NPR reports:
Can't put your BlackBerry down? Your boss may come to dread that if you're working while you're off the clock. A police sergeant in Chicago is suing the city. He says he's due plenty of overtime back pay because he logged in on his BlackBerry to continue working even though his shift was over.
Continue reading "NRP Reports: Using Your BlackBerry Off-Hours Could Be Overtime" »
For-Profit Colleges Mislead Students, Report Finds
By TAMAR LEWIN
Published: August 3, 2010
Recruiters for 15 for-profit colleges encouraged lying on financial aid forms and misled potential students.
The New York Times Reports:
Undercover investigators posing as students interested in enrolling at 15 for-profit colleges found that recruiters at four of the colleges encouraged prospective students to lie on their financial aid applications — and all 15 misled potential students about their programs’ cost, quality and duration, or the average salary of graduates, according to a federal report.
Our Chicago consumer rights attorneys are pursuing and investigating class-action lawsuits against for profit trade schools that have allegedly duped students into taking classes even though there is little or no prospect of the students obtaining work in the field after taking the course. We have obtained class certification in one such case and seeking to file other cases under the correct factual circumstances.
If you have been duped into paying a subtantial sum to a for profit trade school only to find that it is impossible to find a job in the field, please contact one of our Chicago consumer rights lawyers online by clicking here. DiTommaso-Lubin's Chicago consumer class action attorneys have been handling consumer rights and class action cases for over a quarter century. You can view the the types of cases we have handled at our website.
Publich Justice reports on its website:
The consumer and civil rights communities are closely watching AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a case that will be argued in the Supreme Court this November. Depending on how broadly the Court reads the question presented in Concepcion, the case could decide the fate of consumer and employee class actions for years to come.
Public Justice's Senior Attorney Paul Bland, Staff Attorney Claire Prestel and Brayton-Baron Fellow Melanie Hirsch explain what is at stake in ATT Mobility v. Concepcion, a case with profound consumer and civil rights implications. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case this fall. Click here to see what is at stake.
Our Elgin, Illinois consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Waukegan and Northbrook consumer attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection attorneys who can assist in consumer fraud, consumer rip-off, lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.
You can view our Oak Brook and Chicago attorneys listings on Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers only selects 5% of the attorneys in the State to receive the Super Lawyer designation.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made a ruling this year that will be important to the work of our Chicago consumer class action attorneys. In Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet Inc., 592 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2010), the court decided that federal courts retain jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, even when they decline to certify any class in the case at bar.
Cunningham bought one or more jets from Learjet and was dissatisfied. It filed a proposed class action against Learjet in Illinois state court for breach of warranty and product liability. Learjet removed it to federal court under CAFA, and Cunningham moved for class certification. That motion was denied, and without a class, the district judge thought it was appropriate to move the case back to state court. Learjet then petitioned for leave to appeal the remand order, and the Seventh agreed to hear it to resolve the issue of whether denial of class certification eliminates subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.
The Seventh based its opinion almost entirely on the language of the Act. Crucially, the law says it applies to “any class action [within the Act’s scope] before or after the entry of a class certification order.” The majority wrote that this language was probably intended to give defendants the option of removing the case either before or after class certification. But they seized on the use of the indefinite article -- a class certification order rather than the class certification order. This word choice shows that the law is not limited to cases in which a class certification order is eventually issued, the court wrote. In addition the law’s definition of a class action is any civil action filed under rules authorizing a class action -- not as an action with a certified class. “As actually worded, (d)(8)... implies at most an expectation that a class will or at least may be certified eventually,” the court wrote.
Another part of the Act says a class certification order is “an order issued by a court approving the treatment of some or all aspects of a civil action as a class action.” This could imply that a class certification order is required for the claim to be a class action -- if read in isolation. But again, the definition of a class action in this Act is a claim that is filed as a class action, not necessarily certified as one, the majority wrote. The court interpreted this language to mean that a class-action suit cannot be maintained as a class-action suit without the eventual certification of a class.
The Seventh then reviewed previous federal appellate decisions in agreement with this interpretation, including Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2009) as well as its own previous assumption in Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry., 535 F.3d 759, 762 (7th Cir. 2008). If a state has different standards for class certification than Rule 23, the federal standard, the case could be denied class certification at the federal level, remanded, then continue as a class action at the state level. That would be contrary to the purpose of the Act, the court said. Finally, the Seventh cited the general principle that proper diversity jurisdiction is not revoked by changes that take place after the suit is filed. If diversity jurisdiction is proper before a class is certified, the majority wrote, it’s proper after a class is not certified.
DiTommaso-Lubin represents businesses caught on either side of a dispute about online or offline defamation of a business or its products or services. Our Chicago business attorneys have assisted our clients in removing damaging and false reviews from internet review sites run by their competitors. Self-publishing on the Internet, and sites like Yelp, make it easy for individuals to publish false information about a competitor or a business they don’t happen to like. Online business libel laws balance the need to protect small businesses from false and damaging information with the First Amendment right to free speech. Our Illinois trade libel and trade disparagment attorneys represent both plaintiffs and defendants in claims regarding false and misleading claims; deceptive online publishing; misuse of a trademark, logo or other identifying feature. You can contact one of our Nationwide Class Action attorneys at (877) 990-4990 for a free consultation or contact one of our Chicago class action attorneys us online.
Our Chicago Class Action Lawyers Have Represented Auto-Buyers and buyers of other defective products in State-Wide and National Class Actions in courts in different parts of the United States. You can call one of our Nationwide class action lawyers for a free consultation at (877) 990-4900 or contact us online.
Federal judges to decide where to consolidate lawsuits accusing Google of Wi-Fi snooping
REBECCA BOONE
Associated Press Writer
The Chicago Tribune Reports:
At least nine lawsuits seeking class-action status have been filed in the United States so far contending that Google collected fragments of e-mails, Web surfing data and other online information from unencrypted wireless networks as it photographed neighborhoods for its "Street View" Google Maps feature. ... "In the allegations of the complaint, the Google Street View cars drove down almost every street in America, so it could be in the tens of millions of people," Curtis said. "Everybody who had a wireless or Internet connection accessible at the street level." Still, Curtis said his clients supported consolidating the cases in the Northern California as well. Other possibilities sought by some plaintiffs include Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts.
If you are unable to resolve your consumer complaint and it involves issues of unfair dealing, consumer fraud or deception, our private consumer class action law firm can bring a class action lawsuit in the right case to protect your rights and those of other consumer victims.
Our Chicago class action attorneys handle individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Hinsdale consumer class action lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Chicago class action law firm provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Lake Forest, Illinois consumer law attorneys who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.
Lawyer Sues Firm for Failing to Pay Overtime
By JOHN ELIGON
Published: July 7, 2010
A claim that the firm did not pay time-and-a-half to a temporary employee who worked more than 40 hours a week.
The New York Times Reports:
A lawyer is suing his former New York-based employer, alleging that the law firm violated federal labor laws by not paying time-and-a-half for overtime.In a complaint filed Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan, the lawyer, Moshe Koplowitz, said that the firm he did temporary work for, Labaton Sucharow, did not pay him at a higher rate when he worked more than 40 hours in a week.
Mr. Koplowitz worked only a few months at the firm because he was hired as a temporary employee, and he sometimes worked more than 50 hours a week, said D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, the lawyer who drafted the complaint.
Mr. Kirschenbaum said that federal law required employees paid by the hour to receive one-and-a-half times their regular pay for every hour over 40 hours worked in a week.
In our work as Illinois wage and hour class action attorneys, we frequently see workers who have been misclassified as exempt from overtime. Whether this was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to save money, it effectively “steals” wages from the misclassified employees. DiTommaso-Lubin stands up for the rights of workers in Chicago, Illinois and throughout the country who are victims of overtime wage theft, including misclassified employees as well as those pressured to work off the clock; lie on timesheets; or simply not paid an overtime rate. Our Waukegan, Aurora, Joliet and Chicago unpaid overtime class action lawyers handle both individual and class action employment cases. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., our Chicago class action attorneys represent clients throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States.
Intel Wins Ruling in Antitrust Class-Action
By DON CLARK
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Intel Corp. won a key ruling in a suit against the company on behalf of computer buyers, which found no evidence that consumers have been hurt by the company's discounting practices in the market for computer chips.A special master in the case, filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, recommended the court reject a motion to certify the case for class-action status. Under the court's rules, the recommendation will serve as the court's ruling unless the plaintiffs object within 21 days.
The case had proceeded in parallel with a private antitrust suit brought in June 2005 by Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which Intel agreed to settle in November along with a $1.25 billion payment to AMD. Both cases alleged that Intel used improper discounts and other tactics to deter computer makers from buying microprocessor chips from AMD, with the proposed class-action case focusing on alleged harm to consumers from Intel's behavior. ...
If you are unable to resolve your consumer complaint and it involves issues of unfair dealing, consumer fraud or deception, our private consumer protection law firm can bring and individual or class action lawsuit in the right case to protect your rights and those of other consumer victims.
Our Chicago class action lawyers handle individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Waukegan consumer class action lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Chicago class action law firm provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Wheaton, Illinois consumer law attorneys who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.
Is Vitaminwater Really a Healthy Drink?
By Sean Gregory Friday, Jul. 30, 2010
Time reports:
Over the past few years, an increasing number of worn-out consumers have reached for a bottle of Vitaminwater after a workout. The sports drink has emerged as a serious competitor to Gatorade and other noncarbonated beverages, so much so that Coca-Cola forked over $4.2 billion in cash to buy the brand from Glaceau back in 2007. ... But do some of these weekend warriors think they're just getting a healthy mix of vitamins and water, as the name of the product implies, when they chug that sweet drink? Probably so. But they're getting more: 33 grams of sugar and 125 calories, for every 20-ounce bottle. Hey, where's the sugar in the name?Such mixed-message marketing has caused one food-health advocacy group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), to lead a class action claiming that Coca-Cola is violating consumer-protection laws with its Vitaminwater brand. ...
The group achieved a victory last week, when a federal judge tossed out Coke's motion to dismiss the case. In a strongly worded 55-page opinion, Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn said the health claims on some Vitaminwater bottles may be in violation of FDA regulations since the drink "achieves its nutritional content solely through fortification that violates FDA policy." The judge thinks Coke could be violating the so-called jellybean rule, which says that a food- or drinkmaker cannot load otherwise unhealthy products with vitamins or other nutrients in order to claim it is healthy. ...
If you are unable to resolve your consumer complaint and it involves issues of unfair dealing, consumer fraud or deception, our private consumer protection law firm can bring and individual or class action lawsuit in the right case to protect your rights and those of other consumer victims.
Our Chicago class action attorneys handle individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Joliet consumer class action lawyers at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Chicago class action attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Oakbrook consumer law attorneys who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.
Our Chicago online business libel attorneys were interested to see a series of articles about several ongoing lawsuits against online review website Yelp.com. According to a March 19 article from the Associated Press, multiple businesses allege the site demanded advertising dollars from them in exchange for control over negative and positive reviews. When potential advertisers declined, the lawsuits say, negative reviews appear or reappear. At least ten small businesses are part of a putative class action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court -- among them a Chicago bakery and a Washington, D.C. restaurant. At least two similar claims have been filed, both in California.
The ten-plaintiff lawsuit alleges extortion and attempted extortion by Yelp, saying it gained money “by means of wrongful acts and practices.” For example, the owner of Chicago’s Bleeding Heart Bakery said Yelp employees told her they would push bad reviews to the end of the list of reviews on the bakery’s Yelp page, in exchange for a paid sponsorship. The owner of a Long Beach, Calif. animal hospital said when he declined to pay for a sponsorship, a bad review that had previously disappeared from the page reappeared. A second bad review appeared later. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman said reviews come and go because the company uses a computer program to automatically remove reviews flagged as suspicious, such as negative reviews by a direct competitor. He claimed the only manipulation Yelp does is allowing companies to pick a positive review to place at the top of the site.
On April 6, Yelp called a news conference to announce changes it made to its site in response to the allegations. The site removed its “favorite review” feature that allowed business owners to choose a positive review for the top of the site. It will also allow users to see which reviews were filtered out, either because they were suspicious or because they violated review guidelines or terms of service. At the conference, Yelp announced future plans to form a Small Business Advisory Council to address these issues. Attorneys involved in the Yelp lawsuits said these were a step in the right direction, but declined to drop their claims.
As Highland Park, Ill. Internet product disparagement attorneys and Chicago business law lawyers, we’re not surprised that these businesses are claiming extortion rather than product disparagement. Under the federal Communications Decency Act, websites that host content provided by third-party users are not legally responsible for any content that is defamatory, negligent or otherwise legally actionable. That means Yelp is not responsible for defamatory postings by its users, even if it exercises editorial control over those postings. However, it may be responsible for content it provides itself. For that reason, small businesses like these plaintiffs have limited recourse in mnay instances to recover for online trade libel, even if they otherwise have strong cases. The extortion claims offer no such legal problem.
NPR reports:
Years before it was made public, manufacturers, distributors and builders knew there was a big problem with imported drywall from China, according to documents introduced at a Miami trial. The problem with the drywall has affected thousands of homeowners. ....According to Gonzales, who's on the national plaintiffs' steering committee for Chinese drywall, the case is important in another way as well.
There's clear evidence in the record that they knew in 2006 about this problem, and they didn't become the hero of the homeowners by preventing them from buying homes with Chinese drywall.
- Attorney Ervin Gonzalez speaking of Banner Supply, which provided contaminated drywall to hundreds of homes
"This is the first inkling that we have that Knauf had real knowledge of the problem," he says.Knauf is a German-based multinational and the largest manufacturer of Chinese drywall used in the U.S. The company is the defendant in a series of lawsuits being heard in federal court in New Orleans.
In a statement, Knauf confirms that it investigated customer complaints of odor in 2006 and conducted tests, but it found that the drywall "had no adverse impact on homeowners' health."
As to why it didn't issue a recall of its product, Knauf says it "can only act on complaints filed by its customers."
Attorney Victor Diaz, who represents about 150 South Florida homeowners in a class-action lawsuit, says Knauf and Banner Supply weren't the only companies that knew early on there was a problem with Chinese drywall.
Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys bring class action lawsuits when manufacturers and distributors cheat consumers and businesses and knowingly sell them defective products. Our Chicago consumer lawyers have handled individual and class action consumer protection cases throughout Illinois and with co-counsel all over the country for over 25 years. If you or your business is a victim of consumer fraud or purchased a defective product that has a mass design defect, please contact one of our Oak Brook or Wheaton consumer trial attorneys online or at (888) 990-4990.
A California wage and hour ruling caught the attention of our Illinois employment rights attorneys because it caused substantial dissent and inspired a replacement decision more than six months after its original opinion was published. Rutti v. Lojack Corporation Inc., No. 07-56599 (9th. Cir. March 2, 2010) concerned whether commute time and time spent at home on work-related tasks should be compensated at work. In its most recent decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that commute time is not federally compensable, but split on whether the time is compensable under state law. Similarly, all three agreed that Mike Rutti’s minimal time spent checking assignments for the day from home was not compensable, but disagreed on whether longer evening periods spent transmitting data counted as work time.
Rutti was one of about 450 technicians nationwide for Lojack, Inc. to install alarms in customers’ cars. He spent most of the day on the road traveling between job sites in a company-owned vehicle, but began and ended the day at home, performing administrative tasks for Lojack. Lojack paid him an hourly wage starting when he arrived at the first work site and ending when he left the last one. He file a proposed class action lawsuit seeking compensation under federal and state wage and hour laws for his preliminary and postliminary activities, as well as commute time to and from work sites. The trial court granted Lojack summary judgment dismissing all of the federal claims but upheld a state-law claim seeking compensation for commuting, before dismissing the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rutti appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
On appeal, the Ninth separated the case into three issues: whether the commute time was compensable; whether his off-the-clock activities were substantial enough to be compensable; and when Rutti’s work day started under the “continuous work day” doctrine adopted by the Department of Labor. On the commute time issue, the appeals court agreed with the trial court, but only as to Rutti’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims. A 1996 federal law called the Employee Commuter Flexibility Act says employees need not be compensated for travel time, preliminary activities or postliminary activities that take place outside of a normal work day. That’s true even when the vehicle used is the employer’s vehicle and is subject to restrictions on its use, as long as it’s subject to an agreement between the parties.
Rutti had more luck on the issue of off-the-clock activities performed at home before and after work. These are also subject to the ECFA, the Ninth wrote, but only if they are not “principal activities.” In addition, caselaw says they must not be minimal activities. The activity at the beginning of the day included receiving job orders, mapping them and planning his route for the day. This is related to his commute, the court found, and commuting is not compensable. They are also relatively minimal, taking no more than a few minutes. Thus, the Ninth upheld the trial court on the preliminary activities. However, it reversed the trial court as to Rutti’s postliminary activities, which it said were more time-consuming. This included connecting with Lojack’s servers to upload data about his work for the day. This was part of Rutti’s regular work and necessary to Lojack’s business, the court wrote, making it part of the company’s “principal business activities.” The court also found that it was not minimal, citing evidence that it could take more than 10 to 15 minutes because of frequent failures, and that it was a regular part of the work. Thus, it may very well have been compensable time under federal law and should not have been dismissed at the summary judgment stage.
Finally, the court ruled that Rutti may have a case under the “continuous work day” doctrine set forth in Dooley v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 307 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass. 2004), which held that automobile damage appraisers who worked from home were entitled to compensation for commutes because activities they performed at home were “principal activities” that formed part of a continuous work day. Because the court had already determined that Rutti’s preliminary activities were not compensable, it wrote, the morning commute is not part of a continuous workday. The evening commute might be, the Ninth said, except that 29 C.F.R. § 785.16 says employers may not be compelled to compensate workers for periods when they are relieved from duty so long that they can use the time for their own purposes. This was the case with the postliminary upload time, the court said, because Lojack gave technicians 12 hours in which to upload.
Using all of that reasoning, the majority upheld most of the trial court’s rulings, but vacated rulings as to state-law claims for compensation and postliminary claims for the data upload. A separate concurring opinion by Judge Silverman and joined by Judge Hall agreed as to the California state-law claims for commuting. California requires employers to compensate their workers for all time “during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, the judges wrote, citing Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575, 578 (2000). Because Rutti was subject to multiple rules governing his behavior with the company truck, he was clearly under Lojack’s control, they wrote. Another concurrence authored by Judge Hall alone said the panel should have upheld the trial court on the postliminary data upload as well, because they were minimal. Finally, Judge Callahan dissented from the majority’s opinion on the state-law claims, arguing that Morillion did not apply because Rutti was not required to commute by company bus, as in that case.
A recent California state appeals court decision caught the eyes of our Chicago employment class action attorneys because it addressed fine distinctions in class certification. In Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 156 (Feb. 8, 2010), California’s Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a trial court improperly denied class certification when it relied on individual testimony to establish the existence of a uniform employer policy. It agreed, however, that plaintiff Alex Jaimez was an inappropriate class representative.
From 2001 to 2007, Jaimez was a route sales representative for DAIOHS First Choice Services, which provides refreshments and vending-machine products to offices. From 2003 to 2007, all of them were reclassified from overtime-exempt to non-exempt, receiving an hourly wage plus overtime when applicable. In 2007, Jaimez filed this action in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking to certify four classes of employees who were allegedly denied overtime; meal breaks; rest breaks; or pay stubs.
The plaintiffs argued that First Choice had improperly classified RSRs as exempt before the change, illegally denying overtime, meal breaks and rest breaks. After the change, the company continued not paying overtime, the plaintiffs claimed, but pressured RSRs to finish their routes in eight hours even when the routes were long. The plaintiffs also claimed that they were not informed that they were entitled to another meal break if they worked more than 10 hours. Before 2006, they said, meal breaks were automatically removed from time records regardless of whether they were taken; after 2006, employees were pressured to sign a statement that they took the break, even when they didn’t. These were the result of consistent, uniform corporate policies, the motion said, making class certification appropriate. The proposed class sought back wages and penalties under state law.
First Choice opposed the class certification motion by submitting testimony from 25 current RSRs who said they had no such problem. All of them said they were able to take rest and meal breaks when they wished, are encouraged to do so and have time to do so. Relying on these declarations, the trial court denied class certification, saying Jaimez was not typical enough an the proposed class did not have common questions of law and fact. It also said Jaimez was not a good representative, because pretrial testimony showed that he’d lied about a previous criminal conviction for petty theft when he was hired. Plaintiffs then asked for leave to file a First Amended Complaint with new class representative, but was denied. They appealed both orders.
On appeal, the Second District said the trial court misapplied state class certification standards by considering conflicting issues of fact rather than evaluating whether the plaintiffs’ theory of recovery was appropriate for class treatment. In this case, the plaintiff’s “theory of recovery” includes questions of fact and law that predominate over all RSRs in the class, including questions about First Choice’s policies, record-keeping and misclassification of employees. When the trial court used the RSR declarations submitted by First Choice to deny this, the appeals court said, it incorrectly reached the merits of the claim rather than the question of predominance. In fact, the appeals court said the declarations actually support to some extent the allegations made by the plaintiffs about policies and practices. That RSRs may have different damages does not mean they don’t have common questions of law and fact to try.
The appeals court further found that Jaimez was a sufficiently typical representative of the class, noting that he had submitted nine declarations from others that were substantially similar. However, it also found that he was not an adequate representative because of his dishonesty about his criminal conviction. Thus, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s class certification ruling on that issue, but reversed on all other issues. It also reversed the denial of leave to file a First Amended Complaint, noting that the trial court itself invited Jaimez to file such a complaint and that First Choice did not oppose it. The case was remanded to trial court with instructions to certify subclasses after a new class representative is appointed.
What Do You Do When a Debt Collector Calls? Tips On What They Can and Cannot Do
3/10/2010
Source: By Kalamazoo Gazette staff
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lays out clear rules about what debt collectors can and can't do — and it allows you to sue if you believe your rights have been violated.Here's what you need to know if a debt collector calls you:
Calls
Debt collectors can call only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. They can call you at work, but have to stop if you tell them your boss doesn't approve.You can write to a collection agency to demand it stop calling you at home, too, but that won't make a legitimate debt go away: A creditor could choose to note the debt on your credit report or seek a court judgment against you.
In writing
Within five days of contacting you by phone, the debt collector must send you a letter telling you the amount you owe, the name of the creditor you allegedly owe it to and instructions for disputing if you don't believe the debt is yours. If you get a collection call, log the date on your calendar and start looking for that letter.Taping
If you're getting calls you believe are abusive, you might consider taping them. Most states, including Michigan, allow you to record phone calls as long as one party to the conversation (for example, you) knows the call is being recorded. A few states require everyone on the line to know. Check the rules before you tape.Record-keeping
Getting one debt collection call could mean you're in for others. That's because debts may be resold over and over. Or if a consumer demands verification, the account may be bounced back to the original account holder, who ships it off to a new debt collector. To protect yourself, keep copies of letters, logs of calls, canceled checks or other documents relating to the account — and plan to keep them for years.Fighting back
If you suspect a debt collector isn't playing fair, complain to both the Federal Trade Commission (1-877-382-4357) and to the [Illininos] attorney general.You also can stop repeated or harassing calls by going to court [and hiring an attorney].
More information
The FTC's free Fair Debt Collection fact sheet is available online at this location or call 1-877-382-4357.Calling No-Nos
Debt collectors are forbidden to:• Harass you or people who know you.
• Talk to anyone except you (or the attorney that you designate) about the debt.
• Call people you know for any reason except to locate you.
• Physically or verbally threaten you.
• Swear at you or call you names.
• Call you repeatedly (or call you right back if you hang up on them).
• Imply they're government employees or work with government agencies.
• Say they're attorneys, if they're not.
• Falsely imply you've committed a crime (debts are civil, not criminal).
• Misrepresent the amount you owe.
• Ignore your written denial of the debt. (They need to show you proof it's yours or assure you the matter has been dropped.)
Our Naperville wage and hour rights attorneys noted a recent ruling out of Massachusetts that could be important for police officers and firefighters around the United States. In Calvao et al. v. Town of Framingham, No. 09-1648 (1st.Cir. March 17, 2010), the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers don’t have to notify their public safety workers when they take advantage of a special provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act that exempts them from the ordinary 40-hour work week. Instead, these employers are permitted to establish “work periods” of seven to 28 days, after which the employees must be paid overtime. The plaintiffs, a class of about 100 Framingham, Mass. police officers, believed that the Town of Framingham was not eligible for this exemption because it never “established” the work period by notifying them of its existence.
The FLSA was amended in 1966 and 1974 to apply to state and municipal workers. This triggered concerns about costs from local governments, which ended partially with Congress enacting the section of law at issue in this case, which allows a longer period before overtime is triggered, to account for the unpredictable nature of public safety work. The Town of Framingham circulated a memo in 1986 declaring that the work period for police and fire personnel was 24 days. This worked out to about 43 hours in a seven-day period before overtime was triggered. Fourteen years later, in 2000, the police officers’ union negotiated a change in schedule from four days on and two off to five days on and three off. Both fit into the 24-day schedule. In 2005, the officers brought the instant action, suing for a declaratory judgment that they had been denied overtime because the work period had never been “established” as required by federal law. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, and the officers appealed.
They had no better luck at the First Circuit, which found no evidence for their argument in the text of the statute, its legislative history or Department of Labor guidelines. The text of the law at issue does not require notice, the court wrote, or even suggest how an employer might establish its work period. The statute doesn’t explicitly prohibit giving notice, but Congress did explicitly give responsibility for enforcing FLSA regulations to the Secretary of Labor. Regulations enacted by people in that role “make it clear the Secretary rejected a notice requirement,” the court wrote. In fact, the Secretary in office at the time reviewed and rejected a proposed notice requirement, noting that the Act does not require one. In addition, legislative history shows that Congress expressly rejected a proposal to require employee agreement before the work period could be established.
Finally, the court rejected the officers’ argument that a Department of Labor letter ruling mandates a notice requirement. The issue was never brought up in district court and would be waved in any case, it wrote, but is also inappropriate for three reasons. One is that the letter never mentioned a notice requirement, instead saying that “"[a]n employer must designate or otherwise objectively establish the work period . . . and pay the affected employees in accordance with its provisions.” The letter was also responding to a specific court case raising issues not relevant in the instant action. And opinion letters don’t have the force of rulings, the court said, especially since the Secretary of Labor has already reached the opposite conclusion from the one the officers sought here. Thus, the summary judgment ruling by the district court was affirmed.
Debt collectors are prohibited by federal law from engaging in deception, extortion, threats, lies, and invading your privacy by calling your friends, neighbors and employers. This video exposes illegal debt collection practices and explains practices which violate the law such claiming that you owe money which is owed by others, calling your workplace and revealing the debt, or threatening to bring suit or obtain a judgment with no intent to do so. Many debt collectors are pressured to meet sales quotas and engage in abuse to make money. Debt collectors can be persistent but they can't abuse or lie to you to get the bills paid.
Our Oak Brook consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer attorneys at DiTommaso-Lubin are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Waukegan and Wheaton consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.
As Illinois wage and hour rights attorneys, we were interested in a decision establishing the scope of state courts’ right to enforce judgments obtained in other states under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause. Nazario et al. v. O.J. Thrall Inc., et al., 1996 WL 285541 (Conn.Super. 1996) allowed Puerto Rican farmworkers to enforce their default judgment against a Connecticut farm operator. The Connecticut Superior court found that because the farm operator used Puerto Rican logistic, recruitment and screening services, it had enough “minimum contact” with the territory for the Puerto Rico court to establish personal jurisdiction.
Defendant O.J. Thrall, Inc. grows tobacco in Connecticut. It recruited 51 Puerto Rican workers for its growing season through an interstate clearance system created by the federal Wagner-Peyser Act. That law also regulates working conditions and pay for domestic farmworkers, including the Puerto Rican farmworkers. The workers were in Connecticut between June 12, 1991 and July 19, 1991, when they were discharged. Upon their return, they sued Thrall in Puerto Rico Superior Court for breach of contract and the federal clearance order. That court determined that it had personal jurisdiction in the case because Thrall had done business in Puerto Rico through the Wagner-Peyser job clearance system. Thrall was properly served, but the case ended in a default judgment. The workers were awarded $2,084 each in unpaid wages and $190 each in air travel expenses, plus attorney fees.
The workers then sought to enforce their judgment in Connecticut, where Thrall had its operations. Thrall fought that action, arguing that it didn’t have sufficient minimum contacts with Puerto Rico to establish personal jurisdiction. The Connecticut Superior Court started by noting that this was an issue of first impression in the state, as the only previous Wagner-Peyser Act case had to do with subject matter jurisdiction. The Constitution requires state courts to give one another’s decisions “full faith and credit,” it noted, but also limits their personal jurisdiction over nonresidents through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It first took up Thrall’s argument that the clearance orders it extended under Wagner-Peyser were not offers of employment, as required to establish “minimum contacts” with Puerto Rico. The Connecticut court rejected that argument. Of the 12 cases it found in the United States and Puerto Rico that discussed whether a clearance order is an offer of employment or a contract, only two declined to make such a finding. One declined to make any finding on the subject, while another found that another contract was the controlling contract. Furthermore, the court wrote, the clearance order specifically said it “describes the actual terms and conditions of the employment being offered by me and contains all the material terms and conditions of the job,” followed by the signature of Thrall’s Vice President. For those reasons, the court found that the clearance order was a unilateral contract containing an offer of employment.
The court next addressed Thrall’s argument that the local Department of Labor office in Yauco, Puerto Rico, which recruited the workers, was not Thrall’s agent and had no authority from the company. Under Connecticut caselaw, the court said, it must review whether the Wagner-Peyser Act creates an agency relationship between firms and the federal Department of Labor. This Depression-era law allowed the federal government to establish employment offices giving preference to U.S. and Puerto Rico workers over foreign workers. When hiring the workers, the court wrote, Thrall delegated its hiring authority to the Yauco office, specifically referring workers to that office rather than merely using it as a referral source. This established an agency relationship between the Yauco DOL and Thrall, the court wrote. However, the office was not under Thrall’s control, the court said, citing caselaw from around the U.S. Thus, the agency relationship was implied, not stautory. However, this was still sufficient to establish jurisdiction.
Finally, the court addressed Thrall’s argument that it had transacted no business in Puerto Rico, aside from the clearance order it was required by law to file in order to use the foreign worker program. In support, it cited a dissent from a New York case with similar facts, Rios v. Altamont Farms, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 405, 475 N.Y.S.2d 520 (N.Y.A.D.1984), which allowed Puerto Rico courts personal jurisdiction over a New York apple grower. In that case, the court wrote, the facts satisfied both parts of the two-part test laid down by the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The defendants used Puerto Rico services with certain awareness that their job offers would be extended in the territory, satisfying the “minimum contact” requirement. Jurisdiction was fair because a hearing in Puerto Rico imposed less burden on the defendant than a mainland hearing would impose on plaintiffs, whom the government has an interest in protecting. All of these considerations applied to the instant case as well, the court said. Thus, the judgment may be enforced against Thrall in Connecticut.
The National Association of Consumer Advocates is the premier lawyers organization for pursuit of consumer rights. Its website is one of the best resources for consumer law issues. You can view the website by clicking here.
The website has this to say about predatory lending practices:
Predatory Lending Practices There are a number of different forms that predatory lending takes. In each instance, however, a financial institution takes unfair advantage of a consumer’s financial needs by charging usurious interest rates and other unconscionable fees and charges:Predatory Mortgage Lending: drains wealth from families, destroys the benefits of homeownership, and often leads to foreclosure. It is estimated that predatory mortgage lending costs Americans more than $9.1 billion each year.
Predatory mortgage lending involves a wide array of abusive practices. Here are brief descriptions of some of the most common.
Excessive fees: Points and fees are costs not directly reflected in interest rates. Because these costs can be financed, they are easy to disguise or downplay. On competitive loans, fees below 1% of the loan amount are typical. On predatory loans, fees totaling more than 5% of the loan amount are common.
Abusive prepayment penalties: Borrowers with higher-interest subprime loans have a strong incentive to refinance as soon as their credit improves. However, up to 80% of all subprime mortgages carry a prepayment penalty -- a fee for paying off a loan early. An abusive prepayment penalty typically is effective more than three years and/or costs more than six months’ interest. In the prime market, only about 2% of home loans carry prepayment penalties of any length.
Kickbacks to brokers (yield spread premiums): When brokers deliver a loan with an inflated interest rate (i.e., higher than the rate acceptable to the lender), the lender often pays a “yield spread premium" -- a kickback for making the loan more costly to the borrower.
Loan flipping: A lender "flips" a borrower by refinancing a loan to generate fee income without providing any net tangible benefit to the borrower. Flipping can quickly drain borrower equity and increase monthly payments -- sometimes on homes that had previously been owned free of debt.
Unnecessary products: Sometimes borrowers may pay more than necessary because lenders sell and finance unnecessary insurance or other products along with the loan.
Mandatory arbitration: Some loan contracts require "mandatory arbitration," meaning that the borrowers are not allowed to seek legal remedies in a court if they find that their home is threatened by loans with illegal or abusive terms. Mandatory arbitration makes it much less likely that borrowers will receive fair and appropriate remedies in cases of wrongdoing.
Steering & Targeting: Predatory lenders may steer borrowers into subprime mortgages, even when the borrowers could qualify for a mainstream loan. Vulnerable borrowers may be subjected to aggressive sales tactics and sometimes outright fraud. Fannie Mae has estimated that up to half of borrowers with subprime mortgages could have qualified for loans with better terms. According to a government study, over half (51%) of refinance mortgages in predominantly African-American neighborhoods are subprime loans, compared to only 9% of refinances in predominantly white neighborhoods.
Short Term Predatory Lending
Payday Lending (sometimes called cash advance): is the practice of using a post-dated check or electronic checking account information as collateral for a short-term loan. To qualify, borrowers need only personal identification, a checking account, and an income from a job or government benefits, like Social Security or disability payments.Overdraft Loans (also called "bounce protection" plans): are offered by banks to low-income consumers. In exchange for covering account overdrafts up to a set dollar limit, banks charge bounced check fees, ranging from about $20 to $35 for each transaction. Some banks also charge a per day fee of $2 to $5 until the consumer's account has a positive balance. In addition to writing checks, customers can borrow against their bounce protection limit using their debit cards and by making ATM withdrawals.
Car Title Loans: Like payday loans, car title loans are marketed as small emergency loans, but in reality these loans trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. A typical car title loan has a triple-digit annual interest rate, requires repayment within one month, and is made for much less than the value of the car. Car title loans put at high risk an asset that is essential to the well-being of working families -- their vehicle.
Tax Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs): are short-term cash advances against a customer's anticipated income tax refund. But the loans are offered at high interest rates, ranging from about 40% to over 700% APR. Also, they speed up the refund process by as little as one week, compared to what consumers can expect by filing online and having their refunds deposited directly into their banking accounts.
Our Chicago consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.
Our Wheaton, Hinsdale, Highland Park, Deerfield, Barrington and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer law attorneys who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.
In a wage-and-hour class action, the Illinois Second District Court of Appeal reversed all parts of a Kane County trial court’s ruling denying class certification. Our Chicago unpaid overtime lawyers were interested to read the ruling in Cruz et al v. Unilock Chicago, Inc., 383 Ill.App.3d 752, 892 N.E.2d 78, 322 Ill.Dec. 831 (2008), because it helped establish that trial courts may go beyond the complaint to determine class certification -- but reminded them that they should not determine class certification on the merits of the case.
Wilfredo Cruz and the four other lead plaintiffs worked at Unilock Chicago’s Aurora manufacturing plant, which makes cement paving “stones.” They were hourly employees with a half-hour lunch break. In their complaint, the plaintiffs said they were required to be at their stations 10-15 minutes before work started, in uniform, to discuss anything the previous shift needed them to know. This required employees to show up 15-30 minutes early to change and get to their stations. Similarly, they say they were required to wait for the next shift to arrive before leaving, brief that shift, clean up and change. They say they punched in for these times, but Unilock had an automatic system that deducted up to 30 minutes before a shift and 15 minutes afterward, in order to meet the company’s labor budget. Furthermore, they claim that Unilock automatically deducted the 30-minute lunch break from their time records, then regularly required them to cut short or work through lunch. If necessary, these deletions would be backed up by a manual edit by the plant’s manager, who removed time before or shifts that went past the 30- or 15-minute defaults.
Unilock disputes much of this. It concedes that time records were manually edited, but said this was necessary because workers forgot to punch in or out, and that edits were confirmed with shift supervisors. This actually added time, it argued. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs sued, claiming that all of these practices resulted in underpayment of both regular time and overtime. Citing violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Minimum Wage Law, they moved to certify a class of more than 300 current and former hourly employees who had worked at Unilock’s Aurora plant since June of 1999. The trial court denied this motion for class certification, saying that plaintiffs had failed to meet any of the four standards for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly made findings of fact and rulings that assessed the merit of the claims themselves, rather than of the class certification request.
The Second District agreed. It started its analysis by refereeing the parties’ disagreement about whether courts may consider facts and allegations beyond the complaint in order to determine class certification. After a review of caselaw, the court decided that they can, relying in part on Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.2001). However, it was careful to say that courts should look into whether the plaintiff’s claim would satisfy the requirements for class certification, not the merits of the claim itself.
The Third next agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court had impermissibly decided several class certification issues on the merits of the case. For example, the trial court relied on depositions and pleadings when it determined that nobody had lost pay because employees who arrived early were permitted to leave early, “accept[ing] as conclusive the defendant’s evidence.” This and other examples are factual determinations that should not be determined at the class certification stage, the appeals court said. Many applied to the numerosity requirement of class certification. Not only were the trial court’s reasons for ruling on numerosity improper, the appeals court said, but evidence submitted by plaintiffs shows that 80 to 90 employees did not receive overtime, and defendants offered nothing in support of their assertion that this evidence was manipulated. For that and other reasons, the appeals court found sufficient evidence that the proposed class met the numerosity requirement.
It then addressed the requirement that class members have common questions to decide, which predominate over other issues in their cases. Again, it found that the trial court was incorrect in determining that these issues didn’t exist. The trial court wrote that there was no commonality or predominance because there was no evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ contentions about widespread unfair policies or time record manipulation. The plaintiffs argued that these conclusions ignored evidence or improperly reached the merits of the claim, and the appeals court agreed. The existence of disputed policies like requirements to work through lunch or editing time records is a common question, the appeals court said, regardless of how strong the evidence for it is at the pretrial stage. It would also be a predominant issue if the trial court determines that there was such a policy -- which is a question for the merits of the claim, the court noted.
Finally, the appeals court rejected the trial court’s determination that the class representatives are inadequate because plaintiff Cruz had been a low-level supervisor. The trial court incorrectly relied on caselaw that isn’t sufficiently similar, the appeals court wrote, to determine that a supervisor cannot represent a class including the supervised. When the supervisor’s interests are the same as those of the supervisees and he or she did not participate in the alleged wrongdoing, it is inappropriate to deny his or her adequacy. Jefferson v. Windy City Maintenance, Inc., No. 96-C-7686, 1998 WL 474115 (N.D.Ill. August 4, 1998). Furthermore, if evidence implicating Cruz arises in discovery, the appeals court said, he can be discharged without discharging all the representatives. Thus, it reversed the trial court on all counts and remanded the case to Kane County circuit court with instructions to certify the class.
Continue reading "Appeals Court Reverses Denial of Class Certification in Unpaid Wages Claim " »
