Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Latest story

88 Shares137 Views

Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

by

In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares96 Views

    in Economy

    California Tribal Casinos May Sue to Curb City Card Rooms

    by

    In the sprawl of Los Angeles County, a handful of casinos have operated for decades.There’s the crescent-shaped casino in Commerce, an industrial city off Interstate 5. A warehouse-like gambling parlor in Hawaiian Gardens, a short drive south. Two card rooms in Gardena, a nearby suburb.Beyond being places to gamble and unwind, they have two things in common. They generate a large portion of their cities’ revenue. And their existence may soon be challenged in court by California’s tribal nations.After a multimillion-dollar lobbying battle, state legislation signed into law last month allows Native American tribes, which own some of California’s largest and most lucrative casinos, to dispute the legality of certain games played inside these small, privately owned gambling halls.Tribes have argued that such casinos — also known as card rooms because they have only table games and not slot machines — have siphoned millions of dollars away from them.The new law opened a window until April 1 for tribes to take their case to state courts, where they had lacked legal standing. At particular issue is whether the card rooms offer games considered Las Vegas-style gambling, to which the tribes have exclusive rights in California.A group called the California Cardroom Alliance has said the law puts jobs at risk.Recent legislation allows Native American tribes to challenge the legality of certain games played in card rooms.Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Plans to Accuse RealPage of Enabling Collusion on Rents

    by

    The Justice Department is set to file an antitrust suit against the real estate company RealPage alleging illegal price-fixing facilitated by algorithms.The Justice Department plans to file an antitrust lawsuit as soon as Friday against the real estate software company RealPage, claiming its software enabled landlords to collude to raise rents, two people with knowledge of the lawsuit said.The suit, which will be joined by California, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington and other states, was expected to accuse RealPage of facilitating a price-fixing conspiracy that boosted rents beyond market forces, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.The suit would escalate the government’s efforts to regulate what it sees as misuse of technology. Officials have sued Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple over what they said were monopolistic behaviors that harm consumers.RealPage’s YieldStar product, which gathers confidential real estate information, has been at the heart of the government’s concerns. Landlords, who pay for the software, share information about rents and occupancy rates that is otherwise confidential. Based on that data, an algorithm generates suggestions for what landlords should charge renters, and those figures are often higher than they would be in a competitive market, according to allegations in prior lawsuits against RealPage by state attorneys general.A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.Owned by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo, RealPage has advertised its software to landlords as a tool that can help them outperform the market by 3 percent to 7 percent. It says its software is used in metro areas around the country.RealPage did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Thoma Bravo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Farm Workers Union Battles With California Grower, Wonderful Nurseries

    by

    Wonderful Nurseries, owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, has sued the state to overturn a labor organizing law championed by the United Farm Workers.The allegations ricocheted through the agricultural fields and into a Central Valley courthouse, where one of California’s most powerful companies and an iconic union were trading charges of deception and coercion in a fight over worker representation.Some farmworkers at Wonderful Nurseries — part of the Wonderful Company, the conglomerate behind famous brands of pomegranate juice and pistachios, as well as Fiji Water — said they had been duped into signing cards to join a union. On the other side, the United Farm Workers, the union formed in the 1960s by labor figures including Cesar Chavez, contends that the influential company, owned by the Los Angeles billionaires and powerhouse Democratic donors Stewart and Lynda Resnick, is trying to thwart the will of workers through intimidation and coercion.For months, the back and forth has played out before the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which arbitrates labor fights between workers and growers, and in a courthouse not far from Wonderful’s sprawling fields.In May, the company filed a legal challenge against the state that could overturn a 2022 law that made it easier for farmworkers to take part in unionization votes.After vetoing a previous version over procedural concerns, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure following public pressure from President Biden and Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker. The U.F.W. heralded the bill’s enactment as a critical victory, but several big growers said that it would allow union organizers to unfairly influence the process.The law paved the way for farmworkers to vote for union representation by signing union authorization cards, a process known simply as card check. Its passage coincided with an era of greater mobilization to unionize workers during the pandemic and a willingness to press demands for better working conditions and respect from employers, said Victor Narro, project director and labor studies professor at the U.C.L.A. Labor Center.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Refuses to Block F.T.C.’s Noncompete Ban as Lawsuits Play Out

    by

    A federal judge in Pennsylvania denied a request to delay the rule, siding with the agency and diverging from another court’s decision earlier this month.A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday declined to block the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, diverging from another judge’s recent finding that the agency’s move was on shaky legal ground.The decision clears one obstacle to the F.T.C.’s move to prohibit virtually all noncompete agreements, which prohibit employees from switching jobs within an industry and affect roughly one in five American workers. The rule is set to take effect on Sept. 4.Several business groups sued to block the ban as soon as the F.T.C. voted to adopt it in April, saying it would limit their ability to protect trade secrets and confidential information. ATS Tree Services, a tree-removal company, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing that it used noncompetes to “provide its employees with necessary and valuable specialized training while minimizing the risk that employees will leave and immediately use that specialized training and ATS’s confidential information to benefit a competitor.”But on Tuesday, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge ruled that ATS had not proved that it would suffer irreparable harm from the rule. Denying the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, she said the lawsuit was unlikely to ultimately prevail on the merits.Judge Hodge’s decision “fully vindicates” the F.T.C.’s authority to ban noncompete clauses, “which harm competition by inhibiting workers’ freedom and mobility while stunting economic growth,” Douglas Farrar, a commission spokesman, said in a statement.A lawyer representing ATS, Josh Robbins of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian law group, said the firm was disappointed by the court’s decision and would “continue to fight the F.T.C.’s power grab.” Mr. Robbins declined to say whether the firm intended to appeal.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Landlords Raise Rents Based on RealPage Software, Suits Say

    by

    Antitrust cases contend that use of RealPage’s algorithm, which lets property owners share private data, amounts to collusion.Imagine a system that lets big landlords in your city work together to raise rents, using detailed, otherwise-private information about what their competitors are charging.Such a system is already underway, according to a series of lawsuits filed by tenants and prosecutors across the country. The plaintiffs argue that real estate software from a company called RealPage is being used by apartment owners to increase rents.Through the Texas-based company’s YieldStar product, plaintiffs say, landlords share rental pricing data and occupancy rates — information the company funnels through algorithms to spit out a suggestion for what landlords should charge renters. Those figures are often higher than they would be in a competitive market.In a vast majority of cases, landlords adopt the suggested prices, passing the costs on to tenants, the plaintiffs assert. RealPage, owned by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo, advertises its software to landlords as a tool that can help them outperform the market by 3 to 7 percent.RealPage has denied that it facilitates collusion through its software. In a statement on its website in June, the company blamed “a host of complex economic and political forces,” including an undersupply of rental housing units, for rent increases nationwide.A company spokeswoman, Jennifer Bowcock, said by email that the lawsuits were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how revenue management software works. The software often recommends rent reductions, she added.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    California Moves to Modify Law Letting Workers Sue Employers

    by

    Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a deal with business and labor leaders heading off a ballot measure to repeal the law, which has cost companies billions.A last-minute political compromise has headed off an effort to repeal a California law allowing workers to sue employers for workplace violations — a legal tool that has cost companies billions of dollars.The compromise, announced on Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, followed meetings with business leaders and the powerful California Labor Federation over ways to modify the 2004 law, the Private Attorneys General Act.The law, known as PAGA, lets employees file civil complaints — on their own behalf and for fellow workers — against businesses, sometimes costing them tens of millions of dollars in settlements.“We came to the table and hammered out a deal that works for both businesses and workers, and it will bring needed improvements to this system,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement on Tuesday. “This proposal maintains strong protections for workers, provides incentives for businesses to comply with labor laws and reduces litigation.”A study released in February by a coalition opposing the law found it had cost businesses around $10 billion since 2013. That same report found more than 3,000 proposed settlements under the law in 2022, a tenfold increase from 2016. (In most cases, the state records settlement proposals but not the amount ultimately paid.)In 2023, Google settled for $27 million after employees used the law as their basis for accusing the tech company of unfair labor practices. And in 2018, Walmart employees won a settlement of $65 million after accusing the retailer of not providing sufficient seating for workers.Business groups got a measure to repeal the law on the November ballot. They agreed to withdraw the measure once legislation reflecting the compromise is passed and signed into law.Labor groups have cited the law as a necessary check on corporations.A recent report from the U.C.L.A. Labor Center found that the prospective ballot measure would effectively eliminate “one of California workers’ strongest remaining tools for preventing and correcting wage theft and other workplace abuses,” said Tia Koonse, the center’s legal and policy research manager.The compromise calls for, among other things, creating higher penalties on employers that flout labor laws and increasing the amount of penalty money that goes to employees to 35 percent from 25 percent. Moreover, it stipulates that any legal action must be initiated by the employee who experiences the violations described in the suit.“This package provides meaningful reforms that ensure workers continue to have a strong vehicle to get labor claims resolved, while also limiting the frivolous litigation that has cost employers billions without benefiting workers,” Jennifer Barrera, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of the California Labor Federation, said in a statement that her group was pleased “to have negotiated reforms to PAGA that better ensure abusive practices by employers are cured and that workers are made whole, quicker.”“PAGA is an essential tool to help workers hold corporations accountable for widespread wage theft, safety violations and misclassification,” she said. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Backs Starbucks Over ‘Memphis 7’ Union Case

    by

    In a blow to the National Labor Relations Board, the justices made it more difficult to order employers to reinstate fired workers.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks on Thursday in a challenge against a labor ruling by a federal judge, making it more difficult for a key federal agency to intervene when a company is accused of illegally suppressing labor organizing.Eight justices backed the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion that concurred with the overall judgment but dissented on certain points.The ruling came in a case brought by Starbucks over the firing of seven workers in Memphis who were trying to unionize a store in 2022. The company said it had fired them for allowing a television crew into a closed store. The workers, who called themselves the Memphis Seven, said that they were fired for their unionization efforts and that the company didn’t typically enforce the rules they were accused of violating.After the firings, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint saying that Starbucks had acted because the workers had “joined or assisted the union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.” Separately, lawyers for the board asked a federal judge in Tennessee for an injunction reinstating the workers, and the judge issued the order in August 2022.The agency asks judges to reinstate workers in such cases because resolving the underlying legal issues can take years, during which time other workers may become discouraged from organizing even if the fired workers ultimately prevail.In its petition to the Supreme Court, the company argued that federal courts had differing standards when deciding whether to grant injunctions that reinstate workers, which the N.L.R.B. has the authority to seek under the National Labor Relations Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Accuses Hyundai and Two Other Companies of Using Child Labor

    by

    The Labor Department filed a lawsuit accusing Hyundai, one of its suppliers and a staffing company of jointly employing a 13-year-old on an auto body parts assembly line in Alabama.The Labor Department on Thursday sued Hyundai over the use of child labor in Alabama, holding the car manufacturer liable for the employment of children in its supply chain, including a 13-year-old girl who worked up to 60 hours per week making car parts.In the suit, filed in a federal court in Montgomery, Ala., the department said Hyundai was responsible for the employment of children at a Smart Alabama factory in Luverne, Ala., which produces parts like body panels that are shipped to a Hyundai factory in Montgomery. The suit also claimed a staffing agency, Best Practice Service, recruited the children to work at the supplier’s plant.In a statement, Hyundai said child labor was “not consistent with the standards and values we hold ourselves to as a company.” It added that the Labor Department used “an unprecedented legal theory that would unfairly hold Hyundai accountable for the actions of its suppliers.”Smart did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives of Best Practice Service, which is no longer in business, could not be reached for comment.From July 2021 to February 2022, a 13-year-old girl worked at the Smart plant, where she was recruited to work by Best Practice Service, the suit claimed. The suit also contended that two other children were employed at the plant.The Labor Department said that through the employment of children at its supplier, Hyundai was in violation of the “hot goods” provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prevents the interstate commerce of goods “that were produced in violation of the minimum wage, overtime or child labor provisions” of that law.“Companies cannot escape liability by blaming suppliers or staffing companies for child labor violations when they are in fact also employers themselves,” said Seema Nanda, the Labor Department’s chief legal officer, in a statement Thursday.The suit comes after investigations by Reuters and The New York Times documented the use of child labor by the suppliers of car companies. In 2022, Reuters found that Smart Alabama had used child labor at its facility, and that Kia, which is part of the same South Korean conglomerate as Hyundai, had also used child labor in the South. A 2023 investigation by The Times found children employed at the suppliers of General Motors and Ford Motor.Hyundai imports many of its vehicles from South Korea but has made big investments in factories in the South, spending nearly $8 billion on an electric vehicle plant in Georgia. The United Automobile Workers union has said it hopes to organize workers at Hyundai’s Montgomery plant. More