Month: February 2018
BATTLES V. RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL. (2014)
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 1981, The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Racial Harassment, Racial Discrimination, Reverse Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment
Amicable resolution for single Plaintiff alleging acts of reverse race harassment, reverse race discrimination, sexual harassment by a co-worker, and unlawful retaliation in response to Plaintiff’s complaints of the harassment and discrimination.
Represented by Temple D. Trueblood
HUNTER V. BARBOUR COUNTY SHERIFF MARSHALL , ET AL. (2005)
Title VII, The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sexual Harassment, Sex Discrimination, and Retaliation
$250,157.20 Jury Verdict for single plaintiff—Employee subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, disparate gender discrimination by being subjected to a demotion, and retaliatory termination. (Learn More. . . )
Represented at trial by Temple D. Trueblood and Ann C. Robertson.
EVANS V. WEISER SECURITY (2011)
Title VII, Sexual Harassment, Sex Discrimination, Retaliation, and Negligence
$70,000.00 Jury Verdict for single plaintiff—Employee subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, disparate gender discrimination by being subjected to a demotion, and retaliatory termination. (Learn More. . . )
Represented at trial by Temple D. Trueblood and Henry Brewster.
JONES, ET AL., V., SOUTHERN WINGS FIVE, LLC, D/B/A BUFFALO WILD WINGS (2014)
Multi-plaintiff case, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 1981, Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Racial Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Racial Discrimination, FMLA Violations, ADA Violations, and Retaliation
Currently Representing Plaintiffs in Alabama.
Employees in Northwest Alabama store location allege multiple and ongoing acts of racial harassment, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, FMLA violations, ADA violations and unlawful retaliation by members of management. (Learn More. . .)
JOHNSON, ET AL., V. FOOD GIANT SUPERMARKETS, INC., D/B/A PIGGLY WIGGLY (2014)
Multi-plaintiff case, Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981, Racial Harassment, Race Discrimination, and Retaliation
Currently Representing Plaintiffs in Alabama.
Employees in South Alabama store location allege multiple and ongoing acts of racial harassment, racial discrimination and unlawful retaliation by members of management. (Learn More. . .)
(2014)
TEACHER-STUDENT SEXUAL ABUSE: PLAINTIFFS SEEK CLASS ACTION AGAINST SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND DANIEL ACKER JR.
Attorneys at Wiggins and Childs represent 5 victims of teacher on student sexual abuse and are seeking class action status.
In 1992 the Shelby County Department of Human Resources placed Daniel Acker on a state central registry for having sexual contact with a 11 year old female student. That same year the Shelby County School Board voted him back into the classroom. In 2012 Acker confessed to the conduct in 1992 and having sexual abused other female students during his 17 year tenure for his sexual gratification.
Kristin Hurt and four other plaintiffs requested the judge open the case to
“Any current or former female student during the time period that Dan Acker (Jr.) worked for (the) Shelby County School Board who was either injured, sexually harassed, abused or molested by Dan Acker (Jr.), or who witnessed such conduct or who was exposed to a sexually hostile education environment through Acker’s conduct.”
Attorneys at Wiggins and Childs are actively investigating a lawsuit against Daniel Acker Jr., Shelby County School Board, Lee Doebler, and Steven Martin.
If you have questions or information call 205.314.0577. All calls are confidential.
Jon Goldfarb and Will Smith are the attorneys handling this case.
Brief in Support of Motion to Certify Class
Daniel Acker Jr. Sex Abuse Lawsuit (Alabaster Reporter 04/01/2014)
PLAINTIFFS IN ACKER JR. LAWSUIT SEEK CLASS ACTION STATUS
Attorneys at Wiggins and Childs are actively investigating a lawsuit against Daniel Acker Jr., Shelby County School Board, Lee Doebler, and Steven Martin.
If you have questions or information call 205.314.0577. All calls are confidential.
Jon Goldfarb and Will Smith are the attorneys handling this case.
In a brief filed on Oct. 15 in U.S. District Court, Kristin Hurt and four other plaintiffs requested the judge open the case to
“Any current or former female student during the time period that Dan Acker (Jr.) worked for (the) Shelby County School Board who was either injured, sexually harassed, abused or molested by Dan Acker (Jr.), or who witnessed such conduct or who was exposed to a sexually hostile education environment through Acker’s conduct.”
If the case is granted class action status, all individuals fitting the above description would be able to join as plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit, which was brought against Acker and the Shelby County Board of Education in February.
You can read more about this case at:
Daniel Acker Jr. Sex Abuse Lawsuit (Alabaster Reporter 04/01/2014)
13 INVESTIGATES: Acker lawsuit update (10/21/2013)
Plaintiffs in Acker Jr. Lawsuit seek Class Action Status (Shelby County Reporter) (10/16/2013)
Daniel Acker, Jr. victims request Class Action status for lawsuit (NBC 13) (10/16/2013)
13 INVESTIGATES: Acker Lawsuit Response (NBC 13) (03/27/2013)
Daniel Acker, Jr. asks judge to dismiss victim lawsuit (NBC 13) (03/07/2013)
Daniel Acker, Jr., Shelby County Schools face lawsuit (NBC 13) (02/06/2013)
Fact Check: County worker facing sex charges getting retirement (NBC 13) (08/23/2012)
FORMER TRUSSVILLE HOOTERS SERVERS FILE CLASS ACTION SUIT OVER PAY
Two former Hooters servers at the Trussville location have filed a class action lawsuit against the owner over allegations that the restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standard Act. (Learn More. . . )
Generally employers are required to pay employees minimum wage for every hour worked up to 40 hours a week. Under section 203(m), employers are permitted to take advantage of a “tip credit” in order to meet the federal minimum wage requirements with respect to “tipped employees.” See 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(1)-(2). A “tipped employee” is defined as “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he ‘customarily and regularly’ receives more than $30 a month in tips.” See 29 U.S.C. § 203(t
When the employer pays a server $2.13 per hour they are claiming a “tip credit” of $5.12 per hour. This tip credit amount is based on the difference between minimum wage $7.25 per hour and the $2.13 cash wage paid. Generally, the employer bears the burden of showing it is entitled to this tip credit. Unless the employer satisfies the burden of showing the applicability the tip credit, the employee is entitled to full minimum wage for every hour worked.
29 USC Section 203(m) sets forth the requirements employs must satisfy in order to lawfully claim the “tip credit” in partial satisfaction of the employer’s minimum wage obligation. First, the tip credit may only be claimed for qualified tipped employees; second, the employees must be informed of the provisions of § 203(m); and third, all tips received by the employees must be retained by them. emphasis added See 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). “Where an employer takes the tip credit in connection with a tip pooling arrangement, the application of the credit will only be valid so long as the pool includes only those employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. . . . The requirements of the tip credit are strictly construed even if . . . [plaintiffs] actually earned more than minimum wage for every shift they worked . . . .”
Garcia v. La Revise Assocs. LLC, No. 08-cv-9356, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3325, 2011 WL 135009, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “If tipped employees are required to participate in a tip pool with other employees who do not customarily receive tips, then the tip pool is invalid and the employer is not permitted to take a ‘tip credit.'” Ash v. Sambodromo, LLC, 676 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107184, 20-21 (S.D. Fla. 2009) citing Wajcman v. Investment Corp. of Palm Beach, 620 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1356 n. 3 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203 (m)).
“In determining whether a participating employee is one who ‘customarily and regularly receives tips,’ courts . . . focus on whether the employee in question is ‘part of an occupation that customarily and regularly receives tips’ or whether they have more than ‘de minimis’ interaction with customers as part of their employment.” Id.; see also Kilgore v. Outback Steakhouse, 160 F.3d 294, 301 (6th Cir. 1998). “Where employees’ perform some duties that entail customer service and others that do not [as here], the employees’ level of direct customer interaction is critical to a determination of whether the employee may participate in a mandatory tip pooling arrangement.” Pedigo v. Austin Rumba, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 714, 730 (W.D. Tex. 2010).
Santana v. RCSH Operations, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17355, 6, 2012 WL 463822 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2012)
If the employer fails to meet these requirements, it is not eligible to claim the tip credit, and in such case, the employer must pay each employee the full minimum wage of $7.25 as required under 28 U.S.C.S. § 206. The plain language of 29 U.S.C.S §216 creates a private right of action against any employer who violates 29 U.S.C.S. § 206. Plaintiffs may be entitled to an equal amount in liquidated damages.
Meaning employers could have to pay $10.24 per hour for every hour worked by a server for a two to three year period under invalid tip pool share system. Each person’s damages are different and the period of recovery is based on the date they file a lawsuit. So if an employee files a lawsuit they can go back two year from that date and three if they can demonstrate the violation was willful.
For information related to tip pooling/tip-sharing lawsuits contact the firm by calling 205-314-0500 or by email
WCQP AWARDED BEST LAW FIRM RANKINGS BY US NEWS & WORLD REPORT
Congratulations to Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis LLC for being awarded first-tier rankings in Employment Law-Individuals and Litigation-Labor & Employment!
Another preventive measure to consider is to implement a definitive hiring and termination policy that is compliant with industry-accepted standards.Careful planning can help bring focus to your business environment and, most importantly, help your company avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation.
EMPLOYMENTWCQP ATTORNEYS NAMED SUPER LAWYERS 2012
Super Lawyers rates lawyers by professional achievements and peer based recognition. It is an honor to have several attorneys at Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis once again named to the Super Lawyers list this year.
Learn about the selection process here