Dec 23, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Fiat Chrysler Recalls More than a Million Ram Pickup Trucks Which Can Shift Out of Park
Ram Pickup Trucks Affected by the Recall
Fiat Chrysler reported the following vehicles affected by the Ram pickup truck recall:
-Certain 2010-2017 Ram 2500 and Ram 3500 pickups.
-2011-2017 Ram 3500, Ram 4500 and Ram 5500 chassis cabs.
-2016-2017 Ram 3500 chassis cabs with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 lbs.
-Certain 2009-2017 Ram 1500 pickups.
-The majority of the affected vehicles are heavy-duty trucks.
-Excluded from the recall, according to Fiat Chrysler, are all 2017 model-year trucks built after Dec. 31, 2016.
FCA US LLC is voluntarily recalling an estimated 1.48 million trucks in the U.S. to help prevent occupants from inadvertently moving the vehicles’ gear-shifters out of the “park” position. [Emphasis added]
The recall is limited to vehicles equipped with shifters mounted on their steering columns. Those with rotary-dial shifters or floor-mounted shifters are unaffected. [Emphasis in original]
An FCA US review of field data led to the discovery that Brake Transmission Shift Interlock (BTSI) may not function properly if subject to specific high-temperature conditions for prolonged periods. The conditions are consistent with those that occur when there is protracted brake-pedal application while a vehicle is idling in park.
If BTSI becomes disabled, a vehicle’s shifter may be moved out of park without brake-pedal application, or the presence of a key in the ignition. In such circumstances, a vehicle may exhibit inadvertent movement – if its parking brake has not been set, as recommended in FCA US owners’ manuals.
The Company is aware of seven potentially related injuries and a small number of potentially related accidents. [Emphasis added]
“FCA US will restore BTSI function in the vehicles subject to this recall,” advises Tom McCarthy, Head of Safety Compliance and Product Analysis. “Nevertheless, as always, we urge customers to use their parking brakes, as recommended, and to ensure that child occupants are not left unattended.” [Emphasis in original]
Fiat Chrysler’s Ram pickup truck advisory also stated that vehicles are being recalled in Canada, Mexico, and certain markets outside of the NAFTA region. Customers affected by the recall will be advised when they may schedule service, and customers can call FCA US at (866) 220-6747.
See also FC North America Statement_Column Shifter Brake Transmission Shift Interlock (BTSI) and USA Today’s Fiat Chrysler Ram pickup truck recall story.
Dec 21, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Lawsuit Against Seterus, Inc. Which Sought to Stop Autodialed Debt Collection Calls Made to Consumer Cell Phones Without Prior Express Written Consent DISMISSED
NOTE: The below-described action against Seterus (Corrigan v. Seterus, Inc., 3:17-cv-02348-RDM) was voluntarily dismissed by both parties via a “Stipulation of Dismissal” signed by both parties on May 10, 2018. The “Stipulation of Dismissal” did not indicate whether a settlement was reached, but merely that Plaintiff’s individual claims against Defendant Seterus, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice, and the claims of the putative class were dismissed without prejudice. The presiding federal judge signed an Order closing the action on May 11, 2018.
On December 19, 2017, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action lawsuit was filed against Seterus, Inc. in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, “. . . to stop [Seterus’s] practice of making autodialed calls to consumers’ cell phones nationwide without first obtaining their prior express written consent and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.” [Emphasis added]
Seterus claims it is “one of the nation’s leading specialty loan servicing companies.” According to the TCPA class action complaint, Seterus “made repeat autodialed calls” to the Plaintiff and other putative class members in an effort to collect a debt and “[w]orse yet, . . . Seterus made these autodialed calls to the cell phone numbers of individuals who owed no debt to Seterus whatsoever and who were not delinquent on any of their loan, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act . . ..” [Emphasis added]
The class action complaint alleged that Seterus made autodialed debt collection calls “despite the fact that neither Plaintiff nor the putative members of the Class ever provided Seterus with their prior express written consent to be called.” Seterus, allegedly, caused actual harm to the Plaintiff and class members, “including the aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies the receipt of such calls.” [Emphasis added]
The class action seeks injunctive relief to stop to stop Seterus from “all autodialed calling activities to consumers’ cell phone[s] without first obtaining prior express written consent, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class under the TCPA . . ..” [Emphasis added]
TCPA Autodialed Debt Collection Calls – Common Factual Allegations in the Complaint
Common factual allegations against Seterus detailed in the class action complaint:
-Seterus has placed calls for the purpose of debt collection from thousands of consumers.
-Seterus placed and continues to place repeated, harassing autodialed calls to consumer cell phones without prior consumer express consent to be called.
-The most serious types of autodialed calls by Seterus are calls to consumers who, in fact, have no debt to Seterus and not delinquent on any of their loans.
-An individual may start receiving autodialed calls due to Seterus’s skip tracing, which indicates the person called has some connection to the true debtor – connections which could include one being, for example, a relative or roommate, as well as cellular telephone numbers no longer used by the debtor.
TCPA Autodialed Debt Collection Calls – Plaintiff’s Facts
-In or around August 2017, Plaintiff began receiving autodialed calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone from (866) 570-5277 about attempted collection of unpaid mortgage payments related to her daughter.
-Plaintiff, when answering, noticed a slight pause (indicative of an automatic telephone dialing system) before Plaintiff was connected to a live agent.
-Plaintiff requested Seterus cease making calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone, in addition to explaining that the caller was contacting the wrong person.
-Seterus called Plaintiff’s cell phone at least 25 more times, and Plaintiff never conducted business with Seterus, is not delinquent on her mortgage, and has never provided prior express consent to be called.
The Seterus Autodialed Debt Collection Class
The class action was brought on behalf of all individuals in the United States who received a telephone call on their cell phone from or on behalf of Defendant between four (4) years prior to the filling of the class action complaint through the present for which Seterus had no record of prior express written consent to make such telephone call.
Have You Received Unsolicited or Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Autodialed Calls, Robocalls or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telemarketing calls, autodial calls, robocalls or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dec 21, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Granite Telecommunications – Overtime Pay Collective Action Filed
On December 18, 2017, an overtime pay collective action was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, against Granite Telecommunications, LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Granite Telecommunications Inside Sales Representatives Allegedly Not Paid for Overtime Hours Worked or Not Paid a Premium for All Overtime Hours Worked
The overtime pay collective action lawsuit was brought on behalf of current and former employees of Granite Telecommunications employed “. . . as Inside Sales Representatives working under the titles of Account Manager, Regional Account Manager, Sr. Account Manager, Industry Account Manager, National Account Manager, Sales Executive, or any other title used to describe the position of an inside sales representative selling to businesses.” [Emphasis added]
According to the overtime pay lawsuit complaint, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated began employment as an Inside Sales Representative under the title of Regional Account Manager. When promoted, Inside Sales Representatives were given, in order, the following titles: Sr. Account Manager, Industry Account Manager, National Account Manager, and Enterprise Account Manager. The complaint alleged that
[a]ll such titles were used to describe the exact same sales position, but each new title just brought the sales rep higher commission and base pay. Some reps as well may have been labeled as “Regional Sales Executive”, or titles or variations of these titles all used to describe an inside sales representative position, whose primary function was to sell[] the Defendant’s telecommunications and data services on a non-retail basis to businesses, professionals[,] and commercial enterprises. The Plaintiffs and the classes of similarly situated inside sales representatives were not compensated for overtime hours worked or paid a premium for all their overtime hours worked, and even when paid, were willfully and intentionally underpaid for all such hours. [Emphasis added].
Granite Telecommunications Inside Sales Reps Misclassified & Improperly Paid
According to the Granite Telecommunications overtime pay collective action complaint:
Although the inside sales representatives working for [Granite Telecommunications] were informed they were “salaried”, it is unknown how [Granite Telecommunications] on paper or internally classified them. The reality is that prior to February 2017, [Granite Telecommunications] treated all inside sales representatives in all of its offices as exempt employees, not tracking their work hours and not paying them a premium for overtime hours they knew its employees were working. Thus, this case may be properly asserted as a case of [m]isclassification prior to February 2017, and after February 2017, a case of just willful underpayment and failure to pay. [Emphasis added]
[Granite Telecommunications] has improperly and willfully withheld and refused to pay Plaintiffs and all insides sales representatives overtime wages (a premium compensation) for all overtime hours worked over 40 in a work week at the correct lawful rates. [Emphasis added]
[Granite Telecommunications] knew or should have known that these inside sales representatives fail the short test for the executive exemption since they do not supervise two or more full time employees, and their primary job duties are non-exempt sales duties and not management. Inside sales representatives are on the production side of the business.
[Granite Telecommunications] knew or should have known that all of its inside sales representatives do not meet the administrative exemption, as their primary job duty does not . . . involve the use of discretion and independent judgment in matters of significance affecting the company and its management; and that their primary job duty is production and sales, typically non-exempt under the FLSA.
[Granite Telecommunications] knew or should have known that the inside sales representatives are clearly not outside sales representatives, and do not meet the . . . exemption as well, clearly not selling retail or retail services and are selling to businesses.
[Granite Telecommunications] absolutely and unquestionably knew that their inside sales representatives were routinely working overtime hours, as managers and supervisor witnessed the extra hours, encouraged and even pressured sales reps to work as many hours as possible to hit quotas and meet goals.
Management never asked employees to leave after the shift ended, stopped them from working earlier, or warned or discipline[d] employees working when they knew or should have known the . . . employees reached 40 hours in the work week.
[Granite Telecommunications] encouraged and [pressured] all inside sales representatives to work overtime hours in order to meet goals and quotas and to maximize sales.
[Granite Telecommunications] also warned Plaintiffs and all other inside sales representatives against leaving at the end of the pre-set scheduled shift time as detrimental to their positions and future employment.
[Granite Telecommunications] has willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were not paid time and a half of their regular rate pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week, including the commissions in the calculation of the regular rate and overtime rates. Plaintiffs and the class of similarly situated employees did not in the past, and currently do not perform work that meets the definition of any exemption under the FLSA, and the Defendant’s pay practice and scheme to violate the FLSA are . . . clearly unlawful . . .. [Emphasis added]
Granite Telecommunications Inside Sales Representatives
The Granite Telecommunications overtime pay lawsuit was brought on behalf of individuals who have been employed by Granite Telecommunications, LLC from February 2017 to the present, or in the past three years through February 2017, anywhere in the United States, as an Inside Sales Representative with the title of Regional Account Manager, Senior Account Manager, Industry Account Manager, National Account Manager, Enterprise Account Manager, Regional or National Sales Executive, National Sales Executive, Consultant, Territory Manager, or any other job title used to describe persons whose primary job duty was inside sales to businesses.
Dec 14, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Consumer Information to Help Individuals After the Equifax Data Breach Decide Whether to Place a Fraud Alert, Credit Freeze or Credit Lock
In light of the Equifax data breach, the FTC provided FAQ guidance to help individuals decide whether to place a fraud alert, credit freeze or credit lock on their credit files to help stop or prevent identity theft.
Fraud Alerts
What is a fraud alert?
A fraud alert requires companies to verify your identity before extending new credit, which usually means calling you to determine if you are really trying to open a new account.
The three national credit reporting companies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion) keep records of one’s credit history. If someone has misused your personal or financial information, call one of the credit reporting companies (TransUnion 1-800-680-7289; Experian 1-888-397-3742; Equifax 1-800-525-6285) to request an initial fraud alert on your credit report.
If you are concerned about identity theft, but have not yet become a victim, you can also place an initial fraud alert. For example, according to the FTC, you may want to place a fraud alert if your wallet, Social Security card, or other personal, financial or account information are lost or stolen. Additionally, you also may want to place a fraud alert if your personal information was exposed in a data breach.
A fraud alert is free, and the company you call must tell the other companies about your alert.
An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity thief to open more accounts in your name. When you have an alert on your report, a business must verify your identity before it issues credit, so it may try to contact you.
How long does a fraud alert last?
An initial fraud alert stays on your report for at least 90 days; allows you to order one free copy of your credit report from each of the three credit reporting companies; and after 90 days, you can renew your alert for additional 90-day periods.
Military service members who deploy can place an active duty alert on their credit reports to help minimize the risk of identity theft. An active duty alert on a credit report means businesses have to take extra steps before granting credit in your name. Active duty alerts last for one year and can be renewed to match the period of deployment. Military service members who deploy can get an active duty alert that lasts one year, renewable for the period of deployment. Identity theft victims (whose information has been misused, not just exposed in a breach) are entitled to an extended fraud alert, which lasts seven years.
If you have created an Identity Theft Report, you can get an extended fraud alert on your credit file. When you place an extended alert, you can get two free credit reports within 12 months from each of the three nationwide credit reporting companies, and the credit reporting companies must take your name off marketing lists for prescreened credit offers for 5 years, unless you ask them to put your name back on the list. The extended alert lasts 7 years.
How much does a fraud alert cost?
Again, fraud alerts are free, and with a fraud alert, you keep access to your credit and federal law protects you. Further, initial fraud alert lasts only 90 days, unless renewed.
Credit Freezes
What is a credit freeze?
A credit freeze limits access to your credit file so no one, not even you, can open new accounts until the credit freeze is lifted.
How does a credit freeze work?
To be fully protected, you must place a credit freeze with each of the three credit reporting agencies. Credit freezes can be placed by telephone or online. You will get a PIN to use each time you freeze or unfreeze, which may take one to three business days.
How long does a credit freeze last?
A credit freeze lasts until you temporarily lift or permanently remove it (except in a few states where credit freezes expire after seven years).
How much does a credit freeze cost?
Fees are set by state law, but, generally, cost $5 to $10 each time you freeze or unfreeze your account with each credit reporting agency. You can get a free credit freeze, if you are an identity theft victim, or, in some states, if you are over age 62.
While Equifax will let you place or lift a credit freeze for free until January 31, 2018, TransUnion and Experian are not offering free credit freezes. And, as of now, Equifax’s offer will end on January 31, 2018. This means that any time you need to get new credit, you will need to remove the credit freeze, then place it again, with each of the three agencies — at a cost of $5 to $10 per agency each time, depending on your state’s law.
Are credit freezes free for identity theft victims, and will I also get free credit freezes from the other two credit reporting agencies? The answer is: No. An identity theft victim is someone whose information has been exposed AND misused. If you are a data breach victim, your information is at greater risk of misuse; unless that happens, you are not an identity theft victim entitled to free credit freezes on that basis.
Many people have had very sensitive personal information exposed in the Equifax data breach, such as Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. Equifax is offering free credit freezes until January 31, 2018, and Equifax also will refund fees to anyone who already has paid for credit freezes since the breach was announced on September 7, 2017. If you want a free credit freeze from Equifax, the company can be reached via 1- 800-349-9960 or by visiting freeze.equifax.com.
Should I place a credit freeze?
A credit freeze means that no one (not even you) can access your credit file until you unfreeze it, using a PIN or passphrase, which makes it harder for identity thieves to open new accounts in your name.
To be effective, you must place a credit freeze with all three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian), because when a criminal attempts to take out new credit, a business can pull your credit report from any of the three agencies. If you have only frozen your Equifax file and the business checks with Experian or TransUnion, your Equifax freeze does not help you.
Credit freezes are generally best for people who do not plan to take out new credit. This, often, includes older adults, people under guardianship, and children. Individuals who want to avoid monthly fees also may prefer credit freezes over credit locks.
Credit Locks
What is a credit lock?
Like a credit freeze, a credit lock limits access to your credit file so no one, not even you, can open new accounts until you unlock your credit file.
How does a credit lock work?
Like a credit freeze, to be fully protected, you must place credit locks with all three credit reporting agencies. With credit locks, however, there is no PIN and, usually, no wait to lock or unlock your credit file (although the current Equifax credit lock can take 24 to 48 hours). You can lock and unlock on a computer or mobile device through an “app” – but not with a telephone call.
How long does a credit lock last?
Credit locks last only as long as you have an ongoing credit lock agreement with each of the credit reporting agencies. In some cases, that means paying monthly fees to maintain your credit lock service.
How much does a credit lock cost?
Credit reporting agencies can set and change credit lock fees at any time. As of today, Equifax offers free credit locks as part of its free post-breach credit monitoring. Experian and TransUnion may charge monthly fees (often about $20).
Do I need a credit lock?
Depending on your particular credit lock agreement, your fees and protections may change over time. So, if you sign up for a credit lock, it is difficult to be sure what your legal protections will be if something later goes wrong. Also, monthly credit lock fees can quickly exceed the cost of credit freezes, especially if the credit lock fees increase over time.
Differences Between Fraud Alerts, Credit Freezes & Credit Locks
Additional FTC Information & Resources
Credit Freeze FAQs
Extended Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes
Fraud Alert or Credit Freeze – Which is Right for You
Free Freezes from Equifax
FTC’s Resource Page about the Equifax Data Breach
IdentityTheft.gov
FTC’s Equifax Data Breach Resource Page
Source: FTC.gov and related websites.
Dec 12, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Urban Outfitters Department Managers Misclassified as Exempt – Alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) Violations
Federal lawsuits have been filed against Urban Outfitters, Inc. alleging Urban Outfitters misclassified Urban Outfitters Department Managers as exempt under state and federal overtime laws and failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, as well as overtime pay for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.
In one federal lawsuit, filed in United States District Court, District of Colorado, the Plaintiff alleged that she, pursuant to the FLSA, is entitled to unpaid wages from Urban Outfitters for all hours worked, in addition to overtime for work for which she did not receive overtime premium pay, as well as, pursuant to the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 12 per day and/or 40 in a workweek.
In the Colorado lawsuit, the Plaintiff was employed as an Urban Outfitters Department Manager from approximately November 2012 until September 2013 at an Urban Outfitters store in Lone Tree, Colorado. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked more than 12 hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek without receiving wages from Urban Outfitters for all hours worked, as well as overtime compensation, as required by federal and Colorado laws.
According to the complaint filed in Colorado federal court:
-Urban Outfitters employed the Plaintiff as a Department Manager
-The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 12 hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and Colorado law
-Urban Outfitters scheduled the Plaintiff to work 40 hours per week, when, in fact, Plaintiff worked an average of approximately 45-50 hours per week during each week in which the Plaintiff worked five or more shifts.
-Plaintiff performed work which required minimal skill; was primarily manual in nature (e.g., cleaning the store, folding clothes, building displays, unloading freight); and did not involve managerial responsibilities (e.g., hiring, firing, disciplining or supervising).
-Urban Outfitters misclassified the Plaintiff and all Department Managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and Colorado law.
-Urban Outfitters, as part of its regular business practice, intentionally and repeatedly engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FLSA and Colorado law, including, but not limited to, willfully misclassifying the Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and Colorado law, as well as willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40 hours per workweek.
Urban Outfitters Department Managers
If you served as an Urban Outfitters Department Manager and wish to discuss whether you may have legal claims with an attorney, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dec 12, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Citizens, Inc. – SeekingAlpha Reports; Class Action Lawsuit Filed
On March 8, 2017, SeekingAlpha reported that “Citizens, Inc. (NYSE:CIA) uses a network of unregulated brokers to sell complex life insurance policies to foreign retail investors and retirees. The policies are sold through promises of outsized ‘guaranteed’ returns backed by U.S. Treasury bonds. However, the money is not invested in U.S. Treasuries and the policies appear designed to prop up Citizens’ stock price.”
SeekingAlpha further reported that
[b]ecause most of the returns to existing policyholders are driven by funds contributed by new policyholders, Citizens displays some characteristics that appear analogous to a Ponzi scheme. The performance of CIA shares drive the returns to existing policyholders, but these purported returns hinge directly on Citizens’ ability to prop up its stock price with a constant flow of new money from policyholders. [Emphasis in original]
The money is funneled from policyholders into Citizens’ stock through a feature in which a portion of premiums is paid back as benefits and “dividends.” These funds are routed to Citizens’ transfer agent who facilitates continuous purchases of CIA shares in the open market.
The dividend feature is structured so that most of the projected policy value hinges on the performance of CIA stock. But the inherent risks are often concealed from retail investors who are falsely told that most of their money is backed by U.S. Treasury Bonds inside “savings accounts” that will secure their retirement or children’s education.
On March 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citizens, Inc. over alleged securities laws violations. The plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Citizens’ brokers and pitchbooks falsely claimed that most of the funds from its insurance policies were directly invested in U.S. Treasury Bond; funds from Citizens’ insurance policies were funneled into continuous open market purchases that inflated Citizens’ stock price; and as a result, Defendants’ statements about Citizens’ business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Citizens, Inc. Shareholders
If you are a Citizens, Inc. shareholder and wish to speak privately with a securities attorney to learn whether you may have legal claims against Citizens’ officers and directors, please complete the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected] or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
