Class Action Roundup – January 9

We’re starting a new tradition here at ClassAction.org. Every Friday, we’ll bring you a roundup of class action news throughout the United States, giving you a quick and easy way to keep track of major cases, breaking news, and new developments. It’s easy to miss out on developments and rulings that affect you – that why we’re working to keep you informed. For up-to-date settlement information, check out our settlements page.

California High Court: Workers should be paid for time spent sleeping on site

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling – one with potentially far-reaching consequences. The court ruled that employers must pay workers for all time spent on a job site, including time spent on-call or sleeping. The ruling was part of a class action filed over the state’s definition of work time. The company involved, CPS Security Solutions Inc., argued that security staff shouldn’t be paid if they’re hanging out in a residential trailer while overseeing construction sites. California’s Supreme Court justices disagreed, writing that:

“Even when not actively responding to disturbances, the guards’ ‘mere presence’ was integral to CPS’ business. The fact that guards could engage in limited personal activities does not lessen the extent of CPS’ control.”

You can read the Supreme Court’s Opinion on the case by clicking here.

Conde Nast unpaid internship case ends in $5.9 million settlement

We’ve written a lot about unpaid internship lawsuits over the last couple of years, so it’s gratifying to see that federal judges have given preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of former interns. More than 7,500 individuals who interned at magazines including Vogue, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker accused Conde Nast of failing to pay them even though they performed the same tasks as paid employees. For more, check out Entrepreneur.com’s report.

(In a similar case, Viacom/MTV has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed in 2013 over unpaid internships. The plaintiff, Casey Ojeda, claimed he worked seven and eight hour days without payment, despite performing employee-level tasks. Read more about this case on thewrap.com).

Bud Light Lime-A-Ritas: Light on calories or light on the truth?

Triangle Business Journal reported a few days ago that Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Bud Light Lime-A-Ritas, is facing a lawsuit over the calorie content of its beers. It seems Lime-A-Ritas are labeled as low in calories – but may actually contain more calories than many other beer products. The lawsuit alleges customers were misled and is seeking to represent anyone who purchased Lime-A-Ritas since 2008.

Children’s supplement maker sued by FTC over false claims

NourishLife LLC has been sued by the Federal Trade Commission for allegedly selling supplements that claim to improve the speech of children with autism and other developmental disorders. The company apparently claims its products Speak and Speak Smooth can help maintain and develop normal speech in children – a claim the FTC says violates the Federal Trade Commission Act for deceptive marketing and false claims. You can read the FTC’s complaint here.

Honda fined for failing to report deaths and injuries

News broke yesterday that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had fined Honda $70 million for failing to report more than 1,700 injuries and deaths between 2003 and 2014. The company failed to submit early warning reports to the agency, and now claims that data entry problems were responsible for the failure. The fine comes in the form of two $35 million civil penalties. Read more on NPR.org.

Paramount hit with class action over job applicants’ credit reports

Paramount Pictures is facing a new lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by not telling job applicants that it uses their credit reports when making hiring decisions. The company apparently failed to properly disclose to job applicants that it would obtain and review their credit reports. The FCRA has strict requirements regarding an employer’s use of credit reports and requires companies to provide a job applicant with a document that consists solely of a disclosure stating that the company intends to review the applicant’s credit history. As deadline.com reports, Paramount may have bundled this required disclosure form with other paperwork given to job applicants in violation of federal law.