Four migrant farmworkers have filed suit against farm labor contractors who allegedly “recruited undocumented field workers in Mexico and the United States to work on farms (‘growers’) and relied on a pattern of threats, violence, harassment, and indebtedness to force Plaintiffs and other migrant farmworkers to perform grueling, back-breaking manual labor as Defendants transported the workers between several states including Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Mississippi, and New York.” John Does I-IV v. Sunrise Labor Corp., No. 12-80883 (S.D. Cal., filed August 20, 2012). According to the complaint, the individual defendants face federal criminal charges for hiring unauthorized aliens. Among other matters, the anonymous plaintiffs allege that the defendants imposed debts on them—involving fees paid to “coyotes” to smuggle them across the border and charges for food, rent and remittances to their families—threatened them with injury or death, did not pay them compensation to which they were entitled, forced them to work when…
Category Archives Litigation
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a Title VII civil rights action against a Burger King restaurant claiming that it failed to accommodate the religious beliefs of a Pentecostal Christian woman who sought to wear skirts or dresses to work instead of uniform pants. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12-3169 (N.D. Tex., filed August 22, 2012). The employee was hired as a cashier and had allegedly been informed when she interviewed for the position that she could wear a skirt to work, an accommodation she required because she “adheres to an interpretation of the scripture that requires women to wear only skirts or dresses.” When she arrived at work for orientation in a skirt, she was told she could not wear it and would have to leave the store. According to the complaint, “The result of the foregoing practice has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal…
A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against a company that makes low-calorie frozen desserts, alleging that they do not, as advertised, contain just “150 calories per pint.” Michelle v. Arctic Zero, Inc., No. ___ (S.D. Cal., filed August 21, 2012). According to the complaint, Arctic Zero’s Vanilla Maple dessert “has 46% more calories than the 150 calories advertised on the product packaging and reflected on the nutritional label” and the company’s “Chocolate Peanut Butter has 68% more calories than the 150 calories advertised.” Claiming that she would not have purchased the products had she not been misled, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct), False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as unjust enrichment. She seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; corrective disclosures; compensatory, consequential, statutory, exemplary, treble, and punitive damages; restitution; attorney’s fees; costs; and…
Contending that Monster Beverage Corp. either misled or failed to disclose that it was improperly advertising, marketing and promoting its Monster Energy® drinks and thus filed materially false and misleading financial statements, a putative securities class action has been filed against the company in a federal court in California. Rausch v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 12-2058 (S.D. Cal., filed August 21, 2012). The filing follows news that an unnamed state attorney general subpoenaed company records in July 2012 seeking information about “the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks.” Details about that action are included in Issue 450 of this Update. According to a news source, the company’s stock declined nearly 11 percent the day after Monster disclosed the investigation in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. See Bloomberg, August 21, 2012.
Industry interests that lost their challenge to the listing of 4-MEI as a chemical known to California to cause cancer have abandoned the appeal they filed before the Third District Court of Appeals in February 2012. Cal. League of Food Processors v. OEHHA, No. C070406 (Cal. Ct. App., case complete August 15, 2012). Additional information about the challenge and trial court decision appears in Issues 420 and 429 of this Update. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added the chemical, commonly found in foods such as soy sauce, roasted coffee and the caramel coloring added to colas and beer, to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list in January 2011.
A federal court in California has denied Chipotle Mexican Grill’s motion to dismiss putative class claims alleging that the company fraudulently represents that it uses only naturally raised meat in its menu items. Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 12-5543 (C.D. Cal., order entered August 23, 2012). According to the court, “Plaintiff need not show that he consumed non-naturally raised meat on one of his visits to Chipotle [because] the harm alleged [is that] Plaintiff purchased food at Chipotle, at a premium, based on Defendant’s representations that non-naturally raised meat was not used there.” The court also determined that the plaintiff adequately alleged a claim for fraudulent concealment and denied as premature that part of the defendant’s motion addressing the class allegations. The court did, however, order briefing on whether plaintiff’s counsel “would be adequate counsel to represent the class if a class were certified.” In this regard, the…
A divided Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has reversed the dismissal of claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) by cattle producers alleging that a government employee negligently decimated their cattle herd by requiring that they plant a toxic seed mixture on pasture land enrolled in a conservation program; the court found that the negligence allegations were not barred by the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Herden v. United States, No. 11-3530 (8th Cir., decided August 20, 2012). That exception bars liability for any claim based on the “exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government.” It applies where the action “involves an element of judgment or choice” and “the requisite judgment or choice is the type of government action Congress intended to…
According to a news source, putative class actions have been filed against Strauss Group Ltd. and Tnuva Food Industries Ltd., alleging that their yogurt products, marketed as “yogurt with granola nuts” and “yogurt with granola fruit, “ respectively, mislead consumers because they contain so little nuts or fruit. Seeking NIS 72 million (US$17.8 million) from Strauss, which has a 42 percent market share, and NIS 142.5 million (US$35.3 million) from Tnuva, the petitioners reportedly claim that the products should be labeled as “flavored” with the ingredients. See Middle East North Africa Financial Network, August 12, 2012.
Claiming that lead levels in candies imported from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong exceed Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) limits, the Center for Environmental Health has reportedly initiated legal proceedings against eight retailers and distributors in San Francisco’s Bay Area. The organization has apparently urged the companies to remove the products from store shelves after testing showed that typical serving sizes would expose consumers to 10 times or more lead than state and federal standards. One candy allegedly contained nearly 100 times more lead than the Prop. 65 limit. According to Center Executive Director Michael Green, “It is especially worrisome when we find lead in candy, since consumers are ingesting the lead with every bite. This candy may be very dangerous, particularly for children or pregnant women.” See Center for Environmental Health News Release, August 7, 2012.
A California court has reportedly dismissed claims filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) against fast-food chains, finding that the group failed to investigate its allegations before suing under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). PCRM v. McDonald’s Corp., No. BC383722; PCRM v. KFC Corp., No. BC457193 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided August 15, 2012). Filed in 2008 and 2011, the suits alleged that the restaurants failed to warn consumers that their grilled chicken menu items contain PhIP, a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. Yet, PCRM did not apparently visit the restaurants until February 2012 to take pictures of the posted warnings. The restaurants reportedly post notices that some of their products contain cancer-causing chemicals and refer customers to nutritional brochures for additional details. They contend that their warnings comply with Prop. 65. Information about similar litigation filed in San Francisco County appears in Issue…
