Employment Wage Overtime Lawsuit

Dole Food Faces Class Action for Wage Violations

On December 26, workers of California-based Dole Food Company filed a wage violation class action lawsuit accusing the employer of not paying for the substantial time they had to spend in putting on the mandatory sanitary clothing. Dole’s food safety policies make it mandatory for workers to wear lab coats, gloves, and hairnets and sanitize hands and shoes before reaching their workstations. The lawsuit filed in the 1s claimed that the practices of the food processing multinational are contrary to California law. According to him, workers have to dress on and off the elaborate sanitary suits during lunch and rest break. However, the company considers it a part of worker’s break time, which is unfair and violation of state labor laws granting lunch and rest convenience for industrial workers, he alleges.

The wage class action lawsuit demands that Dole should pay employees for the time they need to sanitize hands and put on elaborate protective gears. It argues that a worker is required to do so because of Dole’s standard safety practices that ultimately help the food multinational win commercial benefits and consumers, and the time spent by workers contributes to this success.

Dole Food Company, a $7 billion multinational food processor, has 36,000 full-time and 23,000 part-time workers worldwide. It has been subject to many lawsuits for violations of labor laws and standard workplace security practices in the past. In February 2009, the court ordered Dole to pay $2.5 million to Nicaraguan workers who claimed to become sterile following their exposure to banned pesticides at its banana plantations. The movie “Bananas!” by Swedish film maker Fredrik Gertten was based on the plight of thee workers employed by Dole.

Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Cigna Corp

A Cigna Corp employee has filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the leading health insurer in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, claiming $100 million in damages for gender bias and violation of US Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiff, Bretta Karp, a veteran of 14 years with Cigna Healthcare Inc, claims that the Philadelphia-based health insurer denied her a well-deserved promotion alleging that she "came across as too aggressive" in a job interview, following which she lodged her complaint but was rather punished and stripped of her duties of managing the Vermont market.

Wal Mart Lawsuit Class Action Limitations Used In Comcast Lawsuit Stragety

Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and Amgen Inc. are to ask the U.S. Supreme Court today to further limit class actions following a decision last year in the landmark Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) discrimination case that restricted such group litigation.

In 2011, the court rejected class certification for a lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 1.5 million female workers alleging discrimination in pay and promotions at Wal- Mart, the world’s largest retailer (WMT). The justices, dividing 5-4, said the women failed to point to a common corporate policy that led to discrimination, preventing them from suing as a group.

Plaintiffs often seek to sue as a class to pool resources against wealthy corporate defendants, gaining leverage to force a settlement or win at trial. The ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, cited in a series of lower-court decisions -- most favoring companies -- will influence the Supreme Court’s view of the antitrust class action facing Comcast and the securities fraud class action involving Amgen, said Gerald Maatman Jr., of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago.

“Dukes is the 800-pound gorilla in the courtroom,” Maatman, a lawyer who represents defendants in class actions, said in an interview. “Between June 2011 and Dec. 31, 2011, there were 260 rulings in state and federal court applying Wal- Mart.” Since then, at least 800 more cases have cited the case, he said. “There has been no hesitation by courts to apply Wal- Mart to other types of class actions.”

Steeper Road
While some decisions citing Wal-Mart have allowed class actions to survive, the road for plaintiffs has become steeper, said Deborah Hensler, a law professor at Stanford Law School in California.

The Wal-Mart decision “is making it more and more difficult to certify class actions,” she said. “You need to prove a lot about the merits at the certification stage.”

This requirement may lead to a reversal of class certification in one of the two cases being argued today before the Supreme Court, she said.

“Comcast is the next step on the road after Wal-Mart,” she said.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, is trying to stop an antitrust lawsuit that seeks $875 million on behalf of as many as 2 million Philadelphia-area customers.

The company contends a federal judge improperly certified the case as a class-action lawsuit without first resolving whether proof of damages could be determined for the plaintiffs as a group. A Philadelphia-based federal appeals court let the case go forward.

Comcast Case
The Comcast case “could be very significant if the court decides that plaintiffs always need to prove common injury through admissible evidence” before a class can be certified, said Michael Waterstone, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

“In antitrust, that’s going to make it very expensive” to pursue such claims, he said.

Courts are already requiring pre-certification evidentiary hearings, Hensler said.

In the past,

Miami Teachers Lawsuit

As a result of budget cuts implemented by the Broward County School Board, the board has changed its policy on teacher retirement extensions to prohibit the practice and effectively leaving some teachers without a job. Some of the teachers have hired attorneys and began the process of filing a lawsuit.

Some 32 of the affected teachers had applied and been approved for the extensions much earlier in the school year and as a result had made crucial life plans based on the belief that they would be employed.