|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 3545 | Employment | 07/13/2004
A national class action filed against health and beauty company Avon Products, Inc., on behalf of independent sales representatives, has been revived by an appellate court after being dismissed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that Avon artificially boosted its financial performance by "channel stuffing " -- forcing independent sales representatives to pay for unordered products even after the shipments are returned to Avon, in violation of California unfair competition and business practices laws. The action seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiff Raven Blakemore, Robin Smith, Lupe Lane, and Elda Garcia accuses Avon of shipping products that its independent sales representatives never ordered, then dunning the sales rep for payment, even if the representative returned the unordered goods to Avon. The lawsuit also alleges that Avon immediately accounts for the unordered shipments as revenues. On June 24, 2004, after considering arguments made by counsel for both sides, the Court of Appeals ordered the Superior Court to either vacate its March 16 and June 1 rulings and enter new rulings in favor of the plaintiffs, or convince the Court of Appeals that it should not have to do so. This means that the case will now go forward in the trial court under the presumption that there is a valid claim for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and unfair competition. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Employment Cases of Interest When American citizens have problems overseas, it is normally a matter for diplomats, not the U.S. court system, but there are exceptions. A class action has been filed against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the General Organization of Social Insurance, an agency of that government, on behalf of American workers who allege that they are being denied benefits by the Saudi government that they were promised in payment for in-country construction and development of Saudi Arabia.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District Court of Mississippi against Levis Strauss & Co for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments. Class members seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs of the litigation. A collective action has been filed in Alabama against the Oxford City Board of Education on behalf of all former and current employees who have worked in excess of 40 hours a week, but who have not been paid overtime by the board. The action is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and is seeking back pay as damages.
On September 30, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana certified a class of current and former employees of IPALCO, Inc. in an action against the company seeking compensation for losses to class members' 401(k) retirement funds. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in any public establishment, if that establishment has a connection to interstate commerce. A national class action has been filed against the Boeing Company and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation by African-American employees who allege the airplane manufacturers violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against them based on their status as African-Americans. Federal civil rights legislation prohibits discrimination based on gender, age, race, and national origin. The parties have reached a $3.5 million voluntary pre-litigation settlement in an enforcement action based on complaints that national hair salon chain Supercuts, Inc. engaged in racial discrimination. The agreement will provide relief to African Americans meeting certain qualifying criteria who applied to, were terminated from, or denied promotions by Supercuts Stores in its Eastern Region between November 1996 and December 2001. Eligible claimants should contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for information on how to take part in the sesttlement. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
