Cases

Pending Cases Of Note

Workers From Four Continents Sue Wal-Mart for Employment Wage & Hour Violations

Lawsuit: Workers from California, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Swaziland Denied Basic Rights; Cites Massive, Systematic Wage, Hour Violations

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Wal-Mart workers on four continents sued the giant retailer today in California Superior Court in Los Angeles. They maintain that Wal-Mart failed to meet its contractual duty to ensure that its suppliers pay basic wages due; forced them to work excessive hours seven days a week with no time off for holidays; obstructed their attempts to form a union; and, made false and misleading statements to the American public about the company's labor and human rights practices.

The workers are represented by Terry Collingsworth, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based International Labor Rights Fund, and Los Angeles area co-counsels Dan Stormer of Hadsell and Stormer, and Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman. This legal team recently represented Burmese plaintiffs who sued Los Angeles-based Unocal corporation for using forced labor during the construction of a natural gas pipeline in Burma. The suit was settled earlier this year when the Burmese plaintiffs accepted a cash offer from the company that Business Week estimated to be in the vicinity of $30 million.

Wal-Mart maintains a Supplier Standards Agreement with its foreign suppliers that incorporates adherence to its corporate code of conduct as a direct condition of supplying products to Wal-Mart. By incorporating the code of conduct into the supply agreement, it creates a contractual obligation enforceable by the workers supplying to Wal-Mart, who are the intended beneficiaries of the code's worker rights provisions.

Wal-Mart has consumer outlets throughout the United States, and sells light manufactured goods that are manufactured in thousands of factories around the world. Plaintiffs are class representatives for workers employed in Wal-Mart's supplier factories, including factories located in Swaziland, Nicaragua, mainland China, Indonesia and Bangladesh who were denied their basic minimum wage, forced to work overtime, and in certain cases denied the right to organize. For these workers, this lawsuit represents one of the few viable ways in which these violations can be addressed, especially given the lack of enforceable mechanisms in their home countries.

The other class of Plaintiffs will be employees of California businesses which have been harmed by Wal-Mart's unfair labor practices, including Wal-Mart's false representations regarding compliance with its code of conduct, and which as a result have lost business and/or a competitive financial advantage. Within this class are also trade unions members who were forced to make wage and benefit concessions to allow their employers to try to compete with Wal-Mart. This class of plaintiffs will bring their claim under California's Unfair Business Practices Act, Section 17200.

Federal Jury Finds Orange County Public Defender's Office Liable for Wrongful Termination and Violation of First Amendment Rights of one of its own Lawyers

Denial of Class Certification Concerning Employees' Right to Class Action Law Suit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Reversed by Appellate Court

Former V.P. At Morgan Stanley Sues For Race Discrimination And Wrongful Termination For His Refusal To Place His Clients In High Risk Securities

SDSHH Attorney Wilmer Harris Wins $700,000 Jury Verdict in Race Based Employment Retaliation Case Against Boeing

National Lawyers Guild v. City of L.A.

Wadkins v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
Tulare County Superior Court, Consolidated Case Nos. 99-189188, 99-188451

The firm represents the families of six people who were killed in a single vehicle accident, when the 1991 Ford Tempo in which they were traveling suddenly veered off a country highway, struck a bridge abutment and plunged into a cold water canal. In this action, the plaintiffs contend that a defective condition of the Ford Tempo caused a loss of vehicle control, which led to the fatal accident. The plaintiffs also contend that the poor condition of the roadway and the lack of guardrail road approaching the canal further contributed to the victims' deaths. Trial is sent for September 23, 2002.

Dorriah Page v. Los Angeles Times, et al.
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC262884

The firm represents Dr. Dorriah Page, the founder and former CEO of Ceryx, Inc. in a libel action against the Los Angeles Times. Dr. Page alleges that she was defamed by an article in the business section of the Los Angeles Times which falsely portrayed her as a dishonest business woman and that as a result of the defamatory article, she was forced out of her position at Ceryx and has suffered financial ruin.

LeMenn v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department
United States District Court, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Case No. CV-S-01-0255-PMP-RJJ

The firm represents the father of Philippe LeMenn. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. LeMenn was beaten and killed by Las Vegas Metro Police Department jail guards. Mr. LeMenn was arrested on a misdemeanor charge after acting in a bizarre fashion. Instead of getting him prompt medical attention, the defendants allowed him to languish in a jail cell for hours. After being moved to a cell allegedly for his own protection, Mr. LeMenn was punched repeatedly in the face by a jail guard. After Mr. LeMenn attempted to escape the attack, he was tackled and restrained by several jail guards. The Clark County coroner attributed his death to asphyxiation due to restraint. The lawsuit alleges that the failure to provide prompt medical attention and the use of excessive force to restrain Mr. LeMenn caused his death and violated the civil rights of Mr. LeMenn and his father.

Xue Lu and Jie Hao v. United States of America
United States District Court, Central District of California
Case No.CV 01-01758 MRP (BQRx)

The firm represents two female Chinese Asylum applicants who allege that they were sexually harassed and assaulted by their asylum officer. The officer demanded entry into each of their homes whereupon he allegedly demanded sexual favors and money in return for a favorable decision in their asylum application. The firm cooperated with the United States Attorney's office in setting up a sting operation which resulted in confirmation of the allegations of extortion.

John Doe v. Southern California Edison
Los Angeles County Superior Court

The firm represents a long-term employee who alleges that he was repeatedly sexually harassed by co-workers and supervisors because they perceived him to be gay even though he was married. The allegations include a co-worker forcing the plaintiff's head into his groin area, humping the plaintiff from behind, repeated verbal accusations that the plaintiff was having sex with male co-workers and a harassing poster accusing the plaintiff of being gay.

Carreon v. Kremen
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Case No. C01-20195 RMW ARB

The firm represents Charles Carreon, an attorney who represented Gary Kremen, an individual who first registered the domain name, Sex.com. Mr. Carreon represented Mr. Kremen in an action against Stephen Cohen, who stole the web-site and developed it into one of the most profitable adult web-sites in the world. Mr. Carreon agreed to represent Mr. Kremen for a reduced fee of $100 per hour plus a 15% interest in the domain name. After Mr. Kremen prevailed on summary judgment and received the rights to the domain name, he terminated Mr. Carreon and informed him that he would not pay him the agreed upon 15% interest in the web-site. The web-site has been valued at Forty Million Dollars. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Carreon was unjustly deprived of the agreed upon compensation for the fruits of his labor.