California Business Litigation Blog

A civil lawsuit brought against the Los Angeles County Office of Education was settled. The lawsuit stated that students within the district were being punished for asking for instruction and that teachers at the school in question, Camp Challenger in Lancaster, were routinely missing classes.

According to a statement released by the education office, the teaching staff will be examined and changes made. Teachers will be retrained. In addition, as part of the lawsuit settlement, career programs and new literacy programs will be put into place. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit.

According to the ACLU, students were graduating from the school without being able to read. According to Mark Rosenbaum, who is the attorney working on behalf of the ACLU, “these kids could not fill out job applications or read basic signs.”

In the lawsuit, it is alleged that the civil rights violations occurred and deprivation of education that is legally mandated was not provided to students enrolled at the facility. As a result of the class action lawsuit, about one quarter of the teachers have been transferred or resigned. The principal and the assistant principals may face legal charges. A federal judge will need to approve the settlement.

The office of education is like to work with various professionals to improve the education of youths who attend the high school. In addition, the county’s educational program will move towards courses that include special education, instruction, literacy and other areas of specific need. Another action of the settlement forms the Challenger Reform Taskforce, which will be responsible for monitoring the reforms occurring at the school to ensure they are being taken seriously. The county will also likely pay attorney’s fees and other expenses related to the case.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Education Lawsuit Settled" »

The National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) has filed a lawsuit against American Medical Response (AMR) of Connecticut claiming the company illegally fired an employee after the employee complained about AMR on the social media site Facebook. This may be the first case in which the board has come forward to argue for the worker, claiming that the remarks on the social networking site are protected activities. Employers, they claim, are violating law if they punish workers for such comments.

The alleged activity involves the firing of a medical technician on the grounds of violating company policy by depicting the company on Facebook.

According to NLRB acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, the employee has the right to talk about working conditions, including the supervisor, which is what occurred in this case. The law in question gives workers the right to discuss working conditions or unionization without fear of punishment by the employer. The board says that the company’s policy in regards to the Facebook page was “overly broad.”

In addition to this, the board also stated that other company policies may also be out of line, including those that stop employees from making disparaging or discriminatory comments when discussing the company, supervisors or the coworkers involved.

American Medical Response of Connecticut denies the allegations made by the labor board. It stated that the employee was discharged for multiple incidents and serious complaints. The employee, according to the company, was also fired due to repeated offenses against other employees.

The employee in question is Dawnmarie Souza. According to the allegations, the employee was required to prepare a response to a customer’s complaint about her work, and complained that the company did not allow the Teamster Union to do this for her. She then mocked the supervisor on Facebook.

Allegedly, she stated, “love how the company allows a 17 to become a supervisor” referring to a 17 as a term for a psychiatric patient. These comments drew support from coworkers on the site.

The hearing is to be held in January to determine the merits of the case. Finding the line of where employees are stepping over their protected rights is likely to be the foundation of the hearing and the ruling to come from it.

Continue reading "NLRB Faces Off With AMR of Connecticut Over Facebook Firing" »

As hard as it might be, try to imagine a phony (yet official looking) law enforcement officer showing up on your doorstep to collect a debt. Using official looking documents, he intimidates you into making payment, surrendering property in lieu of payment, or “Summons” you to court. The court isn’t actually a court, but looks like one complete with someone who looks like a judge presiding over your “Case”.

Those are some of the allegations against Unicredit America Inc., an Erie PA based debt collector.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Unicredit America Inc. The lawsuit accuses Unicredit of using deceptive tactics to mislead, confuse or coerce consumers. These tactics include the use of fake "hearings" allegedly held in a company office that was decorated to look like a courtroom.

In conjunction with the lawsuit, the Attorney General's Office has also filed a petition for special and preliminary injunction. The injunction seeks court action to freeze all Unicredit assets; prohibit the company from engaging in any debt collection; immediately cease all bogus hearings or depositions; and to provide detailed information about company bank accounts, assets and business records.

"This is an unconscionable attempt to use fake court proceedings to deceive, mislead or frighten consumers into making payments or surrendering valuables to Unicredit without following lawful procedures for debt collection," Corbett said. "Consumers also allegedly received dubious 'hearing notices' and letters - often hand-delivered by individuals who appear to be Sheriff Deputies - which implied they would be taken into custody by the Sheriff if they failed to appear at the phony court for 'hearings' or 'depositions'."