DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT. In 2019, the Lawsuit was filed in federal court in Missouri alleging Correctional Nurses may not have been properly paid for all time worked. The lawsuit alleges certain Corizon pay practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law. The Lawsuit is pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Bough in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, under the title Xxxxx, et al. v. Corizon, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:19-CV-3365-SRB. Corizon has denied, and continues denying, all of the allegations in the Lawsuit and denies it violated the FLSA or Missouri law. Corizon maintains Correctional Nurses were properly paid for their hours worked. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong, or weighed the arguments of either side. The parties, however, agreed to a settlement. You are eligible to receive a settlement payment in exchange for a release of your claims as alleged in the Lawsuit.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT. This Lawsuit was filed by former employees Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxx, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members. The Lawsuit claims that McDonald’s failed to: provide required meal periods and rest breaks; pay overtime and minimum wages; pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain required records; and indemnify employees for necessary expenditures. Plaintiffs also allege that McDonald’s violated the Unfair Competition Law and contend that they and the aggrieved employees are entitled to recover penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. Plaintiffs sought back wages, liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. A copy of the Third Amended Complaint is available at www. . McDonald’s denies that it has violated any law, or engaged in any wrongdoing with respect to the Plaintiffs or the Class Members. The Settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing by McDonald’s. By approving the Settlement and issuing this Notice, the Court is not suggesting which side would win or lose this case.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT. Plaintiffs Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on March 12, 2014 on behalf of themselves and all other current and former hourly workers working as crew members, crew trainers, and maintenance people in one or more of Xxxxx’x five restaurants on or after March 12, 2010. Plaintiffs alleged 13 claims for relief under California law in their First Amended Complaint, including claims for unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime premiums; meal period and rest break violations; violations of recordkeeping and wage statement obligations; failure to reimburse crew members for uniform maintenance; and unlawful business practices. Plaintiffs sought relief including back wages, liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. To review plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in more detail, you may contact one of the counsel for the plaintiffs listed below or review it at www. _. McDonald’s denies that it has violated any law, breached any agreement or obligation to the plaintiffs or the class members, or engaged in any wrongdoing with respect to the plaintiffs or the class members. McDonald’s has entered into this settlement to fully, finally, and forever resolve this litigation against it, based on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to avoid the burden, expense, and uncertainty associated with the litigation.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT. Firebirds Restaurants are owned by Firebirds, International, Inc (“Firebirds”). In 2017 a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Kansas, alleging that servers at Firebirds Restaurants may not have been properly paid for all time worked. The lawsuit alleges that FIREBIRDS’s pay practices violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and various state wage and hour laws. The lawsuit is before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, at Kansas City, Missouri, under the title Xxxx Xxxxx, et al. vs. Firebirds International, Inc. The lawsuit applies to employees who are or were employed by FIREBIRDS in the position of SERVER while working at a Firebirds Restaurant during the relevant period. FIREBIRDS has denied and continues to deny all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s petition and denies it violated the FLSA or any applicable state or federal laws. FIREBIRDS maintains that servers were properly paid for their hours worked. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong, or weighed the arguments of either side. The parties, however, agreed to a settlement. You are entitled to participate in the settlement in exchange for a release of all federal, state and local wage and hour claims you may have arising from your employment in the above position.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT. The Class Action Complaint alleges claims against ITT for violating various provisions of the California Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 4-2011, and Private Attorneys General Act, including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, including hours worked outside the classroom teaching time (Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 4); failure to provide paid rest periods and pay missed rest break premiums (Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 12); failure to pay compensation due upon discharge from employment (Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203); failure to issue accurate wage statements (Cal. Labor Code § 226); failure to reimburse for business-related cell phone expenses, including cellphone usage (Cal. Labor Code § 2802); unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices (Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); and Private Attorneys General Act claim for civil penalties (Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq.). Plaintiffs sought, among other relief, unpaid wages, actual and compensatory damages, restitution, interest, statutory and civil penalties, attorney’s fees, expenses and costs. ITT strongly denied liability for all of Plaintiffs’ claims and contended that it fully complied with California law. Specifically, ITT contended that its rest break policies and expense reimbursement policies complied with California law and ITT properly compensated the Settlement Class for all hours worked. As noted in the introduction, ITT filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy, which means ITT ceased operations, and a trustee was appointed to manage the liquidation of ITT’s property and resolution of claims so that any remaining funds could pay for the expense of administering the bankruptcy case and provide a distribution to claimants and creditors pursuant to priorities established by the Bankruptcy Code. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx is the trustee (“Trustee”) for ITT’s property available to pay the expenses of administration and creditor claims, otherwise known as ITT’s “bankruptcy estate.” Due to the Bankruptcy Case, the Class Action was stayed in the District Court, and the Bankruptcy Court assumed jurisdiction over the Class Action Complaint as part of its role in resolving disputes regarding claims against ITT’s bankruptcy estate. On September 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs and the Trustee participated in a mediation, resulting in a settlement to resolve all of the claims in the Class Action, subject to approval of the...
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT. On February 16, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against EarthLink in the Superior Court of Xxxxxx County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 05-CV-97274. On March 24, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (collectively, the “Complaint”). In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that EarthLink engages in an unlawful practice of charging early termination fees (including moving fees) either to extract improper penalties from customers or to wrongfully deter them from seeking alternative Internet service providers. Plaintiffs allege that the amount of the early termination fees is unconscionable and constitutes an unlawful penalty and that EarthLink’s practices in collecting early termination fees are deceptive. Plaintiffs asserted in the Complaint claims for declaratory and injunctive relief; unjust enrichment; breach of contract duty of good faith and fair dealing (charging an illegal penalty); money had and received – conversion; and unconscionability. EarthLink timely filed an answer to the Complaint on April 25, 2005, denying Plaintiffs’ claims. In addition, EarthLink filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. On September 28, 2005, the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx X. Baxter of the Superior Court of Xxxxxx County entered an order denying EarthLink’s motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered by the trial court, the parties have conducted extensive discovery, including production of responsive documents, interrogatories and depositions of multiple witnesses for the Parties. On April 28, 2006, Plaintiffs filed Motion for Class Certification, which EarthLink opposed. On June 1, 2006, EarthLink filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Nationwide Class Allegations, which Plaintiffs opposed. On November 17, 2006, EarthLink filed its Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim, which Plaintiffs opposed. The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx X. Baxter of the Superior Court of Xxxxxx County conducted a hearing on December 21, 2006 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, EarthLink’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Nationwide Class Action Allegations and EarthLink’s Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim. On January 5, 2007, Judge Xxxxxx entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, denying EarthLink’s Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim and denying EarthLink’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Nationwide Class Action Allegations. EarthLink appealed Judge Xxxxxx’x Janu...
