As a result of the settlement, asset protection coordinators will receive an average of $290 back pay, while vision center managers will receive an average of $2,300. This may not seem like much, but the settlement is a victory for those who want to assure that workers receive the wages they have earned.
]]> Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Wal-Mart has failed to pay workers the wages they earned for working overtime. In 2007, the Labor Department ordered the retailer to pay nearly $34 million to about 87,000 workers. In some cases, workers received nearly $10,000 in back overtime pay.Contact an Employment Law Attorney
If you or someone you love has not been paid for overtime or has another wage and hour dispute, contact an experienced employment law attorney. A knowledgeable employment law attorney can assess your case and help you do what is necessary to protect your rights. For more information, contact an employment law attorney today.
Source: Washington Post, "Wal-Mart to pay $4.8 million in back wages," Ylan Q. Mui.
]]>As the article points out, the move came four years after the Supreme Court ruled against a 73-year-old home care aid for the elderly. The woman had apparently sued her employer for years of unpaid overtime, which had been denied to her as she was deemed to fall under the companionship exemption.
]]> The development is a welcome one, and a sign that the budget office is interested in looking into greater legal protection for home care workers, many of whom are females, low-income, and minorities or immigrants.In that case, the justices agreed that the woman fell under that exemption, and that only the Labor Department or Congress had power to change the companionship provision.
The content of the proposal is not yet exactly known, but it is hoped that it contains specific language stating that home care aids are not excluded from federal labor protections.
Supporters of the provision say that the provision will improve the industry's problems with recruitment and retention, and will help keep more people out of costly nursing homes.
Source: New York Times, "Fair Pay for Hard Work," November 25, 2011.
]]>Each of the employees was accused of not taking the necessary steps to determine whether Madoff was misrepresenting his trading. In response, the agency's human resources department apparently recommended termination of one of the eight employees, but that employee was ultimately not fired so as not to "harm the agency's work." All eight of the employees, though, were disciplined. In addition, a ninth employee-who had been facing a possible seven-day suspension-resigned before disciplinary action was taken against him.
]]> In addition to the disciplinary action, the SEC also issued suspensions, pay cuts and demotions to the employees. The employee who was recommended for termination reportedly received a 30-day suspension and a reduction in pay and grade. The others received lesser consequences.The disciplinary process was reportedly concluded some months ago, but one of the disciplined employees has appealed the action to the agency.
The Madoff case, considered by many to be the biggest embarrassment in the history of the SEC, is still causing many to doubt whether progress has been made in cleaning up the industry.
Earlier this month, the SEC was blasted by a federal judge for allowing firms settle fraud charges without having to admit or deny wrongdoing.
Critics say the agency has not been serious enough in addressing the failings of employees.
Source: Washington Post, "Eight SEC employees disciplined over failures in Madoff fraud case; none are fired," November 11, 2011.
]]>There have been a handful of same-sex families across the country that have recently filed a federal lawsuit that alleges that they are the victims of unconstitutional discrimination. The families claim that they have not been able to collect federal benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act.
]]> This lawsuit is particularly hard for a member of the New Hampshire National Guard. She had previously been diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer that required a double mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation treatment. After going into remission, the cancer unfortunately came back. While a heterosexual couple would receive death benefits and burial rights without a question, the women allege that they will not, should anything happen.The current lawsuit was filed by 16 retired and active members of the military who are affected by the alleged discrimination. They have named the U.S. Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Attorney General and the federal entity of the United States as defendants.
Source: Seacoastonline.com, "Gay local Guardswoman faces federal legal fray," Elizabeth Dinan, Nov. 22, 2011
]]>The plaintiffs apparently took part in a pre-apprentice training program, which was created as part of a community benefits agreement which promised to create local in order to gain support from residents and politicians for the Atlantic Yards Project. For our readers who are unfamiliar with the Atlantic Yards Project, it is a development project involving 16 high-rise buildings in Prospect Heights, which is next to Downtown Brooklyn.
]]> Among those named as defendants in the suit are Atlantic Yards Development Company LLC, Forest City Ratner Companies LLC, and Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD). The plaintiff's, apparently all former BUILD members, claim they worked for two months on a private residence renovation project in Staten Island, for which they received little or no training or compensation.The plaintiffs reportedly entered the internship program on promises of guaranteed union jobs and continued working after being informed they would not receive union membership if they stopped their work.
According to BUILD, the plaintiffs signed an agreement indicating they would not receive pay for the work or be guaranteed union membership. But according to the plaintiffs' attorneys, signing the agreement does not mean the interns were not entitled to pay for the work they performed.
The defendants reportedly have 21 days to answer the complaint.
This story is a bit like a previous one we posted on which involved two former interns who worked for Fox Searchlight Pictures on the film "Black Swan." Those interns filed a federal class action suit claiming the company violated labor laws by hiring unpaid interns.
With economy being the way it is, it shouldn't be that surprising to be seeing these kinds of lawsuits. It will be interesting to see how the courts handle them.
Source: New York Times, "Brooklyn Residents File Lawsuit to Recover Unpaid Wages," Chester Soria and Martin Leung, November 16, 2011.
]]>In a recent decision, the Virginia Supreme Court issued a ruling that will prevent companies from enforcing non-compete agreements that are so broad as to prevent a former employer from working for a competitor in any capacity.
]]> The lawsuit which gave rise to the ruling involved a dispute between Home Paramount Pest Control and a former employee from its Falls Church branch. According to the company, the former employee had been attempting to attract Home Paramount customers after beginning work for a competitor based in Springfield, by the name of Connor's Termite and Pest Control.The non-compete agreement imposed on the employee was found to be too broad because it prevented him from working at an industry competitor in any capacity.
What the decision illustrates is basically that a company cannot restrict an employee from working for a competitor in any capacity.
The decision is not precedent-setting, however, sources said, as the Virginia Supreme Court has already disapproved non-compete agreements on similar grounds in the past. What it does do is remind employers of their limits in restricting employees' ability to work.
When a court approaches a non-compete agreement, it will look for whether the agreement was reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the case. A number of factors are taken into account when determining the reasonableness of an agreement. Among them are the geographic scope, the duration and the type of activity the former employee is not able to engage in.
Source: Washington Post, "Va. Supreme Court: Non-compete pacts can't be too broad," Catherine Ho, November 13, 2011.
]]>The lawsuit was reportedly filed on Monday in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan. According to papers filed by employees, New York labor law required the company to provide 60 days written notice of the firings. In addition to seeking class-action for all employees affected by the firing, they suit also seeks unpaid wages and bonuses, commissions and other benefits.
]]> According to the employees, they were terminated without cause. They are seeking to recover 60 days worth of wages and benefits.MF Global filed for bankruptcy protection on October 31, 2011. Its brokerage unit is set to be liquidated in the process. Sources said the unity encountered liquidity problems stemming from investment in European sovereign bonds. Four days after the liquidity problems arose, the company's chief executive resigned. Employers of the brokerage unit were told it was the company's duty to close the unit down.
Those named as plaintiffs in court documents are a former vice president in credit risk management at MF Global's New York office, as well as a floor broker that worked at the company's Chicago office.
According to the attorney representing the trustee appointed to liquidate the brokerage unit, the trustee acted appropriately in terminated the employees, who were fired as part of a court-mandated liquidation and wind-down of MF Global Inc.
Source: Businessweek, "MF Global Parent Sued by Former Employees Over Firings," Linda Sandler, November 14, 2011.
]]>Sources said the suit which gave rise to the settlement was initially brought under the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to obtain a reward when a false claim is paid by the federal government and then recovered.
]]> The city's personal-care services program is reportedly designed to provide basic services for patients, including cleaning, shopping and medical aid for Medicaid recipients. The idea behind the program is to provide services for poor and sick New Yorkers. An applicant of the program, however, may not receive services unless their eligibility has first been determined.Prosecutors claim that the city had already paid tens of millions of dollars in its handling of the personal-care services program. According to the city's lawyer, the settlement was in the interest of the city's financial health. The city's attorney also said the human resources department had provided the personal-care services in good faith and the government's lawsuit was based upon "technical record-keeping deficiencies."
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, the attorney in charge of the case, the case was not about mere paperwork, and any statements to the contrary, contradicted the statements the city submitted to the court in the course of litigation.
Source: Thomson Reuters News & Insight, "NYC to pay $70 mln to settle charges of Medicaid mishandling," Noeleen Walder, November 1, 2011.
]]>The strange display was reportedly the man's way of protesting his termination from his counseling position with the Rockland County mental health department back in 2008. The man reportedly displayed a large banner which accused Rockland officials of a "cover-up" and "retaliation."
]]> When police attempted to bring the man to safety, the man jumped into the river and attempted to swim away. He was eventually brought in by a lifeline and brought aboard a Yonkers police boat and placed in handcuffs.The incident is still being investigated, but sources said the man was well known to law enforcement. He has apparently protesting his termination at Rockland County Legislature meetings and sent letters which some have seen as threatening. Law enforcement has previously been sent to the meetings to monitor the man, though he had apparently never been arrested. The man had also sometimes picketed by himself outside the county building in New City and attempted to argue his case before county officials.
The man was, according to Rockland County Legislature Chairwoman Harriet Cornell, "unhappy with his termination in 2008 and would come often to public hearings and register his anger and concern."
Sources were sparse on the details surrounding the man's accusations. Workers who suspect that they have been subjected to retaliation by their employer usually consult an attorney to determine the proper course of action.
Source: msnbc.com, "Man with sign dangles off NY's Tappan Zee Bridge," November 7, 2011.
]]>The man reportedly filed the suit against Viva Railings its owners in early October, claiming that he worked for the company between November 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010 as a nonexempt employee. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a nonexempt employee is one who must be paid at least the federal minimum wage rate for the first 40 hours of work in any workweek. The employee is also owed an overtime rate of at least time and on-half of the regular rate for hours worked beyond the initial 40.
]]> Whether or not an employee is classified as exempt or nonexempt is sometimes difficult for employers. The factors determining the decision are the duties of the position. Generally speaking, a nonexempt employee is one whose work is fairly routine and has set standards. These types of positions include bank tellers and shipping/receiving clerks.In the Texas case, the employee worked an average of 60 to 70 hours per week. He accuses the company and its owners of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants have already partially paid the worker $16,575 of the amount he claims they owe, but the employee says they still owe $40,000.
Sources said the plaintiff seeks damages for compensatory time, physical pain, mental anguish and emotional distress, as well as punitive damages, attorney's fees, court costs and interest. As is obvious, these types of cases can be expenses for employers.
Source: Southeast Texas Record,, "Employee sues for $40,000 in unpaid overtime wages," Michelle Keahey, October 27, 2011.
]]>The suit, which was filed last Friday in Franklin County, alleges that the defendants violated the terms of a settlement agreement between the judge and his accusers. It is the latest development in a string of court filings and settlements regarding allegations that the judge engaged in sexual harassment against the woman, who worked as a Spanish interpreter in Franklin County Municipal Court.
]]> City officials have been accused of covering up the judge's behavior by firing the woman last November.In his complaint, the judge asks for over $25,000 for violation of the settlement agreement. According to the judge's attorney, the matter was to be kept confidential.
The second woman named in the lawsuit had apparently appeared before the judge on drunk-driving charges in June. She accuses the judge of taking advantage of her by picking her up on the day of her initial court appearance and took her to a bar where he made unwanted sexual advances against her. She also says he tried to kiss her, drover her home after drinking, grabbed her breast, and came into her home uninvited and lay down on her bed. Not wanting to anger him, she allowed the behavior.
She had reportedly sent a letter to the judge in August stating that she would be taking legal action if the judge refused to step down from his position. The judge's attorney said the letter was probably sent in an attempt to influence the federal lawsuit the Spanish interpreter had filed against the city last December. In that suit, which was later settled for $138,000, the woman accused the judge of grabbing her breasts and using racial slurs to refer to her. The suit also said there were three other women who reported that Hale used profane and derogatory language to speak about them and minorities. They also produced written statements accusing the judge of improper behavior.
Sexual harassment can be a distressing situation for employees, particularly when the harasser is a supervisor or one in power. Employees who attempt to correct the situation are often subjected to retaliation and lose their jobs. Employees subjected to such behavior deserve compensation.
Source: The Columbus Dispatch, "Judge sues sexual-harassment accusers, alleging defamation," Stephanie Czekalinksi, November 3, 2011.
]]>One of PR Newswire's major rivals is Toronto-based Martketwire. On Wednesday, Marketwire filed a lawsuit against its rival for allegedly luring Marketwire's workers away and bribing them to reveal confidential information and trade secrets, as well as violate confidentiality and non-compete agreements.
]]> In Marketwire's complaint, it accused PR Newswire of hiring its former chief technology officer Shoeb Ansari, and accused the company of engaging in an ongoing effort to steal its technology and access its customer data.Ansari was reportedly fired from Marketwire last June, but now works as the chief information officer at PR Newswire. Since starting for the company, Ansari has apparently drawn several former colleagues to work for the company. Those workers, who left Marketwire last week, have been named as co-defendants in the Marketwire suit.
Marketwire is reportedly seeking $25 million in damages, as well as a permanent ban on using or disclosing confidential business information and trade secrets.
Sources did not elaborate on the nature of the non-compete agreements involved, nor did they indicate PR Newswire's response to Marketwire's allegations of violating non-compete agreements.
Source: Reuters, "Stop the press releases! PR Newswire sued by rival," Jonathan Stempel, October 26, 2011.
]]>The settlement, which came last Friday, is the most recent in a string of 10 whistleblower suits going back to 2003. Pfizer reportedly agreed to pay $2.3 billion in September 2009 to settle civil claims and criminal charges, though the rest of the cases were dismissed. The $2.3 million billion settlement was apparently related to illegal marketing of Lipitor, Viagra and 11 other drugs.
]]> Sources said the drug had only been approved for the treatment of frequent urination, bladder leaks, and sudden urination urges. Pfizer apparently marketed the drug to treat enlarged prostate and related conditions, including bladder obstruction.The U.S. Attorney's office in Boston was please that Pfizer decided to settle the case and sees the settlement as a crackdown on compliance with drug marketing laws. But Pfizer said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing, but merely a means of avoiding the unwanted costs and distraction of litigation.
Sources said $2.6 million of the $14.5 million penalty will go to state Medicaid programs and $11.8 million will go to the federal government. The whistleblowers who brought the allegation of illegal marketing activity will be receiving $3.2 million from the federal government's share. Those awards come to the whistleblowers under provisions of the False Claims Act.
Source: Washington Post, "Pfizer agrees to pay $14.5M to settle latest government charges of illegal drug marketing," October 21, 2011.
]]>The whistleblower suit, filed in a Washington court, cites banks like Bank of American, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo of hiding, or disguising, illegal fees tied in with home refinancing loans for veterans. These banks have brought in millions of dollars connecting on to these loans that are guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
]]> The two mortgage brokers who were ultimately responsible for bringing the fraud to light explained that the banks would instruct brokers not to show attorney's fees on their estimates to veterans. Instead, they were instructed to tack on this sum to the title examination fee. This violates Veterans Affairs laws which say banks may not charge attorney or settlement closing fees to these loans.The purpose behind these loans is to give veterans a chance to lower the interest rates on their existing mortgages or else shorten the terms. This applies to both retired and active-duty veterans.
Veterans attributed to $1.2 million in refinanced loans within the last decade. Estimates show that about 90 percent of all those refinanced loans were affected by this fraudulent practice.
Now, thousands of veterans are defaulting on these special loans, which have led the way for a number of foreclosures. This is having a domino effect and will ultimately cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
The suit is seeking damages and civil penalties. Government officials are still deciding whether to join in on the case.
Source: Washington Post, "Suit alleges banks and mortgage companies cheated veterans and U.S. taxpayers," Steve Vogel, October 4, 2011.
]]>Another facet of the new bill is that state and local government employees would be allowed to run in partisan elections. This is different than current law, which prohibits state and local government employees who oversee or are otherwise connected to federally funded program from running in partisan elections.
]]> Current law prevents federal employees from running in such elections even where there is only an insignificant connection to federal funding in their job. One example of this in 2011 was a police officer from Pennsylvania who was not allowed to run in a local school board election because his work dog was connected to funding from the Department of Homeland Security.According to a spokeswoman from the Office of Special Counsel, the Hatch Act was not intended to cover these types of local and state situations, which are becoming more and more prevalent. Sources said that since 2000, the OSC's Hatch Act Unit has had a workload increase of over 400 percent. Since 2010, especially, there has been an increase of complaints related to inappropriate political activity among federal employees.
In addition to these changes, the new bill seeks to have Congress define "political activity" as used in the Hatch Act, and to lay out what exactly is meant by the federal workplace. This latter issue has become complicated by the increase of social media and telecommuting in recent years.
Source: govexec.com, "Special counsel recommends reforms to law covering improper political activities," Kellie Lunney, Oct 2011.
]]>