Feb 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Collective Action Claims National Oilwell Rig Welders Were Not Paid Overtime for Work in Excess of Forty Hours Per Week – Unpaid Overtime Wages Sought
On February 23, 2018, a collective action was filed by Plaintiff Juan Villarreal individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated National Oilwell Varco rig welders to recover unpaid overtime wages from National Oilwell Varco, L.P. and NOV GP Holding, L.P (“National Oilwell Varco”).
The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, claims National Oilwell Varco violated the Fair Labor Standards Act “‘ . . . by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees ‘for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed.’”
According to the collective action, Plaintiff Villarreal was employed by National Oilwell Varco as a rig welder who regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff, though, did not receive overtime pay for all hours worked at the minimum wage and for hours worked beyond 40 at a rate of time and one-half as required by federal law. Additionally, it is alleged that National Oilwell Varco should have known that the Plaintiff was not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions.
The lawsuit contends that rig welders employed by National Oilwell Varco are similarly situated to the Plaintiff, because rig welders have similar job duties, regularly work in excess of forty hours per week, and are not paid overtime for the hours rig welders worked in excess of forty per week as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and (4) are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from National Oilwell Varco pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
If you served as a rig welder for National Oilwell Varco, you may have legal rights and options under federal and state wage laws. If you wish to discuss your potential legal options and claims, please contact Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Alleged Failure to Pay International Paper Production Workers the Proper Overtime Rate
On February 23, 2018, a class and collective action was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, by Plaintiff Alexis Bryant individually and on behalf of all other production workers employed by International Paper Company within the past three years for the company’s alleged failure to include shift premiums in the regular rate of pay when calculating the overtime compensation of International Paper production workers.
The plaintiff, according to the complaint, was employed as an hourly employee by International Paper as a production worker at International Paper’s plant in Conway, Arkansas and regularly worked more than forty hours per week. The plaintiff and other production workers also received regular, non-discretionary cash awards, upon meeting certain objective and measurable criteria, as well as one and one-half (1.5) of their base hourly rate for each hour worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. International Paper, allegedly, did not include the cash awards into the regular rate of pay for production workers when calculating the overtime pay amount.
The complaint’s class and collective overtime pay claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act against International Paper seek, among other things, payment for all hours worked, including payment of overtime premium for all hours worked for International Paper in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and liquidated damages. International Paper’s alleged failure to include shift premiums in production worker overtime pay resulted in a failure to pay full overtime during weeks when production workers worked more than 40 hours.
If you served as a production worker, you may have legal rights and options under federal and state wage laws. If you wish to discuss your potential legal options and claims, please contact Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 26, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Operator of More Than 300 Panera Bread Franchises Subject of Two Overtime Pay Lawsuits on Behalf of Panera Bread Assistant Managers to Whom Covelli Enterprises Allegedly Failed to Pay Overtime for Work Beyond 40 Hours Per Week
On January 9, 2018, a collective and class action was brought against Covelli Enterprises, Inc. in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, by Plaintiff Erin E. Kis on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Panera Bread Assistant Managers for Covelli Enterprises’ alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law.
According to the complaint, Covelli Enterprises owns and operates more than 300 Panera Bread franchises in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The Plaintiff, who regularly worked more than 40 hours per week as an Assistant Manager at a Panera Bread restaurant in Wadsworth, Ohio, was not an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and did not receive pay for her hours worked beyond 40 per week, as required by law.
The overtime lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 a week and liquidated damages at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 a week.
On February 22, 2018, a collective action was filed by Plaintiff Chelsea Romano against Covelli Enterprises, Inc. in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, for improperly classifying Plaintiff and other Panera Bread Assistant Managers as exempt from federal overtime compensation, thereby depriving Assistant Managers of overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
According to the collective action complaint, Covelli Enterprises is the single largest Panera Bread franchisee, operating more than 260 Panera Bread restaurants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Florida, and Ontario, Canada with revenue of approximately $614.3 million in fiscal 2015.
The Plaintiff, according to the collective action complaint, served as an Assistant Manager from approximately September 2014 until August 2016 in Johnstown, Pennsylvania and worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay for hours she worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Among other relief, the collective action seeks unpaid overtime and liquidated damages.
Panera Bread Assistant Managers
If you served as a Panera Bread Assistant Manager and believe you have claims for unpaid overtime, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or e-mail [email protected].
Feb 24, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Fortegra Financial Corporation Allegedly Engaged Ensurety Ventures, LLC, doing business as Omega Auto Care, To Establish an Automated Calling Operation to Place Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls to the Cellular Phones of Thousands of Consumers Across the U.S.
On February 20, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, against Fortegra Financial Corporation and Ensurety Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Omega Auto Care, for statutory damages and other relief, as a result of allegedly contacting the Plaintiff and other class members on their cellular phones without prior express consent through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or via an artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
Fortegra Financial, according to the complaint, is a subsidiary of Tiptree Financial, Inc. that provides automotive warranty underwriting services across the United States. Ensurety Ventures, d/b/a Omega Auto Care, is an automotive warranty administrator which sells and services automotive warranty policies and “partners” with Fortegra Financial regarding such warranty policies.
The complaint alleges that in an effort to increase sales of automotive warranty products, Fortegra and Omega partnered to establish an automated calling operation operated by third parties to solicit potential customers through the daily use of an automated telephone dialing system to make unsolicited phone calls to the cell phones of thousands of potential customers.
The TCPA class action complaint states that in May 2017, the Plaintiff received an automated robocall to his cellular telephone from telephone number (614) 335-4282. It is believed the call to the Plaintiff’s cell phone was made using predictive or automated dialing technology, as evidenced by the substantial pause at the beginning of the call and multiple times the Plaintiff said “Hello?,” before a real person came on the line and identified himself as having made the call on behalf of Omega Auto Care. The Plaintiff, allegedly, remained on the phone with the Omega representative for 16 minutes and obtained a quote for an extended auto warranty.
Among other relief, the class action seeks $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA and treble, or triple, damages of $1500 for each willful or knowing TCPA violation.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Feb 23, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
First Amended Class Action Complaint Filed Against Polaris Industries, Inc. For Alleged Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On February 9, 2018, an amended class action complaint was filed against Polaris Industries in United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). According to the first amended class action complaint, in the morning on or about October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Rob Kline, a Pennsylvania resident, received a call from (570) 221-5039 to his cellular telephone. Upon answering, the Plaintiff detected silence and then an electronic “blip” noise consistent with automatic telephone dialing system-type calls. Allegedly, after the “blip” noise, a voice came on the line, and the caller identified herself as “Brittney” of Polaris.
According to the amended complaint, “Brittney” knew of the Plaintiff’s past purchases made years ago from Polaris, and “Brittney” encouraged the Plaintiff to purchase additional products sold by Polaris. Further, the call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone was placed through an automatic telephone dialing system without the Plaintiff’s prior express written consent. Plaintiff, according to the amended complaint, is not a Polaris Industries customer, and the Plaintiff has not provided Polaris with written consent to be called on his cellular telephone number.
The TCPA class action against Polaris Industries is on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other individuals who received illegal telemarketing calls from, or on behalf, of Polaris, because the automated call to Plaintiff’s cell phone was transmitted using technology capable of generating hundreds of thousands of telemarketing calls per day, and because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls “en masse” to hundreds or thousands of potential customers.
The class of affected individuals is defined as all individuals in the United States to whom Polaris Industries placed a telephone call to a cellular telephone number on or after October 26, 2013 promoting the sale of Polaris products, using a dialing system substantially similar to the dialing system(s) which called Plaintiff Kline, without express consent to initiate automated telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number. The class action seeks statutory damages of $500 for each TCPA violation and treble, or triple, damages for willful or knowing TCPA violations.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls?
Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Feb 20, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Complaint Filed Against Allied Interstate – TCPA Violations Alleged**
On February 12, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was filed against Allied Interstate, Inc. in United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.
Allied Interstate’s website describes the company as “provid[ing] accounts receivable, customer retention and debt collection services to blue-chip companies, from a wide range of industries, who employ [Allied Interstate] to provide these services on their behalf.”
The class action against Allied Interstate seeks statutory damages and other relief, as a result of “the illegal actions of Allied Interstate” for “negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully plac[ing] automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.” The complaint alleges that Allied Interstate, “[i]n connection with its debt collection efforts . . . operates an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with robocalls.”
The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, is a consumer who has, since March 2017, been “bombarded” with multiple, daily autodialed debt collection calls to her cellular telephone from telephone number (866) 464-9481 without Plaintiff’s consent and despite her objection and request to stop the robocalls. Further, the Plaintiff, according to the complaint, does not owe any debts being collected by Allied Interstate and has never had a business relationship with Allied Interstate.
**On February 22, 2018, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff, by Plaintiff’s attorney, withdrew the complaint and voluntary dismissed the TCPA action without prejudice.
Have You Received Unsolicited, Unwanted or Harassing Autodial, Automated or Prerecorded “Robocalls” or Text Messages to Your Cellular Telephone from Telemarketers, Banks or Credit Card, Mortgage, Student Loan or Other Companies on Your Cell Phone Without Your Prior Express Consent?
Have You Received Debt Collection Robocalls On Your Cellular Telephone Where You Requested Not to Receive, or Opted-Out from Receiving, Automated Debt Collection Calls? Have You Received “Junk Fax” Advertisements That You Did Not Consent to Receive?
If so, you may have grounds to bring a private right of action, or lawsuit, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to try and recover statutory damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each TCPA violation. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney at no cost or obligation to you about your potential legal rights or claims, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form above on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected].
