jps@spencerlaw.net Contact us Today. Se habla Español.     (949) 240-8595

Blog

/ Blog

Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against Whole Foods

When unjust actions are taken against employees by employers, the workers may feel understandably distressed by their situations. If individuals faced retaliation in the form of wrongful termination or other negative actions for speaking out against unfair business practices, they may wish to consider their class action legal options.

It was recently reported that nine former managers of various Whole Foods locations have filed a class action lawsuit against the company due to what they believe was retaliation. The managers had spoken out against an alleged company practice that involved not paying employees bonuses that they had earned through Whole Foods’ “Gainsharing” program. As a result of calling out the company on this practice, the nine individuals were investigated and subsequently dismissed from their positions.

The former employees believe that the internal investigation conducted was a “sham,” and they are pursuing legal action as a result of their wrongful terminations. Whole Foods also stands accused of defamation as the company reported that the managers themselves were stealing bonuses from other employees. Each plaintiff is hoping to obtain $25 million in compensation for damages.

Staying quiet when it comes to questionable practices carried out by companies may seem like the easy way out. However, allowing these practices to continue may cause workers to face considerable hardships. If California residents have spoken out against issues within their work environments and were retaliated against, they may wish to explore their options for seeking legal action of their own. Information on class action lawsuits and other relevant information may prove useful, and interested parties may wish to contact the Spencer Law Firm for assistance.

McDonald’s Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Meal Pricing

A Chicago McDonald’s is facing a class-action lawsuit over its pricing of their “Extra Value Meal.” A Des Plaines man is alleging that the items bundled together in the Extra Value Meal package actually cost $0.41 less when sold separately.

James Gertie filed his lawsuit in the Cook County Circuit Court against McDonald’s and Karis Management Company, which owns and operates more than 10 McDonald’s restaurants in the Chicago area, according to the Cook County Record.

According to the lawsuit, the Extra Value Meal package, which includes two cheeseburgers, a medium order of French fries, and a medium drink, costs $5.90. However, when sold separately, two cheeseburgers sell for $2.50, the fries sell for $1.99, and the drink sells for $1 — a total of $5.49. Gertie purchased the Extra Value Meal at more than five of Karis Management’s restaurants before filing suit.

The lawsuit alleges consumer fraud and deceptive practices. Gertie’s lawyers, Paul F. Markoff and Karl G. Leinberger, of Markoff Leinberger LLC, have asked the court to expand the suit into a class action lawsuit to benefit all the other customers who were overcharged on their purchases. This potentially includes hundreds of people who have made purchases in the McDonald’s of Des Plaines, Niles, Wheeling, Antioch, Grayslake, Volo, and others. The plaintiff is seeking reimbursement to all customers who were overcharged, as well as punitive damages and lawyer fees.

James Gertie, a bus driver, says that the suit is not about the 41 cents, but about honesty.

For more information on class action lawsuits, just contact us.

Former Disney Employees File Class Action Claiming Racial Discrimination in H-1B Case

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that 30 laid-off Disney workers are filing a class-action suit against their former employer, alleging racial discrimination surrounding their termination of employment. The premise is that the primarily white male employees were replaced by H-1B work visa holders from India who were willing to work the same jobs for lower wages and benefits. The theory behind the lawsuit is unique, to say the least.

The incident took place a couple of years ago, when 250 employees of Disney’s IT department were informed that they would be laid off and replaced by the H-1B visa holders. To add insult to injury, the laid-off workers were told to train their replacements and that their severance packages would depend on their maintaining a “positive attitude.” Disney claimed that a number of other job opportunities were opened for the laid-off employees, something that is under dispute, even though some have been rehired.

A similar class action, alleging a RICO violation to violate immigration laws, was thrown out by the courts earlier. While the H-1B program is meant to find foreign workers to fill jobs for whom domestic workers are unavailable and not replace domestic workers, Disney and the outsourcing firm it used seems to have found a loophole allowing them to do what they did.

Disney is denying that racial discrimination took place but rather their decision to terminate the 250 employees was solely based on cost-cutting concerns. The question may revolve around whether the plaintiffs can prove intent or, failing that, the effect is sufficient to prove racial discrimination. The employees are demanding back pay and benefits with interest and reinstatement at a similar job.

For more information contact us.

Consumer Rights: Allstate settles a false advertising lawsuit in California

The San Diego Union-Tribune recently reported that district attorneys in three counties in California had reached a $600 million settlement in a false advertising lawsuit against the insurance giant Allstate. At issue was Allstate’s advertising claims that it offers accident forgiveness for its line of automobile insurance policies. The problem is that Allstate neglected to mention sufficiently that this feature is not available in the state of California, where it has been prohibited, thanks to the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988.

The ads started in 2012 and reached 90 percent of California households, including Spanish-speaking ones in the state. Even though the ads offered a small disclaimer at the bottom of the TV screen, the district attorneys decided that it was insufficient and in violation of consumer rights and therefore filed suit. California law states that material facts in an ad have to be clear and conspicuous, which the disclaimer was not.

The settlement, typical of such things, allowed Allstate not to admit to liability while paying $75,000 in investigative costs and $525,000 in civil liability. The company decided that paying the money up front would be better for its bottom line than going to trial and risking having to pay an even larger settlement.

The suit and its result should serve as a warning for companies that think using fine print will protect them from false advertising litigation. States such as California have started to judge this practice as false advertising even though, technically, correct information is given in the ad.

For more information contact us.

Los Angeles Man Sues Krispy Kreme for False Advertising on the Fruit Content of Donuts

According to a recent story in Fortune, a Los Angeles man named Jason Saidian has filed suit against the Krispy Kreme Doughnut Company in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Saidian is claiming that the firm is engaged in false advertising false advertising concerning some of the ingredients in its doughnuts and is asking for class-action status for his suit and $5 million.

At issue is the advertising Krispy Kreme conducts for some of its doughnuts, specifically the “Glazed Raspberry Filled,” “Maple Bar,” and “Glazed Blueberry Cake” varieties. Saidian asserts that these doughnuts do not actually contain raspberry, maple, or blueberry but rather artificial ingredients that mimic the taste of these natural substances. Hence, the false advertising charge. He further asserts that KrispyKreme has used real fruit in its glazed lemon-filled and glazed strawberry-filled doughnuts, compounding the confusion.

Saidian also suggests that he and other customers have been cheated of the health benefits that real raspberries and blueberries impart, especially against heart disease and cancer. The idea that doughnuts in any form could be healthy is a bold one to make, considering the starch and sugar the confection contains.

The plaintiff claims that had he or any other customer known that these varieties of doughnuts did not contain real fruit, they would have been less likely to buy them or, at the very least, they would have sold at a lower price. Krispy Kreme, in accordance with its policy concerning ongoing litigation, is refusing to comment at this time.

For more information contact us.

Class-Action Filed Against Comcast for Confusing Fees on Cable Bills

Recently, according to Wired, a group of eight Comcast customers filed a class-action lawsuit against the cable giant. At issue is Comcast’s practice of tacking on a variety of fees and surcharges to its base bill, often so confusing that customers cannot ascertain whether they are legitimate or not. The plaintiffs claim that Comcast is engaged in deceptive advertising by promising to charge a fixed monthly rate but instead adding a variety of concealed fees that jacked up the cost of cable their service. The cable company denies this allegation, maintaining that it does inform customers up front that it includes a variety of taxes and fees in the fine print of its contracts.

The class action, whose outcome is uncertain, has been filed as the Federal Communications Commission is starting to take a more serious look at the practice of adding fees that customers often find confusing. The lawsuit, even if it does not succeed in a court of law, may inspire federal, state, and local governments to step in and reform the practice that cable customers find maddening.

The cause of the problem has been a dearth of competition for cable services in many markets. Companies like Comcast engage in practices like tacked-on fees because they can get away with it. Changing cable providers can be a challenging and disruptive process, involving swapping out home equipment and ascertaining competing plans that may be confusing and with details obscured in the fine print. One reform may be to facilitate both competition and transparency in home cable services, the better to disincentivize predatory pricing practices.

For more information contact us.

Employment law and the sick or injured: Have you been unlawfully terminated?

Becoming ill or being injured is difficult and stressful under any circumstance. Unfortunately, some employers choose to break the law and throw unlawful termination into the mix.

Employees in California are protected from discrimination that is a result of a medical condition. There are federal and state laws in place ensuring employees receive fair and just treatment by their employer if they become sick or injured.

The Spencer Law Firm helps people like you navigate the intricate laws that govern employment and illness/injury every day.

Because there are certain filing requirements before a case is eligible to be filed in a court of law, we encourage you to contact us immediately. In California victims of wrongful termination are required to file with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH). Both agencies have very strict time limit requirements. If you wait too long to file you will not be allowed to move forward with your case.

There are times when filing a case in state court would be more advantageous to you. At The Spencer Law Firm we will work with you to determine if you have a viable case. We will help you determine if a federal court or state court would be the ideal venue for you to present your case.

It is important to remember to refrain from doing things like “trashing” your former employer on social media. Such missteps can doom a case before it even starts.

We encourage you to contact our Employment Law legal team to guide you through this very complicated process and help you avoid common mistakes that could destroy your case.

Employment Law: Meal and Rest Breaks, a Brief Overview

California employment law sets forth the circumstances under which employers must provide meal and rest breaks to employees and under what circumstances those breaks must be paid.

Employees must be given at least a ten minute paid rest break for every four hours, “or major fraction thereof”, of work. Anything over two hours is considered a major fraction of four. Employees who work at least six hours, but not more than ten, are entitled to a second paid rest break.

For meals, an employer must provide at least a thirty-minute break to an employee once the employee has worked five hours. This meal break need not be paid, but the employee must be relieved of all work duties during that time and must be free to leave the employer’s premises. If an employee works six hours or less a day, the employee can waive, or give up, the right to a meal break if the employer agrees.

An employee who works ten or more hours in a day is entitled to a second unpaid meal break of at least thirty minutes. The break must be provided no later than the end of the tenth hour of work. If not working more than twelve hours in a day, an employee may, with employer consent, waive the second meal break. The employee may not waive both meal breaks in one day, however.

If the nature of the work is such that it prevents an employee from taking a break from all duties, employers must provide a paid, on-duty meal period, compensated at the employee’s regular rate of pay. The employee and employer must agree, in writing, to on-duty meal breaks. The employee is free to revoke the agreement, in writing, at any time.

If an employer fails to provide legally required breaks, or if an employer fails to pay for those breaks when it is legally required to do so, it faces penalties and the payment of back wages to the wronged employee. To learn more, contact us.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Fiasco is Attracting Several Class Actions

Samsung has managed to create a smartphone, the Galaxy Note 7, that turned out to be an IED that you can put in your pocket. The phone, the latest in the Samsung line, exhibited a tendency to catch on fire spontaneously. The phone was banned from airlines. Finally, two months after the Galaxy Note 7 was rolled out, Samsung ended production of the phone and began a massive recall. But, according to CNBC, what is turning out to be the costliest tech product failure in history is just the beginning of Samsung’s woes.

Three Galaxy Note 7 customers have filed in federal court in New Jersey, signaling their intention of slapping Samsung with a class action lawsuit. At issue is the fact that some weeks passed between the time the company told its customers to discontinue using the smartphones and the time they were given replacements. In the meantime, Samsung customers were charged monthly plan charges for devices they could not use.

The New Jersey class action is not the only litigation that has arisen from the Galaxy Note 7 fiasco. BRG notes that another action has been filed in Samsung’s home country of South Korea. Attorneys at a Seoul law firm have filed suit on behalf of 527 Galaxy Note 7 customers alleging economic hardship as a result of the fiasco. The company is alleged to have replaced the Galaxy Note 7s with replacement phones that then also had to be recalled and replaced. The plaintiffs are asking for about $400 each. The suit is said to be just the first of many in South Korea arising out of the catastrophe.

For more information contact us.

Know Your Rights When It Comes To Identity Theft

Identity theft is a widespread, and it can happen to anyone. However, there is no need to panic. You do have rights when it comes to identity theft. You just have to know them and act on them. So, when someone starts using your information to open new accounts or get services, here is what you do.

First Steps:

Start with going to the FTC homepage and reporting the theft. Once you have the report in hand, you can use it to make credit bureaus put a 7-year extended fraud alert on your account. That means that the creditor has to alert you whenever someone opens a line of credit in your name. The bureaus will also issue a 90-day initial fraud alert, which tells creditors to take reasonable steps to verify that it is you that is opening lines of credit in your name.

Most importantly, having the identity theft report means that credit bureaus have to take fraudulent information off your reports. Give creditors and debt collectors the identity theft reports, too, as this will stop them from reporting fraudulent accounts to the bureaus.

Rights:

You have the right to copies of documents concerning the theft, and any debt collectors have to provide you with written information about any debt. You can get debt collectors to stop contacting you about any debts.

Financial Protection:

Under federal law, your financial losses are limited by the amount of time it takes for you to report the theft. If you report it before any unauthorized purchases are made, you are safe from any charges. If someone steals your credit card, the most that the card providers can charge you is $50.

The ATM or debit card is a little more complicated. If someone used your debit card number, you won’t be charged for anything if you report the theft within 60 days of getting your statement. Someone using your ATM card is different: if you report it within 2 business days after you learn of the theft, you are liable for $50. If you wait up to 60 days, you are liable for $500. After 60 days, your financial liability goes through the roof. Reporting earlier is better.

Californian’s Rights:

Here in California, you can report the theft to the local police department, and the officer you make your report to will probably give you forms for requesting information from credit bureaus. If the officer doesn’t, you can get the forms at the OAG website on the Consumer Information Sheet 3A: Requesting Information on Fraudulent Accounts page.

California allows you to freeze your accounts so no bureau can share your information without your permission. This is highly recommended, and you can learn how to do this at CIS 10: How to Freeze Your Credit Files page.

As you can see, you have protections and rights when it comes to this kind of fraud. If you are a victim of identity theft, contact us. We will help you get back your peace of mind.

Copyright © 2025 The Spencer Law Firm TM - All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy