Unpaid Overtime

Week Adjourned: 10.19.12 – Healthcare Workers, Madden NFL, Chantix

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 19, 2012. This week’s top stories include Healthcare workers at Maxim Healthcare, Electronic Arts and NFL Madden games and the first Chantix settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Overworked and Underpaid on Overtime. An overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, by Jas

mine Lawrence, who was employed as a Home Health Aide by the defendant until October 2012.

In the unpaid overtime lawsuit, Lawrence alleges that Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, violated, and continues to violate, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) because of its willful failure to compensate her and the class members at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Lawrence claims she regularly worked over 70 hours per week while employed by Maxim Healthcare and the majority of her time was spent performing general housekeeping duties as opposed to patient care.

Lawrence also alleges that she and the members of the putative class who are employed by the Defendant in Ohio are “employees” within the meaning of the OMFWSA.

Lawrence, the lead plaintiff in the employment class action, seeks to bring her claim for violation of the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a nation-wide collective action, and as a statewide class action based for violation of the OMFWSA.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc, is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. Lawrence and the class are represented by Ben Stewart of Stewart Law PLLC.

Top Settlements

And it’s a Touchdown! The Plaintiffs score a proposed $27 million settlement that’s been reached in a class action lawsuit pending against Electronic Arts. The Electronic Arts settlement, if approved, will apply to anyone who purchased a new copy of an EA Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video game between 2005 and 2012 and is an eligible class member.

The backstory—in case you missed it—The Electronic Arts video game antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2008 entitled Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., and alleged that EA violated antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits by holding exclusive license agreements with the NFL, NCAA and AFL to market branded football software. The lawsuit further alleged that the arrangement shut out competitors, enabling EA to charge 70 percent more for “Madden NFL.”

And the skinny on the proposed deal: Class Members of the EA football game class action settlement include all U.S. consumers who bought a new copy of an Electronic Arts’ Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video game for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube, PC, or Wii, with a release date of January 1, 2005 to June 21, 2012.

If approved by the court at the February 7, 2013 Final Fairness Hearing, Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid claim forms will receive the following CASH benefits:

If you are an eligible Settlement Class Member, your share of the net proceeds of the Settlement will be based upon the number of video game titles you purchased new, as well as the number of Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims.

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox, PlayStation 2, PC, or GameCube platforms (“Sixth Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $6.79 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($54.32).

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or Wii platforms (“Seventh Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $1.95 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($15.60).

The only way to receive cash benefits from the EA antitrust settlement is to submit a Claim Form either online at EASportsLitigation.com or postmarked no later than March 5, 2013.

Let’s hope this settlement levels the playing field…

Here’s a Bittersweet Ending… A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against Pfizer and its anti-smoking drug Chantix. The Pfizer Chantix settlement, the details of which remain confidential, was reached just prior to the case going to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by the widow of Mark Alan Whitely, from Minnesota, who allegedly killed himself in November 2007 as a result of taking the controversial drug. The lawsuit alleged that Pfizer failed to sufficiently warn that Chantix could increase the risk of suicide.

FYI—in July 2009, the FDA announced an update to Chantix (known generically as varenicline) warnings, alerting patients to the risk of serious mental health events linked to use of the smoking cessation drug. Pfizer, maker of Chantix, was required to put a Boxed Warning on the Chantix label, highlighting the risk of depressed mood, hostility and suicidal thoughts when using the medication. When the FDA made its announcement in 2009, it had received 98 crude reports of completed suicide associated with Chantix (a crude report means the FDA had not examined each report in depth to ensure there were no duplicates). It had a further 188 crude reports of suicide attempts.

The Whitely lawsuit is reportedly the first of some 2,500 Chantix cases that have been combined in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Alabama for pretrial evidence-gathering and the first trials.

The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence). The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence).

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 8.24.12 – Hotel Deals, Parkay, ACS

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 24, 2012. Top stories include online hotel reservations, Parkay margarine and ACS overtime.

Top Class Actions

And you thought you were getting a hotel deal? Consumers (that would be you and me) have filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against several online travel sites including Expedia, Inc, Travelocity, Booking.com, a subsidiary of Priceline.com, and the nation’s largest hotel operators including Hilton Hotel, Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, a subsidiary of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, and Marriott International, Inc, claiming the two groups conspired to use their market dominance to fix prices on hotel rooms across the country.

The hotel price fixing class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of hotel room purchasers nationally, alleges that the online hotel retailers conspired with major hotel defendants to secretly create and enforce Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) agreements to thwart competition on hotel room prices, especially from price-cutting online retailers.

The complaint contends that the defendants’ unlawful conduct caused plaintiffs and other class members to overpay for their purchases of room reservations and seeks to represent all consumers who have purchased hotel rooms from the online retailer defendants.

According to the complaint, online travel sites account for as much as 50 percent of hotel bookings in the United States and traditionally operate under one of two models. Under the agency model, online retailers charge a service fee to a hotel operator on a transaction basis for booking customers, and that customer pays the hotel directly at a rate set by the hotel.

Under the merchant model, online retailers purchase rooms outright at a negotiated rate from the hotel, and then resell the rooms to consumers at a higher price, increasing or decreasing margins depending on competitive influences.

More recently, a new model has emerged that has cut into the traditional online retailers’ profits, the complaint contends, and has led to the creation of the RPM agreements. In this model, known as the Wholesale Model, third-party companies buy up unsold blocks of rooms at the last-minute and resell them to smaller price-cutting online retailers, eroding the profits of the traditional online retailers.

Knowing hotels cannot afford to lose access to online distribution networks, online retailers allegedly devised an illegal scheme, extracting agreements from the hotels that online retailers may not sell rooms below the RPM rates—even through the wholesale model—on penalty of termination and as a condition of doing business through the online retailers, the lawsuit contends.

The complaint states that the online retailer defendants often use terms like “best price guarantee” to create the impression of a competitive market, but in truth these are nothing more than a cover for the price-fixing conspiracy. The suit alleges that the defendants’ activities violate both the federal antitrust laws, as well as California’s Cartwright Act.

What’s the fat content in Parkay Spray Butter advertising? Higher than indicated, apparently…ConAgra Foods got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations they intentionally misrepresenting the contents of Parkay Spray butter substitute.

Nebraska resident Pamela Trewhitt filed the Parkay lawsuit claiming that ConAgra falsely marketed the butter substitute as “fat-free” and “calorie-free,” even though it contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per 8-oz bottle. The lawsuit also claims that the nutrition information on the label underestimates the amount of fat and calories in the products by using artificially small serving sizes of one to five sprays.

“Defendant knew or should have known that its product was mislabeled and engendered confusion among consumers,” the lawsuit states. It cites numerous Internet complaints about the spray by consumers who couldn’t figure out why they weren’t losing weight until they discovered that Parkay Spray was the culprit. “I was literally taking the top of the ‘fat and calorie free butter’ spray and pouring it on my carefully steamed veggies when I found out that a bottle of that stuff is 90 fat grams. I was going through two bottles a week, and working out and getting fat and unhealthy,” one plaintiff alleges.

The Parkay lawsuit accuses ConAgra Foods of violating the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, reaping ill-gotten profits, and fraud. Plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages as well as an injunction barring ConAgra from labeling Parkay Spray as fat-free and calorie-free.

Top Settlements

Now here’s a happy ending…Workers employed at an Oregon call center by Affiliated Computer Services Inc, have won a $4.5 million settlement in a wage and hour class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged the employees were not properly paid all minimum and overtime wages for all the hours they worked.

Filed in 2009, the lawsuit, entitled Bell, et al. v. Affiliated Computer Services, claims that ACS violated federal and state wage and overtime laws by failing to pay employees for all hours worked, all overtime hours and failing to timely pay final wages to employees at the end of employment.

Eligible class members of the ACS settlement include all employees of ACS who worked as a phone agent or representative in an Oregon call center for the “Retail, Travel, and Insurance,” “BPS,” or “Telecommunication and technology” business groups from April 2, 2005 through April 25, 2012.

The settlement has three classes, under which members may make a claim. They are:

Subclass A: Class Members who were employed by ACS in Oregon as of April 25, 2012 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $125, not to exceed 2,000 individuals.

Subclass B: Class Members who were employed by ACS in Oregon and whose employment ended at any time between November 6, 2006 and April 24, 2012 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $260, not to exceed 13,000 individuals.

Subclass C: Class Members who were employed by ACS and whose employment ended at any time between April 2, 2005 and November 5, 2006 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $50, not to exceed 5,000 individuals.

In order to receive a Settlement Award from the ACS settlement class members must submit a valid Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator postmarked or faxed on or before September 1, 2012. Claim Forms have been mailed to Class Members.

A Final Approval Hearing for the Affiliated Computer Services Class Action Lawsuit Settlement will be held October 22, 2012.

Ok—that’s it for this week—see you at the pool bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.17.12 – Jones Lang Lasalle, Doctor Discounts, Avaulta Mesh

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 17, 2012.

Top Class Actions

More unpaid overtime lawsuits this week – and top of the pile is a potential class action lawsuit filed against commercial real estate brokerage giant Jones Lang Lasalle.

The unpaid overtime class action lawsuit was filed by maintenance worker and lead plaintiff Larry Jackson who alleges he was incorrectly classified as exempt from overtime. In January, Jones Lang Lasalle allegedly reclassified its maintenance workers from salary to hourly employees, according to a lawsuit. Jackson claims that as a result, the refuses to pay him overtime after 40 hours a week.

“Since plaintiff has been re-classified, there have been multiple instances where he has not been paid for all of his overtime hours,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff’s manager has either doctored his time card to show that plaintiff only worked 40 hours or outright refused to pay plaintiff for his overtime hours.”

Jackson seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He is represented by J. Derek Braziel with Lee Braziel in Dallas.

Top Settlements

It’s settled but not over… for Christine Scott, who was awarded $5.5 in settlement of her Avaulta lawsuit. Scott filed the lawsuit against C.R. Bard over a transvaginal mesh implantation.

Scott, just 53, claims the problems stem from the Bard Avaulta mesh implant she was provided with in 2008 to treat occasional urinary incontinence. The TVM lawsuit alleged Scott now suffers from chronic pain and can no longer enjoy intercourse with her husband as a result of a transvaginal mesh implant. The case is Scott v. Kannappan, S-1500-CV-266034-WDE, Superior Court for Kern County, California (Bakersfield).

Scott was given the Avaulta Plus Biosynthetic Support System, a product C.R. Bard no longer sells in the US. It remains available elsewhere in the world. Scott launched her Avaulta lawsuit in January 2009 upon learning the previous October that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had issued a warning to doctors pertaining to “rare” but “serious” complications originating with the mesh in some patients.

Scott testified that for five months she could only urinate with a catheter. It has also been discovered the mesh has eroded within her body, breaking apart and becoming intertwined with her organs and surrounding tissue. The mesh is causing ongoing internal lacerations, infection and abscesses.

The Bard mesh is also protruding through and into her vagina, making intercourse impossible. And because the mesh has become so intertwined with her vital pelvic organs and other tissue, it can never be safely removed.

The problems with Bard Avaulta have resulted in eight subsequent surgeries and nine additional procedures related to the internal damage wrought by the mesh product. The experience has also resulted in the need for ongoing psychiatric care. At trial, her psychologist testified the plaintiff would require ongoing therapy for the remainder of her life.

Doctor discount program? In what parallel universe does that happen? Certainly not ours, is the answer the courts handed down this week. Final approval of a consumer fraud class action settlement in Smith, et al v. Collinsworth, et al. has been obtained on behalf of approximately 48,000 consumers who were sold a limited benefit health insurance policy and a membership in a doctor discount program marketed as providing coverage that was as good or better than major medical, but who found out otherwise when they got sick and were saddled with large unpaid bills.

According to the Circuit Court of Saline County Arkansas, which approved the settlement, “the value of the settlement exceeds $40 million,” plus it “provides … injunctive relief designed to address the gravamen of the claims at issue in this Action.” The doctor discount program lawsuit has been in progress for seven years.

The lawsuit alleged that the health insurer and the doctor discount network, through their shared sales force, misrepresented the combination of a limited benefits health insurance policy and the doctor discount program as providing coverage that was equal to or better than major medical policies issued by companies such as Blue Cross Blue Shield. In fact the combination of products provided only a fraction of what would have been paid by major medical policy and left class members with crippling bills. The litigation class was certified in September 2009 by the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas, and class certification was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2010 in United Am. Ins. v. Smith (see 2010 Ark. 468 (2010)).

Ok – that’s it for this week – see you at the pool bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.7.12 – Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of July 7, 2012. Top stories this week include class action lawsuits involving Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Putting the Squeeze on Coca-Cola. Well, maybe. Seems something’s going on down at the grove. First it was Tropicana, now Coke’s Simply Orange has been hit with a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week over allegations it falsely advertises the Simply Orange orange juice as all pure and natural, when the juice is actually heavily processed and flavored.

Filed by Nezzie Rose Christina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola has been falsely stating that the Simply Orange orange juice is “100% Purse Squeezed Orange Juice” and is “a pure, natural orange juice with a taste that’s the next best thing to fresh-squeezed.”

Well, you don’t have to be a chemist to squeeze an orange at home, compare the juice you get from that with what comes out of your grocer’s freezer, and see a difference—now do you?

So the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola is deceptively promoting Simply Orange in order to take advantage of consumers’ preference for natural products and their willingness to pay a premium price for those products. “Mass marketed orange juice such as Simply Orange cannot be fresh squeezed as fresh squeezed orange juice is unstable and has a short shelf-life,” the lawsuit states.

The class action lawsuit alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and is asking for the return of the purchase price of the juice, plus interest, expenses, and attorney’s fees. This could be a juicy one! (Ok, ok—that’s bad, I know).

Top Settlements

Something to Bank on. One by one—it seems the banks are falling in line. Finally and at last. This week—it was US Bank—who agreed to pay $55 million to settle class action lawsuits that accused the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues. The lawsuits, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, are pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The US Bank class action lawsuits claim that the bank’s internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuits, U.S. Bank’s practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

FYI—US Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank ($110 million), Citizens Bank ($137.5 million), TD Bank ($62 million) and PNC Bank ($90 million) have been announced in recent months.

Employee Rites? Here’s one for the little guy! An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought against Rite Aid Corp by its employees, looks likely to be settled, as the company has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million in a settlement of the federal class action.

The Rite Aid class action lawsuit was brought in December 2008, by a store manager from Georgia, who alleged violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically, that she was denied overtime payment.

The settlement combines 13 cases from various federal court districts in which Rite Aid assistant store managers and co-managers alleged they put in more than 40 hours of work some weeks, but were denied overtime because the company classified them as supervisors. According to the Rite Aid class action lawsuit, the workers’ duties did not include store or department management, and workers lacked the authority to hire or fire or directly supervise other employees.

The class action settlement was recently approved by US District Judge John E. Jones III. The settlement could affect 6,100 people in 31 states.

Ok—That’s a wrap. Happy Friday—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.11.12 – Overtime Pay, Smoking Dishwasher, Ormat

A wrap up of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 11, 2012. Top stories include unpaid overtime, smoking dishwashers and Ormat green energy.

Top Class Actions

Holy Catfish Batman!—what’s that smoking thing in the kitchen? A defective dishwasher, perhaps? We’ll find out, as a defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against Whirlpool, the manufacturer of Kitchenaid, Sears Kenmore, Maytag and Whirlpool dishwashers, alleging that certain models of dishwashers have a design flaw that can cause the control circuit board to fail. Greg Adams, who filed the defective dishwasher lawsuit, alleges this happened to him.

Adams claims that on December 8, 2011, he started his dishwasher only to smell burning plastic and see smoke coming from his dishwasher, sometime shortly afterward. To stop the dishwasher, he tried to pull on the door handle, but said he burned his hand on the front panel, which had become extremely hot. In the end, Adams was forced to shut the power off, to prevent further catastrophe, and protect his family. (You know this puts a whole new spin on the benefits of take out.)

According to NBCnews.com, research suggests more than 600 people across the country have come forward on kitchenaid.com. Their products were manufactured by whirlpool, which produces Kitchenaid, Sears Kenmore, Maytag and Whirlpool dishwashers. So why no recall? Well, a recall is one of the things the lawsuit seeks to achieve. Why is this so hard?

Unpaid, unhappy and unafraid… drug sales reps from Medimmune Biologics filed an employment class action lawsuit this week, against the drug company alleging unpaid overtime wage and hour violations. Sound familiar? Novo Nordisk, and Merck are also facing unpaid overtime suits by their sales reps. An industry-wide practice perhaps? Possibly. That is the $65 million question—and hinges on the definitions of ‘exempt’ and ‘non-exempt’.

According to the Medimmune wage and hour class action lawsuit, Medimmune Biologics violated California overtime laws by failing to pay drug sales representatives for overtime hours worked. Under California law, companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime compensation whenever the employees work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week.

The primary requirement to satisfy the outside salesperson exemption and thus not pay overtime under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act is that the sales representatives are actually making sales. In the Medimmune Biologics overtime class action lawsuit, the drug sales representatives allege that they were not actually involved in making sales but rather promoting prescription drugs to physicians, doctors and other specialists. At most, the physicians the sales representatives promote the drugs to can agree to prescribe the medicine to patients as needed, but cannot actually buy the prescription medicine from the sales representatives directly.

Notably, all the pharma sales rep unpaid overtime class action lawsuits allege that the pharmaceutical sales representatives should be paid overtime compensation for working more than eight hour days under the California Labor Code and/or forty hour weeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act based on the contention that the drug sales representatives do not qualify for the outside salesperson exemption because they are not actually making sales. Incidentally, sales reps who filed unpaid overtime class actions against Schering Plough won.

Top Settlements

Green Energy Co. about to Hand Over Some Green? We have a potential settlement in the Ormat Technologies securities class action this week.

So here’s the not-so-skinny skinny:

To anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired Ormat Technologies Inc securities between May 7 2008 and February 24, 2010, inclusive, who incurred damages (the “class”):

You are hereby notified that this Class Action is pending and that a Settlement of it for Three Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,100,000) has been proposed. A hearing will be held on October 1, 2012, to determine: (i) whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (ii) whether Co-Lead Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and the reimbursement of expenses should be approved; (iii) whether the Court should grant Lead Plaintiffs reimbursement of their reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly related to their representation of the Class; and (iv) whether the Court should approve the release of Released Claims against any and all Released Persons and dismiss the Litigation with prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than September 24, 2012. As more fully described in the Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement and requests for exclusions from the Class is September 10, 2012. Further information may be obtained by visiting gcginc.com/cases/ormat.

Got that?

Good. See you at the bar. And—Happy Mother’s Day!

Week Adjourned: 10.28.11

Weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of October 28, 2011.

Top Class Actions

Blackout at BlackBerry. Well—it took a while—but it’s finally here—BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIM) is facing a potential class action lawsuit over the major service interruption which occurred on October 11, 2011. The consumer fraud lawsuit was filed on behalf of all US consumers who are currently under an agreement and using a BlackBerry device.

According to the legal counsel, although the users’ contracts are through Sprint and not RIM, they pay the company fees through the carrier. The lawsuit estimates that RIM takes in roughly $3.4 million in revenue per day from the services paid through the wireless carriers. Better SMS this one.

Hey Oreck, when the Light is on the Germs are…where? If all I need to get rid of the common cold or flu viruses is a vacuum—I wonder what untapped potential lurks within my food processor? Oh, hold on a minute…Oreck is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that claims the company makes about its “flu-fighting” vacuum cleaners and air purifiers are false and misleading. Really?

The federal consumer fraud suit claims that Oreck, in its advertising, states its Halo vacuum and air purifier can “eliminate common viruses, germs and allergens, thereby helping to prevent the illnesses they cause.” The lawsuit claims that Oreck “represented to consumers that the products used scientifically proven technology to eliminate common viruses, germs and allergens, thereby helping to prevent the illnesses they cause.” And, Oreck claims its products can prevent colds, diarrhea, stomach upsets, asthma and allergies. “Unfortunately for plaintiffs and the class, defendants’ claims are not adequately supported by credible, scientific testing or other substantiation, and are not true.”

Thelaw suit goes on to state that “… these representations were false, deceptive and inaccurate. As such, Oreck’s actions violated the Magnum Moss Warranty Act (‘MMWA’), breached express warranties made by defendants, breached implied contractual warranties imposed by law, violated numerous California consumer protection statutes, and violated New York consumer protection statutes and common laws.

Top Settlements

Unpaid overtime to be paid – at last. A $4 million settlement has been reached in an unpaid overtime class action against Sutherland Global Servies Ltd.

The lawsuit, brought by call center telemarketers in 2005, (yes – 6 years ago – not kidding) alleged that Sutherland didn’t pay its call center employees the overtime owed.

The lawsuit was originally brought by two Rochester employees of the Perinton-based process outsourcing company, and grew to 10 named employees and hundreds of unnamed workers, all of whom claimed they regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but were not paid overtime.

Although Sutherland denied the allegations, it agreed to a $4 million settlement to be divided among members of the class and U.S. District Judge David G. Larimer gave final approval to the settlement last week, ending the litigation.

Ok—That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 6.17.11

Top Class Actions

Logistical Error? Nothing like a lawsuit to improve your company’s standing—or attract quality employees—as FTDI West is about to find out. The company, located in California and Florida, got hit with an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit this week.

The gist of the lawsuit is labor code violations, well, that’s a no-brainer. Specifically, the lawsuit states that FTDI West Inc, violated: Sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code by failing to provide adequate meal breaks to employees involved, section 226.7 of the California Labor Code by failing to provide adequate rest breaks to employees involved, Section 510 of the California Labor Code by failing to pay proper overtime wages, Sections 203 and 226 (a) of the California Labor code by providing involved employees paystubs not in compliance with California law and not paying “waiting time” penalties, as well as two other causes of action as related to Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and the common law tort of unjust enrichment.

The overtime claims asserted deal with non-payment of “double time” wages. Double time wages are due for any work over 12 hours in a workday or any work beyond eight hours on any seventh consecutive day of a workweek.

The lawsuit defines its class members as “All current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as non-exempt employees at any of Defendants’ locations anywhere in California, at any time from four years prior to the initiation of this action until the present.”

Top Settlements

Drywall Might Settle but the Dust Surely Hasn’t… Remember all the defective Chinese drywall lawsuits of not so very long ago? Well, they are slowly making their way through the courts to settlement land. Case in point—Banner Supply has agreed a $54.4 million settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by homeowners in the Orlando, FL area. In fact, the agreement covers 2,000 to 3,000 homes south of Orlando.

According to Builderonline something like 95 companies have been implicated as distributors of the sulfur-tainted drywall and named in subsequent lawsuits filed against the Chinese manufacturers. The defendants are accused of being the source of tainted drywall. While Banner Supply tops the list, others suppliers reportedly include ProSales L&W Supply, ProBuild, Stock Building Supply, and 84 Lumber.

While $54.5 million might seem a large settlement, it may only work out to between $18,000 and $24,000 per home, and estimates suggest the cost of repairing the affected properties could reach $100,000.

Defective Boat Injury leads to $31M Award. Ok. There’s bad design, and BAD DESIGN. In this case, I’m not talking about an infraction of the Home & Garden variety, but rather something that warranted a $31 million award. Two women brought a defective product and personal liability lawsuit against MasterCraft, after suffering some pretty horrendous injuries that good design likely would have prevented.

Short version, in 2006 Nichollette Bell and Bethany Wallenburg were among 12 passengers riding in a MasterCraft X-45 wakeboarding craft. They were sitting on the bow of the boat when it was suddenly submerged as the driver of the boat went to retrieve a fallen wakeboarder. As a result the women were swept off the boat by the force of water and into the lake. The boat’s propeller struck Bell on the head, ripping out an eye and leaving her with brain damage. The propeller also slashed Wallenburg’s left elbow and lower back, resulting in muscle and nerve damage. In their lawsuit, the women alleged the boat was defectively designed. They also alleged the driver handled the boat negligently. Not surprisingly, the jury found MasterCraft 80 percent at fault and the driver 20 percent at fault.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar.