Method Home Products Class Action Settlement July 2, 2021 Class Action Settlement – Connary, et al. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., California Superior Court, Alameda County Case No. RG20062675 FDPK is pleased to announce preliminary approval of the proposed settlement for Method Products (Connary, et al. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,), a class action alleging false and misleading “non-toxic” claims on certain Method Products sold across the United States. The Settlement establishes a $2.25 million fund, which will be used to make cash payments to Class Members who submit a timely and valid claim online, as well as class notice and administration costs, attorneys’ costs, fees and expenses, any Service Awards the Court awards to the named Plaintiffs. Additionally, SC Johnson has agreed to remove the “non-toxic” labeling after the Settlement is approved. Details of the Settlement and class members’ options, including to participate in the settlement, are available at www.HouseholdProductsSettlement.com. The Settlement Class includes all persons who reside in the U.S. and purchased in the U.S. any of the below listed Method Brand products between May 14, 2016 and May 13, 2021 for use and not for resale: Method All-Purpose Cleaner Method Squirt + Mop Hard Floor Cleaner Method All-Purpose Cleaner for Dog Method Bathroom Cleaner Method All-Purpose Cleaner for Cat Method Wood for Good Daily Clean Method All-Purpose Cleaning Wipes Method Dish Soap, Method Smarty Dish Method All-Purpose Cleaning Wipes for Dog Method Smarty Dish Plus Method All-Purpose Cleaning Wipes for Cat Method PowerDish Method Squirt + Mop Wood Floor Cleaner Method Daily Granite Cleaner Method Foaming Bathroom Cleaner Method Stainless Steel Polish Method Glass + Surface Cleaner Method Heavy Duty Degreaser Method Wood for Good Polish Method Daily Shower Cleaner Class members can submit claims online or by mailing the claim form by November 1, 2021. Class Members who submit a timely claim can receive a cash payment, depending on any proof of purchase, as follows: a) With Proof of Purchase. Claimants who file a valid Claim Form for purchases of Products with Proof of Purchase may obtain reimbursement of up to One Dollar ($1.00) per Product purchased during the Class Period, without any limitation on the number of Products purchased. The Initial Claim Amount depends on the number of Products purchased per the Proof of Purchase provided and is subject to a pro rata upward or downward adjustment pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Settlement. b) Without Proof of Purchase. Claimants who file a Claim Form for purchases of Products without Proof of Purchase may obtain reimbursement of up to One Dollar ($1.00) per Product purchased for up to ten (10) Products purchased during the Class Period. Claimants seeking reimbursement without Proof of Purchase must state under penalty of perjury the type(s) and number of Products purchased and the approximate date(s) of purchases. The Initial Claim Amount is subject to a pro rata upward or downward adjustment pursuant to Section 4.4 of the Settlement. The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing for November 16, 2021, at 3:00 PM, Pacific Time at Dept. 23 of the Administration Building, 1221 Oak Street, 4th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. More information about the Settlement may be found at: http://www.householdproductssettlement.com/ Click on the links to review important documents: Order Granting Preliminary Approval Method Notice of Settlement Method Settlement Agreement Method First Amended Complaint Method Claimant Form
FMLA Certification June 24, 2015 New Third Circuit Ruling on FMLA Certification June 22, 2015. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling on FMLA Certification. The court ruled that an employer interferes with an employee’s rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA“) if it does not allow the employee a chance to correct a deficient request-for-leave medical certification. The FMLA protects certain workers’ jobs for a 12-week period if the employee or an immediate family member has a serious medical condition. In order to receive the legal protection of their job, the employee must meet FMLA certification requirements. The employee must have worked for that employer for more than a year and, during the past year, worked a minimum of 1,250 hours. Small employers (less than 50 full-time workers within a 75-mile radius) are not required to provide any job protection for medical leave. When an employee requests FMLA Leave, her employer may ask for FMLA certification, which is documentation from her doctor which states (1) the date on which the serious health condition began; (2) the probable duration of the condition; (3) relevant medical facts; (4) a statement that the employee is unable to perform the functions of her position; (5) the dates and duration of any planned medical treatment; and (6) the expected duration of the leave. In Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital network, Deborah Hansler, a hospital employee, began experiencing shortness of breath, nausea, and vomiting. She submitted a request for intermittent leave along with a brief medical certification, which predicted she would need the leave for one month. After she took five days of leave during the course of a month, the hospital terminated her for excessive absenteeism. Ms. Hansler brought a lawsuit against her former employer claiming violation of her rights under the FMLA. The hospital argued that, because Ms. Hansler’s request for leave indicated that her undiagnosed condition would last for a month only and she had no right to correct the FMLA certification, she did not have a serious medical condition that entitled her to job protection. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals did not accept the hospital’s argument and held that if an employer finds the FMLA certification to be vague, ambiguous, or non-responsive, it must give the employee a chance to cure any deficiencies or risk violating the employee’s rights. Click here to review the Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hospital Network Third Circuit Precedential Opinion.
Marriage Equality May 21, 2014 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III Issues Opinion on Marriage Equality Lawsuit. May 20, 2014. In a victory for the plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order striking down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage and the recognition of valid same-sex marriages performed in other states. Judge Jones ruled that Pennsylvania’s law barring marriage equality is unconstitutional as a violation of both the due process and equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He wrote, “By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.” Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861, was filed July 9, 2013 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, volunteer counsel from Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudline & Schiller, and University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Seth Kreimer. The suit was brought on behalf of 21 Pennsylvanians seeking the right to marry or for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to recognize their out-of-state marriages. The lawsuit challenged a law passed by the General Assembly in 1996 that restricts marriage to the union of one man and one woman and denies recognition of valid same-sex marriages performed in other states. Marriage equality has gained momentum since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that legally married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits. Judge Jones’ decision made Pennsylvania the 19th U.S. state where same-sex marriage is permitted. This decision affected the rights of same-sex couples in the employment arena — including the availability of spousal benefits and eligibility for filing state taxes as a married couple.
