In Simmons v. United Mortgage and Loan Investment, LLC, the Fourth Circuit ruled for plaintiffs and reversed the district court in this wage and hour case.  The plaintiffs are Charlotte-based Junior Asset Managers for a mortgage company who were not paid overtime even though they worked more than 40 hours per week.  They brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) based on the failure to pay overtime.  The primary issue is whether the plaintiffs will be able to pursue their case as a collective and class action on behalf the other underpaid workers at the company.  The defendants tried to short-circuit the collective/class action process by tendering a limited settlement offer before other workers could be notified of the case.  The Fourth Circuit rejected this tactic, finding the settlement too indefinite to moot the case.  The Court remanded the case to the trial court to consider plaintiff’s motion to certify the collective action and plaintiffs’ amendments to the NCWHA claims.  Ann Groninger, Burton Craige, and Narendra Ghosh are representing the plaintiffs.

More from the opinion below:

Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm Tags: Ann Groninger, Appeals, Burton Craige, Charlotte, Class Action, Collective Action, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Narendra Ghosh, NCWHA, North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, Overtime, Results, Wage and Hour, Wages

Earlier this month, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group LLC, an interesting case that raises and decides some key issues under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA).  At issue was whether the employee-plaintiff had a contract that included bonus payments, and if so, whether those had to be paid to him.  Plaintiff worked for a real estate developer and claimed to have an oral (never written) contract that provided for bonus payments based on properties that he helped sell.  The primary issue was whether there was in fact an oral contract; the Court upheld the jury’s finding that there was an enforceable contract that included bonus payments.  Given that there was a contract for bonuses, the Court then turned to whether plaintiff was owed these bonues under the NCWHA.

Continue for further analysis:  Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Attorneys' Fees, Bonus Payments, Breach of Contract, Case Commentary, Earned Wages, Labor and Employment, Liquidated Damages, NC Court of Appeals, NCWHA, North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, Wage and Hour, Wage Change Notice

In Simmons v. United Mortgage and Loan Investment, LLC, we have filed this opening brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in this wage and hour case.  The plaintiffs are Charlotte-based Junior Asset Managers for a mortgage company who were not paid overtime even though they worked more than 40 hours per week.  They brought claims under the FLSA and NC Wage and Hour law based on the failure to pay overtime.  The primary issue is whether the plaintiffs will be able to pursue their case as a collective and class action on behalf the other underpaid workers at the company.  The defendants have tried to short-circuit the collective/class action process by tendering a limited settlement offer before other workers could be notified of the case.  Ann Groninger, Burton Craige, and Narendra Ghosh are representing the plaintiffs. Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Ann Groninger, Appeals, Burton Craige, Class Action, Collective Action, FLSA, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Narendra Ghosh, North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, Overtime, Wage and Hour

Hawkins v. General Electric Co.: The court mostly affirmed an award to the plaintiff based on an occupational disease, contact dermititis, that was causally related to his employment.  The court also agreed that he was disabled as long as his condition persisted.

Jeffers v. D’Alessandro: The plaintiff, a former player for the Carolina Panthers, had brought suit against the Panthers and related parties regarding medical treatment he received.  The court held that his claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, and that the trial court was correct to compel arbitration.

Griessel v Temas Eye Ctr., P.C.: The plaintiff had brought several claims, including under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and for breach of contract.  The court remanded for findings regarding whether  there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Arbitration, Case Commentary, Labor and Employment, NC Court of Appeals, North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, Workers' Compensation

In Panos v. Timco Engine Center, the court considered the applicability of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) to an employee who works outside of North Carolina.  Plaintiff had brought an action based on the company’s failure to pay severance as required by his employment contract.  Although the company was based in North Carolina, and the plaintiff’s employment contract specificed that North Carolina law applied, the plaintiff primarily worked in Michigan and spent at most 18 days working in North Carolina.  The most direct contact was that plaintiff participated in a daily conference call with the company’s North Carolina office.  The court held that these daily phone calls were not enough to bring the plaintiff within the protection of the NCWHA.

In Blow v. DSM Pharmaceuticals, the court rejected the plaintiff’s Woodson claim based on the pleadings.  Generally, under the workers’ compensation system, an employee who is injured at work cannot bring a personal injury claim in state court against his employer — instead the employee has to file a workers’ compensation claim and proceed through the Industrial Commission.  This is the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.C.G.S. 97-10.1.  The Woodson case, however, recognized an exception to this rule when “an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct.”  Such Woodson claims can be brought in cases of egregious, intentional employer misconduct. Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Industrial Commission, Labor and Employment, NC Court of Appeals, North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, Personal Injuries, Severance, Wage and Hour, Woodson Claim, Workers' Compensation