Tag Archives: class action

Are Federal Judges Growing Tired Of Attorneys’ Fees-Driven Wage-Hour Class Actions?

A number of years ago – 20 perhaps – someone shared with me a study that was conducted by a major university where participants were asked which professions they most distrust.

Read more

Read full article

Can Employers Now Thwart Forum Shopping by Plantiffs in FLSA Class & Collective Actions?

The U. S. Supreme Court established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants in state court “mass” actions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct 1773 (June 17, 2017) (hereafter “BMS”).  BMS’s key holding was that the necessary nexus between an appropriate court for a mass action and a corporate defendant required more than just the company’s connections in the state and the alleged similarity of claims by resident plaintiffs and non-resident plaintiffs.  The practical effect is to limit forum shopping by plaintiffs in large state mass or class actions and to require such suits be maintained only where a corporate defendant has significant contacts to support general jurisdiction.

Read more

Read full article

Delivering a Tremendous Victory to Employers Facing Wage-Hour Class Actions, U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Use of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

More than 7 months after hearing oral argument on an issue that will affect countless employers across the country – whether employers may implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers — the United States Supreme Court has issued what is bound to be considered a landmark decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (a companion case to National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris), approving the use of such agreements.

Read more

Read full article

California Court of Appeal Holds That “Joint Employers” Are Not Vicariously Liable For Each Other’s Alleged Meal Period Violations Continue Reading…

In a case of first impression that may have a significant impact upon wage-hour class actions in California, the California Court of Appeal has held that “joint employers” are not vicariously liable for each other’s alleged meal period violations. 

Read more

Read full article

Take 5 Newsletter: The Ground Continues to Shift in Wage and Hour Law Continue Reading…

A year ago, employers across the country prepared for the implementation of a new overtime rule that would dramatically increase the salary threshold for white-collar exemptions, on the understanding that the new rule would soon go into effect “unless something dramatic happens,” a phrase we and others used repeatedly.

And, of course, something dramatic did happen—a preliminary injunction, followed by a lengthy appeal, which itself took more left turns following the U.S. presidential election than a driver in a NASCAR race. The effect was to put employers in a constant holding pattern as they were left to speculate whether and when the rule would ever go into effect.

Read full article

Class actions have arrived in Queensland

As of 1 March 2017, it is now possible for the first time to bring a class action in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legislation bringing in this change was proclaimed by the Queensland Governor on 24 February 2017 after first being passed by Parliament in November 2016.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Staples Settles Consumer Class Action Over Deceptive Rewards Program Practices

Staples has agreed to pay $2 million to end a class action filed in California federal court alleging that the company engaged in deceptive rewards program practices.

In particular, the class action alleged that Staples misled consumers with respect to how (and how many) rewards points will be accrued when consumers apply coupons to their transactions. The high value settlement for the retailer illustrates the importance of having clear and transparent terms and conditions in place for rewards programs, and the need to align actual rewards redemption practices with both the terms as well as general advertising for the program.

Read More

Read full article

Meal and Rest Period Class Action: Settlement Versus Litigation Costs for Taco Bell

Our colleague Michael S. Kun, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage and Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “Taco Bell Employees Likely Are Not Celebrating Their ‘Victory’ in California Meal and Rest Period Class Action.”

Following is an excerpt:

More than a few media sources have reported on the March 10, 2016 wage-hour “victory” by a class of Taco Bell employees on meal period claims in a jury trial in the Eastern District of California. A closer review of the case and the jury verdict suggests that those employees may not be celebrating after all — and that Taco Bell may well be the victor in the case.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Shutts & Bowen Welcomes Eight New Attorneys

Shutts & Bowen LLP is pleased to announce that eight attorneys have recently joined the firm. Partner Patricia Leonard; associates Hassan Jaafar, Robyn Kramer, Jonathan Lawler, Jake Monk, and Pilar Rubio; and project attorneys Christa Gardner and Ivane Sargent bring a diverse range of legal experience to support our over 30 practice areas.

Christa Gardner (Project Attorney, Miami) is a member of the Class Action and Mass Litigation Practice Group. Christa has served as an intern for the Office of the Public Defender of Miami-Dade County as well as at a law firm in Santiago, Chile.

Read More

Read full article

Avon Settles Bribery Related Class Action

 
Avon Products Inc. (“Avon”) recently settled a class action lawsuit brought against the beauty products company and two former executives concerning Avon’s compliance with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(“FCPA”).  Avon settled the lawsuit despite the fact that the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (“Court”) had granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In the action, certain of the company’s shareholders had alleged that Avon and its former executives had issued materially false and misleading statements concerning Avon’s compliance with the FCPA by concealing that the company had given bribes to Chinese government officials by various means, including providing lavish gifts and paying travel expenses improperly. 
Read full article