LYCOS RETRIEVER 
Class Action Lawsuits: Cases
built 635 days ago
A lawyer may not ethically participate in class action litigation if the claims are frivolous [Section (B)(7)] or even borderline frivolous [(B)(4)]. Indeed, Section (B)(4) imposes a requirement that the lawyer who seeks to undertake class action representation must first assess whether the relief sought - both pecuniary and equitable - is enough to justify the filing of the class action lawsuit. If this Rule had been adopted in Delaware and Alabama, then no attorney could have ethically filed the Bank of Boston case or the Delaware class action portion of Epstein. The former case would have failed to meet the expected value of relief calculation; from the outset, reasonable attorneys would have calculated that the prorata cost of prosecuting the case would exceed any relief individual class members might receive. The ethical standards would have prevented the Delaware class action lawsuit in Epstein, because the class counsel admitted that his own claims were weak, and he had no evidence to prove the allegations.
Source:
Tillman et al. v. GEICO is a class action lawsuit filed on July 25, 2003, in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County. Outten & Golden has joined with two of Texas' top plaintiffs' law firms, Edwards & George and Bruckner Burch, to represent the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have brought the case under New York State law on behalf of all telephone-dedicated hourly employees who have been, or will be, employed by GEICO in its Woodbury, New York, facility at any time after July 25, 1997, through the date of final disposition of the action, who worked as telephone-dedicated employees in the Sales, Service, Direct Handling, or Claims Department. Those positions include: Sales Counselor, Sales Associate, Sales Representative, Liability Examiner, Direct Handler, Claims Representative, Liability Representative, Insurance Counselor, and Customer Service Representative. The case seeks recovery of unpaid wages and overtime premium pay for telephone-dedicated employees who had to work before and after their scheduled telephone shifts without pay. A settlement has been reached that provides for substantial monetary relief to the class.
Source:
The first class action lawsuit was filed in District Court for Cameron County, Texas on May 1, 2000 by attorney Andy Waters. The case was later moved to federal court in Dallas. In the complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Ciba/Novartis conspired with the American Psychiatric Association "to create, develop, promote, and confirm the diagnoses" of ADD and ADHD "in a highly successful effort to increase the market for its product Ritalin." This effort included providing active support to advocacy groups like CHADD, "so that such organizations would promote and support (as a supposed neutral party) the ever-increasing implementation of the ADD/ADHD diagnosis as well as directly increasing Ritalin sales."
Source:
On September 29, 2006, Judge Crotty certified this case as a class and collective action. In deciding the motion for class certification in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court observed that “Given Gristede’s practice of treating co-managers and department managers as hourly workers, it is irrelevant that some individual plaintiffs or others similarly situated may have assumed duties that would otherwise make them exempt under the regulations. . . . Gristede’s clearly sought to treat workers as “hourly” for some purposes (i.e., docking them for hours not worked during the workweek), but “salaried” for other purposes (i.e., not paying them overtime for hours worked in excess of the workweek). The Court ... noted that: “Here, the two provisions at issue expressly require that executive and administrative employees be paid a salary. Such salaried compensation, by definition, cannot be the hourly wages Gristede’s admitted company policy dictates. Since Plaintiffs have adduced convincing evidence that Gristede’s acknowledged company policy treated co-managers and department managers as hourly employees, Defendants cannot defeat commonality by pointing to individualized exemption determinations on the basis of duties.”
Source:
In a case with major statewide implications, Harris & Kaufman successfully represented the plaintiffs in a class action for overtime pay against U-Haul International, Inc. In Crandall v.s. U-Haul International, Inc., Harris & Kaufman, with William E. Harris & Matthew A. Kaufman acting as lead attorneys, represented 480 current and former employees, entitled "General Managers," of U-Haul rental outlets. At trial, the employees argued that the Phoenix-based company wrongly classified them as exempt from overtime requirements of California law. The plaintiffs claimed that they spent most of their work time engaged in sales and the same work as the other non-management employees at the stores. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that the evidence did not show that the employees spent over 50% of their time engaged in management work as required by state law.
Source:
Class action cases require a careful, focused, and thorough evaluation by a competent attorney who practices employment law. Console Law Offices LLC maintains an excellent reputation in the field of employment law both with employers and the legal community. Depending on the particular facts of your situation and your specific goals, the attorneys at Console Law Offices LLC will work with you to negotiate with your employer, file a Charge of Discrimination with the appropriate federal, state or local agency, and represent you in federal or state court.
Source:
MORE ABOUT
Cases