean-up jobs.  Despite their new profits and cash surpluses, Defendants failed at one of their most basic obligations – to pay their workers properly.” The Complaint further alleges that some of the Defendants “subcontracted” Ground Zero clean-up work to smaller companies, intending to hide behind the smaller companies if the workers attempted to enforce their legal rights. The case is “Lucelly Gil, et al., v. Maxons Restorations, Inc., et al.” (Index No. 07603048).

Plaintiffs achieved a settlement resulting in hundreds of workers receiving notice about the lawsuit and an opportunity to join and collect unpaid wages.  On May 10, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.

Please email Ossai Miazad or Justin M. Swartz or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Hard Rock Café

Outten & Golden filed a lawsuit against Hard Rock Café in Times Square on behalf of a former bartender, asserting a wage and hour claim for unlawful tip retention for himself and other private party service staff. The Complaint alleged that Hard Rock Café charged its private party customers a mandatory gratuity, and failed to pay the full mandatory gratuity to its service staff who worked those private parties. 

The case was resolved on a classwide basis in October 2011 for $240,000 and the court approved the settlement on February 27, 2012.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Health Plus

Li v. Health Plus Prepaid Health Services Plan, Inc.: In 2011, Outten & Golden represented a group of Medicaid Marketing Representatives who enrolled low-income individuals in government-sponsored managed care plans.  The Marketing Representatives alleged that they were not paid for substantial amounts of overtime hours that they worked, including hours worked at home completing applications.  The lawsuit has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.

Please email Michael Scimone or Rachel Bien or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



HealthFirst Marketing Representatives Overtime Litigation

Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action lawsuit against HealthFirst, Inc., an HMO that provides Medicaid and other free health insurance programs to low-income New Yorkers, alleging that the company violated federal and state overtime laws by failing to pay overtime for hours worked over forty in a week. The plaintiffs, whom HealthFirst claims are exempt outside salespeople, are current and former Marketing Representatives who regularly worked well over forty hours per week identifying Medicaid-eligible individuals at various locations throughout New York City and Long Island and helping them sign-up for free health insurance programs. The case is called “Willix et al. v. HealthFirst, Inc. et al.” (No. 07-1143), and is currently pending in the district court for the Eastern District of New York before District Court Judge Eric N. Vitaliano and Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Hearst Corporation

On February 1, 2012, Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the Hearst Corporation on behalf of a former Harper’s Bazaar intern, Xuedan Wang. Ms. Wang regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and sometimes as many as 55 hours per week, without compensation as an intern on the staff of Harper’s Bazaar in 2011.  The Complaint alleges that Hearst pays its interns no compensation for the work they perform, including minimum or overtime wages, in violation of federal and state labor laws. 

We will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for unpaid interns who worked for Hearst between February 1, 2006 and the date of a final judgment.

The case is Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, No. 12 Civ. 0793 (S.D.N.Y) in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Please email Adam T. Klein, Rachel M. Bien or Juno Turner or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Home Depot Overtime Class Action

Outten & Golden 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. Outten & Golden 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 Jack Raisner for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



HSBC Call Center Overtime Class Action

Outten & Golden 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 Outten & Golden'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. Outten & Golden'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. Outten & Golden 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.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Tammy Marzigliano for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC BANK USA, N.A.

On August 6, 2014, Outten & Golden LLP, together with Fitapelli & Shaffer, LLP, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., and Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, filed a class action complaint on behalf former Retail Mortgage Consultants, Premium Mortgage Consultants, Premier Mortgage Consultants (collectively “Loan Officers”) against HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.  The complaint alleges that HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by misclassifying Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective as exempt from overtime pay, and failing to pay them overtime wages for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  On August 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint alleging additional claims under California state wage and hour laws.

The case is Long v. HSBC Mortgage Corp., No. 14 Civ. 6233, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Please email Justin M. Swartz and Deirdre A. Aaron, or call 212-245-1000 for more information.



Hustler Club

On February 18, 2015, Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action lawsuit against CMSG Restaurant Group, LLC d/b/a Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club, Anthony F. Grant, Michael A. Grant, Joseph A. Sullo, and Jason Mohney on behalf of entertainers (dancers) who have worked at the club between February 18, 2009 and the present.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants regularly deprived entertainers of their rights under federal and New York State wage and hour laws, including their right to be paid proper minimum wages, their right to be paid proper overtime compensation, their right to keep customer gratuities they earn, their right to be reimbursed for uniform expenses, and their right to work without paying “rental fees.”  The lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of entertainers all of the wages they have earned, all of their confiscated tips, and all of the fees they were forced to pay, as federal and state law require.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

 



Jimmy Johns LLC

Outten & Golden LLP is co-lead counsel in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC and related corporate entities (“Jimmy John’s”). The lawsuit is known as In re: Jimmy John’s Overtime Litigation, No. 14 Civ. 5509, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs, who worked as assistant store managers (ASMs) at franchise-owned stores, allege that Jimmy John’s misclassified them and other ASMs at both corporate-owned and franchise-owned stores nationwide as exempt “executives” and deprived them of overtime pay even though ASMs primarily perform the duties of hourly shift employees like preparing sandwiches, greeting and serving customers, and cleaning the store. This lawsuit breaks new ground by seeking to hold Jimmy John’s liable as a joint employer of ASMs at franchise-owned stores because of the significant amount of control and oversight Jimmy John’s exercises over franchisees’ operations, staffing, and training.  Before this case was consolidated, two courts granted conditional certification and ordered that notice and an opportunity to opt in be sent to all ASMs nationwide who worked for any Jimmy John’s store. These orders can be found here, here, and here.

For more information, please email Justin M. Swartz at jms@outtengolden.com or Mike Litrownik at mlitrownik@outtengolden.com or call 212-245-1000.



JP Morgan Chase - Assistant Branch Managers

Outten & Golden, along with co-counsel Sapir & Frumkin, LLP, represent current and former J.P. Morgan Chase assistant branch managers in New York who filed a collective action lawsuit in federal court seeking unpaid overtime and related remedies. The suit alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase has avoided paying overtime wages by misclassifying all assistant branch managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The employees contend that the assistant branch manager position requires no college education and primarily involves bank teller and customer service tasks.  They perform their duties under the close supervision of more senior Chase employees and exercise little, or no, independent judgment and discretion.

Please email Molly Brooks or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Kirby

On June 20, 2011, New Haven Legal Assistance Association filed a class and collective action complaint in Connecticut district court alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws by the Scott Fetzer Companies, known as Kirby, and two other defendants, S.Z. Enterprises, Inc., a Connecticut distributorship for Kirby, and a distributor, Scott Zabka. Among other things, the complaint alleges that Kirby misclassified their vacuum salespeople, called “Independent Dealers,” as independent contractors and failed to pay them for the hours they spent in required training in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut wage and hour law. Plaintiffs also allege that Kirby, S.Z. Enterprises, and Scott Zabka failed to pay their telemarketers minimum and overtime wages.

Outten & Golden joined the litigation as co-counsel in early 2012. Conditional certification of the federal wage and hour claims was approved by Judge Underhill on February 15, 2012. On July 26, 2012, Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to expand the case to all of Kirby’s “Patriot Division,” which includes Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, as well as distributorships located in Virginia, South Carolina, and additional southern states.

Please email Rachel Bien, or Sally Abrahamson, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



KPMG - Nationwide Advisory Associates

A federal lawsuit alleges that KPMG LLP, the tax, audit, and advisory firm with 87 offices nationwide and 23,000 employees in the United States, did not pay its first and second year advisory associates overtime wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Michelle Trawinski, a former advisory associate who worked at KPMG’s office in New York City, filed suit on May 3, 2011 in New York federal court on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees. The Complaint alleges that KPMG misclassified Ms. Trawinski and other similarly situated employees, whose main job responsibilities included such routine tasks as inputting data in templates, photocopying, data entry, and other administrative duties, as exempt from the overtime requires of the FLSA and NYLL, and failed to pay them overtime for the hours they worked over 40; Ms. Trawinski asserts that she frequently worked up to 60 hours per week.  On May 31, 2012, Ms. Trawinski filed a motion to certify the class of Advisory Associates in the Transaction Services service line. 

Attorneys Justin M. Swartz, Rachel M. Bien and Deirdre Aaron of Outten & Golden LLP, and Joe Fitapelli, Brian Schaffer, and Eric J. Gitig of Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP represent Ms. Trawinski. They will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class and collective action that includes similarly situated Advisory Associates.

The case is Michelle Trawinski v. KPMG LLP, Case No. 11 Civ. 2978 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Please email Justin M. Swartz, Rachel Bien, or Deirdre Aaron or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



KPMG - Nationwide Audit Associates

On April 25, 2011, Outten & Golden LLP, along with their co-counsel Shavitz Law Group, P.A., filed a class action amended complaint in New York district court against KPMG LLP on behalf of two former audit associates. The lawsuit alleges that KPMG, the audit, tax, and advisory firm with 87 offices nationwide and more than 23,000 employees in the United States, and affiliated with KPMG International, that has combined revenues of over $20 billion in 2009 and 2010, deliberated misclassified first and second year audit associates as exempt from federal and state overtime requirements so that KPMG could avoid paying them overtime compensation as required by law. The plaintiffs worked well in excess of 40 hours per week and received no overtime pay. Individuals from Texas, Florida, Nebraska, and Washington have already joined the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay (back wages) for Deloitte Audit Assistants and Seniors for all the hours they worked over 40 each week, liquidated damages, and other relief.

KPMG has claimed that Audit Associates are “administrators" or "professionals" who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The lawsuit claims that this is a misclassification and that KPMG Audit Associates are not really “administrators" or "professionals" under the FLSA overtime provisions because they perform mostly routine low-level audit tasks such with many levels of supervision such as conducting basic reviews of client documents and financial records, conducting inventory counts, photocopying client documents and records, and entering data into Excel spreadsheets. The Plaintiffs also claim that they spent most of their time comparing numbers in financial statements with numbers in other documents, updating statements from previous years (also called “rolling forward”), entering data from documents into spreadsheets or templates and comparing and matching numbers, documenting work done during an audit, and performing clerical tasks. In depositions and declarations, Plaintiffs testified that they were required to raise problems with a senior employee, that the hierarchy of positions, the partner sign-off and the final, managerial review of work-papers . . . is consistent from engagement to engagement, that their duties include testing work (matching numbers with client’s supporting documentation), control testing and walk-throughs, reviewing work papers, testing and matching numbers, matching ending balances to the totals, deleting last year’s information and inserting current year’s information, data entry and matching numbers, filling in blanks on form letters for partners, matching numbers with the support documents that clients provide, testing, documenting, and observing procedures, documenting what clients show them, photocopying, stuffing, hole punching, and filing, assembling binders, organizing documents, ordering food. They were required to discuss any significant issues with supervisors, raise questions with managers, read over documentation to make sure it is clear and that references to other documents check out, and match ending balances to totals.

On October 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge presiding over the case issued an order denying KPMG’s request for permission to destroy thousands of KPMG Audit Associates’ computer hard drives. The Plaintiffs opposed KPMG’s motion because they believed that KPMG Audit Associates’ computer hard drives are likely to contain information valuable to determining whether KPMG misclassified its Audit Associates as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime protections and useful in determining how many overtime hours KPMG Audit Associates worked. Click here for a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s order.

On January 3, 2012, the Judge presiding over the case, Pippins, et al. v. KPMG LLP, issued an order conditionally certifying a nationwide collective of KPMG Audit Associates under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and authorizing the plaintiffs to send notice to all potential members of the FLSA collective to inform them of their right to join the lawsuit and attempt to recover unpaid overtime pay under the FLSA. Click here for a copy of the Court’s certification order.

Attorneys Justin M. Swartz, Rachel M. Bien, and Deirdre Aaron of Outten & Golden LLP, and Greg Shavitz, Keith Stern, and Hal B. Andersen of Shavitz Law Group, P.A. represent the Plaintiffs.

The case is Pippins, et al. v. KPMG LLP, Case No. 11 Civ. 0377 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Please email Justin M. Swartz, Rachel Bien, or Deirdre Aaron or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



KPMG - New Jersey Audit Associates

On June 23, 2011, Outten & Golden LLP, along with co-counsel Green Savits & Lenzo, LLC and Shavitz Law Group, P.A., filed a class action complaint in Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, on behalf of a former Audit Associate against KPMG LLP, the audit, tax, and advisory firm with 87 offices nationwide and more than 23,000 employees in the United States. KPMG LLP is the U.S.-member firm of KPMG International, which works in 144 countries and had combined revenues of over $20 billion in 2009. The lawsuit alleges that KPMG uniformly misclassified Audit Associates, an entry-level position that requires no advanced level training, as exempt from New Jersey overtime protections to avoid paying Audit Associates overtime. Audit Associates perform routine tasks under the close supervision of more senior KPMG employees and exercise little to no independent judgment and discretion.

Plaintiff Edward Lambert, a former Audit Associate, seeks to represent a class of current and former Audit Associates in New Jersey.

Please email Justin M. Swartz, Rachel Bien, or Deirdre Aaron or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Logan's Roadhouse Managers Overtime Lawsuit

Logan’s Roadhouse Managers Seek Unpaid Overtime and Allege Misclassification as Exempt Workers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

On March 11, 2016, Chad Elchert and Tammy Crochet, two former Logan’s Roadhouse Managers, filed a collective action overtime lawsuit against Logan’s Roadhouse.  They allege that Logan’s Roadhouse has misclassified its Managers as exempt and failed to pay them overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). "Managers" include employees who hold or previously held the title of Kitchen Managers, Culinary Managers, Service Managers, Front of House Managers, Bar Managers, and Host Managers.

If you are a current or former Logan’s Roadhouse Manager or have information about Logan’s Roadhouse Managers’ duties or hours worked, we would like to talk to you.  If you are willing to share information with us or would like more information about the lawsuit, please complete the Contact Us form at the bottom of this page.  A member of Outten & Golden's legal team will contact you. You can also email us at logansroadhouselawsuit@outtengolden.com or call (212) 245-1000.

For the full complaint in this lawsuit, click here.



Mama Mexico Restaurants

Outten & Golden LLP, along with co-counsel Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, represent workers from three Mama Mexico restaurants in New York and New Jersey in claims that the restaurants violated federal and state wage and hour laws by withholding minimum wages, overtime compensation and misappropriating employee tips. The workers bring class action and collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWL).

The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and other wages for servers, bussers, runners, bartenders, and other hourly food service workers who have worked at the Mama Mexico restaurants at 2672 Broadway and 214 East 49th Street in New York City and in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. It also includes individual claims for retaliation, pregnancy discrimination, hostile work environment, and assault and battery.

According to the Restaurants’ website, Defendant Juan Rojas Campos, the founder and CEO of the Mama Mexico Restaurants, emigrated to the United States to fulfill his “American dream,” working as a “cleaning boy, bus boy, waiter and bartender.” Years later, Mr. Rojas Campos now owns and operates three “five star” Mama Mexico Restaurants in and around New York City. The website includes photographs of Mr. Rojas Campos with high-profile New Yorkers including former governor George Pataki and Donald Trump.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg touts Mr. Rojas Campos’ endorsement on his campaign website. According to Mayor Bloomberg’s website, Mr. Rojas Campos “settled in New York City in 1980, [and] worked his way up through the restaurant industry. He began as a dishwasher and made his way up to waiter. Eventually, he became general manager of numerous Mexican restaurants throughout New York City. After years in the industry, Rojas Campos decided to open his own restaurant and currently owns two locations in New York City.” Mayor Bloomberg said that Mr. Campos “exemplif[ies] the American dream.”

Unfortunately, however, the workers allege that Mr. Rojas Campos seems to have forgotten his humble beginnings and the struggles of low-wage restaurant workers trying to make ends meet and that his success and that of his Mama Mexico Restaurants has come on the backs of his hourly food service workers. Mr. Rojas Campos and the other Defendants – individuals and entities that own, operate, and/or manage the Restaurants – have denied their workers minimum wages and overtime pay for the many hours they worked and, in some cases, failed to pay these workers any wages at all, they allege. Defendants also misappropriated customer tips – the Plaintiffs’ principal source of income – by requiring them to pool their tips with workers who are not entitled to tips under the law, the workers claim.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Mark Restaurant

On March 3, 2014, Outten & Golden LLP filed a class and collective action complaint in New York district court against The Mark Restaurant on behalf of tipped workers.  The lawsuit accuses The Mark of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by: (1) unlawfully taking advantage of the “tip credit” under 29 U.S.C. § 203(m) and failing to pay the full minimum wage and overtime rates; (2) unlawfully distributing a portion of tips to tip ineligible expediters, managers, bread cutters, glass polishers, and sommeliers; (3) failing to pay tipped workers for all hours worked; an extra hour of pay on days when they worked more than 10 hours (“spread-of-hours pay”); a minimum of 4 hours of pay when they worked less than 4 hours (“call-in pay”); and mandatory gratuities charged to customers. 

The case is pending before United States District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos. The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, call-in pay, misappropriated tips, and other wages and expenses for current and former workers of The Mark in New York City.

Please email Rachel Bien and Christopher M. McNerney or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



MetroPlus HealthPlan

Outten & Golden LLP filed a class action lawsuit against MetroPlus HealthPlan, Inc., a not-for-profit prepaid health services organization that competes with private for-profit and not-for-profit companies to enroll low-income New Yorkers in its health insurance products. The complaint alleges that MetroPlus violated federal and state overtime laws by failing to pay overtime for hours worked over forty in a week. The plaintiffs, are current and former Marketing Representatives who regularly worked long hours, often well into the night after a full day’s work, identifying, potential enrollees, and collecting and verifying documents from enrollees demonstrating their Medicaid eligibility. The case, “Drayton et al. v. MetroPlus Health Plan, Inc. et al. (No. 10-9686)," was brought in the district court for the Southern District of New York before District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff. On August 9, 2011, the Court endorsed the parties' settlement agreement which settled the case on behalf of 44 plaintiffs for $492,198.00.

We are now preparing to file a second lawsuit on behalf of marketing representatives who did not join the first case.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Melissa Pierre-Louis or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



MHN MFLCs

Outten & Golden LLP, along with our co-counsel Barron & Budd, P.C. and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represent a group of current and former Military Family Life Counselors (MFLCs) who worked for MHN in a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that MHN misclassified MFLCs as independent contractors exempt from federal and state overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime. Our claims are that, based on the economic reality of the relationship between MFLCs and MHN, MFLCs should have been classified as employees, not independent contractors, and that they were not otherwise exempt from the overtime requirements of state or federal laws. In November 2012, while this lawsuit was pending, MHN reclassified most MFLCs from independent contractor status to employee status.  However, MHN still does not pay MFLCs for overtime hours they work.  The case is Zaborowski et al. v. MHN Government Services, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 5109, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On April 25, 2013, the Judge presiding over the case issued an order conditionally certifying a nationwide collective of MHN MFLCs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and authorizing the plaintiffs to send notice to all potential members of the FLSA collective to inform them of their right to join the lawsuit and attempt to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA. The deadline to opt into the case passed, so it is no longer possible to join the case.

Please contact Jahan Sagafi or Christopher McNerney, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



MLB All-Star Weekend “Volunteers”

On August 7, 2013, Outten & Golden LLP filed a lawsuit against Major League Baseball on behalf of unpaid All-Star Game FanFest volunteers and other volunteers who performed unpaid work for Major League Baseball (“MLB”). The case alleges that MLB staffed its 2013 All-Star FanFest (“FanFest”), a lucrative, for-profit commercial operation that MLB promoted as “the largest interactive baseball theme park in the world,” and described as “baseball heaven on earth,” almost entirely with “volunteers,” and did not pay them any wages. MLB recruited approximately 2,000 volunteers to “represent New York by welcoming . . . guests [in other words, paying customers] from around the world and assisting in the smooth operations of all of the [All-Star] events.”

By failing to pay Plaintiff and thousands of others for their productive work, MLB denied federal, state, and local governments significant tax revenue and denied the volunteers important benefits of working, including workers’ compensation insurance, social security contributions, and, most importantly, the ability to earn a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. MLB also excluded New Yorkers who could not afford to work for free.

Through this lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to force MLB to (1) stop soliciting and accepting work from unpaid volunteers, (2) permit those who cannot afford to work for free to work for FanFest and other events related to the All-Star Game, and (3) recover unpaid wages for all unpaid volunteers who performed work for MLB during the relevant period. On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify a Nationwide Collective of unpaid volunteers who performed work for MLB since August 7, 2010. Plaintiff filed a reply to MLB’s opposition on December 20, 2013. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 25, 2013. On March 26, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's federal law claims because of a narrow exemption in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but did not rule on Plaintiff's New York Labor Law (NYLL) state law claims. The FLSA exemption at issue was enacted by Congress in 1966 and designed to permit recreational facilities to employ young people on a seasonal basis and not have to pay them the relatively high minimum wages that existed at the time. Notably, the Court did not rule on whether Plaintiff and other volunteers were employees and whether they should have been paid, which is the key issue in the case. Plaintiff has appealed the Court’s dismissal of the federal law claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Please email Justin Swartz, Juno Turner, or Mike Litrownik or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor Associate Overtime Lawsuit

On December 19, 2014, Outten & Golden LLP, along with co-counsel Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLC, and Shavitz Law Group, P.A., filed a class action on behalf of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Pre-Production Financial Adviser Associates (“FAAs”).  The case seeks compensation for overtime hours FAAs worked during the pre-production phase of the Morgan Stanley FAA training program, including hours spent studying and hours worked outside of the office, at any time from December 19, 2010, to the present.  The lawsuit is called Zajonc v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, No. 14-05563-EMC (N.D. Cal.), and is pending in San Francisco federal court.

Specifically, this lawsuit alleges that Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, and Morgan Stanley (together, “Morgan Stanley”) violated California law by failing to pay FAAs overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per workweek and over eight per day.  The lawsuit also alleges that Morgan Stanley failed to provide FAA trainees thirty-minute meal periods completely free from work at least once every five hours worked, and off-duty 10-minute rest periods at least once every four hours worked, as required by California wage and hour law.  In addition, this lawsuit alleges that these violations led to other violations under California law, such as failing to provide accurate wage statements and failing to pay all wages due to FAAs. 

The case is in its early stages.  We are now contacting people who worked as FAAs since December 2010 to collect additional information to help us in prosecuting these claims on behalf of FAAs.

Please email Jahan C. Sagafi or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)

 



Nationwide IBM Tech Worker Overtime Pay Class Action

On 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.

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.

The plaintiffs asked 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.

The plaintiffs were represented by Outten & Golden LLP along with a several other firms nationwide.

For more information, please contact Justin M. Swartz, or call toll free (877) 468-8836 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



NBC Universal

On July 3, 2013, Outten & Golden LLP filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against NBCUniversal on behalf of two former NBCUniversal interns. The complaint alleges that NBCUniversal violated federal and state labor laws by failing to pay proper wages to interns who performed productive work on its television programs and in other parts of its multi-media enterprise. These workers are owed the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked and spread of hours pay on days on which they worked more than 10 hours. Outten & Golden will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for interns who worked for NBCUniversal between July 3, 2007 and the date of a final judgment.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Juno Turner, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



New York Apple Tours

Outten & Golden serves 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.

Outten & Golden is investigating a number of potential employment discrimination class actions and class-based wage and hour claims. Please contact Adam T. Klein for further information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



New York Dolls, Private Eyes and Flashdancers Gentlemen's Clubs

On September 17, 2013, Outten & Golden LLP and Fitapelli & Schaffer LLP filed a class action lawsuit against New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club a/k/a/ 59 Murray Enterprises Inc., Private Eyes Gentlemen’s Club a/k/a AAM Holding Corp., Three B’s Hospitality Group a/k/a XYZ Corp., and its owners Barry Lipsitz and Barry Lipsitz, Jr. on behalf of entertainers (dancers) who have worked at the club between September 17, 2007 and the present.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants regularly deprived entertainers of their rights under federal and New York State wage and hour laws, including their right to be paid proper minimum wages, their right to be paid proper overtime compensation, their right to keep customer gratuities they earn, their right to be reimbursed for uniform expenses, and their right to work without paying “house fees.”

The lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of entertainers all of the wages they have earned, all of their confiscated tips, and all of the fees they were forced to pay, as federal and state law require.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Olivier Cheng Catering and Events

The lawsuit, McMahon v. Olivier Cheng Catering and Events LLC, 08 Civ. 8713, alleged that Olivier Cheng Catering and Events, a catering company, failed to pay its service staff mandatory “service charges” that it charged event customers and overtime at time-and-a-half in violation of federal and New York wage and hour laws.  On March 3, 2010, the district court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the parties’ $400,000 classwide settlement.

Please email Rachel Bien or call (212) 245-1000 for more information on this class action.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Penthouse Executive Club Dancers - Tip Misappropriation, Unlawful House Fees, and Minimum Wage and Overtime Case

On February 11, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP and the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center filed a class action lawsuit against the Penthouse Executive Club and its owners Robert Gans and Mark Yackow on behalf of entertainers (dancers) who have worked at the club between February 11, 2006 and the present.

The lawsuit alleges that the Penthouse Executive Club regularly deprived entertainers of their rights under federal and New York State wage and hour laws, including their right to be paid proper minimum wages, their right to be paid proper overtime compensation, their right to keep customer gratuities they earn, their right to be reimbursed for uniform expenses, and their right to work without paying “house fees.”

The lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of Penthouse Executive Club entertainers all of the wages they have earned, all of their confiscated tips, and all of the fees they were forced to pay, as federal and state law require.

Outten & Golden LLP and the Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center are currently investigating reports of similar practices at other New York City adult nightclubs. Outten & Golden LLP currently represents more than 70 dancers who worked at Scores in Diaz v. Scores Holding Co., No. 07 Civ. 8718 (S.D.N.Y.)

As outlined in the Penthouse Executive Club complaint, the Penthouse Executive Club and other clubs in the adult entertainment industry, in New York City and across the country, frequently classify exotic dancers as independent contractors and disregard their basic wage and hour and other employment rights. These entertainers work in an unorganized industry characterized by wide disparities in bargaining power between workers and club owners. As a result, clubs like the Penthouse Executive Club are well positioned to take advantage of exotic dancers and deny them their rights as workers.

The Complaint explains that, over the years, entertainers at adult clubs like the Penthouse Executive Club have made some strides by winning recognition as employees and otherwise protecting their workplace rights, including in cases prosecuted by the United States Department of Labor. See, e.g., Reich v. Circle C Invs., 998 F.2d 324, 326-29 (5th Cir. 1993) (upholding trial court’s determination that adult club dancers are employees within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act); Diaz v. Scores Holding Co., No. 07 Civ. 8718, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38248, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2008) (conditionally certifying Fair Labor Standards Act collective of entertainers and other workers at New York City adult night club and authorizing notice to putative members of the collective); Whiting v. W & R Corp., No. 2:03-0509, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34008, at *6-9 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 18, 2005) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment in wage and hour case brought by dancer at exotic dance club); Harrell v. Diamond A Entm’t, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 1343, 1347–54 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (holding that dancer at adult night club was employee for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act); Reich v. Priba Corp., 890 F. Supp. 586, 594 (N.D. Tex. 1995) (after bench trial, finding dancers at adult night club were employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act in case brought by the Department of Labor); Donovan v. Tavern Talent & Placements, Inc., Civ. No. 84-F-401, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30955, at *6–7 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 1986) (holding that night club operators employed dancers and violated their rights as tipped employees);Chaves v. King Arthur's Lounge, Inc., No. 07-2505, 2009 Mass. Super. LEXIS 298, at *19-20 (Mass. Super. Ct. July 30, 2009) (holding defendant bar/lounge misclassified exotic dancers as independent contractors under Massachusetts law); Smith v. Tyad, Inc., 209 P.3d 228, 231-34 (Mont. 2009) (upholding state wage enforcement agency’s finding that exotic dancers are employees and upholding agency’s authority to deem deduction of “stage fees” unlawful requiring reimbursement). See also Carrie Benson Fischer, Employee Rights in Sex Work: The Struggle for Dancers' Rights as Employees, 14 Law & Ineq. J. 521 (June 1996).

Nevertheless, the adult entertainment industry in New York City and elsewhere remains largely out of compliance with basic worker protection statutes. The Penthouse Executive Club, a leader in the industry, is no exception. It regularly deprives entertainers of their rights under federal and New York State wage and hour laws, including their right to be paid proper minimum wages, their right to be paid proper overtime compensation, their right to keep customer gratuities they earn, their right to be reimbursed for uniform expenses, and their right to work without paying “house fees.”

For more information, please email Justin M. Swartz, or call (212) 245-1000.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



PetCo

On December 18, 2014, Outten & Golden, along with our co-counsel Shavitz Law Group and Fitapelli & Schaffer, filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.  This class action lawsuit represents a group of Pet Stylists and Grooming Assistants who worked for Petco at between August 28, 2012 and the present in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Kansas, or between August 31, 2012 to the present in all other states except California.  The Southern District of New York conditionally certified the Fair Labor Standards Act collective on January 19, 2016.

The plaintiffs allege that Petco violated the wage and hour laws because it required Pet Stylists and Grooming Assistants to purchase and maintain their own grooming equipment, and failed to reimburse them for any of these costs.  The plaintiffs allege that these policies and practices illegally deprived Pet Stylists and Grooming Assistants of the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the state wage and hour laws for New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Kansas. 

The case is Kristina Kucker et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 9983, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Please contact Molly A. Brooks or Sally A. Abrahamson or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.



Price Chopper

On July 30, 2014, Outten & Golden LLP, together with Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Cook LLP, filed a class and collective action complaint in Massachusetts district court against Price Chopper supermarkets on behalf of Department Team Leaders, also known as Department Managers. The lawsuit alleges that Price Chopper violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws by misclassifying Team Leaders as exempt employees and failing to pay them overtime for the hours they worked over 40.
 
Please email Rachel Bien or call 212-245-1000, for more information.



Save a Lot Connecticut

Outten & Golden LLP and the Hayber Law Firm LLC represent a group of current and former assistant store managers with Save A Lot grocery stores in a class action lawsuit in Connecticut state court for Connecticut Assistant Store Managers.

The complaint alleges that Save A Lot did not comply with the time and a half overtime requirements of Connecticut state law for two reasons. First, the fluctuating workweek methodology that exists in federal law simply isn’t lawful in Connecticut retail businesses. Second, even if the fluctuating workweek methodology were legal, Save A Lot didn’t comply with it.

In the fall of 2011, both sides filed motions for summary judgment focused on the narrow legal question of whether the fluctuating workweek methodology is authorized under Connecticut law.

On March 16, 2012, the state court ruled that Connecticut law does not categorically prohibit the use of the fluctuating workweek methodology, but it did not rule on whether or not Save A Lot complied with that methodology. We are currently seeking to appeal the trial court’s ruling to the Connecticut Appellate Court. The case is Roach v. Moran Foods, Docket No.: X04-HHD-CV-11-6023386-S, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District.  

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Juno E. Turner or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Save A Lot Nationwide

Outten & Golden LLP and the Hayber Law Firm LLC represent a group of current and former Assistant Store Managers with Save A Lot grocery stores in a nationwide class and collective action lawsuit in federal court, which alleges that Save A Lot did not comply with the overtime requirements of federal and state law. Instead of paying time and a half for every hour Assistant Store Managers work over 40 per week, Save A Lot paid only half time for those overtime hours. The case is Kiefer v. Moran Foods, No. 3:12-CV-00756-JCH, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The parties have amicably resolved the matter.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz, Juno E. Turner, or Naomi Sunshine for information about the settlement process.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Scores

On October 9, 2007, Outten & Golden LLP and Bruckner Burch PLLC filed a class action lawsuit against Scores Holding Company, Inc., the owner and operator of the Scores adult entertainment club in New York City. The lawsuit alleged that Scores confiscated part of its workers’ tips and failed to pay them proper minimum wages and overtime compensation.

On May 9, 2008, Judge Berman granted the plaintiffs’ request to conditionally certify a collective of dancers, bartenders, and servers at the New York City adult night club and authorized that notice be sent to the members of the collective. More than 80 workers joined the action.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.



Shelly’s New York / Fireman Hospitality Group Withheld Tips, Minimum Wages, and Overtime Case

Outten & 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 or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



SolarCity Corporation Unpaid Wages Lawsuit

Outten & Golden LLP represent a proposed class of current and former Installers who worked for SolarCity Corporation installing, repairing, or maintaining solar power units for SolarCity's customers.  The lawsuit claims that SolarCity maintained a policy or practice of failing to pay employees for time spent traveling between worksites during the course of the workday. The plaintiff and other class members regularly worked more than forty hours per week and were not paid overtime compensation for this time, the complaint alleges. The case is Whitworth v. SolarCity Corp., No. 16-CV-01540, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

For more information, please visit our SolarCity Unpaid Wages website.

Please contact Jahan C. Sagafi or Robert N. Fisher, or call 212-245-1000 for more information.



Starbucks

Outten & Golden LLP represents a group of Assistant Store Managers (“ASMs”) who were employed by Starbucks in New York State.  In a lawsuit currently pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Plaintiffs challenge Starbucks’ policy of prohibiting ASMs from sharing in tips left by customers.  Despite spending the vast majority of their time making coffee, serving drinks, and performing other customer service tasks, ASMs are excluded from Starbucks’ tip pool.

On April 18, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint challenging Starbucks’ tip pool policy under the New York Labor Law.  On April 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and on May 7, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  On July 11, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint.  Plaintiffs promptly appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Plaintiffs argued the appeal on August 30, 2012, and a decision is expected in the coming months. 

The case is Lawrence, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 11 Civ. 3199, currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 

Please email Molly Brooks or Adam Klein or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 14-cv-956

We won!  Thanks to the courage, hard work, and integrity of the many System Administrators who provided information, assistance, and testimony at deposition and trial, the Plaintiffs and class members prevailed at trial on December 20, 2017.  The trial was conducted in seven days spread over two weeks at the federal courthouse in New Haven for the District of Connecticut. 

The lawsuit challenges CSC’s policy of misclassifying the lowest two levels of System Administrator (Associate Professional SA and Professional SA) as exempt from the overtime protections of federal and state law throughout the country.  The SAs install, maintain, and support CSC’s clients’ hardware and software according to procedures and policies. 

The lawsuit asserts claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Connecticut wage and hour law, and California wage and hour law.  It seeks overtime pay damages going back as far as 2010, up to the present.  It also seeks additional remedies including liquidated damages, state law penalties, and reclassification of the System Administrators as nonexempt, so that they can be paid overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week.

A nine-person jury unanimously found that (1) the System Administrators were misclassified, should have been classified as nonexempt, and therefore should have been paid overtime pay for the hours they worked, and (2) CSC’s violation of the law was willful, justifying liquidated damages (doubling the overtime pay owed). 

The case was filed on July 1, 2014.  Judge Arterton certified the Connecticut and California classes on June 30, 2017. 

The name of the case is Strauch v. Computer Sciences Corp., No. 14-cv-956.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Strip House Restaurant New York

On April 29, 2009, Outten & Golden LLP and Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP filed an amended class and collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against The Glazier Group Inc.; T-Bone Restaurant, LLC a/k/a Strip House New York; Peter H. Glazier; Penny Glazier; and Mathew Glazier for violations of federal and state wage and hours laws. The violations include: engaging in improper tip-pooling practices; redistributing portions of employees’ tips to non-tip eligible employees; failing to pay proper overtime compensation to employees who worked more than 40 hours in a work week; failing to reimburse workers for the cost of purchasing and laundering required uniforms; and failing to pay workers the required minimum amount of call-in pay for all days on which they report for duty. The plaintiffs, former Strip House servers, are represented by Outten & Golden LLP and Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



SunTrust Mortgage Underwriters Overtime Misclassification

Along with our co-counsel, Nichols Kaster, LLP in San Francisco, California, Outten & Golden LLP represents a group of SunTrust mortgage underwriters in their claims that SunTrust misclassified them as exempt from the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California Labor Code, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs filed their class and collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2010.

On November 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to conditionally certify a FLSA collective and to allow them to send notice to SunTrust mortgage underwriters nationwide that they can join the case and attempt to recover their unpaid overtime wages. Plaintiffs argued that all SunTrust mortgage underwriters performed the same primary duties - to review mortgage loan applications to ensure that they conformed to various detailed policies and guidelines. They did not determine which loan products the company offered and they were not involved in developing underwriting guidelines. Additionally, they were evaluated in part based on productivity and had to complete a certain number of files per day. SunTrust Mortgage underwriters did not create credit policy. They are reviewed, compared and contrasted to other mortgage underwriters on a production-based metric. Their performance was subject to review by quality control auditors. Under Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529 (2d Cir. 2009), Plaintiffs argued, they are all misclassified as exempt workers and entitled to unpaid overtime wages.

On February 18, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective of SunTrust mortgage underwriters, holding that "[a]t this initial stage, plaintiffs’ evidence is sufficient to support their allegations that they are similarly situated with respect to their FLSA claim." The Court relied on the declarations of five employees who attested that their primary job duty was to review mortgage loan applications based on companywide guidelines and SunTrust's company-wide job description: “Underwriting is responsible for processes, procedures and controls to ensure strict adherence to underwriting credit policy and does not engage in credit policy overrides or the creation of credit policy.” The Court ordered notice to be sent to Notice shall be sent "to prospective class members consisting of: all persons employed by SunTrust in the United States as a Mortgage Underwriter 1, Mortgage Underwriter 2, or Mortgage Underwriter 3 at any time between three years prior to the date of this Order and July 11, 2010." Notice was sent to SunTrust mortgage underwriters nationwide on March 11, 2011. The parties are currently involved in discovery.

Please email Justin M. Swartz or Rachel Bien, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Target Group Leader Overtime Lawsuit

Outten & Golden LLP and the Louis Ginsberg Law Offices, P.C., represent a proposed class of current and former Group Leaders who worked for Target Corporation in its distribution centers.  The lawsuit alleges that Target misclassified Group Leaders as exempt from legal overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages.  According to the Complaint, the plaintiff and other Group Leaders regularly worked more than forty hours per week without receiving overtime compensation, and spent the majority of their time loading and unloading trailers, moving merchandise onto racks, filling out end-of-shift templates, and entering data.  The case is LaPointe v. Target Corporation, No. 16-CV-00216, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. 

For more information, please visit our Target Group Leader Lawsuit website.

Please contact Jahan C. Sagafi or call 212-245-1000 for more information.



TD Bank Assistant Store Managers

Outten & Golden LLP, together with Shulman Kessler LLP and the Shavitz Law Group, P.A., has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of current and former employees of T.D. Bank.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that TD Bank misclassified its Assistant Store Managers and failed to pay them overtime wages.  On behalf of these Assistant Store Managers, the complaint seeks back wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law, as well as under the state labor laws of Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

On August 28, 2013, Outten & Golden along with co-counsel filed a motion on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking conditional certification of the action under the FLSA of all Assistant Store Managers who worked for TD Bank nationwide between February 4, 2010 and the present. 

The case is Calabrese v. TD Bank, N.A., No. 13 Civ.  0637, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Please email Justin Swartz or Deirdre Aaron or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



TeleTech / Verizon Wireless

Outten & Golden 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.

Please email Adam T. Klein, Justin M. Swartz, or Cara Greene or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)

 



TGI Friday’s

On April 18, 2014, Outten & Golden LLP, together with our co-counsel Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, filed a class action complaint in New York district court against TGI Friday’s and Carlson Restaurants on behalf of tipped workers.  The lawsuit accuses TGI Friday’s of violating federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by using a centralized time keeping system to “shave” hours from employee time records and allowing employees to work “off-the-clock” performing non-tip producing “side work” including cleaning the restaurant, preparing food in bulk for customers, cutting produce, refilling condiments, and stocking and replenishing the bar and service areas.  At other restaurants, these duties customarily are assigned to “back-of-the-house” employees, who typically receive at least the full minimum wage rate of pay.
 
The case is pending before United States District Court Judge Analisa Torres. The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated tips, uniform-related expenses, unlawful deductions, and other wages for current and former workers at TGI Friday’s restaurants throughout the nation owned and/or operated by Carrollton, Texas-based Carlson Restaurants Inc., Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Inc., and TGI Friday’s Inc. nationwide.

Please email Justin M. Swartz and Sally J. Abrahamson or call 212-245-1000 for more information.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Tyson Foods Meat Processing Plant Workers Unpaid Overtime Class Action

Outten & 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 or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



United Rentals Operations Managers Misclassification Overtime Lawsuit

On January 15, 2010, Outten & Golden LLP and their co-counsel, the Hayber Law Firm, LLC, filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action lawsuit against United Rentals, the largest equipment rental company in the world, with over 500 branch locations throughout the United States, on behalf of operations managers who were not paid overtime compensation. Plaintiffs allege that United Rentals misclassifies its operations managers, who spend almost all of their work time performing inside sales and other non-managerial work, as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime protections and fails to pay them any overtime compensation for hours they work in excess of 40 in a workweek.

On September 23, 2010, the Judge overseeing the case, Aros v. United Rentals Inc., et. al, No. 3:10- CV-73, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, granted Plaintiff’s request that the case proceed as a collective under the FLSA. The judge authorized Plaintiffs to send notice about the case to other current and former United Rentals operations managers nationwide, so that other United Rentals operations managers could find out about the case and decide whether to join it.

On April 25, 2011, the Judge granted Plaintiff’s request to add one additional named plaintiff and to add class action claims for unpaid overtime and missed rest and meal breaks under several California state laws including California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professional Code §17200 et seq. (“UCL”), the California Labor Code and related regulations, California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 218.5, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1174, 1174.5, and 1194, and California Wage Order No. 4.

Please email Justin M. Swartz, Molly A. Brooks, or Melissa Pierre-Louis, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



UPS Supervisor/Specialist Overtime Pay Class Action

Current 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 or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Urban Outfitters

Outten & Golden LLP, along with our co-counsel Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Berger & Montague PC, the Shavitz Law Group, and Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth PLLC represent a group of current and former Department Managers (“DMs”) who have worked for Urban Outfitters in a class and collective action lawsuit alleging that Urban Outfitters has misclassified DMs, who spend almost all of their time performing customer service and manual tasks, as exempt from federal and state overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime wages.

On May 7, 2014, the judge overseeing the case, McEarchen et al v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 3569, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, granted Plaintiffs’ request that the case proceed as a collective under the FLSA. The judge authorized Plaintiffs to send notice about the case to other current and former Urban Outfitters DMs nationwide, so that other Urban Outfitters DMs could find out about the case and decide whether to join it.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Ossai Miazad, or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.



Wal-Mart

Outten & Golden LLP serves as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging that a class of approximately 80,000 hourly employees in New York have not received proper compensation for all hours worked, including hours worked off-the-clock, or proper overtime premium pay in violation of the New York State Labor Law. The trial court denied class certification and the appellate court affirmed the decision. Recently, Wal-Mart agreed to settle numerous wage and hour cases across the country, including the New York case.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Washington Mutual (WaMu) Overtime

Outten & Golden LLP has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu") alleging that WaMu failed to pay its underwriters overtime pay as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and NY state law. The case is called Aber-Shukofsky et al. v. JPMorgan Chases & Co et al., No. 10 Civ. 00226, and it is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs are former underwriters who allege that they were deliberately misclassified as FSLA exempt so that WaMu could avoid paying them overtime compensation as required by law. The plaintiffs worked well in excess of 40 hours a week and received no overtime pay. Underwriters from California, Illinois, New York, and Washington have already joined the lawsuit.

Please email Jack A. Raisner or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

 *Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


Washington Mutual Loan Consultants, Loan Officers, and Loan Originators Overtime Pay Case

NEW 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.

Please contact Jack Raisner or call (212) 245-1000 for more information.

*Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.



Whirlpool

The Plaintiffs, current and former Maytag appliance repair people, sued Whirlpool Corp. for failing to pay them for hours that they worked “off-the-clock” before their shifts began each morning and after their shifts ended each evening.  On January 20, 2010, the district court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval of the parties’ $9.25 classwide settlement.

Please email Rachel Bien or Justin M. Swartz or call (212) 245-1000 for more information about this class action.

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)



Xerox Corporation

On December 5, 2013, Outten & Golden and its co-counsel Shavitz Law Group filed a collective action lawsuit against Xerox Corporation and TMS Health.  The case alleges that TMS and Xerox instructed their call center workers not to record time that they spent on training and other work that they performed outside of their scheduled shifts, and seeks overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The plaintiffs seek collective action status.

Outten & Golden and Shavitz Law Group also represent dozens of Xerox and TMS workers in individual arbitrations alleging the same claims before the American Arbitration Association. 

Outten & Golden has represented call center workers in several similar lawsuits.  Cases against HSBC, TeleTech, JP Morgan Chase, GEICO, and ClientLogic are part of an industry trend of requiring low-paid call center workers to work outside of their scheduled shifts without compensation or overtime pay, in violation of the FLSA and state wage and hour laws.

The lawsuit, Cooper-Gutterman v. TMS Health LLC, No. 13 Civ. 81265, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Please contact Justin M. Swartz or Michael J. Scimone for more information.

 

(Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.)