Class Actions Blog

Archive for the ‘Employment Class Action’ Category

Class action filed against Jimmy John’s over non-competes

Posted on: January 30th, 2018 by Steve Larson

Jimmy John’s is a sandwich food chain. It requires franchisees to sign non-solicitation and no-hire agreements that prohibit franchisees from recruiting employees from other Jimmy John’s franchises. The agreements provide that if the provisions are violated, Jimmy John’s may impose a $50,000 penalty, or terminate a franchisee’s franchise agreement entirely.

A former employee in Illinois, where Jimmy John’s is based, has filed a putative class action in Illinois federal court alleging the practice of requiring the execution of non-solicitation and no-hire agreements between franchisees is a violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that the $50,000 fine for violating the no-hire and non-solicitation agreements is more than 140 percent of the 2017 Jimmy John’s initial franchise fee, and if a franchise were terminated, the agreements provide that Jimmy John’s could impose up to three years’ worth of restaurant royalties as “liquidated damages.”

Jimmy John’s was previously sued by the attorneys general of Illinois and New York in separate cases that sought to end its practice of forcing employees to sign non-compete agreements prohibiting them from working at another sandwich shop within 12 months of the end of their employment with Jimmy John’s. Those actions did not address the non-solicitation and no-hire agreements.

The complaint alleges: “As part of its system to maintain its significant competitive advantage, Jimmy John’s franchisees, at the direction of and with the assistance of Jimmy John’s itself, have together colluded to suppress the wages and employment opportunities of the restaurant-based employees who work at Jimmy John’s franchise locations throughout the United States.”

The case is Butler v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC et al., case number 3:18-cv-00133 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.


Law firm Ogletree Deakins is named in a $300 million gender discrimination class action

Posted on: January 19th, 2018 by Steve Larson

A shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Orange County office has filed suit against the law firm alleging the firm’s male-dominated leadership disproportionately favors men over women in pay, promotions and business development opportunity. The complaint alleges that women hold only two of nine seats on Ogletree’s board of directors and two of six firm officer positions. The complaint also alleges that compensation decisions are controlled by a male-dominated compensation committee and then voted upon by Ogletree’s equity shareholders, which are about 80 percent male.

Read more…


Google employees amend complaint in gender pay class action

Posted on: January 9th, 2018 by Steve Larson

An amended complaint was filed in California state court on January 3, 2018, adding a fourth named plaintiff and more specific allegations about the internet giant’s alleged methods for paying women less than men for the same types of work. In December, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary E. Wiss had granted Google Inc.’s bid to dismiss the suit finding that the women’s claims under the California Equal Pay Act extrapolated too much from a U.S. Department of Labor report on pay disparities at Google.

Read more…


Advertising age discrimination class action filed against T-Mobile, Amazon, and many others

Posted on: December 28th, 2017 by Steve Larson

A proposed class action complaint filed in California federal court on December 20, 2017, alleges that T-Mobile, Amazon, and hundreds of other companies are discriminating against older workers by limiting the audience for their Facebook advertisements to only reach younger users. The Communications Workers of America alleged on behalf of a proposed class of older workers that companies, at Facebook Inc.’s prompting, are limiting the audience that sees their want ads to audiences under the age of 40, or setting other upper-end age limitations that would stop older workers from ever even seeing the recruitment advertisements, according to the suit.

Read more…


Petco settles assistant manager overtime class action

Posted on: September 20th, 2017 by Steve Larson

Assistant Managers for Petco Animal Supplies Inc. have reached an $8 million settlement of a wage-and-hour class action alleging it failed to pay assistant store managers for overtime. Under the terms of the settlement, the 900 class members will receive nearly $9,000 each.

Read more…


Judge rules American Family Insurance agents are employees, not independent contractors

Posted on: August 4th, 2017 by Steve Larson

A federal judge in Ohio ruled that a certified class of nearly 7,000 insurance agents were misclassified as independent contractors by American Family Insurance Co. and are in fact employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Judge found the company exerted a level of control like that of an employer.

Read more…


Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.

About Class Actions:

About this blog

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

About the author

  • Steve Larson

  • Steve Larson
  • Steve Larson has been representing investors, consumers and employees in class actions in Oregon for over 20 years. He is a shareholder at the law firm of Stoll Berne in Portland, Oregon.
Follow stollberne on Twitter

Subscribe to this blog