Final approval of the $650,000 settlement package clears the way for the largest known class action settlement of its kind in Michigan – covering ten Hungry Howie’s franchise locations in Mid-Michigan. The Pizza Driver Lawsuits alleged a common complaint among drivers in the industry – that systematic under-reimbursement for mileage and vehicle expenses violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan Minimum Wage laws. Even while consenting to the settlement, the pizza stores continue to deny liability and deny that they underpay drivers for their vehicle expenses.
The Michigan Supreme Court issued Administrative Order 2020-6 encouraging the use of technology, use of video conferencing to keep state courts functioning throughout the COVID-19 outbreak. The Order supersedes certain local administrative orders attempting to respond to the Coronavirus outbreak on a courthouse-by-courthouse basis.
Administrative Order 2020-9 temporarily amends Court Rules to require service of process by electronic means to the fullest extent possible, and explicitly allows subpoenas to require attendance by telephone or remote conferencing systems. AO 2020-2, AO 2020-6, and AO 2020-9 were extended on April 27, 2020 by Administrative Order 2020-12.
On May 26, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued Administrative Order 2020-14 prescribes guidelines for a phased return to full capacity. These include continued use of remote hearings, limited access to courtrooms, and the imposition of social distancing practices and capacity constraints in courtrooms.
On June 26, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued Administrative Order 2020-19. AO 2020-19 rescinds Administrative Order 2020-2 and refers back to Administrative Order 2020-14, which mandated a phased approach to return to full operations. AO 2020-19 also extends Administrative Order 2020-9.
Under Administrative Order 2020-16 beginning Monday, June 8, 2020 the periods for all filings, jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional, in the Courts shall resume. For time periods that started before AO No. 2020-4 took effect, the filers shall have the same number of days to submit their filings on June 8, 2020, as they had when the tolling went into effect.
“Day-rate” regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) are very clear: “day-rate” workers” are entitled to additional pay for hours worked over forty in a week. The Department of Labor Regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 778.112, requires that when employees paid on a day-rate work more than forty hours in a week, their hourly rate is calculated by totaling all money received in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked in that week. Such employees are then entitled to an overtime half-time premium for all hours worked over forty that week. Continue reading “Blanchard & Walker PLLC : Workers on a “Day-Rate” Pay System are Still Owed Overtime Pay.”→
“Day-rate” regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are clear: “day-rate workers,” such as retail display assembly workers, are owed an additional half-time pay for hours worked over 40 in a week.
Blanchard & Walker PLLC Payroll Fraud Case Pending: Plaintiff worked doing construction and demolition of merchandizing fixtures for DisplayMax aka FixtureMax, servicing big box stores such as AutoZone and Meijer. Even though she worked more than ten hours a day, six or seven days a week, she was paid only a straight day-rate for each day worked—without the overtime pay required by law. “Day-rate” regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are very clear: “day-rate” workers are entitled to an additional half-time pay for hours worked over forty in a week. Plaintiff in the federal court lawsuit alleges she is owed the FLSA-mandated half-time premium for all overtime hours, and brought the case so that all similarly situated employees of DisplayMax and FixtureMax will have an opportunity to opt-in and recover the overtime pay legally owed to them. Blanchard & Walker lawyers are currently taking calls with impacted workers to investigate the scope of the pay practices at issue.
The Department of Justice’s healthcare fraud settlement with William H. Beaumont Hospital is among the largest against any Michigan hospital. The settlement resolves claims that the health care giant of southeastern Michigan maintained improper referral relationships with doctors and other medical facilities, cultivated a culture that enticed physician referrals with kickbacks, and engaged in other conduct constituting Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
Since at least 2013, the Michigan’s Unemployment Insurance System has had its computers set on data-mining old claims data, sometimes going back up to six years, to find data discrepancies and automatically issue “Robo-Fraud” determinations against unemployment claimants.
Now, just more than a year after we filed the federal court lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s unemployment fraud accusations, the UIA is showing the first signs of a break under mounting pressure from multiple quarters. In April, the federal judge hearing the constitutional challenge issued an Order denying the State’s motion to dismiss and clearing the way for the case to move forward. Meanwhile in Lansing, Reforms to the State System are being contemplated in the Michigan Legislature, where attorney David Blanchard testified last week on the impact of the system for Michigan UIA claimants and on the need to strengthen protections.