Articles Tagged with Chicago Class Action Lawyers near Oak Brook

Published on:

The days of trading items for other items are all but gone. Individuals might still maintain this practice in private between one another, but when it comes to how companies can pay their workers, they usually only have two choices: cash or check.

The rise of technology has led to other options, such as direct deposit and debit cards, but not all of these new options are allowed under the relevant labor law. According to Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), employers are permitted to use only cash or checks to pay their workers.

But a recent class action wage and hour lawsuit filed against a Pennsylvania McDonald’s franchisee, alleges the franchisee’s use of debit cards to pay employees their wages is a violation of the WPCL.

The class action lawsuit was filed against Carol and Albert Mueller, who, together, operate 16 different McDonald’s franchise locations across Pennsylvania. They allegedly used debit cards to pay almost 2,400 employees their wages from late 2010 until the summer of 2013. Continue reading

Published on:

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner made quick work of a recent class action suit brought by glaucoma patients who alleged that Allergan, Inc., and other drugmakers manufactured prescription eyedrops that were too large in order to increase their profits (Eike, et al., v. Allergan, Inc., et al., No. 16-3334, 7th Cir. (2017)). The case was on appeal from a district court ruling certifying eight classes of plaintiffs consisting of Illinois and Missouri residents who alleged that Allergan and six other pharmaceutical companies made eye drops that were unnecessarily large, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Each eyedrop exceeded 16 microliters, beyond the optimal size the plaintiffs contended was necessary for treatment of glaucoma and therefore wasteful because the additional microliters added no therapeutic value, instead serving only to pad the companies’ profits. The plaintiffs sought damages amounting to the difference between the price per drop of the eye drops at their present size and the presumably lower price of smaller drops, multiplied by the number of drops purchased by the class members.  Continue reading