The plaintiffs in putative class litigation alleging inaccurate wage statements and denial of required meal breaks have filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement brought against Starbucks in 2008. York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., motion filed May 10, 2013). Without admitting liability, the company has apparently agreed to pay $3 million to resolve the claims of California Starbucks employees who fall into one or two subclasses: (i) the “Meal Break Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks within the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, or shift supervisor during the period from December 2, 2004, to January 31, 2013”; and (ii) the “Wage Statement Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks in the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, shift supervisor, assistant store manager, or store manager during the period…
Tag Archives labor
Fast Food Forward has apparently coordinated its second strike in six months as part of its long-term effort to unionize fast-food employees in New York City. According to media sources, hundreds of workers employed by approximately 65 fast-food restaurants throughout New York City walked off the job on April 4, 2013, to show support for Fast Food Forward’s latest campaign, which seeks to increase worker wages to $15 per hour. The effort has apparently drawn public support from UnitedNY.org, the Black Institute and the Service Employees International Union, among other organizations. “What happened in November was a very big thing in terms of seeing whether workers were ready and able to go out and strike and take risks in a way that has not happened in the fast-food industry before,” said New York Communities for Change Executive Director Jonathan Westin of Fast Food Forward’s previous strike. “A lot of people…
A scientist who was accused of falsifying data in research on the purported health benefits of red wine has reportedly sued the University of Connecticut, claiming that it wrongfully dismissed him and violated his civil rights in doing so. Das v. Univ. of Conn. Bd. of Trustees, No. 13-6039748 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford, filed March 5, 2013). Dipak Das alleges that he was not allowed to introduce exhibits and testimony or to cross-examine witnesses during his five-day dismissal hearing, the culmination of an investigation that apparently found that he had fabricated and falsified data. He also alleges that the university notified 11 scientific journals before the investigative report on which the termination was based had been completed to advise them that he had “committed research misconduct,” and that the university did this “as a means of coercing the plaintiff into settling by harming his reputation and standing in the scientific community.”…
A company that makes and sells a proprietary blend of purported “wellness” herbs as part of its line of gourmet coffee, teas and hot chocolates has sued one of its former independent business owners/operators (IBOs) alleging, among other matters, disparagement, breach of a confidential performance agreement and non-competition clause, and the misappropriation of trade secrets. SereniGy Global, Inc. v. Mendoza, No. 13-08243CA04 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Cir., Dade Cty., filed March 6, 2013). According to the complaint, the company relies on a network of IBOs to market and advertise its products and signed a performance agreement with the defendant to do so in March 2012. By October, the company allegedly “received information that Defendant had been making slanderous, derogatory and disparaging remarks about Plaintiff and its CEO in violation” of the agreement, was “divulging confidential information to a third-party,” and “had been disloyal and involved in moral turpitude by advising…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the grant of class certification for some 1,600 Domino’s Pizza delivery drivers in Minnesota, finding that their claims lacked commonality. Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. 12-1216 (8th Cir., decided February 4, 2013). The drivers claimed that Domino’s improperly withheld from them a fixed delivery charge imposed on customer orders. They contended that the charge was in the nature of a surcharge or gratuity under Minnesota law and, as such, must be paid to them. According to the court, liability was based on the objective, reasonable person standard, and what is objectively reasonable from the perspective of the customer “depends on the nature and context of the parties’ bargain.” Because some customers were told by drivers that Domino’s retained the charge and was not part of their tip and because the fixed charge was sometimes within the normal range for a tip,…
A federal court in California has reportedly approved the settlement of wage-related claims in a class action filed by restaurant managers against Benihana National Corp., which owns and operates a Japanese hibachi steakhouse chain. Akaosugi v. Benihana Nat’l Corp., No. 11-1272 (N.D. Cal., settlement approved January 24, 2103). The company has apparently agreed to pay $660,000, including attorney’s fees and costs, to settle claims that it forfeited managers’ accrued vacation and failed to compensate them for it, forced them to work more than eight hours a day without paying overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. See Mealey’s Class Actions, February 1, 2013.
A woman who formerly worked as a LongHorn Steakhouse server has asked a federal court for permission to modify her motion for a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act following the court’s denial of her motion in December 2012 on the ground that she lacked personal knowledge as to practices at the company’s steakhouses across the country. Velez v. GMRI, Inc., No. 12-4857 (N.D. Ill., filed January 14, 2013). The suit involves claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wages. As part of her motion, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint “both to correct the LongHorn corporate entities brought in as defendants, and to clarify the claims brought under the collective procedure.” According to the motion, “the only claim on which Plaintiff seeks collective treatment is the claim that Defendants required tipped employees to perform non-tipped duties while paid the tip-credit wage rate, in violation of…
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a consent decree with a federal court in Texas to resolve claims that a Burger King franchise operator discriminated against a former cashier on the basis of religion. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12 3169 (N.D. Tex., filed January 16, 2013). Without admitting liability, the operator has agreed to settle the claims by paying $25,000 to the former employee, who was allegedly fired for wearing a skirt on the job as required by her Pentecostal Christian religion, in two checks: one for $5,000 attributable to wages, and one for $20,000 attributable to claims of mental anguish and suffering. The Burger King franchisee will also post on employee bulletin boards “its policy against religious discrimination and duty to accommodate” and “conduct an annual training session [in 2013 and 2014] for all district managers and general managers for Defendant’s Texas Burger King Restaurants,…
One of the 750 beef processing plant employees who lost his job in the wake of recent negative publicity involving “lean finely textured beef,” otherwise referred to in the media as “pink slime,” has reportedly filed a lawsuit in a Nebraska state court naming as defendants celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, ABC’s Diane Sawyer, a blogger, and 10 unnamed individuals. Bruce Smith, who worked as senior counsel and director of environmental, health and safety at Beef Products, Inc., is apparently seeking $70,000 in damages on the ground that the company “and its employees were unfairly and unnecessarily maligned and accused of producing a food product that did not exist, a product that critics unfairly labeled ‘pink slime.’” The publicity apparently led to the loss of numerous contracts for the product’s purchase. See The Daily Mail, December 12, 2012.
A recent article in The New York Times has highlighted the efforts of Fast Food Forward, a campaign seeking to unionize fast-food workers in New York City. According to Times labor and workplace reporter Steven Greenhouse, the campaign has worked with 40 full-time organizers with the support of community and civil rights groups to recruit employees at fast-food restaurants across the city and coordinate a walkout in protest of low wages “and retaliation against several workers who have backed the unionization campaign.” In particular, Greenhouse notes the many challenges facing the nascent initiative, which has not yet decided on an overall strategy or mechanism for pursuing unionization. Labor experts and companies also emphasized that the high turnover in most fast-food positions makes organization difficult. “It’s a fairly high-turnover position, so there’s never been a successful union effort,” said one spokesperson for Domino’s Pizza. “People who are doing this part time,…
