Failure to Pay Overtime Has Navy Federal Credit Union Making News

In recent news, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Navy Federal Credit Union failed to pay appropriate overtime wages. Accusations were made against the Vienna based federal credit union by some of the branch workers. The original suit was filed by Anthony Lee out of Clark County, Nevada on May 27^th in the U.S. District Court, but he plans to seek class action status so others can join in the suit. Mr. Lee has been a member services representative at Navy Federal Credit Union for almost six years. This position is categorized as non-exempt from overtime (according to the suit filed).  Lee claims that he and other workers in jobs with similar duties have been frequently required to work off the clock both before their shift starts and after it ends. The total of the “off the clock” work was approximately 30-45 minutes per day per employee. The lawsuit alleges that this practice of requiring off the clock work before and after shift work is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In addition to allegations that the Navy Federal Credit Union violated FLSA, Lee claims that one of his previous managers in the workplace referred to him by the “N” word on multiple occasions. In response, a statement was issued by Navy Federal: “The fair treatment and well-being of our employees is of the utmost importance to us…we take this claim seriously and are looking into it.”

The Navy Federal Credit Union is the largest credit union in the United States employing approximately 11,000 employees worldwide. It’s possible that up to 500 of their workers might be a part of the class action started by Lee in regards to FLSA violations, etc. The suit will be seeking a declaratory judgment that the allegations made were illegal as well as an injunction preventing further similar activities. Damages are unspecified, but will include waiting time penalties as well as court costs.

Class action lawsuits serve an important function in the workplace. They provide employees with the opportunity to come together and assert their rights under California Labor Laws and federal employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik with questions on class action suits in California. 

Whistleblower’s $25 Million Lawsuit Against Nike Heads to the Jury

In the course of the more than $25 million lawsuit proceedings against Nike, the jury heard two very different versions of events. Douglas Ossanna is a former Nike electrician, fired in early 2013. He claims that Nike fired him in retaliation after he reported unsafe working conditions for electricians at the approximately 600-acre campus in Washington County. Nike denies the allegations. Nike’s version of events has Ossanna being fired for playing a pickup basketball game on a court in the Bo Jackson Building when the facility was designated as off limits.

The more than $25 million lawsuit consists of $572,000 in economic damages, $1.5 million in non-economic damages and as much as $25 million in punitive damages. During the closing arguments, attorneys for the plaintiff argued simplicity. They claim a simple and clear-cut case of retaliation in the workplace. It was argued that Ossanna had made concerns clear regarding unsafe working conditions to at least six different Nike managers over a period of a few years. Ossanna claims none of his unsafe working conditions reports were ever investigated or resolved by Nike.

On top of being fired, Ossanna’s representation make it clear that he suffered harsh working conditions including excessive amounts of overtime in response to his reporting of problems with workplace safety.

Nike indicated that they did not retaliate against the electrician and that as a supervisor, he had access to every building on the Washington County campus. Nike’s attorney, argued during her closing argument that the decision to terminate Ossanna’s employment was consistent with other recent terminations in the company including a Nike employee was terminated for lying in order to receive a $20 gift card.

If you or someone you know is a victim of retaliation in the workplace, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to find out how you get legal reparations for the damage to your career, your finances and your life. 

Accusations of Labor Violations at TGI Friday’s

One of the nation’s most popular casual dining spots has been named in a class action lawsuit. TGI Friday’s is accused in the suit of systematically underpaying its tipped employees. Allegations made within the suit filed on April 17, 2014 in New York Federal Court include: TGI Friday’s requires that tipped workers are at work early and say late after closing without minimum wage compensation and/or overtime pay. The suit was filed by four former employees of TGI Friday’s in the New York metro area and Fredericksburg, Virginia. Plaintiffs also indicate that the restaurant management utilized a central time-keeping system that allowed them to cut hours from employee time records – requiring employees to work off the clock doing prep work and clean up before and after their shifts/restaurant hours.

No one has indicated a specific dollar amount for this lawsuit, but speculation puts it in the millions. Allegations of violations of the Federal Fair Standards Act and the New York Law were made against TGI Friday’s and Carlson Restaurants (its parent company).

TGI Friday’s has approximately 540 domestic locations and 17,700 US employees. The suit represents all current and former workers: servers, bartenders, hosts, bussers and any other “tipped” workers at the chain.

Workers are seeking recovery of minimum wages as well as overtime pay, misappropriated tips, unlawful deductions, etc.

Many employers are attempting to maximize profit by minimizing employee costs. If you are being underpaid for hours worked, get in touch with an expert wage and hour attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Starbucks Agreed to Pay up to $3M Settlement for Mileage Reimbursement Suit

An agreement is in place for Starbucks to pay up to $3 million to settle the lawsuit based on allegations that the popular coffee house did not reimburse named California employees for mileage related expenses incurred while on the job. Employers who typically incur mileage expenses while on the job include: store managers, assistant managers, and shift supervisors. These employees working at Starbucks stores located in California employed from March 2003 through March 2008 are eligible for payments of $30-75 each.

Attorney’s fees are included in the $3 million settlement as well as an undisclosed amount given to the representative plaintiff as an incentive award and a payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of $25,000.

In the documentation, Starbucks agreed to class-action status for settlement purposes along – they do not accept liability. Within the settlement paperwork it was agreed that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys are not to respond to questions from the media. The only exception is to allow them to refer to court documents on file. Jonelle Lewis filed the lawsuit in March 2007. She had worked at Starbucks since December of 2005. She resigned within one month of filing the lawsuit. The lawsuit filed by Lewis claimed that she consistently used her personal vehicle for work purposes (i.e. bank deposits, obtaining supplies, etc.) She also claimed that she attempted to request reimbursement for the mileage, but that Starbucks’ response was not to reimburse as a matter of “policy.”

If you feel you that company “policy” in your workplace is conflicting with your rights as outlined in employment law, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Arguing the Professional Exemption

The Obama administration recently took a closer look at the Professional Exemption. Their scrutiny was followed by instructions to the Department of Labor to narrow the definition of the exemption. Changes are set to take effect in 2015, but Courts may begin utilizing the new definitions and strictures immediately if recent activity is any indication. 

Court cases that involve the proper classification of employees are generally the most contentious. This makes sense as the stakes are higher than cases involving potential repayment of back wages and/or penalties for overtime. They can also require complete reclassification of employees listed in the case with overtime required from that point forward. In proper classification cases, a ruling against the employer often means a complete change in the way the company runs their business.

Many employers have been cutting corners to save money on overtime. Some say it’s due to the Labor Code coming across as complex. But it’s more likely a combination of complexity allowing for loose interpretations/purposeful misinterpretations embraced during low cash flow points in a troubled economy. Employers feel they need to save the money and many are deciding to do whatever they can (legal or not) to save money on overtime costs.

A recent case involving day rate employees being classified under the labor code as professionals exempt from overtime pay seems to support the idea that the courts will consider changes to the Professional Exemption now rather than waiting until 2015. Workers in the recent case were working 12-hour shifts, sometimes 7 days a week leaving them totaling in excess of 84 hours some weeks. Their work was compensated by a day rate. Some weeks their total pay (if they worked only a couple days) was less than $455/week. Legal representation for the plaintiffs in the case argued that claiming an employee is a salaried professional, but paying them less than $455/week some weeks does not meet the requirements of the Professional Exemption’s first prong.

The case was concluded on March 27, 2014. The Federal Middle District of Pennsylvania court clerk recorded judgment for wage and hour violations in the case (3:14-cv-00042-RDM). Allegations accused the employer of failing to pay workers overtime for their hours that exceeded the full time 40. The court supported the claims. We can most likely expect to see more decisions leaning towards the new understanding of the Professional Exemption.

If you feel that you may be due past overtime or know someone who is in an untenable work environment, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.

Employees and Their Smartphones: Is Your Smartphone Overworking You?

In modern American culture most people are hopelessly attached to their smartphones. If that’s not the case, the remaining few (with rare exceptions) can’t deny that they have an extremely close relationship with other technology (i.e. their computer, laptop, tablet, etc.) There are a multitude of benefits that come from living in this technological day and age, but because of smartphones and all the other beloved technology, work is bleeding into employees’ personal time.

The recession put a lot of pressure on employers to get the most of their employees. As a result, American business owners are squeezing their workers and cutting costs at the same time. One way in which many American employers are doing so is by accessing their workers after hours through all of the convenient technology that leaves employees available 24/7. Vacations are often unrecognizable as such due to the fact that contact is never severed with the employer. Many employees find it hard to differentiate between hours worked and hours off due to the easy and frequent access employers avail themselves of freely.

Experts agree that if employers had to bear the actual expense of paying for the overtime hours they are demanding, they would have actively sought a different solution such as hiring more workers during the economic recovery.

In response to the seemingly never ending after hours access provided by technology, employees are asking the courts to find a solution. It’s a changing time as courts attempt to reconcile laws that have been in place for decades with technological trends that have drastically altered the workplace landscape. Never before have employees been so irrevocably connected to their employers without break.

In 2011, there were 7,006 wage-and-hour suits filed (many of them class action suits) in federal court. This was nearly quadruple the total in the year 2000. In 2011, the Labor Department was able to recover $225 million in employee back wages. This was up 28% from the previous year. 300 wage-and-hour investigators were added in 2010 and 2011 alone which resulted in a 40% staff increase (to a total of 1,050). This was done in what was openly declared and effort to protect America’s workers.

Consider the facts and then consider your employer/employee relationship. If you feel that you are stuck in a 24/7 job with 40-hour/week pay, get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. Don’t let your smartphone take the blame. 

Unpaid Overtime: What Type of Plaintiff Are You?

With the continued increase in unpaid overtime lawsuits in almost every industry, employees may find it useful to consider the various types of plaintiffs simply to get an idea of where their own workplace situation lies.

What Type of Plaintiff Are You?

1. Do you find yourself a slave to your handheld device? When you leave work, do you continue to answer questions, delve through documents and conduct brainstorming sessions? Do you often find yourself in arguments with your significant other because they simply want you to attend a family function, complete a household chore or actively involve yourself in a conversation from beginning to end without being interrupted by someone at work that needs you? If so, you could be a “worker with a handheld device” plaintiff. You go to work and you come home, but you never seem to be off the clock. You answer calls, check emails, and basically continue working into the night. Many would classify all this “after hour” work as unpaid overtime.

2. Does your job require a lot of in-office prep in order to go “on the clock?” Do you have to arrive early in order to complete a series of log ins, paper pushing, or mandatory meetings before you can actually “go to work?” If so, you might be an “off the clock work in the office” plaintiff. Many are asking the question (in court) whether or not they should be able to clock in when they get to work to prepare to work or if they are donating the time it takes to perform necessary functions prior to starting the job duties employers are willing to pay for.

3. Do you enjoy the use of a fancy title without the fancy job duties? Many employers have turned to the non-promotion promotion as a solution to overtime. “Promoting” employees without actually giving them managerial responsibilities is a game plan used by employers looking to keep labor costs down. Many managerial positions are exempt from overtime pay laws and requirements. If you found yourself impressed with an empty title at first, don’t feel bad, you aren’t the only one and you could be a “fancy title” plaintiff.

If you have more questions now that you understand the basics behind many of the employment law related suits you’ve been reading about in the news, get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today and get the right answers.