Sunday, February 15, 2015

Darden Sue By Servers Alleging Age Discrimination At Season's 52

Clients of the Law Firm of Lowell J. Kuvin were named in a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in an age discrimination lawsuit against restaurant giant Darden, the owner and operator of chain restaurant Season’s 52.

Anthony Scornavacca and Hugo Alfaro, 52 and 49 were denied employment when they applied for server positions at the Season’s 52 location in Coral Gables, Florida. “Scornavacca, who was a server at Joe’s Stone Crab for many seasons, and Alfaro, who has been in the hospitality business for more than two decades, are both highly experienced servers” said their attorney Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq. who filed their EEOC charges of discrimination. “It is beyond reason that Darden’s spokesperson Rich Jeffers said, ‘[w]e are proud of our commitment to diversity’ when both Mr. Scornavacca and Mr. Alfaro, who are both qualified were given cursory employment interviews and then denied employment based upon pre textual reasons.”

After their two year investigation, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination which stated in part that “[t]he evidence, including statistical data, supports a finding that [Season’s 52] engaged in a pattern or practice of not hiring individuals who are over the age of forty at its Season 52 restaurants throughout the United States.” Mr. Kuvin and the EEOC both tried to conciliate Mr. Scornavacca and Alfaro’s claims, however, Darden refused to work with either party and denied any preferential hiring had occurred.

"It is getting harder and harder for hospitality workers over the age of forty to find employment." said attorney Lowell Kuvin. "Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing trend perpetuated by successful restaurant chains such as Houston's/Hillstone's and Season's 52 that front of the house employees such as server and bartenders over the age of 40 do not fit in."

The Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin is law firm dedicated to hospitality worker's rights throughout the United States.

Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Florida Minimum Wage Rate Increases

On January 1, 2015 the Florida Minimum Wage increased from $7.93/hr.  to $8.05/hr. for non-tipped employees and from $4.91/hr. to $5.03/hr. for tipped employees who earn at least $3.02/hr. in tips. The increase will benefit approximately 364,000 low wage workers in the state by adding an additional $300 per year to their $16,500 annual wages.

Florida is joined by 19 states — Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia — that will raise their minimum wage on New Year's Day, and New York — which will do the same Wednesday — boosting wages for a total of 3.2 million workers.

For voters in Florida it is important to know that the increase was NOT the result of legislation or laws passed by representatives in Tallahassee; it was the sheer will of the people. In 2004, by an overwhelming majority, the voters passed the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment (Art. X Sec. 24) which mandates a yearly increase in order to keep the minimum wage on track with inflation.

The Law Office of Lowell J. Kuvin, LLC represents employees in the hospitality industry and other Florida industries in minimum wage claims against employers. Call and speak with an attorney for free.

Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Strippers Win $10 Million Dollar Lawsuit For Tips And Unpaid Wages

NEW YORK -- Dancers at a strip club are due more than $10 million in back wages and tips, a federal judge ruled Friday after the dancers sued to be paid at least a minimum wage.

And additional claims are headed for trial in the class action case, meaning there ultimately could be further awards to roughly 1,900 women who worked at Rick's Cabaret in Manhattan between 2005 and 2012.

"We are very happy with the court's ruling," said the dancers' Minneapolis-based lawyer, E. Michelle Drake.

The club's owner, Houston-based RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc., said it planned to appeal and continue "vigorously defending the allegations."
The dancers got no steady wages, instead paying a fee to the club to perform there and in return getting paid by customers. The customers put up $20 for each personal dance and fees starting at $100 for 15 minutes of entertainment in semi-private rooms.

But after paying club fees and required tips to deejays and other club workers, the dancers sometimes ended up in the red, Drake said.

"There is a real mythology of the wealthy stripper who has made piles of money," she said by phone Friday. "People see all the money that the customers give to the dancers. What they don't see is all the money going back from the entertainer to the club."

The club argued the dancers were independent contractors. Club lawyers also said any wages due to the strippers should be offset by the money they made from customers, called performance fees.

"The concept that the large sums of money earned by entertainers at Rick's Cabaret New York, for which they received IRS Form 1099s, do not offset the claimed wage obligations is a fundamentally flawed concept," RCI Hospitality Holdings said in a statement Friday.

U.S District Judge Paul Engelmayer disagreed, first ruling last year that the dancers were entitled to minimum wage. Then he found Friday that they were entitled to $10.8 million on certain claims.

"There is no charter under (state labor law) for an employer to treat a performance fee as either a 'wage' or as an offset to its statutory wage obligations," he wrote.

Local Florida labor attorney Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq. said "I have seen both sides of the argument of whether the dancers were either employees or independent contractors, there is not any simple answer. The Clubs need to be diligent in how they operate so as not to change the classification of the dancers to being employees."

Friday's ruling covered claims the judge felt could be decided based on court papers alone. The trial will address others. The dancers are seeking more than $18 million in all.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Jimmy John's sandwich shop job application fine print forbids working at another sandwich shop for 2 years after leaving

If you're considering working at a Jimmy John's sandwich shop, you may want to read the fine print on your job application.

A Jimmy John's employment agreement provided to The Huffington Post includes a "non-competition" clause that's surprising in its breadth. Noncompete agreements are typically reserved for managers or employees who could clearly exploit a business's inside information by jumping to a competitor. But at Jimmy John's, the agreement apparently applies to low-wage sandwich makers and delivery drivers, too.

By signing the covenant, the worker agrees not to work at one of the sandwich chain's competitors for a period of two years following employment at Jimmy John's. But the company's definition of a "competitor" goes far beyond the Subways and Potbellys of the world. It encompasses any business that's near a Jimmy John's location and that derives a mere 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches.

From the "Agreement:"

Employee covenants and agrees that, during his or her employment with the Employer and for a period of two (2) years after … he or she will not have any direct or indirect interest in or perform services for … any business which derives more than ten percent (10%) of its revenue from selling submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches and which is located with three (3) miles of either [the Jimmy John's location in question] or any such other Jimmy John's Sandwich Shop.

It isn't clear what sort of trade secrets a low-wage sandwich artist might be privy to that would warrant such a contract. A Jimmy John's spokeswoman said the company wouldn't comment.

The noncompete agreement is now part of a proposed class-action lawsuit filed this summer against Jimmy John's and one of its franchisees. As HuffPost reported in August, Jimmy John's workers recently brought two lawsuits accusing the company of engaging in wage theft by forcing employees to work off the clock.

Last month, the workers filing one of those suits amended their initial federal complaint to argue that the noncompete agreement is overly broad and "oppressive" to employees. (The noncompete language from the franchisee's agreement can be found here, in the online hiring packet for a different Jimmy John's franchisee.)

Kathleen Chavez, the lawyer handling the case, told HuffPost in an email that her two clients named in the complaint were required to sign the agreement as a condition of employment; one is an assistant store manager, the other a former delivery driver and assistant store manager. Chavez argued that, if enforced, the clause would dramatically limit the places a worker could earn a paycheck following a stint at Jimmy John's.

Chavez said the effective blackout area for a former Jimmy John's worker would cover 6,000 square miles in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Founded in 1983, the college-town staple now has more than 2,000 locations.

"It is disturbing this document is being used and it is our position that it has broad impact on thousands of employees," said Chavez, who is a lawyer with the Chicago firm Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil.

Chavez used the example of a student who works at a Jimmy John's in Illinois during high school. Once he leaves for college at the University of Alabama, he has been foreclosed from working just about anywhere in Tuscaloosa that serves a decent share of sandwiches -- including, in theory, the school cafeteria -- because most of those places fall within three miles of a Jimmy John's.

HuffPost knows of no instances in which Jimmy John's has actually enforced this covenant upon a worker, and the company wouldn't necessarily be successful if it tried.

But it's not unheard of for a sandwich chain to enforce a noncompete clause. Last year, a former Subway manager accused her old employer of trying to block her from starting a new job at another sandwich shop, citing a clause the manager signed in 2009.

The effectiveness of noncompetition agreements varies from state to state. If the worker fights the clause in court, the company generally needs to demonstrate that it's legitimately trying to protecting itself, and that the clause is reasonable and wouldn't put an undue burden on a worker.

"A guy who's putting a piece of roast beef between two pieces of rye bread -- the challenge for the employer is to show what the hell this person knows that will hurt you," said one expert on noncompete agreements, who asked not to be named since he isn't involved in the case.

"Without making a judgment about Jimmy John's, I would say the lower you go down the food chain of employees, the question becomes a little more pressing: What is your legitimate business reason here?"

A company in this position may feel there's little to lose by inserting such language into an agreement. Even if the clause failed to hold up in court, the very possibility of limited employment opportunities could dissuade certain workers from rocking the boat -- like, say, those who are trying to unionize their Jimmy John's sandwich shop.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Kansas Supreme Court FedEx Ground Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors! Ruling May Have Implications For Workers At Franchise Restaurants.

New Ruling: FedEx Ground Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors! Kansas Supreme Court
Are you a contractor or employee
Employees not contractors!
Ruling May Have Implications For Workers At Franchise Restaurants.

479 Kansas FedEx Ground delivery drivers working for FedEx as independent contractors sued FedEx alleging they were improperly classified as independent contractors under Kansas law. The drivers are seeking to recoup retroactive costs and expenses, as well as overtime.

FedEx has faced multiple class actions across the country by both current and former drivers who signed contracts with FedEx between 1998 and 2007. Drivers say that the shipping giant classified them as independent contractors, but forced them to buy their own uniforms and equipment, while also controlling minute details of their appearance and behavior, with specific guidelines for hygiene and body odor.

Factors the court considered included: how much training the delivery company provided the drivers and how the drivers’ work hours were set, FedEx’s requirements of drivers to comply with its instructions, and how integrated the drivers’ services were to FedEx’s business

The justices also emphasized that FedEx provides "manuals, handbooks, memoranda, training videos, and other means of communication that direct that manner and means of delivering packages."
     "In short, the plaintiff drivers are integrated into FedEx's business to the highest degree possible," the 49-page ruling states.

The Kansas opinion could influence not only the decision of the Seventh Circuit court, but also other similar lawsuits against FedEx in other courts around the country.

Does Fedex sound like a restaurant you work for?
Find out if you are an employee or an independent contractor at today.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Overtime and Construction Workers – What are the laws in Florida?

Construction workers in Florida are entitled to overtime, one-and-half times the regular wage, for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work week. The exemptions provided by FLSA Section 13(a)(1) do not apply to manual laborers or other “blue collar” workers, including non-management construction workers, who perform work involving repetitive operations with their hands, physical skill and energy.

Such nonexempt “blue collar” employees gain the skills and knowledge required for performance of their routine manual and physical work through apprenticeships and on-the-job training, not through the prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction required for exempt learned professional employees. 

Non-management construction employees in production, maintenance and similar occupations such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, craftsmen, operating engineers, longshoremen, construction workers and laborers are entitled to minimum wage and overtime premium pay under the FLSA, and are not exempt no matter how highly paid they might be. 

Common overtime issues include: (1) Failure to record all hours actually worked to include time spent working before or after the shift. (2) Shorting of hours by using terms such as down time or rain delay. (3) Failure to compensate for meal breaks where the employee is not completely relieved of all duties to enjoy uninterrupted time for the meal. (4) "Banking" of overtime hours or payment of overtime in the form of "comp time". (5) Failure to combine the hours worked for overtime purposes by an employee in more than one job classification for the same employer within the same workweek. (6) Failure to segregate and pay overtime hours on a workweek basis when employees are paid on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis. (7) Failure to pay for travel from shop to work-site and back. Contractors and sub-contractors working at construction sites are usually paid according the contracts/bids they make to complete a part of the project or the job.

Make sure you are being properly paid for ALL of the hours you work each week by keeping a separate record of time you clock in for work, your lunch breaks, and the time you clock out each day. If you are not being properly paid, call us to discuss your options.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

McDonald’s labor decision is important for workers in the US

"Why the McDonald’s labor decision is important for workers in the US", 23 Aug 2014

Last month, the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which settles labor disputes in the U.S., decided for the first time that when considering labor complaints at McDonald’s franchises, it would deem the chain jointly responsible. A variety of observers have noted how this is an important breakthrough for fast food workers — one that prevents the multinational corporation from palming off labor abuses on bad-apple franchisees. But the implications are much wider than that...Today a huge number of in jobs that are temporary, freelance or outsourced...Our labor laws have yet to catch up to this new reality. Yet employees’ ability to form collective organizations, protect their rights and create fair working standards is directly connected to how we resolve this issue...The issue of employer of record — finding out which boss to hold accountable when there are multiple central in determining whether working people are able to organize in our new economy. If we are ever to bring legal protections in line with today’s economy, expanding on the McDonald’s decision and rejecting corporations’ efforts to evade responsibility for labor abuses must be a first step...As a next step, labor law needs to catch up to conditions that working people in the U.S. have put up with for decades.