|

Illinois has been navigating the idea of whether local communities should be able to choose whether to create their own right-to-work zones.  There has recently been the inquiry of jurisdictions and cases where employers and unions are prohibited from entering into agreements that require workers to either join a union or pay related fees.  As of late, these ideas have been pushed for in Illinois. Weakening the middle class and the weakening of labor unions is also a concern for those that fall into that category.

Right to work zones are said to be better for business.  Nearby state Indiana may be getting more jobs and the corporations there are appearing to be becoming richer.  The Senate Bill 1905 would have added protection for workers in Illinois by stopping cities from creating right-to-work zones.  Law in Illinois is superseded by the National Labor Relations Act. The federal law is clear: the states have the right to enact or reject right to work laws — municipalities don’t.

It is believed that Illinois will be better positioned to be competitive nationally and globally and create an opportunity for all the people of our state. Through freedom to decide how reforms make its economy stronger, will help business grow. The ability to empower workers by choosing a union at their discretion is also important, as unions have a place in our society and serve the middle class.  After all, it is unions that set pay standards and help to maintain the safety, as well as, working conditions of employees. Continue reading ›

|

Consider this dilemma: You work in a low-paying job for a check-cashing service and you want to quit your job and change employers. What are your practical options outside of applying for opportunities at similar establishments? A recent lawsuit against an Illinois employer addresses this issue.

An Illinois payday lender has been sued by the state attorney general for forcing its low-wage employees to sign overly restrictive, unlawful non-compete agreements. According to the complaint filed October 25 in Cook County Circuit Court, Check Into Cash of Illinois, LLC requires customer service employees at all its 33 Illinois locations, including those earning less than $13 per hour, to sign a non-compete agreement as a condition of employment, in violation of the state Freedom to Work Act and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.

The noncompetes prohibit Check Into Cash employees from working “directly or indirectly” for any other business that provides consumer lending services or products for one year after they leave the company. These include any paycheck advance services, check-cashing services, pawn services, credit lending services, or any other money transmission service. The geographic territory off limits to former employees consists of businesses within 15 miles of any Check Into Cash location, not only in Illinois but in 32 other states where the parent company operates retail stores. Continue reading ›

|

The argument between The Trump National Golf Club Jupiter and a class of 65 former members continues as the golf club has asked the Eleventh Circuit Court to overturn a ruling by the lower court that requires the golf club to pay approximately $5.7 million in refunded deposits to the former members.

The argument appears to hinge on when the members actually resigned their golf club membership. Prior to Trump’s purchase of the golf club, members paid a deposit, which was to be refunded to them upon the resignation of their membership. But the golf club was having financial troubles and was unable to pay all the resigning members their deposits.

So the club formed a resignation wait list, in which members who wanted to resign could continue using the golf club’s facilities as long as they continued paying their dues. When they reached the top of the list and enough new members had joined (generally five new members for each member on the resignation waitlist), the resignation could be made complete and their deposit refunded to them. Continue reading ›

|

Vendors who share customers’ personal identifying information (name, email address, phone number, zip code, etc.) is a major issue in the world of consumer law today. Vendors (particularly online and mobile vendors) are often tempted to take a customer’s payment information and then sell it to a third party after the transaction has been completed. That third party can then use the customer’s information however they want.

Because of consumers’ numerous complaints about the flagrant mishandling of their personal information, many companies have begun either revealing in their Terms of Service contracts that they might distribute a customer’s personal information, or promising not to reveal their customers’ personal information to a third party, unless it’s required to complete a transaction, or for legal reasons. When given an option between a vendor that sells personal information and a similar vendor that maintains their customers’ privacy, most customers will choose the vendor that respects their privacy.

This issue is at the heart of a recent consumer class action lawsuit filed against Google in California. The company’s Wallet users, who can buy apps through Google Play, agreed to Google’s Terms of Service and privacy policy every time they purchased an app through Google’s Wallet feature. According to the consumer lawsuit, Google’s Terms of Service assure customers their private information will not be shared with any third-party vendors unless it is necessary to do so in order to complete the transaction, or for legal purposes. But the lawsuit alleges that, despite these promises, Google shared the personal information of its Wallet customers with third parties, even after having completed the purchase. Continue reading ›

|

Many non-compete agreements are included in employment contracts merely as a precaution. While employers reserve the right to sue workers for violating any of the terms of their non-compete agreements, few companies actually follow through on the threat if/when an employee violates their contract.

But one fitness company did decide to exercise its right to sue a former employee who allegedly violated the terms of his employment contract by starting his own club within three miles of the fitness club location he had been managing for his former employer.

The former employee, Jason Voges, started a fitness club of his own, Island Life Fitness, LLC. Voges founded the new club with his wife, Crystal, a few months after his employment with Anytime Fitness ended. Anytime Fitness, a franchise of Fitness Group, LLC, sued Voges, pointing out his contract allows him to seek employment with a rival fitness club ten miles away from any one of Fitness Group’s locations. Continue reading ›

|

Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, certain business advocates continue to insist that arbitration bans hurt individual consumers and employees more than they help them. They are not bothered by the facts, such as:

  1. Arbitration does not allow multiple plaintiffs to combine their claims into a class action or collective action. This effectively blocks consumer lawsuits from ever seeing the light of day because an individual’s claims are often smaller than the cost of filing a lawsuit or pursuing the dispute in arbitration.
  2. There is no explanation for why an arbitrator ruled the way they did and no opportunity to appeal the decision.
  3. The arbitration process is kept private, which means the results, and even a customer filing for relief for a complaint, are never made public. The transparent nature of the courts is an inherent ingredient to justice and accountability. By keeping all the proceedings private, other consumers with identical or similar complaints will not even know that they have a valid complaint.
  4. Arbitration is not always neutral. While some arbitrators have a good reputation for neutrality, others are less trustworthy, and many arbitration clauses give the company the power to choose the arbitrator. Because arbitration is a business, many arbitrators tend to be tempted to rule in favor of the side that brings them a lot of business.

Despite all these facts, and extensive research conducted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) showing how arbitration clauses harmed consumers, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate both voted to overturn a CFPB rule that would prohibit banks from putting arbitration clauses in their consumer contracts. Continue reading ›

|

The battle to be the first self-driving car company has a new twist.

Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber for allegedly stealing trade secrets pertaining to its self-driving technology was supposed to go to trial earlier this month, but has been delayed as a result of new evidence against Uber.

While the two ride-hailing companies were preparing their cases and getting ready to argue their sides before a jury, Judge William Alsup had ordered an investigation into Uber by the Department of Justice (DOJ) – an investigation which recently turned up a letter that has the potential to do serious damage to Uber’s case.

The letter was written by an attorney representing Richard Jacobs, who used to work for Uber as part of their Marketplace Analytics (MA) team. According to the letter, which Jacobs approved at the time, it was sent, Uber allegedly used its MA team for the sole purpose of stealing trade secrets from Waymo, and possibly other competitors as well.

The DOJ also found that Uber had actively taken steps to hide this information from the court and other legal professionals.

The letter was part of a lawsuit between Jacobs and Uber, which has since been settled. When questioned about the letter on the stand, Jacobs denied parts of it, saying he reviewed the letter in haste when he was on vacation. Jacobs denied that Uber’s MA group existed in order to steal trade secrets, or that Waymo was a target, but he did confirm that Uber took steps to protect sensitive information and eliminate the possibility of a paper trail that might work against them later. Continue reading ›

|

The #MeToo scandals has generated more work for lawyers. Last year, within New York sex scandals were shaking elite preparatory schools with an uptick in investigations.  One unidentified school had spent at least $2 million on a comprehensive report detailing decades of sexual indiscretions between faculty members and students.  This year, we saw reflections of harassment and abuse within the entertainment and political environments. It has had a momentum effect and impacted many with more and more cases being reported everyday.

No one is ever free from abuse of harassment and people are more vocal and aware of the abuse nowadays, as this hashtag has been trending on social media.  Investigation, litigation and handling of sexual allegations are not easy to navigate and are emotionally taxing, whilst damaging to reputation of either victim or alleged perpetrator.  One incident and its exposure often leads to others coming forward and class actions or multiple investigations.  Reputation, character and conduct is important.  Once an image is tarnished, it can be life affecting in so many ways.  A cycle of resistance or denial can also exist in the cycle.  Having insurance coverage in such instances helps relieve the emotional distress in finance over monies paid to victims or an insurance dispute over clauses and coverage can also arise.  As more and more claims come out, it must be realized that one cannot be fully absolved of such allegations and the need to have measures in place in case is important.  Prevention is always better than cure and whether or not employers wish to screen such conduct as part of their background check is also becoming a possible concern.  The costs of such suits can be steep and the damage that is done can never be monetized.  The possibility of employers screening behavior in an interview position for work purposes may also become more commonplace, as costs and money talks.  It is not worth the baggage of having such persons within a working environment and maybe including contract clauses for relieving personal behavior whilst at work must be ensured within employment manuals.  More education is required as to why such behavior will not be tolerated.  Continue reading ›

|

Despite claiming it’s ready to make amends to its customers after multiple scandals involving things like opening bank accounts and lines of credit for its customers without their notice or consent, overdraft fees, and fraudulent car loans, Wells Fargo’s CEO, Timothy Sloan, recently testified before the Senate Banking Committee to defend the bank’s use of arbitration agreements.

This is in spite of the fact that the bank has said it will not enforce its arbitration agreements with the class of consumers seeking compensation for the money lost and damage done to their credit ratings as a result of the false accounts the bank opened on their behalf. Without the option to file a class action lawsuit against the bank, each customer would have been forced into individual arbitration, the cost of which would likely have caused many to abandon the case if the costs of filing were more than their claims were worth.

Most cases never make it through arbitration because of the cost, the inability to file as a class or collective action, and the private nature of arbitration that prevents people from becoming aware of legal actions with claims similar to theirs. And yet banks and Big Business advocates continue to insist that arbitration benefits consumers more than class action or collective action lawsuits.

Sloan even cited a study conducted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that Sloan claimed proved consumers received more redress from arbitration than collective actions or class actions. Continue reading ›

|

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) are subject to a judgment of anywhere from $400 per call to $1,200 per call, depending on whether the court deems the defendant to have been deliberately willful in its violation of consumers’ privacy.

The TCPA was enacted shortly after cell phones became prominent in the market and cell phone users were charged for the calls they received, as well as those they made. To protect consumers from having to pay for promotional calls they didn’t want to receive on their cell phones, legislators came up with the TCPA, which makes it illegal for companies to call consumers on their cell phone in a non-emergency situation, unless the company has received the consumers’ express permission to do so.

According to U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles, Dish Network LLC earned the highest judgment for the promotional calls they had made to consumers using Satellite Systems Network and allegedly failing to properly regulate the calls that company made on Dish’s behalf.

The lawsuit was filed in 2014 by Thomas Krakauer, who claimed he received multiple calls from SSN on Dish’s behalf from 2009 to 2011, despite being on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Since he filed is class action against those two companies, the North Carolina federal court has certified two more class actions with similar claims of having received telemarketing calls from Dish or SSN between 2010 and 2011.

In Krakauer’s case, the jury found that SSN had placed more than 51,000 promotional phone calls in violation of the TCPA in the relevant time period and awarded damages to the plaintiffs of $400 for each phone call, bringing the total to about $20.5 million.

But Judge Eagles found that treble damages were warranted, since Dish had willfully violated the TCPA by failing to oversee SSN’s telemarketing practices, despite having promised regulators it would do so. Judge Eagles therefore raised the damages to $1,200 per illegal phone call for a total of $61 million. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design