|
Federal
and state laws regulate the compensation of employees.
Many employees, even if they receive a regular
salary, are entitled to minimum wage for hours
worked up to forty each week, and overtime wages
at the rate of one and one-half times the regular
rate for hours worked in excess of forty each
week. Regardless of your job title, you may be
entitled to overtime pay. In fact, many employees
are unaware they are experiencing violations of
these laws. Strict statutes of limitations govern
the time period within which an employee must
bring such claims in these matters. If you are
concerned you may not be receiving the pay to
which you are entitled, contact us for consultation.
Jock,
et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.:
Sterling
Jewelers Inc. maintains an alternative dispute
resolution program called the RESOLVE Program
to reconcile workplace disputes, including claims
of discrimination. The RESOLVE Program is a three-step
process with the final step resulting in arbitration
of claims. On March 24, 2008, fifteen women filed
an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration
Association (“AAA”) in which they
allege that Sterling Jewelers has a pattern or
practice of discriminating against its female
employees in terms of pay and promotions and seek
to arbitrate their claims as a class action. On
April 23, 2008, a sixteenth plaintiff was added
to the complaint who alleges that she experienced
pay and promotion discrimination while employed
as a district manager. Women from twenty states
have indicated an interest in joining this case
as of June 26, 2008. You may download a copy of
the arbitration complaint by clicking on the tab
below.
In
the AAA arbitration, the female claimants seek
back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable
attorney fees and costs, and pre-post judgment
interest on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated female Sterling employees who worked
in Kay Jewelers, Jared the Galleria of Jewelry,
Marks and Morgan Jewelers, J.B. Robinson Jewelers,
LeRoy’s Jewelers, Osterman Jewelers, Goodman
Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers, Shaws Jewelers,
Friedlanders Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers, or Belden
Jewelers in sales or management positions including
women who were employed as district managers.
The female claimants also seek to compel Sterling
to modify its employment practices, including
the lack of job postings for management positions,
that they allege discriminate against female employees.
In
the RESOLVE arbitration, the female claimants
will pursue Equal Pay Act wage claims on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated female
employees dating back to February 27, 2003, if
a willful violation of the Equal Pay Act is established,
or February 27, 2004, if a willful violation is
not established. In addition, the claimants will
pursue Title VII promotion and pay claims on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated female
employees dating back at least two years prior
to the earliest filed EEOC charge, which would
include promotion and pay claims on or after May
18, 2003. If the arbitrator finds that the claimants
have established a continuing pattern or practice
of discrimination in promotion and pay that began
prior to May 18, 2003 and continued into the charge
filing period, claims could be asserted for periods
preceding May 18, 2003.
Sterling
has denied that it discriminates against female
employees in its pay and promotions practices
and has indicated that it will defend the arbitration.
Prior
to filing their demand for arbitration, each of
the fifteen women filed charges of discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). On January 3, 2008, the
EEOC issued a determination finding that Sterling
Jewelers subjected the fifteen claimants and a
nationwide class of female employees with retail
sales responsibilities to a pattern or practice
of sex discrimination in regard to promotion and
compensation. The EEOC’s investigation of
Sterling’s employment practices is continuing.
You may download the EEOC’s determination
by clicking on the tab below.
We
anticipate that the parties will soon select an
arbitrator and begin the initial phase of the
arbitration, which includes determining whether
the arbitration can proceed as a class action.
Therefore, it is very important that individuals
who have information about Sterling’s employment
practices call our co-counsel at Thomas A. Warren
Law Offices, P.L., toll-free at (866) 854-5152;
or Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll (Sahar Aziz),
at (202) 408-4600; or contact Loren Donnell in
our office at (813) 253-2010 or send us an email
by clicking on our contact tab and providing your
contact information and where you worked for Sterling.
We are interested in speaking with former or current
employees, both male and female. (Please note
that we are not ethically permitted to discuss
the case with current managers unless they believe
they have experienced or are experiencing gender
discrimination at Sterling).
DOWNLOAD
THE ARBITRATION COMPLAINT
DOWNLOAD
THE EEOC COMPLAINT
Workers
Who Experience Retaliation After Filing FLSA Claims
Entitled to Sue for Injunctive Relief
Sam Smith of Burr & Smith, L.L.P. has extensive
experience litigating wage and hour cases. He recently
obtained a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals holding that individuals who experience
retaliation as a result of filing claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act have the right to seek
injunctive relief, including reinstatement.
UtiliQuest,
S.T.S. & Locating Inc. Employees Settle Lawsuit
for Unpaid Overtime Wages:
On
July 28, 2008, a federal judge in Ocala, Florida,
issued a final judgment approving a ten million
dollar gross settlement of overtime wage claims
of utility locators who worked for companies across
seventeen states. In the lawsuit, locators employed
to locate and mark utility lines sought pay for
work performed at home at the beginning of the
day and during meal periods; for time spent traveling
each day to their first location site and home
from their last location site, and for work performed
at home at the end of the day.
Advanced
Comfort, Inc. and Dormia, Inc. Settle Lawsuit
for Unpaid and Overtime Wages.
Marshall, et al. v. Advanced Comfort, Inc. and
Dormia, Inc.
On January 29, 2007, the District Court of the
Middle District of Florida approved the Settlement
of this collective action brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended
29 U.S.C. §§ 201-209 on behalf of retail sales
associates who were employed by Advanced Comfort,
Inc. d/b/a Dormia, Inc. between July 20, 2003
and July 31, 2006. Retail sales associates who
were paid more in base pay than commission pay
during a representative period of one month recovered
unpaid overtime wages under this Settlement.
Ace
Mortgage Funding Settle Lawsuits for Overtime
Pay
Saunders
et al. v. Ace Mortgage Funding Inc.; Thorpe v.
Ace Mortgage Funding, Inc.
On January 14, 2007, Burr & Smith and co-counsel
reached a settlement agreement with Ace Mortgage
Funding on the above-titled cases. The maximum
settlement amount if all class members agree to
participate is 4 million dollars including attorneys’
fees and costs. The deadline for filing opt outs
and objections is April 4, 2008. On April 21,
2008, there will be a Final Approval Hearing,
at which time a Judge will make a final determination
whether to approve the Settlement.
Enterprise
Employees Settle Lawsuits for Overtime Pay
Harrison v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.; Elmer v.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.
In 1999, the above-titled cases were resolved
by Burr & Smith and co-counsel, in court-approved
settlements of $1.6 million and $2.5 million plus
attorneys' fees.
The
hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that
should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Before you decide, ask us to send you free written
information about our qualifications and experience.
We will also provide you on request with additional
information on any other statements contained
in this website.
|
