Half of the lawsuits reported below from last month are related to lawsuits related to the sports industry: golf clubs, tennis players and sports editors. Misclassification in the multifaceted sports and athletics industry has been dealt with by courts and administrative agencies in numerous cases we have reported over the years, including high school referees, NFL security officials, US Open tennis officials, lacrosse officials, professional football cheerleaders and team members basketball, including camera operators, audio tape operators, and replay operators, to name a few. Sports and athletics companies including golf courses, instructional companies, professional leagues, amateur sports organizations, stadiums, tournaments, sports publishers and many others that use independent contractors can minimize exposure to IC misclassification by using a process like IC Diagnostics (TM ), which has been used by many companies from other industries for years. This type of process restructures, re-documents and/or re-implements independent contractor relationships to maximize compliance with federal and state IC laws and regulations in a customized and sustainable manner.
NEW YORK GOLF COURSE SUED BY GOLF CADDIES FOR IC MISCLASSIFICATION. An IC-classified golf caddy filed a class action lawsuit against the famous Wykagyl Country Club in New York federal court on behalf of himself and about 100 other caddies. He alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law in relation to unpaid minimum wage and overtime pay due to misclassification of the IC. According to the caddy’s complaint, the club requires golf caddies to wear the same uniform, part of which is provided by the club; caddies are not free from control or direction of their actions and are a “convoluted part” of the country club golf experience; caddies often have an exclusive relationship with the Club for many uninterrupted years; and the “caddy master”, who assigns caddies to golfers, maintains and maintains considerable discretion in rewarding and punishing them and deciding how many rounds of golf a caddy is allowed to work on any given day. In addition, the complaint stated that caddies typically work at least 54 hours a week; that the club does not pay them an hourly rate; that the only compensation the caddies receive is from the golfers in the form of a bag fee and any tips that golfers may give to the caddy; and the club sets the fee for the golf bag without any negotiation by the caddy. Hopkins v. The Wykagyl Country Club, No. 7:22-cv-10399 (SDNY, December 8, 2022).
REMOTE SPORT VIRGINIA EDITOR SUES NEWSPAPER AND PUBLISHER IN CLASSIFICATION ACTION ALLEGING IC MISCLASSIFICATION. The editor of the website “Seahawks Wire” sued the news media group and its parent publishing company in a class action alleging overtime violations under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and minimum wage violations under the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance as a result of allegedly erroneously classified as independent contractors. According to the complaint, the site’s editors work remotely, regularly watch and analyze NFL Seahawks football games and other team news, write and publish five to six articles a day, manage other writers, edit and approve writers’ articles, and monitor search engine optimization. In support of her claim that the site’s editors are employees and not the IC, the plaintiff alleges that the news company and publisher hire, fire, and control the site’s editors; retain the right to and occasionally edit the work product created by site editors; and regularly encourage site editors to meet and exceed company goals and requirements for publishing content. In addition, the complaint stated that the companies set the rate and method of remunerating the site’s editors; site editors have a minimum chance of profit and risk of loss; and their services are an integral part of the company’s operations. Mathews v. USA Today Sports Media Group LLC, No. 22-cv-01407 (EDVa. December 8, 2022).
PRIVATE TENNIS INSTRUCTION COMPANY AND GOLF CLUB RESOLVED TENNIS PRO MISRADITIONAL LAW IN GEORGIA. A professional tennis player working for a private tennis instructional company that provides tennis lessons at an Atlanta golf club has reached a proposed settlement in his misclassification lawsuit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act over alleged failure to pay him minimum wage and overtime compensation. JMG Tennis, Inc. and Ansley Golf Club provide tennis lessons and sponsor tennis leagues and summer tennis camps for golf club members. A professional tennis player on site claimed that he was providing services to both the golf club and tennis at the same time and was being treated by the golf club as a dismissed employee subject to overtime and by the tennis company as an independent contractor. In his complaint, the professional tennis player claimed that as a result of these double misclassifications, the companies deprived him of his overtime allowance for working more than 40 hours a week. Regarding his alleged misclassification as IC, the professional tennis player claimed that he did not solicit clients or advertise his services on his own behalf; he was required to wear clothing with the golden club logo; he has not made any significant investments in his work so as to share any significant risk of loss; was economically dependent on JMG Tennis for sustenance; has been provided with all materials and equipment necessary to provide its services; he had no right to subcontract his work or employ workers; performed services that were an integral part of the activities of JMG Tennis; and had no role in negotiating contracts or settling wages with the members of the club he served. As for any alleged overtime waivers, the tennis player claimed that apprenticeship, administrative or executive exemptions did not apply because he did not perform work requiring advanced knowledge, did not have a primary responsibility to manage a golf club, and d did not supervise two or more employees. Taylor v. Ansley Golf Club Inc. No. 1:22-cv-03048 (Sad Ga. December 21, 2022).
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY ENDS 10-YEAR CLASS ACTION FOR $4.75 MILLION DOLLARS BY DRIVERS’ IC MISCLASSIFICATION IN TENNESSEE. A Tennessee federal district court granted final approval to settle IC’s class action lawsuit for misclassification by truckers against intermodal transportation companies, ending a lawsuit that began a decade earlier. The drivers claimed that Comtrak Logistics, Inc. and HUB Group misclassified them as independent contractors in violation of California law, and the companies owed the drivers damages for unpaid wages, missed meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, and other statutory penalties and damages. The settlement defines two subclasses: one consisting of all group members who have not signed an individual settlement agreement (51 group members); and a second consisting of all group members who had previously signed an individual settlement agreement (632 group members). Class members will receive $4.75 million: first subclasses will receive an average payout of $55,000 ranging from $3,000 to $237,000; those in the second underclass will receive an average of $1,100 in the range of $236 to $3,500. Members of the Second Subclass have already received payments totaling $9 million, with each member previously receiving an average payment of $14,000. Robles v. Comtrak Logistics, Inc. No. 2:15-cv-02228 (WD Tenn. Dec. 14, 2022).
THE NINE CIRCUIT UPONS DECISION THAT 7-ELEVEN CALIFORNIA STORE OWNERS ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a California federal district court ruling that four 7-Eleven franchise store owners are independent contractors. As discussed in more detail in our September 8, 2021 blog post, a California federal judge ruled in favor of 7-Eleven after a lengthy no-jury trial, finding that the franchise store owner was properly classified as an independent contractor and not employees under with applicable California law. Haitian v. 7-Eleven Inc., Case No. 21-56144 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2022).
LAW FIRM SUED BY PARALEGAL FOR MISCLASSIFICATION AFTER TURNING IT INTO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. A paralegal sued an immigration law firm in Georgia federal court seeking violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Compensation due to its alleged misclassification as an IC. The assistant in the complaint claimed that from October 2016 to July 2020, the company treated her as a W-2 employee. She alleged that when she started her second job as a paralegal at the firm from October 2020 to November 2022, she was misclassified as an IC – even though her duties and working hours were no different from her previous role. The assistant asserted in her complaint that the company was always paid on a wage basis without overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; her work did not involve independent discretion; and the company supervised her work and provided her with the work she was doing. Lozano vs Ibrahim & Rao LLP Immigration and Nationality Act, No. 1:22-cv-05024 (S/D Ga. December 21, 2022).
Regulatory initiatives (1 case)
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND IRS RENEW MEMO ARRANGEMENTS FOR LABOR TAX REPORTS. The U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS renewed their “Memorandum of Understanding on Employment Related Tax Referrals” on December 15, 2022 to further improve compliance with laws and regulations administered by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) and Small IRS’s Small Special employment tax unit for businesses/self-employed. A press release issued that day by WHD said the memorandum of understanding added a streamlined joint referral process and tighter coordination to stop companies from misclassifying and denying workers full pay, benefits and protections under the law. WHD said the updated memorandum of understanding is also intended to help WHD share information and work with the IRS to strengthen enforcement of federal and state laws that protect workers’ rights. In a press release, Jessica Looman, Chief Deputy Wage and Hours Administrator, stated: “We are determined to identify and address labor violations by employers who benefit from misclassifying workers as independent contractors and deprive them of the protections of the employment laws we enforce. labor standards. The renewal of our memorandum of understanding with the IRS strengthens our existing partnership by streamlining referral processes and sharing information to help us better serve employees in the country.”
How many people are in the plaid class action lawsuit?
Who is covered by the plaid settlement? Who is part of the Plaid Class Action? The settlement applies to all US residents who have or have had one or more financial accounts that Plaid had access to between January 1, 2013 and November 19, 2021. To see also : Buzz Jacket, FMHS’s Greatest Cheerleader, in Running for National Award.
How many people have applied for a plaid settlement? Plaid users have submitted over a million claims for settlement fund compensation. In addition, the settlement obliges Plaid to make significant changes to its policies and practices that will further benefit all current and future users.
Should I accept class action settlement?
In most cases, it’s a good idea to join a class action lawsuit if you believe you’ve suffered an injury or financial loss caused by the defendant. To see also : Seahawks mentioned for Cam Newton: NFL fans react. However, we recommend that you call us and discuss your situation with one of our class action solicitors before making a decision.
Are there any downsides to joining a class action lawsuit? Yes. While joining a class action lawsuit doesn’t cost you a dime up front, you are waiving your right to pursue individual damages. If your injuries are much worse than other plaintiffs in your group, joining a class action lawsuit could cost you thousands or millions.
Is it better to drop the class action lawsuit? Once an individual chooses to opt out, the class action will likely proceed without them and will no longer be able to claim part of the settlement or award or otherwise be bound by the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, class members rarely see any real benefit from the cases they are involved in.