News in Brief August 9 – AT&T, Ulta and More

AT&T Phone Refund Suit Meets Its End

AT&T and a customer who alleged the phone company refused to follow through on refunds promised to the public have agreed to dismiss a class action pending against the telecommunications giant. The suit claimed that AT&T offered to refund customers who returned their phones within 14 days, but instead used a labyrinth of service calls to dissuade potential returns. Both parties agreed that they would cover their own costs and attorneys’ fees, and there was no talk of a settlement for a larger class of people.

Ulta Store Manager Overtime Suit Reaches Preliminary Settlement

Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. has agreed to pay a $3.65 million to end claims that it misclassified its California store managers as exempt from overtime. The proposed settlement is only preliminary; however, if the court approves it, then close 230 current and former Ulta general managers who worked in California between September 9, 2011 and September 19, 2016 would be eligible for compensation.

Ford Settles Exhaust Fume Class Action

Ford Motor Co. agreed to settle a class action involving allegedly defective exhaust systems the day before it was set to go to trial. According to the lawsuit, certain Ford vehicles can leak exhaust fumes and expose passengers to high levels of carbon monoxide. The settlement details haven’t been filed with the court, so the terms have not yet been made public.

CVS Pays to End Six Pharmacist Wage Suits

CVS has agreed to pay $2 million to settle claims that it failed to properly pay its pharmacists for the time they spent traveling between store locations. The suit also alleged that these “floating” pharmacists weren’t reimbursed for travel expenses either. Under the settlement, more than 5,000 pharmacists in California will be able to claim close to $230 each for the allegedly unpaid time and expense.

Sprint Settles Illegal Background Check Lawsuit

Sprint has agreed to settle claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by asking potential employees to give Sprint access to their private data. It sounds pretty broad and doesn’t match the title very well but here’s how it breaks down: Sprint allegedly used language in its background check authorization forms that would allow it to access a ton of private information – think health care providers, schools and other info that could imply an applicant’s financial and reputational status. Unfortunately, Sprint settled with the lead plaintiff before the case could be expanded to include a nationwide class.