The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and Shulman Kessler LLP File Overtime and Recordkeeping Class and Collective Action On Behalf of Premier Home Health Care Services, Inc.’s New York In-House Staff

Money Drop;.jpeg

On November 20, 2017, Plaintiffs Margarita Gonzalez, Yudelky Contreras, Carmen Alvarez, and Pura Germosen filed a class and collective action complaint in New York federal court against Premier Home Health Care Services, Inc. (a/k/a Premier Home Health Care, Inc.).  The complaint alleges overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, as well as recordkeeping violations regarding required wage rate notices and wage statements under the NYLL.

Plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime wages and associated liquidated damages, statutory damages for the wage rate notice and wage statement violations, and injunctive and declaratory relief.   

Plaintiffs also seek: (1) conditional certification of a FLSA collective consisting of in-house Premier staff employed at any time since November 20, 2014; and (2) Rule 23 class certification of a class of in-house Premier staff employed at any time since November 20, 2011.

The case is Gonzalez v. Premier Home Health Care Services, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 9063, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

For more information contact Cyrus E. Dugger at cd@theduggerlawfirm.com or (646) 560-3208.

Court Grants Conditional Certification in Fit Model FLSA Collective Action Against MSA Models, Owner Susan Levine, and COO William Ivers

On September 26, 2014, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of Plaintiff Eva Agerbrink, and similarly situated fit models, filed a class and collective action complaint in New York federal court against modeling agency MSA Models and MSA Models owner Susan Levine.

“Fit models” serve as human mannequins for the apparel industry during the clothing design process.

On February 2, 2016, the Honorable James C. Francis granted Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice for a collective of all “exclusive” (i.e. exclusively signed) MSA fit models who signed with MSA Models between September 15, 2012 and the present.  Specifically, the Court authorized: (1) a sixty-day opt-in period; (2) the transmission of notice to potential members of the collective via U.S. mail and email; (3) a reminder notice to be sent twenty-one days prior to the close of the opt-in period; and (4) the filing of consent forms by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

The Court further ordered MSA Models to produce a computer readable list for all “exclusive” MSA fit models signed with MSA since September 15, 2012, containing their: (1) full names, (2) last known addresses, (3) phone numbers, (4) e-mail addresses, and (5) dates of employment and of their exclusive fit modeling contract term, including renewal periods, to permit Plaintiff’s counsel to disseminate notice of the lawsuit to potential members of the collective.

A copy of the decision is available here.

Previously, on January 7, 2016, Judge Francis granted Plaintiff’s motion to add all types of MSA models (i.e. fashion, lifestyle, showroom) to the putative class, with respect to a new class claim of unjust enrichment arising from MSA’s alleged retention of its models’ earnings based on a contractual liquidated damages provision in MSA’s modeling contracts.  In the same decision, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to add MSA Model’s Chief Operating Officer, William Ivers, as an individual Defendant.

The case is Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC d/b/a MSA Models, No. 14 Civ. 7841, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

 

165959324[1].jpg

Court Grants Motion Expanding MSA Models Independent Contractor Misclassification Class Action to Include Unjust Enrichment Claim for All MSA Models and MSA COO Bill Ivers as an Individual Defendant

On September 26, 2014, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of Eva Agerbrink, filed a class and collective action complaint in New York federal court against modeling agency MSA Models and MSA Models owner Susan Levine. 

On January 7, 2016, Judge Francis granted Plaintiff Eva Agerbrink’s motion to amend her class and collective action complaint to: (1) add MSA Models Chief Operating Officer Bill Ivers as an individual defendant; (2) add a class claim of unjust enrichment concerning MSA’s liquidated damages provision in its modeling contract between the company and its models; and (3) expand the scope of the putative class action from only MSA fit models to include all types of MSA models (i.e. fashion, lifestyle, showroom) with respect to the class claim for unjust enrichment.

As a result, the putative class in this litigation has been expanded from Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law wage and hour misclassification claims for all MSA fit models (from September 2008 to the present), to include all types of MSA models (i.e. fit, fashion, showroom, and/or lifestyle) concerning class claims for unjust enrichment related to MSA’s allegedly unenforceable contractual liquidated damages provision (from January 2000 to the present).

Specifically, with respect to the claim for unjust enrichment, the Court held:

“The crux of this claim -- that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by retaining payments from clients and owed to the plaintiff for work performed -- is that the defendants are not entitled to these monies because the MSA Contract’s liquidated damages provision is unenforceable. The Second Amended Complaint contains a number of assertions that plausibly suggest that the liquidated damage provision is an illegal penalty and therefore invalid, namely, that it is not ‘a reasonable measure of anticipated loss’ but rather is ‘a means by which Defendants . . . intimidate MSA models into compelled continued performance.’"

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that, because this provision is unenforceable under New York law, all monies withheld by MSA under this provision from any MSA fit, fashion, lifestyle, and/or showroom model, since January 2010, must be paid back to these models.

A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.

Previously, on June 16, 2015, Judge Oetken denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s wage and hour FLSA and New York Labor Law claims.  In addition, on October 27, 2015, Judge Francis ordered Defendants to provide a corrective notice to members of the putative class following his review of an email that MSA Chief Operating Officer William Ivers sent to members of the putative class regarding the litigation.

The case is Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC d/b/a MSA Models, No. 14 Civ. 7841, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 


MSA Fit Model Independent Contractor Misclassification Class Action Filed by The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Moves Forward

On September 26, 2014, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of Eva Agerbrink, filed a class and collective action complaint in New York federal court against modeling agency MSA Models and MSA Models owner Susan Levine. 

The amended complaint alleges that MSA Models and Susan Levine have misclassified their “fit models” as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. 

Ms. Agerbrink, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated MSA fit models, seeks payment of minimum wages, payment of unpaid earned wages, liquidated damages with respect to minimum wages that were eventually paid but were not paid promptly, damages for violations of New York Labor Law recordkeeping requirements, and reimbursements for illegal deductions, as well as additional associated liquidated damages. 

Ms. Agerbrink also sought declaratory relief, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, that MSA Models is operating as an unlicensed employment agency in violation of New York General Business Law § 172, and therefore, could not prospectively enforce its modeling employment agreement with respect to all, or a portion of, the 20% commission it deducts from fit models’ wages. 

MSA Models filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 2, 2015.

On June 16, 2015, Judge Oetken issued an order denying the majority of Defendants’ motion.  Judge Oetken held that all of Ms. Agerbrink’s class and collective action wage and hour claims would move forward to discovery. 

Judge Oetken determined, however, that Ms. Agerbrink could not pursue a Declaratory Judgment Act claim regarding the prospective unenforceability of MSA Model’s contractual commission of 20%.   

As a result, Ms. Agerbrink’s class action wage and hour claims will move forward to discovery on behalf of all MSA fit models employed by MSA Models at any time from September 26, 2008 through the conclusion of the litigation.

The case is Agerbrink v. Model Service LLC d/b/a MSA Models, No. 14 Civ. 7841, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

For more information contact Cyrus E. Dugger at cd@theduggerlawfirm.com or (646) 560-3208.

CVS Store Detectives File Race Discrimination Class Action Alleging Forced Racial Profiling of Black and Latino Shoppers

As reported in the NY Times:

"Four former store detectives employed by CVS in New York filed a class-action lawsuit against the drugstore chain on Wednesday, accusing their bosses of ordering them to target black and Hispanic shoppers.
The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, also alleged that the detectives were fired after they complained about racial discrimination, against both customers and themselves.
The plaintiffs, all of whom are either black or Hispanic, contend in their suit that two supervisors in CVS’s loss-prevention department, overseeing stores in Manhattan and Queens, regularly told them to racially profile nonwhite shoppers. The suit says that one of the supervisors, Anthony Salvatore, routinely told subordinates that “black people always are the ones that are the thieves,” and that “lots of Hispanic people steal.” The second supervisor, Abdul Selene, frequently advised detectives, known at CVS as market investigators, to “watch the black and Hispanic people to catch more cases,” the suit said." (keep reading)

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Has Filed a Sex Discrimination Class Action Against the NYC Department of Education, Principal Rashaunda Shaw, Ast. Principal Dayne McLean, and Ast. Principal Sharon Spann

 

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and The Law Office of Daniela Nanau, P.C. have filed a sex discrimination class action lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education, Globe School for Environmental Research (“Globe”) Principal Rashaunda Shaw, Globe Assistant Principal Dayne McLean, and Globe Assistant Principal Sharon Spann. 

Plaintiff Lisa B. Deleo alleges violations of Title VII, the New York City Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


The amended complaint alleges that Assistant Principal McLean repeatedly sexually harassed Ms. DeLeo, culminating in a confrontation in which Assistant Principal McLean sexually gyrated in front of Ms. DeLeo while she was alone in her office.  In addition, the amended complaint alleges that, following Ms. DeLeo’s complaints of harassment, the New York City Department of Education, Principal Shaw, Assistant Principal McLean, and Assistant Principal Spann retaliated against her because of her complaints.

The amended complaint also alleges that the New York City Department of Education, Principal Shaw, Assistant Principal McLean, and Assistant Principal Spann have created and/or permitted a sexually hostile and retaliatory hostile work environment for non-management female employees at Globe.

Ms. DeLeo seeks certification of a class of all non-management female employees at Globe, from January 2012 through the resolution of the lawsuit, against the New York City Department of Education, as well as Principal Shaw, Assistant Principal McLean, and Assistant Principal Spann in their individual capacities. 

The case is Deleo v. New York City Department of Education, No. 15 Civ. 00591, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


SDNY Courts Converging Around Liability Only Class Certification?

From David M. McMillan:

In what appears to be an increasingly common practice since the Supreme Court decided Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), the Southern District of New York recently certified a class as to liability, but rejected certification as to damages.  Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., — F.R.D. —-, 2014 WL 4840752, 09-3701 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2014).  Taking a cue from Comcast, the Court held that the predominance requirement for class certification—that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)—requires plaintiffs to specify a damages methodology that can be utilized for the entire class.  The plaintiffs, investors in certain mortgage-backed securities issued by JP Morgan Chase & Co. and related entities (collectively "JPM"), failed to adequately specify the methodology they planned to use to value the securities at issue.  The Court therefore rejected certification as to damages and placed responsibility on each class member to prove damages on a member-by-member basis.  The Court, however, found that the plaintiffs proved predominance as to liability and certified the class for that limited purpose. (continue reading).