Articles Tagged with Best Class action and overtime lawyers near Chicago

Employers are responsible for any and all business expenses. In the event a worker has to cover expenses for the employer, the employer is required to properly reimburse the worker in a timely manner. But problems can arise in situations where it’s difficult to determine the exact amount of the expense incurred by the employee.

For example, drivers who use their own vehicles when performing deliveries for their employer incur expenses for gas, insurance, and maintenance for wear and tear on their vehicle, but it’s not always easy or possible to determine the exact amount of expenses incurred for each trip.

Hishmeh Enterprises Inc., a franchise owner of 70 different Domino’s locations in California, allegedly failed to properly compensate its delivery drivers by reimbursing them only $1 per delivery. If a delivery was between 15 and 20 miles away, the drivers were reimbursed $2. Continue reading ›

Many workers have become accustomed to the standard 9-to-5 schedule, in which they work eight hours a day, five days a week. In some parts of the country, that has shifted to ten hours a day, four days out of the week. This gives employees a three-day weekend every week and some studies have shown this schedule actually boosts productivity.

The potential problem this new schedule poses has to do with overtime compensation. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees are entitled to one and one-half times their normal hourly wages for all time spent working after eight hours a day or forty hours a week. The Act does take into account the potential for the four-day workweek, but it has specific requirements for when employees can work ten-hour days without getting paid the proper overtime rate. Continue reading ›

Large retail stores, such as Target and Walgreens, have faced a number of public lawsuits from their employees. One of the most recent lawsuits alleges Target misclassified some of its employees as exempt from overtime, and as a result, failed to pay those employees the proper overtime compensation when they worked more than forty hours a week. Target denies these claims and asserts it complied with the law.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are required to pay all their workers no less than $7.25 per hour. For all time spent working after eight hours a day or forty hours a week, employers are required to pay the proper overtime rate of one and one-half times the employee’s normal hourly wage. The FLSA does list some exceptions to this rule, but it is very specific about the types of employees that can qualify for exempt status.

The FLSA describes three main types of employees that are not entitled to overtime. An employee who is paid a salary of at least $23,600 and works in either an administrative, executive, or professional capacity is not entitled to overtime compensation. However, rather than simply classifying employees as fitting into one of these categories, the FLSA has specific requirements for each category. Continue reading ›

Communicating with other people is arguably the only reason we own and maintain phones. As soon as cell phones became widely available, text messages became a primary means of communication between friends and family. It is therefore understandable that a cell phone user would become upset if prevented from accessing her text messages. This is allegedly the case with people who had an iPhone and switched to an Android or another non-iOS phone.

According to a recent class action lawsuit against Apple, the company allegedly prevented iMessages from being delivered to non-iOS phones, even though the sender of the message would see the status of the message as “Delivered”. Instead of going to the recipient’s new phone, the messages were being rerouted to their iMessage account.

Apple has released a statement saying that the best way to avoid the problem is for users to deactivate their iMessage account and completely disassociate their number from their iMessage account. That is not stopping Adrienne Moore from pursuing her class action lawsuit against the tech giant.

Moore alleges that Apple’s message blocking interfered with her contract with Verizon Wireless for wireless service, which she kept after switching from an iPhone 4 to a Samsung Galaxy S5. She alleges that Apple interfered with her contract with Verizon because her contract allowed her to send and receive text messages, which Apple allegedly prohibited. Continue reading ›

The cost of everything goes up with inflation and insurance is no different. As the value of our things increases with time, it makes sense that people would want sufficient coverage for all of their belongings. This can become an issue though, when insurance companies insist on raising the limits on a plan (and thus raising the premiums) to levels that are much higher than the property can possibly be worth. Such is allegedly the case in a recent class action lawsuit against State Auto.

According to the complaint, the named plaintiffs, Mark and Andrea Schumacher, bought their home in 2001 for $234,000. They claim that they have made no improvements to the home since then, other than normal maintenance, and that its market value remains about the same. As evidence to support this assertion, the plaintiffs pointed out that the builder from whom they bought their home continues to construct homes in their neighborhood that are similar to the ones that they own, and sell them at a comparable price.

Despite that, State Auto, which has been insuring the Schumachers for years, allegedly increased their policy limit over the years until it stood at more than $500,000 as of 2013. According to the Schumachers, that is much more than what it would cost them to rebuild or replace their home, though it is important to note that there are two different ways of looking at that cost: 1) rebuilding from the ground up; and  2) buying a similar, older home. The cost of these two options can vary dramatically, depending on the market, and some people have a strong preference to buy insurance for one over the other. Continue reading ›

The landmark decision not to certify a class of plaintiffs in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes has made it increasingly difficult for classes of plaintiffs to achieve certification. This is largely a result of the fact that the court in Wal-Mart determined that the class failed to meet the commonality requirement necessary for class certification. Courts all across the nation have been refusing certification to classes of plaintiffs that don’t have identical claims. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, though, the reasoning behind refusal of class certification in Wal-Mart was much narrower than courts have been interpreting it.

IKO Roofing Shingle Products is currently facing a class action lawsuit from Debra Zanetti, which alleges that IKO’s organic asphalt roofing shingles were defective. According to the lawsuit, which Zanetti filed on behalf of all proposed class members, IKO’s shingles allegedly do not meet an industry standard known as ASTM D225. Compliance with this standard is commonly determined using a testing protocol known as ASTM D228. The lawsuit, which was initially filed in district court in Illinois, is seeking certification of a class of plaintiffs consisting of all consumers who purchased organic asphalt roofing tiles from IKO since 1979. The district court denied the class certification and the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The district court refused to certify the class on the basis of commonality. The district court determined that, per the prior decision made in Wal-Mart, it could not certify a class of plaintiffs without identical claims. The appellate court disagreed, though, pointing out that Wal-Mart failed to meet the commonality requirement for class certification based on the fact that the treatment of employees under different managers was too dissimilar. Since that is not the case here, the court concluded that the district court had erred in refusing class certification on the basis of commonality. Continue reading ›


The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that all employees working in the United States must be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. This is true regardless of how the employee is paid. While some workers are paid per piece or on commission, the wages paid to these employees, calculated against the amount of time they spent working, must average out to at least $7.25 per hour.

The FLSA also requires that all non-exempt employees who work in excess of eight hours a day or forty hours a week must be paid the proper overtime compensation of one and one-half times the employee’s normal hourly rate. This also remains true for workers who are paid on commission or on a piece-rate basis. The employer must calculate the employee’s normal hourly rate based on the wages earned and the time spent working, in order to come up with an overtime rate for the employee.

There are many advantages to a company classifying an employee as an independent contractor. The company gets to avoid paying taxes and benefits such as health insurance. However, the law has very specific requirements for the kinds of workers that can be classified as independent contractors. For example, an independent contractor must have more freedom than an employee, such as the ability to choose when and where they perform their work and the type of clothing that they wear while working. Independent contractors also get to choose how many and which clients they work for. Continue reading ›

Contact Information