Personalized Pricing & Your Data

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a proposed enforcement policy statement addressing personalized pricing. The draft says that when consumers reasonably expect a non-personalized price, a business using personal data to set an individualized price should clearly and conspicuously disclose that the price is personalized, the basis for the personalization, and the types of data used.

The FTC’s proposed enforcement position is that failing to make those disclosures is likely to be unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The draft does not itself ban personalized pricing, is not a final rule, and is not a finding that any identified company violated the law.

What Is Personalized Pricing?

Personalized pricing occurs when a business uses data connected to a particular consumer to determine the price offered to that consumer. The FTC’s proposal focuses on markets in which consumers reasonably expect that people shopping at the same place and time will see the same price.

That is different from ordinary price changes that apply broadly because of supply and demand, regional taxes, market conditions, or characteristics intrinsic to the transaction. The proposal also recognizes that individualized pricing is an established feature of some markets, including credit and insurance, where price can depend on a consumer’s individual risk characteristics.

What Does the Draft Say Businesses Should Disclose?

The draft describes the FTC’s proposed approach to enforcing existing law; it does not create a new disclosure rule by itself. Under that approach, an effective disclosure should be clear and conspicuous and explain:

  • That the displayed price is personalized;
  • Why or on what basis the price was personalized; and
  • The types of personal data used to generate the price.

The FTC indicates that vague language—such as saying only that a consumer received a “specially selected” price—would likely be misleading if it omits important information. The FTC also states that collecting, using, or disclosing personal data for personalized pricing without adequate disclosure or consent may violate Section 5, and that using personal data without sufficiently verifying consent for that pricing purpose may also violate Section 5.

Examples Identified by the FTC

The proposed statement gives non-exhaustive, discussion-only examples of undisclosed personalized pricing that could raise Section 5 concerns, including a business charging more because data suggests that a consumer:

  • Cannot easily leave home to buy food or has children in the household;
  • Is traveling for a funeral or another can’t-miss personal obligation;
  • Does not have a rideshare competitor’s app installed;
  • Needs transportation to a medical facility for a serious emergency;
  • Recently experienced a crime and is shopping for home-security equipment; or
  • Is physically inside a retailer’s store or parking lot while browsing the retailer’s website.

Why the Proposal Matters to Consumers

A consumer who does not know that a price is personalized may be unable to comparison-shop effectively, correct inaccurate data, change the behavior triggering a higher price, limit future data collection, or decline the transaction. The FTC states that a higher concealed personalized price may constitute substantial injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid.

For consumers, the proposal creates a practical investigation screen across online retail, grocery and food delivery, travel and lodging, rideshare services, ticketing, and other platforms using algorithmic pricing. Relevant questions include whether similarly situated consumers saw different prices, whether the difference was tied to personal data, what the business disclosed, and whether the consumer paid more as a result.

Limitations of the FTC’s Personalized Pricing Proposal

The FTC’s August 19 document is a proposed enforcement policy statement—not a ban on personalized pricing, a final policy statement, a rule, or an accusation against any particular business. The FTC states that Congress has not authorized it to prohibit personalized pricing outright; instead, the draft explains how undisclosed or misleading practices associated with personalized pricing may violate existing federal law.

The proposal remains subject to public comment, with a 30-day comment period beginning upon publication in the Federal Register, and the FTC may revise it following that process. Its examples are hypothetical and non-exhaustive, not findings of liability. Likewise, seeing different prices does not by itself establish that unlawful personalized pricing occurred.

Evaluating a potential matter would require examining whether personal data caused the difference, whether consumers reasonably expected a non-personalized price, what disclosures were made, whether the challenged price was paid, and what federal or state laws apply. The proposed statement expressly provides that it confers no rights, does not bind the FTC or the public, and would not relieve the FTC of proving a violation of an existing statute or regulation in any enforcement action.

Sources:

FTC Proposed Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing (PDF)

Associated Press: “FTC proposal would require retailers to be transparent about personalized pricing”

FTC press release: “FTC Seeks Comment on Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Personalized Pricing”

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. 

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

 

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Tariff Refund Class Action Investigation

Consumers who paid tariff-related fees or higher prices may have claims against manufacturers, retailers, online marketplaces, shipping companies, customs brokers, and other businesses that received—or became eligible to receive—government refunds of tariff payments but did not provide corresponding refunds or credits to consumers.

Who May Have a Claim?

You may be affected if you purchased a product or service for which:

  • A tariff, duty, import charge, or related fee appeared separately at checkout;
  • The seller, manufacturer, marketplace, or shipping company attributed a price increase to tariffs;
  • A tariff-related cost was included in the product’s purchase price, shipping charges, or import fees; and
  • You did not receive a corresponding refund or credit after the company received or became eligible to receive a refund for the tariff.

The investigation is not limited to any particular company, product, marketplace, or shipping program. Consumers should preserve receipts, invoices, order histories, checkout records, and communications describing tariff-related charges or price increases.

Recent Lawsuits Illustrating the Issue

Recently filed proposed class actions involving Logitech and Pitney Bowes provide two examples of how tariff-related costs may have been passed to consumers. The allegations differ: the Logitech case concerns alleged tariff-related increases embedded in product prices, while the Pitney Bowes case concerns alleged tariff charges collected from buyers through eBay’s Global Shipping Program.

These lawsuits are examples of the broader issue and do not represent every company or transaction that may be affected.

What Is the Issue?

Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, commonly called IEEPA. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs.

The complaints allege that some companies passed IEEPA tariff costs to consumers through separate checkout charges or higher product prices. They further allege that those companies later received, or became eligible to receive, government refunds without returning the corresponding amounts to the consumers who allegedly bore the cost.

At the center of these cases is a disputed question: when a consumer allegedly paid the economic cost of a tariff, may the company retain both the consumer-paid amount and the government refund?

Logitech Tariff Refund Lawsuit

On August 18, 2026, SJK Development, Inc. and Ala Awadalla filed a proposed class action against Logitech Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint is captioned SJK Development, Inc. and Ala Awadalla v. Logitech Inc., No. 5:26-cv-08570.

The complaint alleges that Logitech raised U.S. retail prices across approximately half of its product catalog in or about April 2025, by an average of approximately 14% and by as much as 25% for some products. It alleges that Logitech attributed the increases to tariff costs and that the price increases more than offset the company’s tariff costs.

The plaintiffs further allege that Logitech had received $61 million in refunds for the challenged tariffs as of June 30, 2026, including $15 million during the first quarter of fiscal year 2027 and $46 million after the quarter ended. According to the complaint, Logitech had not refunded or credited customers for the alleged tariff component of the prices they paid.

The proposed nationwide class is defined in the complaint as all persons in the United States who, between February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2026, purchased for personal, family or household use a Logitech-branded product whose U.S. retail price was increased on or after February 4, 2025. The proposed class excludes, among others, people who purchased for resale.

Read the complaint: SJK Development, Inc. and Ala Awadalla v. Logitech Inc. – Class Action Complaint (Filed August 18, 2026)

Pitney Bowes and eBay Global Shipping Program Tariff Refund Lawsuit

On August 14, 2026, Jerome Luby, Christopher Vila, and Nicholas Hughes filed a proposed class action against Pitney Bowes Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint is captioned Luby et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., No. 3:26-cv-01311. eBay is not named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges that Pitney Bowes managed shipping and import logistics for purchases made through eBay’s Global Shipping Program and collected IEEPA tariff charges from buyers as a separate line item. It further alleges that Pitney Bowes received $5 million in IEEPA tariff refunds during the second quarter of 2026, but had not returned corresponding tariff amounts to the buyers who allegedly paid them.

The proposed nationwide class is defined in the complaint as all persons in the United States who purchased goods through the Global Shipping Program from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026 and were charged prices that included IEEPA tariff costs.

Read the complaint: Jerome Luby, Christopher Vila, and Nicholas Hughes v. Pitney Bowes Inc. – Class Action Complaint (Filed August 14, 2026)

What Records Should Consumers Save?

Consumers should consider preserving records that show what they purchased, what they paid, and how any tariff-related amount was described, including:

  • Receipts, invoices, order confirmations, and online order histories;
  • Credit-card or bank statements showing the purchase;
  • Checkout screens or invoices listing tariffs, duties, import charges, or related fees;
  • Product pages, emails, or notices connecting a price increase to tariffs;
  • Refund notices, credits, or customer-service communications; and
  • The product name, model number, purchase date, seller, and amount paid.

Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you believe you paid a tariff-related fee or price increase and did not receive a corresponding refund or credit, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your purchase and learn more about the investigation.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need to have paid a separate tariff line item?

Not necessarily. The Pitney Bowes complaint concerns tariff charges allegedly collected from buyers as a separate line item. The Logitech complaint concerns alleged tariff-related increases embedded in retail prices.

Has a court decided that consumers are entitled to refunds?

No. The cases described on this page are recently filed proposed class actions. The allegations have not been proven, and the courts have not determined that the defendants owe refunds to consumers.

Has a class been certified?

The complaints seek to represent proposed classes. Filing a proposed class action does not mean that a class has been certified. The class definitions may be amended, and any certification decision will be made by the court.

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

 

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

SEC Charges Former Tricolor Executives With Fraud

On August 18, 2026, the SEC announced it charged Daniel Chu (“Chu”), Jerome Kollar (“Kollar”), and Ameryn Seibold (“Seibold”), the former CEO, CFO, and Senior Director of Finance, respectively, at Texas-based Tricolor Holdings, LLC (“Tricolor”), for their roles in an alleged multi-year scheme to defraud investors by double pledging hundreds of millions of dollars of subprime auto loans to multiple asset-backed securities (“ABS”) offerings and lenders.

According to the SEC’s complaint, from at least 2020 through Tricolor’s bankruptcy in September 2025, Tricolor raised more than $1.9 billion through ABS offerings while Tricolor, Chu, and Kollar made numerous false and misleading representations to investors about the lender’s overall financial health, portraying the company as financially sound despite knowing that Tricolor was facing significant liquidity constraints and struggling to fund its operations.

In offering materials and meetings, Tricolor allegedly represented that the loans included in the ABS collateral pools were free and clear of any other liens when the defendants knew that many had been or would soon be double pledged. The complaint further alleges that the defendants deceived underwriters and investors, including by manipulating various loan metrics to make non-paying or defaulted loans appear current and therefore eligible for inclusion in the securitization pools. According to the complaint, more than $945 million of principal associated with the ABS offerings remained outstanding and payable to investors at the time of Tricolor’s bankruptcy.

The SEC’s complaint charges Chu, Kollar and Seibold with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also charges Chu with control person liability and all of the defendants with aiding and abetting liability. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against all the defendants as well as officer and director bars against Chu and Kollar. 

The SEC stated that in a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Chu, Kollar, and Seibold in December 2025. 

Source: SEC Press Release No. 2026-75 (August 14, 2026)

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Intuit Securities Class Action – INTU

A securities class action was filed against Intuit Inc. (“Intuit” or the “Company”) and certain of its senior officers on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit common stock between February 25, 2025 and June 1, 2026, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Intuit common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker symbol INTU.

Intuit is a global financial technology company that provides software and services to consumers, small and mid-market businesses, and accounting professionals. Its products include TurboTax, QuickBooks, Credit Karma, and Mailchimp. Intuit acquired Mailchimp for approximately $12 billion in 2021.

What Does the Intuit Securities Class Action Allege?

The action, Bruce v. Intuit Inc., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-08518, was filed on August 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants portrayed Intuit as uniquely positioned to benefit from the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) and represented that the Company’s AI-driven platform, AI-enabled human experts, and integrated product ecosystem provided a durable competitive advantage that GenAI could not replicate. The complaint further alleges that the defendants represented that Mailchimp was successfully executing a turnaround and remained on track to return to double-digit growth.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

  • GenAI was already placing significant competitive pressure on Intuit’s core businesses, particularly TurboTax, undermining the Company’s ability to sustain the growth rates, pricing, and profit margins investors had come to expect; and
  • Mailchimp was failing to deliver the growth and strategic benefits the defendants repeatedly touted, including through its integration with QuickBooks, and would not return to double-digit growth as represented, ultimately forcing Intuit to reduce its investment in the business.

The complaint alleges that, on May 20, 2026, Intuit reported disappointing third quarter fiscal 2026 results and disclosed that it had experienced a significantly weaker-than-expected tax season because price-sensitive do-it-yourself tax filers increasingly chose not to use TurboTax. Intuit also announced a restructuring that included an approximately 17% reduction in its full-time workforce, or approximately 3,000 positions, and approximately $300 million to $340 million in expected restructuring charges. The Company further disclosed that it was reducing its investment in Mailchimp.

According to the complaint, Intuit’s common stock price declined 20%, from $383.93 per share on May 20, 2026 to $307.07 per share on May 21, 2026, erasing more than $20 billion in market capitalization in a single trading day.

The complaint further alleges that Intuit’s stock price declined approximately 9% on June 2, 2026, after Goldman Sachs downgraded the stock from Neutral to Sell, reduced its 12-month price target from $519 to $276 per share, and cited growing competitive threats from lower-priced GenAI-powered tax services and concerns regarding Mailchimp’s growth trajectory. According to the complaint, Intuit’s stock price fell $31.62 per share, from $353.76 per share on June 1, 2026 to $322.14 per share on June 2, 2026.

Review the Intuit securities class action complaint.

NOTE: The Bruce action is related to Baldwin v. Intuit Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-07086, previously filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Baldwin action concerns investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit securities between August 22, 2025 and May 20, 2026. The Bruce action expands the proposed Class Period to include purchasers of Intuit common stock between February 25, 2025 and June 1, 2026.

Intuit Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit common stock during the Class Period and suffered financial losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

INTU investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until September 8, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

    There is no cost or obligation to speak with the firm, and there are no upfront fees or litigation costs. We handle class action matters on a contingency-fee basis. Any attorneys’ fees or expenses sought in connection with a recovery are subject to court approval.

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    Contact Us

    ADDRESS

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
    2001 Market Street
    Suite 2500
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    PHONE

    Tel: 215-792-6676

    EMAIL

    [email protected]

    Staffing Agency Employees: Minimum Wage and Overtime Rights

    Staffing agency and temporary employees are protected by wage laws even when one company issues the paycheck and another company directs the daily work. If the wrong minimum-wage rate is used, overtime is calculated incorrectly, or not all compensable time is recorded, the worker may be owed additional wages.

    Responsibility does not always stop with the staffing agency named on the paystub. Depending on the facts, the staffing agency, the worksite company, or both may be responsible for complying with federal, state, and local wage laws.

    Check the Wage Rate Where You Work

    Minimum wage can depend on the location where the work is performed, the date, the employer’s size or classification, and whether an exemption applies. Workers should not assume that the rate listed in an offer letter or staffing-agency assignment remains lawful after a state or local increase.

    Compare each pay period with the official wage rate for the place where you actually worked. If federal, state, and local wage laws apply, a covered worker generally must receive the highest applicable minimum. Some jurisdictions use different schedules for smaller employers or particular industries, so coverage and effective dates must be checked.

    Overtime Must Use the Correct Regular Rate

    Under the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #23, covered, nonexempt employees generally must receive at least one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Hours may not be averaged across two or more workweeks.

    The regular rate cannot be lower than the applicable minimum wage and may include more than the stated hourly rate. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Fact Sheet #56A on the regular rate explains that certain nondiscretionary bonuses, shift differentials, and other compensation may need to be included.

    Staffing Agency or Worksite Company: Who Is Responsible?

    The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) uses a broad employment concept, and the DOL’s Fact Sheet #13 on the employment relationship explains that labels and technical arrangements do not determine whether a worker is an employee. The economic reality of the relationship controls.

    A worker can have more than one employer under the FLSA. Whether a staffing agency and a worksite company are joint employers is a fact-specific legal question. Relevant facts can include who hires or can end the assignment, determines pay, controls schedules, directs the work, supervises performance, and maintains employment records. No single fact automatically decides every case.

    The company that signs the timesheet or issues the paycheck is, therefore, not necessarily the only company whose conduct matters. Staffing employees should preserve information showing what each business actually did.

    All Compensable Time Must Be Counted

    The DOL’s Fact Sheet #22 on hours worked explains that covered employees generally must be paid for time they are required or permitted to work. Depending on the facts, this may include work before clocking in, work after clocking out, required training, or time spent completing assignment-related tasks.

    A rule requiring advance authorization for overtime generally does not erase the obligation to pay for compensable overtime that the employer knew or had reason to know was worked, although an employer may separately enforce a workplace rule against unauthorized overtime.

    Staffing Agency Wage Case Example: Workbridge Workers at Misfits Market

    In Gonzalez v. Imperfect Foods, Inc. d/b/a Misfits Market, et al., No. 1:26-cv-03229-JRR (D. Md.), plaintiff Rodrigo Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) alleges that he sought employment through staffing agency Workbridge LLC and was assigned to work as a stocker at a Misfits Market warehouse in Hanover, Maryland. According to the complaint, Gonzalez and other workers supplied by Workbridge worked at the warehouse under the supervision of both Workbridge and Misfits personnel. Gonzalez allegedly worked there from approximately April 2024 through April 2025 and frequently worked more than 40 hours per week.

    The complaint alleges that these staffing-agency workers were not paid the wage rates required after Howard County increased its minimum wage for employers with 15 or more employees to $16 per hour on January 1, 2025. According to the complaint, Workbridge continued paying Gonzalez and other Workbridge-supplied warehouse workers $15 per hour for regular hours and $22.50 per hour for overtime. The allegedly required rates were at least $16 and $24, respectively—an asserted shortfall of $1 for each regular hour and $1.50 for each overtime hour. The complaint also alleges that workers employed directly by Misfits who performed similar work received at least $16 per hour.

    The lawsuit alleges that Workbridge hired and paid the staffing-agency workers and typically set their schedules, while both Workbridge and Misfits tracked their time, supervised their work and had authority to terminate them. Based on these allegations, Gonzalez claims that Workbridge and the Misfits defendants jointly employed the Workbridge-supplied workers at the warehouse.

    Gonzalez seeks to represent a proposed FLSA collective of individuals who performed work for Workbridge in Howard County and allegedly were not paid the required overtime rate beginning January 1, 2025. He also seeks to represent a proposed Maryland class of Workbridge workers in Howard County who allegedly were denied the applicable minimum wage or overtime rate during that period. The complaint estimates that at least 70 Workbridge workers in Howard County were affected. 

    Signs a Staffing Agency Employee May Be Underpaid

    • Your pay rate did not change after a state or local minimum-wage increase.
    • Your overtime rate is based on an hourly rate below the applicable minimum.
    • Agency workers receive less than direct employees performing similar work at the same site.
    • The staffing agency issues your paycheck, but the worksite company controls your schedule, duties, supervision, or continued assignment.
    • Your paystub or time records do not allow you to verify regular hours, overtime hours, and rates.

    Records Workers Should Preserve

    • Paystubs, wage statements, timecards, schedules, and payroll-app records.
    • Offer letters, assignment notices, wage-rate notices, and messages about pay.
    • Notes showing the dates, locations, hours, and rates worked, including overtime.
    • Communications showing who assigned work, set schedules, supervised duties, or handled discipline.

    Keep records lawfully and do not take confidential information or materials you are not authorized to possess. The DOL’s Fact Sheet #21 on FLSA recordkeeping describes records covered employers must maintain, including daily and weekly hours, the basis of pay, regular hourly rate, straight-time and overtime earnings, deductions, total wages, and the pay period covered. A worker’s own contemporaneous records may still be useful.

    Can an Employer Retaliate?

    The FLSA prohibits retaliation against an employee for filing a complaint or cooperating in an investigation. Other protected wage complaints may also be covered. Document any threats, reduced hours, discipline, termination, or other adverse action and seek advice promptly, because filing deadlines apply.

    Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate potential claims involving staffing-agency employment, joint-employer responsibility, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime and employee misclassification. A confidential consultation can help you understand how federal, state or local wage laws may apply to your staffing assignment and whether the staffing agency, worksite company or both may be responsible.

    For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

    Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
    (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

    All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

     

     

     

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    Contact Us

    ADDRESS

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
    2001 Market Street
    Suite 2500
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    PHONE

    Tel: 215-792-6676

    EMAIL

    [email protected]