U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has announced new measures added to the Modern Slavery Act, which took effect on July 31, 2015, that will require global companies to publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement. The added provisions, which take effect in October, affect companies with a turnover of ₤36 million or more that conduct business within the United Kingdom. “This measure is one of the first of its kind in the world and it will be a huge step forward, introducing greater accountability on business for the condition of their supply chains,” Cameron was quoted as saying in a July 29 press release. Issue 574
Tag Archives labor
A New York federal court has granted conditional class certification to plaintiffs employed by T.G.I. Friday’s who allege underpayment for side work and lack of payment for overtime work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Flood v. Carlson Restaurants Inc., No. 14-2740 (S.D.N.Y., filed April 17, 2014). The restaurant employs as many as 42,000 tipped workers throughout the United States who are eligible to join the nationwide class. T.G.I. Friday’s argued that the named plaintiffs were not similar enough to merit class certification, but the court disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs’ “declarations and depositions—which cover eight T.G.I. Friday’s locations in four states—contain common allegations of FLSA violations, including Defendants’ denial of full minimum wage and overtime compensation for tipped workers.” The court dismissed the restaurant’s arguments on the merits of the case, noting that those issues could not be addressed at the class certification stage, and directed…
Bob Evans servers who were paid under the “tip credit” provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim in a collective action filed in a Florida federal court that they “were not compensated at least the proper minimum wage for all hours worked as a result of being required to pay for uniforms.” McDaniel v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, No. 14-2767 (M.D. Fla., filed November 3, 2014). Named plaintiff Emily McDaniel alleges that she was paid an hourly rate of $4.77 plus tips, which increased to $4.91 plus tips, and that she and other servers “were required to pay Defendant for uniforms, including but not limited to, Bob Evans T-shirts and aprons.” She claims that this resulted in an FLSA violation because servers “have not been paid the minimum wage for each hour worked during their employment.” She seeks certification of a class of servers, declaratory relief and awards of…
An Arizona federal court has preliminarily approved a settlement in a lawsuit alleging that Bashas’ Inc. paid Hispanic workers less than comparable non-Hispanic workers from 1998 to 2007 in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Parra v. Bashas’ Inc., No. 2-591 (D. Ariz., order entered October 21, 2014). The plaintiffs were employees at Bashas’ Inc.’s Food City stores, which cater mostly to Hispanic customers and whose staff was about 75 percent Hispanic. They alleged that they were paid on a lower pay scale than the mostly white employees at Bashas’ Inc.’s A.J. Fine Foods and Bashas’ stores. According to the plaintiffs, Bashas’ Inc.’s president personally set the pay scale each year, and an experienced Food City store clerk was allegedly paid $0.82 per hour less than a comparable Bashas’ store clerk in 1999—amounting to a loss of about $1,640 per year for a full-time employee. Under…
A New York federal court has approved a $910,000 settlement in a class action contending that Pret A Manger failed to pay employees for the time it took them to put on uniforms or time spent waiting for the changing room. Trinidad v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., No. 12-6094 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 19, 2014). Under the settlement agreement, Pret will pay $910,000 to the class to be distributed on a sliding scale, with $5 to class members employed for less than a week, and about $4.50 per week to class members who worked there longer. Class counsel sought 33 percent of the settlement fund for attorney’s fees, but the court found fault with some of counsel’s billing practices. It noted that approximately 70 percent of the billed hours were worked by a partner at the rate of $550 per hour, but “a close review of the tasks that [the…
A fast-food worker in Oregon has reportedly sued her former employer, seeking $242,000 in damages on the ground that she was discharged because she became pregnant, after being told by general managers during a staff meeting that workers such as the plaintiff were not allowed to become pregnant because “they needed to be present and available at any time in order to perform their duties.” Melesio-Rojas v. Si-Pac Foods d/b/a Del Taco Gresham, No. n/a (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., unknown filing date). According to a news source, the plaintiff claims that she was fired when she became noticeably pregnant after a customer complained that he did not receive all of his food, a reason she claims was “an excuse to terminate her because of her pregnancy.” The restaurant’s attorney has apparently indicated that the worker’s pregnancy-discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries lacked sufficient evidence to support…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit in North Carolina federal court against Food Lion alleging that the grocery retailer fired an employee because he was unavailable to work on Thursday evenings and Sundays, when he attended Jehovah’s Witness services as a minister and elder. EEOC v. Food Lion LLC, No. 14-708 (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D.N.C., filed August 20, 2014). According to the complaint, a Food Lion manager hired the employee with knowledge and acceptance of his scheduling restrictions, but after the employee was assigned to a different store location, a second manager insisted on scheduling him on days that he attended religious services. When the employee chose to attend services over working his scheduled shift, he was fired. EEOC alleged that Food Lion’s employment practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and…
A California appeals court has determined that the state Labor Code requires employers to reimburse employees who “must use their personal cell phones for work-related calls”; so ruling, the court reversed a class-certification denial and ordered the lower court to reconsider the motion in light of this interpretation of the law. Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc., No. B247160 (Cal. Ct. App., decided August 12, 2014). The trial court denied certification due to lack of commonality and because a class action was not a superior method to litigate the claims. In its view, if an employee did not pay the cell phone charges because someone else did or the employee purchased a different cell phone plan that accommodated the calls, individual inquiries into the plans and payments would be necessary to determine liability. According to the appeals court, the issue in the case is whether an employer must always “reimburse…
Chipotle Mexican Grill investors have filed a motion for final approval of a derivative-action settlement in a lawsuit accusing the restaurant chain’s executives of breaching fiduciary duties by failing to comply with employee work authorization requirements. Mohammed v. Ells, No. 12-1831 (D. Colo., motion filed July 31, 2014). The case stems from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation of the company that led to the firing of 450 Minnesota employees and 50 Washington, D.C., workers for lack of U.S. work authorization. In July 2012, Chipotle investors accused the company’s executives of breaching their fiduciary duties in several lawsuits that were later merged. After “intense, arm’s-length negotiations by experienced counsel,” the parties reached a settlement that earned preliminary court approval in April 2014. Under the settlement’s terms, Chipotle will provide twice-yearly reports to its audit committee, which oversees the company’s hiring requirement compliance. In arguing for settlement approval, the…
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Richard Griffin has reportedly determined that McDonald’s, USA, LLC will be named as a “joint employer respondent” if meritorious complaints alleging unfair labor practices against the company and its franchisees do not settle. According to the NLRB, 181 cases involving McDonald’s have been filed since November 2012. Press reports indicate that they involve claims that workers have been wrongfully fired, threatened or suspended because they have engaged in labor protests, campaigning for a $15 hourly wage and to unionize. Sixty-eight of the cases have apparently been found to have no merit, and 64 are currently under investigation. While Griffin’s advice memorandum to the NLRB’s regional offices authorizing 43 complaints brought by McDonald’s workers does not have the force of a full board ruling, it has sparked a firestorm of controversy among business interests. Noting that McDonald’s will contest the joint-employer allegation “in the…
