Wabtec Investigation:  Rail Industry Employees Potentially Impacted by No Poach Agreements

We are investigating allegations that Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. “Wabtec,” Faiveley Transport S.A. “Faiveley” (acquired by Wabtec in November 2016), Knorr-Bremse AG “Knorr,” and their related subsidiaries entered into improper no poach agreements since approximately 2009.

Wabtec, Faiveley and Knorr allegedly agreed not to poach, solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete for each other’s skilled employees, including project managers, engineers, and directors/officers.  As a result, qualified candidates lost job opportunities and may have affected employees’ wages.  No poach agreements also held back competition in the market for these employees.

The US Department of Justice investigated this issue and filed a complaint against Wabtec and Knorr.  Wabtec and Knorr are two of the world’s largest suppliers of rail equipment and are each other’s top rival.  Wabtec and Knorr entered into similar no poach agreements with their other main competitor, Faiveley.

Following an investigation, the US Department of Justice found that no poach agreements were illegal and that employees were financially harmed.  On April 3, 2018, the DOJ issued a proposed final judgment and settlement with the defendants. Each defendant agreed to stop “attempting to enter into, entering into, maintaining, or enforcing any No-Poach Agreement or No-Poach Provision.”   The settlement did not order defendants to pay anything to the employees who had been harmed by no poach agreements.

If you worked for Wabtec, Faiveley, Knorr, or a subsidiary of those companies (including Wabtec Passenger Transit, Faiveley Transport North America, Knorr Brake Company, or New York Air Brake Corp.), between January 1, 2009 and April 3, 2018 you may have been injured by this unlawful conduct and may be entitled to compensation.

Contact Partner Joel Hurt for a free consultation to find out whether you have a No Poach Agreement claim and, if so, how we can help.

Equifax Data Breach Affects One in Three U.S. Citizens

On September 7, 2017, Equifax, one of the nation’s largest credit reporting agencies, announced a major data breach of highly sensitive personal identifying information of approximately 143 million U.S. citizens.  This means that 1 in 3 Americans may be victims of the Equifax data breach.  As a result, hackers may have their names, social security numbers, birth dates, driver’s license numbers, addresses, and other sensitive personal information; and this puts those affected by the Equifax data breach at substantial risk for identity theft. 

Although this data breach is one of the largest data breaches in U.S. History, Equifax stated that it will directly notify only a few hundred thousand out of the 143 million potential victims so it is likely that Equifax may not notify you if your personal sensitive information was breached. 

If you have a credit report, there’s a good chance you are one of the American consumers whose sensitive personal information was exposed in the data breach.  You will have to take action to find out if you are a victim of the Equifax data breach.  State and federal laws provide important protections to people whose personal information is maintained by credit reporting agencies, which have a special duty to protect consumers’ private information.  These laws protect consumer privacy and allow consumers to learn who has provided or has obtained access to their personal information.

Our law firm is committed to fighting for the rights of consumers and in protecting the public from deceptive commercial practices.  We are investigating a potential class action to compel Equifax to notify people if they are victims of this data breach, and to compensate them for any harm they suffer as a result.

Please contact Partners Joe Kravec or Jim Pietz for a free consultation to find out whether you have an Equifax data breach claim and, if so, how we can help.

IMPORTANT:  Equifax created a website for consumers to determine whether their information was stolen.  If Equifax confirms that your information was stolen, it immediately invites you to register for one year of a credit protection service.  If you register for that service, you will be required to waive your right to participate in a class action lawsuit or to prosecute your claim in any manner. 

PennDOT Defendants Not Immune to Suit for Unpaid Wages

Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC won a significant legal victory on October 7, 2016 when its opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss carried the day in an unpaid wages class action against PennDOT (Williams, et al. v. Richards, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00525).

The ruling by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly (PennDOT Opinion) sided with the brief in opposition authored by FDPK Partner Pamina Ewing, finding that Defendants were not entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because they had been sued in their individual capacities.

Ms. Ewing, along with FDPK Partners Edward J. Feinstein and Deborah K. Marcuse and co-counsel Kevin W. Tucker of the Darren K. Parr Law Firm, represents the Plaintiffs in Williams, a group of PennDOT employees who brought a class action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act against four PennDOT officials.

“We’re gratified that the court has made clear that defendants can’t shield themselves from paying these state employees for the overtime they legitimately worked by claiming immunity under the 11th Amendment,” said Ms. Marcuse, quoted in a Law360 article by Dan Packel. “Plaintiffs are now prepared to go forward with proving their case.”

Click here to review the complete Law360 article (subscription required): https://www.law360.com/employment/articles/849476/penndot-officials-not-covered-by-11th-amendment-judge-says

If you have questions about whether you are owed unpaid wages, please contact Ed Feinstein or Deborah Marcuse.

FDPK’s Deborah Marcuse wins Class Certification in $250 Million Sex Discrimination Case

U.S. District Court Certifies Female Sales Representative’s Nationwide Equal Pay Act Sex Discrimination Case Against Pharma Behemoth Merck & Co., Inc.

Deborah Marcuse, co-lead counsel in $250 million sex discrimination lawsuit

The women in Smith, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 3:13-cv-02970 (D.N.J.), a $250 million gender bias class action, scored a victory on April 27, 2016.  Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey conditionally certified a class of current and former female sales representatives challenging sex discrimination.  This important ruling paves the way for thousands of women throughout the country to join the lawsuit.

Click here to review the Smith v. Merck Memorandum Opinion.

Judge Shipp’s ruling concluded that “[t]he information submitted by Plaintiffs shows that the sales representatives had similar responsibilities; that named plaintiffs were paid less than some allegedly similarly situated males; and that compensation decisions, although based in part on input from some direct managers, were finalized by a central, common office.”  The Court also cited statistical evidence the Plaintiffs had submitted that demonstrated that female sales reps earned on the average 1.4% less per year than males in the same roles.  Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the lawsuit should go forward as a collective action.

Deborah K. Marcuse of Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC is co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs and the class in Smith v. Merck, as well as another nationwide gender class action filed on behalf of female sales representatives at Forest Pharmaceuticals.  That case, Barrett et al. v. Forest Laboratories, et al. (SDNY), was conditionally certified in 2015.

If you are concerned that your employer is not paying you the same as your male counterparts for performing the same duties, please contact Edward Feinstein or Deborah Marcuse for a confidential consultation.

Posted by Deborah K. Marcuse.

Third Circuit Decision —  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Revives Borrower Class Action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Click here to read the Third Circuit Decision:  Salvati v. Deutsche-Bank Decision

July 29, 2014.  In Salvati v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, N.A., et al., the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed U.S. District Court Judge Schwab’s March 28, 2013 Order dismissing all claims.

The Third Circuit decision reinstated a class action alleging that Deutsche Bank and Bank of America Home Loans Servicing had violated state (PA Loan Interest and Protection Law) and federal consumer protection laws (FDCPA:  Fair Debt Consumer Protection Act) in connection with handling of residential mortgage foreclosure proceedings.

The Third Circuit held that Judge Schwab had correctly dismissed certain claims because the plaintiff had never alleged that he had paid any fee.  The Third Circuit decision remanded (sent the case back for reconsideration) the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to consider the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim and PA Loan Interest and Protection Law claim.  These consumer protection laws provide that the plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees regardless of whether he or she had paid the unlawful fee.

Posted by McKean J. Evans, Esquire.

The Supreme Court Decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. issued June 23, 2014 Impacts Future Class Actions.

The Supreme Court’s June 23, 2014 decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. upheld the “fraud on the market” theory it had previously established in Basic Inc. v. Levinson.

What is “fraud on the market”?  The fraud on the market theory permits plaintiffs in securities class actions to show that a defendant’s misrepresentation impacted its stock price uniformly throughout the market.  This makes it easier to demonstrate that investors had relied on those misrepresentations.  It would be virtually impossible for investors to bring securities fraud claims as class actions without the fraud on the market theory.

The Halliburton litigation was initiated more than a decade ago when a class of plaintiffs cited the fraud on the market presumption as part of their petition for class certification in order to demonstrate that classmembers had relied upon the defendant’s financial statements and projections.  The classmembers alleged that Halliburton had misrepresented material facts to investors by understating its projected liability for asbestos claims, overstating its revenues and exaggarating costs savings related to a merger.

Haliburton argued strongly for the Supreme Court to overrule Basic and to do away with the fraud on the market theory.  Instead, the Supreme Court held that the original decision in Basic was settled law and that Halliburton had failed to demonstrate the “special justification” required for overturning such a precedent.

The Supreme Court ruled that defendants in securities fraud cases were free to offer evidence that a particular misrepresentation did not uniformly impact its stock price in order to prove their case.  The Supreme Court’s decision does not give securities defendants a new right.  They have always been able to argue at various points that their supposed fraud did not affect share prices. The Halliburton Opinion clarifies that defendants can use those arguments to oppose class certification.

To review Opinion:  June 23 2014 Halliburton Opinion

To review Syllabus:  June 23 2014 Halliburton Syllabus

Posted by McKean Evans, Esquire

Purchasers of Bear Naked Food Products May be Affected by Class Action Lawsuit

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has certified a Class of California residents who purchased Bear Naked food products in California on or after September 21, 2007 allegedly mislabeled as being “100% Natural” or “100% Pure & Natural.”

Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC Partner Joe Kravec serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Bear Naked Food Products lawsuit.
 
The certified Class involves claims that Bear Naked misbranded certain food products by labeling those products as “100% Natural” or “100% Pure & Natural” but which contain Hexane-Processed Soy Ingredients. The products include the following:
 

Heavenly Chocolate Granola
Peak Protein Original Granola
Peak Energy Cranberry Almond Trail Mix
Peak Energy Chocolate Cherry Trail Mix
Fruit & Nut Soft-Baked Granola Cookies
Double Chocolate Granola Cookies

 
The Court excludes purchasers who bought Bear Naked food products for resale.
 
Click here to read the Court’s Order certifying the Bear Naked Food Products Class:
 
Bear Naked Order Certifying Class
 
Click here to review the Court-ordered Notice:
 
Bear Naked Notice
 
If you are a California resident who purchased Bear Naked food products in California, you have a choice whether to stay in the Bear Naked Food Products Class, and you must decide this now. To stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything. If money or benefits are obtained, notice will be publicized about how members of the Class may ask for a share of the money. You will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue about the legal claims in that case.

If you do not wish to remain in the Class, you may exclude yourself by sending a letter or by completing a Bear Naked Exclusion form and mailing it to the following address:

If you exclude yourself from the Class, you cannot get any of the money or benefits from the lawsuit if any are awarded, but you will keep any rights to sue about these claims and will not be bound by any orders or judgments in that case.
 

The exclusion form or your letter must be postmarked by January 27, 2014, and you must say that you want to be excluded from Thurston, et al. v. Bear Naked, Inc. You must also include your name, address and telephone number. 

 
Please note that Bear Naked denies that it did anything wrong and asserts that its labels were truthful and consistent with the law. The Court has not decided whether the plaintiffs or defendant is right. A trial is set to begin on February 11, 2014.
 
For more information, call toll free 1-855-465-0348 or visit www.bearnakedfalseadvertisingclassaction.com.

 

Purchasers of Kashi Food Products May be Affected by Class Action Lawsuit

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has certified two Classes of California residents who purchased Kashi food products in California allegedly mislabeled as being “All Natural” or containing “Nothing Artificial.”

Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC Partner Joe Kravec serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Kashi Food Products lawsuit.
 
The certified “Nothing Artificial” Class involves claims that Kashi misbranded certain food products by labeling those products as containing “Nothing Artificial” despite containing one or more of the following artificial ingredients: Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Alpha-Tocopherol Acetate, or Hexane-Processed Soy Ingredients.

 
The certified “All Natural” Class involves claims that Kashi misbranded certain food products by labeling those products as being “All Natural” despite containing one or more of the following ingredients: Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Calcium Pantothenate, or Hexane-Processed Soy Ingredients.

 
The Court excludes purchasers who bought the Nothing Artificial Products or the All Natural Products for resale and anyone with a conflict of interest.
 
Click here to read the Court’s Order certifying the Kashi Food Products Classes:

Kashi Order re Motion for Class Certification
 
Click here to review the Court-ordered Notice and to review the list of products that are included in the classes:

Kashi Notice
 
If you are a California resident who purchased Kashi food products in California, you have a choice whether to stay in the Kashi Food Products Classes, and you must decide this now. To stay in the Classes, you do not have to do anything. If money or benefits are obtained, notice will be publicized about how members of the Classes can ask for a share of the money. You will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue about the legal claims in that case.

 
If you do not wish to remain in either of the Classes, you may exclude yourself by sending a letter or completing an Kashi Exclusion Form and mailing it to the following address:

If you exclude yourself from the Classes, you cannot get any of the money or benefits from the lawsuit if any are awarded, but you will keep any rights to sue about these claims and will not be bound by any orders or judgments in that case.
 

The exclusion form or your letter must be postmarked by January 27, 2014, and you must say that you want to be excluded from Astiana, et al. v. Kashi Company. You must also include your name, address and telephone number. 

Please note that Kashi denies that it did anything wrong and asserts that its labels were truthful and consistent with the law. The Court has not decided whether the plaintiffs or defendant is right. A trial is set to begin on February 11, 2014. 
 
For more information, call toll free 1-855-465-0348 or visit www.Kashifalseadvertisingclassaction.com.

 

Pension Benefits – United Refining Company Class Action Summary Judgment Opinion

Two former employees of United Refining Company, represented by Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC attorneys Tybe Brett and Joel Hurt, obtained judgment in their favor in a pension benefits class action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The former employees had worked for United Refining Company in Warren, Pennsylvania for years, but left the company prior to their retirement age.  At the time they left the company, each was promised unreduced pension benefits at their early retirement age.  One of the former employees received an unreduced benefit for more than a decade before being informed that his benefit would stop and he would owe the plan more than $14,000.
 
The former employees brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other former employees whose employment also terminated prior to retirement, a category referred to as “terminated vested participants.”  The lawsuit alleged that United Refining violated federal law by reducing or “cutting back” the terminated vested participants’ accrued pension benefits.
 
Both sides moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts entitled them to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is used during civil litigation to promptly dispose of a matter without a trial.
 
On April 8, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Erie Division, ruled in favor of the two named plaintiffs. To review the Court’s Order, please click here:  United Refining Summary Judgment Opinion
 
The Court found that, from 1995 to 2002, the administrator of the pension plan consistently interpreted the relevant plan language to provide unreduced early retirement pension benefits to terminated vested participants. 
 
The court rejected United Refining’s argument that the payment of unreduced pension benefits had been a mistake.   The Court held that the initial interpretation that terminated vested participants were entitled to unreduced early retirement benefits was rational, while the company’s re-interpretation of the plan was unreasonable and rendered key plan language meaningless.
 
The named plaintiffs will now seek to extend their victory to the other terminated vested participants by having the lawsuit certified as a class action.

Retiree Health Benefits Lawsuit Filed By Constellium Rolled Products Retirees

A retiree health benefits class action lawsuit was filed recently by Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC against Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLP. The class action lawsuit seeks to reinstate retiree health benefits the company recently cut.

The plaintiffs, who had been members of the United Steelworkers while they worked at the plant, retired from the Constellium plant in Ravenswood, West Virginia. This retiree health benefits class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
 
Partner Bill Payne is lead counsel on this retiree health benefits class action lawsuit. During his more than three decades of law practice, Bill has served as counsel for retirees or employees in more than 100 class action lawsuits throughout the United States. Many of those class action lawsuits challenged cuts in company-provided retiree health benefits.
 
Bill was appointed in 2006 to serve as class counsel to represent nearly 600,000 former UAW members (and their spouses) in actions against General Motors and Ford that were worth billions of dollars.
 
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals complimented Mr. Payne by noting, “In view of Payne’s background, both classes would have been hard pressed to find someone with greater ‘experience in handling class actions … and claims of the type asserted in the action’ or an attorney with more `knowledge of the applicable law.” UAW v. GM, 497 F.3d 615, 628 (6th Cir. 2007).