|

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just proved it is more interested in fostering real change than fining large corporations.

Sterling Jewelers just settled the lawsuit filed by the EEOC, alleging it discriminates against its female employees, without admitting to having done anything wrong or paying any money to the class of plaintiffs. Instead, Sterling Jewelers (which owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, among others) has agreed to hire an independent employment expert who will review employment and promotion practices within the jewelry company.

But Sterling still has to deal with a separate class-action arbitration case in which female employees of the company are accusing Sterling of regularly paying women less than their male counterparts, overlooking women for promotions and other opportunities for advancement, and fostering a work culture in which sexual harassment was the norm.

Signet (which is Sterling’s parent company) is continuing to fight the arbitration claims and said it has already investigated the allegations of sexual harassment on its own without finding anything to back up the allegations. Continue reading ›

|

In case you did not know, homemade slime is one the the biggest fads out there!  Even a Kardashian child, Penelope Disick has a homemade video upload on Instagram featuring a do-it-yourself tutorial.  In fact, there are “slime alternatives” for those parents that are sick of buying glue.  The buck, however, does not stop there.  Aspects of litigation now involve slime.

Only just recently there was a  trial to determine whether ABC defamed a South Dakota meat producer’s products that critics dubbed “pink slime” provided a boost to area business before it ended with a settlement.

Beef Products Inc. said in a report that an ABC News correspondent misled consumers about the safety of low-cost processed beef trimmings, which are officially known as “lean finely textured beef.”  Nowadays, It is more commonly known as “pink slime” due to its appearance. The company had sought $1.9 billion in damages, but the figure could have grown to as much as $5.7 billion under a South Dakota law. Such reports caused a backlash against the product that eventually cost the meat processor millions of dollars in sales, forcing it to close three of its four plants. ABC defended its stories as being factual and providing vital information to consumers. Continue reading ›

|

As more and more of our personal information ends up online (either through our own actions or someone else’s) we must all be increasingly vigilant about taking the necessary steps to ensure our privacy from hackers. Businesses and website hosts need to be especially careful about protecting themselves from liability in the event of a data breach.

Class action lawsuits claiming damages against businesses that allegedly did not take the proper measures to protect against security breaches have been popping up with increasing frequency all over the country, but depending on the case, proving actual damages can be easier said than done.

Most, if not all, banks and credit card companies offer identity theft protection – for a fee. They’ll cover the costs of any unverified charges if your information gets stolen, but only if you pay them a monthly fee. The fee is usually around $5/month, but even that can be prohibitive for low-income consumers. As a result, most plaintiffs suing as a result of a data breach at least sue for the costs of purchasing identity theft protection. Continue reading ›

|

The days of trading items for other items are all but gone. Individuals might still maintain this practice in private between one another, but when it comes to how companies can pay their workers, they usually only have two choices: cash or check.

The rise of technology has led to other options, such as direct deposit and debit cards, but not all of these new options are allowed under the relevant labor law. According to Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), employers are permitted to use only cash or checks to pay their workers.

But a recent class action wage and hour lawsuit filed against a Pennsylvania McDonald’s franchisee, alleges the franchisee’s use of debit cards to pay employees their wages is a violation of the WPCL.

The class action lawsuit was filed against Carol and Albert Mueller, who, together, operate 16 different McDonald’s franchise locations across Pennsylvania. They allegedly used debit cards to pay almost 2,400 employees their wages from late 2010 until the summer of 2013. Continue reading ›

|

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently put the kibosh on the proposed mega merger between health insurance giants Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corporation, two of the nation’s four largest insurers. The court concluded that Anthem failed to show how proposed cost efficiencies would offset the harm to competition in affected markets. (United States, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp., No. 17-5024 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

In 2015, Anthem, the second-largest health carrier, which operates the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand in 14 states, agreed to merge with third-largest Cigna, in what would be the biggest-ever merger of health insurers. It would leave Anthem as the surviving company with a controlling share of the merged company’s stock. Within Anthem states, existing Cigna customers could remain with Cigna, but the two insurers would otherwise no longer compete in those states.

The U.S. Department of Justice and several states successfully sued in district court to block the merger on the ground it would substantially lessen competition in affected markets, in violation of the Clayton Act. On appeal, Anthem argued the merger’s efficiencies would outweigh its antiicompetitive effects by reducing the costs of medical claims through lower provider rates, thus lowering Cigna’s rates. The government plaintiffs had argued these projected savings were unverified, not specific to the merger, and would not result in true efficiencies. Continue reading ›

|

When it comes to running a business, legal compliance is essential. Federal and state regulations govern numerous aspects of business, and labor and employment. The state often follows the same regulations, and can have variances which is why it is important to keep abreast with both.  Often enough, compliance for larger corporations is easier to manage when one can hire dedicated professionals and keep attorneys on retainer to help the business stay up-to-date and in compliance with labor laws. Having said that,  a lack of resources doesn’t excuse small businesses from dealing with these important legal issues.

For instance, more recently, the owners of a family-owned business in Sauk City, Wisconsin, are receiving backlash for allowing their children to help inside their bakery. The state is now auditing the business for potentially breaking child labor laws. Generally speaking, the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum age requirements do not apply to minors employed by their parents, or by a person acting as their guardian. An exception to this occurs in mining, manufacturing and occupations where the minimum age requirement of 18 years old applies.  However, there is federal law that restricts the employment and abuse of child workers which are designed to protect the educational opportunities of youth and prohibit their employment in jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety. Continue reading ›

|

Minteq International, Inc. supplies materials to steel-makers. Minteq’s employees are represented by the engineers’ union of the AFL-CIO and covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In 2012, without bargaining or even notifying the union, the company began requiring new employees to sign noncompete and confidentiality agreements (NCCA) which barred employees from working for Minteq’s competitors for 18 months following their employment and disclosing confidential or proprietary information. They also included nonsolicitation and at-will employment clauses.

In 2014, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Minteq. The National Labor Relations Board found that Minteq violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to afford the employees’ union notice or an opportunity to bargain over Minteq’s unilateral implementation of the NCCA. In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Board’s findings (Minteq International Inc., et al., v. Nat’l Labor Relations Board, No. 16-1276 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

NLRB held that the noncompete agreement was a mandatory subject of bargaining not covered by the CBA. FLSA requires parties to bargain in good faith regarding “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” As such, Minteq’s noncompete/confidentiality agreement was a mandatory subject of bargaining because it directly “settle[s] an aspect of the relationship between the employer and the employees.” (First Nat’l Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981)). Continue reading ›

|

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner made quick work of a recent class action suit brought by glaucoma patients who alleged that Allergan, Inc., and other drugmakers manufactured prescription eyedrops that were too large in order to increase their profits (Eike, et al., v. Allergan, Inc., et al., No. 16-3334, 7th Cir. (2017)). The case was on appeal from a district court ruling certifying eight classes of plaintiffs consisting of Illinois and Missouri residents who alleged that Allergan and six other pharmaceutical companies made eye drops that were unnecessarily large, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Each eyedrop exceeded 16 microliters, beyond the optimal size the plaintiffs contended was necessary for treatment of glaucoma and therefore wasteful because the additional microliters added no therapeutic value, instead serving only to pad the companies’ profits. The plaintiffs sought damages amounting to the difference between the price per drop of the eye drops at their present size and the presumably lower price of smaller drops, multiplied by the number of drops purchased by the class members.  Continue reading ›

|

With the economy still unsteady after the recession, more and more people are attracted to the idea of starting their own business. But one of the biggest challenges when doing that is making sure you have something unique to offer the market.

For people who have spent most of their career working at one company, that’s often all they know. If they’re going to try to branch off on their own, they’d better make sure their new operation is significantly different from their employer’s, or at least has a new approach to the industry. Either way, it’s important to note that just copying and pasting your employer’s business is not only unethical – it’s illegal.

According to officials, David Newman, a 34-year-old trader who worked in Chicago, stole more than 400,000 electronic files from his employer. Those files contained all of WH Trading LLC’s proprietary computer code and trading software. Continue reading ›

|

Getting taken to the cleaners by a dishonest employee or contractor is headache enough for any business, but having  no fraud coverage insurance coverage is a world of hurt.  Businesses are well advised to analyze their policies carefully to make sure they have proper coverage.

In the case of an Indiana telecom company called Telamon, its two different insurance policies provided no relief, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Telamon Corp. v. Charter Oak, No. 16-1205, 7th Cir. (2017)). Telamon engaged independent consultant Juanita B. to provide services, and her role eventually expanded well beyond the original agreement. She was named vice president of major accounts and became senior manager for the company’s business in New York and New Jersey. In that capacity, she oversaw the removal of old telecommunications equipment from AT&T sites to sell to salvagers. Juanita pocketed the profits, for a total of $5.2 million in losses for the company by the time it discovered her scheme.   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