If you have information regarding the employment and compensation practices of companies we are investigating, please CONTACT US.

TRG and BP:

Sued for Denying Overtime Pay to Oil Spill Support Workers

Burr & Smith and Co-Counsel represent oil spill support workers hired by TRG The Response Group, LLC (“TRG”) to work on the British Petroleum (“BP”) Gulf Oil Spill Project.  The lawsuit alleges that TRG, its President Roy Barrett and BP, intentionally misclassified these workers as “independent contractors” and denied them overtime pay and other benefits of employment.  These workers are seeking unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages in an equal amount to their unpaid overtime wages and attorneys’ fees.  Certain of the workers are seeking damages in response to illegal retaliation by TRG. Download  Press Release.  If you have information relevant to this case, please CONTACT US.  Download Order Authorizing Notice, Court-Authorized Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime Wages and Consent to Join.

Hard Rock Café:

Servers and Bartenders Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages from the Hard Rock Café

On January 14, 2011, a class action complaint was filed in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida on behalf of servers and bartenders who worked for the Hard Rock Café at the Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida (“Hard Rock”).  The complaint alleges that Hard Rock paid its servers and bartenders less than minimum wages by taking a tip credit, but that Hard Rock was not entitled to the tip credit because it required the servers and bartenders to pay a portion of their tips to expediters.  The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the court deems appropriate for themselves and other potential members of the class.  Download  Article and Complaint. If you have information relevant to this case, please CONTACT US.

Panera Bread Company:

Panera Bread Sued by Assistant Managers for Unpaid Overtime Wages

Assistant Managers working for Panera Bread have filed suit in federal court in the Middle District of Florida seeking unpaid overtime.  The lawsuit alleges that these workers were improperly classified by Panera as exempt from overtime and that they typically worked more than forty hours each work week.  The workers are seeking unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  If you have information relevant to this case, please CONTACT US.  Download Consent to Join.

Broadband Interactive, Inc. ("BBI"):

Cable Disconnect and Connections Specialists sue Broadband Interactive, Inc. (“BBI”) for unpaid overtime wages

Cable Disconnect and Collections Specialists have sued BBI in federal court on behalf of themselves and other workers similarly situated alleging that BBI misclassified them as independent contractors, to avoid paying them overtime compensation under the FLSA for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.  Plaintiffs further assert that cable disconnect and collection specialists were denied minimum wages under the Florida Minimum Wage Act for unpaid training days due to the misclassification.  For themselves and opt-in class members, Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  If you have information relevant to this case, please CONTACT US.  Download Consent to Join

Taleo:

Customer Support Analysts Seek overtime pay for work performed for Taleo Corporation

Burr & Smith LLP is representing Customer Support Analysts who were not paid for all hours worked in excess of forty per week.  If you have information on the pay practices experienced by Customer Support Analysts employed by Taleo, please CONTACT US.  Download Consent to Join.

Smith v. Zacco:

Ocala Couple accuses developer of discrimination in violation of Fair Housing Act

With Co-Counsel, Burr & Smith represent an African-American couple who experienced racial discrimination after purchasing property in Hardwood Trails, Ocala.  The lawsuit has been filed in federal court in Ocala, Florida. If you have information relevant to this case, please CONTACT US.

Sterling Jewelers Inc.:

Female Employees of Sterling Jewelers sue for discrimination in pay and promotion

On July 1, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important ruling in Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc. finding that the Arbitrator properly held that the Claimants could seek to pursue their gender-discrimination claims in a class arbitration.  The decision reversed a district court order that had found that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers in allowing the claimants to seek class certification of their discrimination claims. The Second Circuit’s decision can be viewed by selecting this link: Second Circuit’s July 1, 2011 Decision. 

The Claimants are current and former female employees of Sterling Jewelers Inc. (“Sterling”) who have alleged they were paid less than similarly-situated male employees or were denied promotional opportunities because of their gender. The Claimants have worked at stores, owned by Sterling, that operate under the brand names: Kay Jewelers, Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, Marks and Morgan Jewelers, J.B. Robinson Jewelers, LeRoy’s Jewelers, Osterman Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers, Shaw’s Jewelers, Friedlanders Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers, and Belden Jewelers.

Next, the Claimants plan to seek to pursue their claims collectively as a class action on behalf of similarly-situated female employees who work or worked in any of Sterling’s brand stores on or after February 27, 2003. 

It is very important that anyone, female or male, who has information about these discrimination allegations or more generally about how Sterling has treated its women employees please call the lawyers at (813) 253-2010 or (866) 647-3110, or send us an email at rep@burrandsmithlaw.com providing your contact information and where you worked for Sterling.   You may also contact our co-counsel Thomas A. Warren Law Offices, P.L., (Misty McKinnon) toll-free at (866) 854-5152; or Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, (Jenny Yang), at (202) 408-4600.  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).

Background History of Case

The case, Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., AAA Case No. 11 160 00655 08, was filed in March 2008 with the American Arbitration Association, a private agency that manages arbitrations, rather than in court, because Sterling’s alternative dispute resolution program called the RESOLVE Program requires that employees bring claims of this kind before an arbitrator, who acts as a private judge.  Current and former female employees of Sterling sued Sterling under federal civil rights laws alleging that they were paid less than men doing the same work at the same stores and have been denied chances for promotion into salaried jobs because of their gender.  The Claimants’ First Amended Complaint can be viewed here: Claimants’ First Amended Complaint.

Sterling denied that it has committed any discrimination and argued that, in any event, its RESOLVE Program does not permit these women to pursue this case as a class action.

On June 1, 2009, the Arbitrator issued an order finding that Sterling’s RESOLVE Program did not prohibit the Claimants in Jock from bringing their claims together in a class action in arbitration. The Arbitrator’s decision permitting the claimants to seek class certification of their discrimination claims is linked here: Arbitrator’s June 1, 2009 Clause Construction Decision. 

On July 1, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York upheld the Claimants’ right to seek class certification in the arbitration.

Prior to filing the demand for arbitration, at least fifteen current or former female employees of Sterling filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). On January 3, 2008, the EEOC issued a Determination finding that Sterling subjected them and other female employees working at its stores in this country who have retail sales responsibilities to a pattern or practice of sex discrimination by paying women less than men doing the same work and denying women the same chance for promotion into salaried jobs.   On September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed its own lawsuit against Sterling alleging a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in its pay and promotion decisions very similar to the case pending in arbitration.  The EEOC’s case is pending in federal court in Buffalo, New York.   The EEOC’s Determination and Complaint can be viewed by selecting these links: EEOC’s Determination and EEOC’s Complaint.