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.
|