Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Class Action Cases: 6
The court reversed the district court’s ruling that a group of employees attempting to bring a class action suit against their employer lacked commonality as to issues of law and fact. The employees alleged that the employer was engaged in racketeering by hiring illegal aliens, which depressed the other employee’s wages. Although the employer argued that hiring practices and wage levels varied among the proposed class members, the court sided with the employees in finding that the overarching charges (whether the employer conducted an enterprise under the RICO statute, whether the employer engaged in racketeering, and whether the employer engaged in a conspiracy) were common to each plaintiff.
Read More
[Sunshine Act
Read More
Smith sued on behalf of himself and other employees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provisions. Smith argued the court should authorize the notification of other employees of the defendant for opt-in purposes. Before issuing such an order, the district court should determine: (1) whether there are other employees who desire to opt-in; and (2) whether these employees are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions. The 11th Circuit recommended the following approach: during the early stages of litigation, the district court should apply a lenient standard of proof that, if satisfied, grants conditional certification allowing notice and an opportunity to opt-in. At this stage, plaintiffs need only show their positions are similar, not identical, to the positions held by the putative class members. However, plaintiffs must still demonstrate a reasonable basis for crediting their assertions that aggrieved individuals exist in the broad class they propose, and the district court's power to authorize notice must be exercised with discretion and only in appropriate cases. Here, the court found that there was insufficient discovery to make the determination of whether similarly situated plaintiffs existed. The court dismissed the plaintiff's request without prejudice so more discovery could be conducted, however, the court instructed the defendant to release the files containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of all similarly situated employees of the defendant.
Read More
HINES v. WIDNALL
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C780a (11th Circuit, June 27, 2003)
2003-06-27
CLASS ACTION
The plaintiffs were 5 African-American civilian employees at Eglin Air Force Base. They were attempting to file a class action suit against Eglin for race discrimination. Two were applicants, and three were current employees. Eglin used a centralized personnel ratings system based on algorithmic formulas that assigned weights to such factors as qualifications and past performance. The district court entered summary judgment for Eglin against the two applicants on the grounds they did not exhaust their available administrative remedies. The three current employees had reached settlement agreements with Eglin, and the district court dismissed their claims.
The appellate court affirmed with regard to the applicants but stated the three current employees could still have standing to appeal the denial of class certification even though they had settled their individual claims against Eglin. The district court ruled the three employees did not adequately represent the spectrum of jobs and divisions at Eglin because the class was too broad; therefore, they did not meet the requirements of class certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court of appeals determined this was within the court
Read More
Plaintiff brought this action claiming that she was denied promotion to the Juvenile Probation Office Supervisor because of her race and gender. The court held that the plainitff was not permitted to bring a separate or latent
Read More
Plaintiff brought this action claiming that she was denied promotion to the Juvenile Probation Office Supervisor because of her race and gender. The court held that the plaintiff was not permitted to bring a separate or latent
Read More
