Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. faces a class action lawsuit brought by an employee who alleges he was not
properly paid or reimbursed for mileage while working at one of the tiremaker’s
Just Tires retail outlets.
The
case was heard last week in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
A UK class action case
involving a norovirus outbreak onboard a cruise ship has been successfully
defended in what is being seen as a landmark decision.
The case involved an outbreak of
gastroenteritis on board the Thomson Spirit, chartered from Louis Cruise Lines.
The class action involved 43
passengers, 28 who alleged they suffered from bacterial illness with the
balance claiming breach of contract.
Lawyers acting for the claimants
had alleged that the outbreak was bacterial, caused by negligence on the part
of the cruise line and poor adherence by the crew to the ship’s established
outbreak response plan.
Three class actions pending
against Facebook over the potential privacy implications of the social media
site’s so-called tag suggestion feature have been relocated from Chicago’s
federal courts to San Francisco’s.
U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel on July 29 granted a request from Facebook, and supported by attorneys for the plaintiffs, to transfer the cases filed this spring in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago to the Northern District of California.
The actions were first launched against the Palo Alto, Calif.-based social media giant in April by plaintiff Carlo Licata, through attorney Jay Edelson, of Edelson P.C., of Chicago. That case was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on April 1, but was removed by Facebook to Chicago’s federal court on May 6.
The Licata actions were soon followed in federal court by similar actions brought by plaintiff Adam Pezen, represented by attorney Joel H. Bernstein, of Labaton Sucharow, of New York, on April 21, and plaintiff Nimesh Patel, represented by attorneys Shawn A. Williams and Paul Geller, of Robbins Geller Rudman, of San Francisco, on May 14.
The cases all center on similar allegations surrounding Facebook’s decision to introduce a new photo tagging system. Developed by Face.com, a company Facebook acquired, the system uses facial recognition technology to recognize people in photos posted by users. Facebook then asks users posting the photos if they wish to “tag” their friends – attaching a marker to the photo identifying people in the photo who they may know.
U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel on July 29 granted a request from Facebook, and supported by attorneys for the plaintiffs, to transfer the cases filed this spring in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago to the Northern District of California.
The actions were first launched against the Palo Alto, Calif.-based social media giant in April by plaintiff Carlo Licata, through attorney Jay Edelson, of Edelson P.C., of Chicago. That case was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on April 1, but was removed by Facebook to Chicago’s federal court on May 6.
The Licata actions were soon followed in federal court by similar actions brought by plaintiff Adam Pezen, represented by attorney Joel H. Bernstein, of Labaton Sucharow, of New York, on April 21, and plaintiff Nimesh Patel, represented by attorneys Shawn A. Williams and Paul Geller, of Robbins Geller Rudman, of San Francisco, on May 14.
The cases all center on similar allegations surrounding Facebook’s decision to introduce a new photo tagging system. Developed by Face.com, a company Facebook acquired, the system uses facial recognition technology to recognize people in photos posted by users. Facebook then asks users posting the photos if they wish to “tag” their friends – attaching a marker to the photo identifying people in the photo who they may know.
PITTSBURGH - A FedEx employee
is filing a class action complaint against the Allegheny County-based company
claiming wage discrimination beginning in 2012. Sanel Hodzic of Pittsburgh sued
FedEx Package System Inc. of Coraopolis on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals in the U.S. District Court Western District of
Pennsylvania on June 29, claiming Fair Labor Standards Act violations
originating for himself in September 2013, when he was hired by the defendant.
According to the complaint, FedEx drivers were intentionally misclassified as
independent contractors by the defendant for the purpose of avoiding fair
compensation. The lawsuit cites previous cases supporting the claim that
drivers are employees and subject to FLSA regulations and protections.
The immediate battle comes
Thursday in San Francisco, where Uber is seen as having a difficult task in
persuading U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen to block a lawsuit seeking to
reimburse 160,000 California drivers for mileage and tips from proceeding as a
class action.
Chen’s decision hinges on the
broader issue of whether Uber drivers are independent contractors, as the
company claims, or employees entitled to unemployment
and workers’ compensation as well as the right to unionize. The issue is
already fodder for the 2016 presidential campaign, with Democrat Hillary Clinton
drawing fire from Republican rivals after saying the sharing economy, though
promising, raises “hard questions about workplace protections.”
Besides crimping Uber’s “drive
whenever you have time” motto, a ruling treating drivers as employees, if
upheld on appeal, would damp profits. It would also raise the same specter for
other companies operating in the “sharing,” “gig” or “on-demand” economy, which
pair customers with products through apps and typically avoid the costs of
traditional employment. The Uber lawsuit before Chen, the most advanced of
similar cases, argues the model violates labor laws.
A U.S. judge on Tuesday
rejected a proposed class action settlement between American Express Co (AXP.N) and
merchants who sued the company over swipe fees, ruling that a lawyer for the
merchants compromised the fairness of the agreement.
U.S.
District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn, New York, ruled that lawyer Gary
Friedman acted improperly by talking about the case and sharing confidential
information with a friend who represented MasterCard Inc (MA.N) in a parallel
class action against MasterCard and Visa Inc (V.N).
Garaufis
wrote that Friedman repeatedly violated court rules meant to protect
confidential information and created a conflict of interest.
The
violations were so blatant that in at least two emails, Friedman wrote to his
friend, "burn after reading."
No comments:
Post a Comment