This is ClassAction.org's current list of open lawsuits and investigations. The goal of this section is to provide consumers with a comprehensive resource on class action and mass tort lawsuits. Attorneys are either actively filing these cases or investigating to determine whether lawsuits can be filed.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether class action lawsuits can be filed against companies who don't pay their merchandisers overtime. Over the past several years, a number of businesses have been sued after misclassifying their merchandisers as exempt.
Dozens of class action lawsuits have been filed by independent contractors who say they're actually employees under the law. If you've been misclassified from exempt to non-exempt, it's possible that you may have been cheated out of overtime wages for the past few years.
Featured List of Class Action Lawsuits 1 Drugs & Supplements. ... 2 Medical Devices. ... 3 Scams & Ripoffs. ... 4 Defective Products. ... 5 Environmental Hazards. ... 6 Workplace & Employment. ... 7 Finance & Insurance. ... 8 Construction Products & Plumbing. ... 9 Appliances & Automotive. ...
If you had a problem with your credit report, attorneys working with ClassAction.org may be able to help. They're offering to review people's credit reports, free of charge, to help determine whether the company that ran or ordered the report broke the law.
A class action lawsuit has been filed alleging some of the largest poultry processors have engaged in a wage-fixing scheme that has suppressed the pay of plant workers for years. If you worked in a poultry plant at any time since 2009, it’s possible that you were underpaid as a result of this alleged conspiracy.
Elmiron Maculopathy Lawsuit. Lawsuits are now being filed on behalf of Elmiron patients who suffered permanent retinal injuries and seek to recover money for physical and mental anguish, medical expenses and more.
Attorneys are investigating whether consumers are being charged illegal and hidden fees on foreign payment card transactions. If so, they may be able to get a class action lawsuit started to help those affected.
A number of companies have been sued in California for failing to provide their workers with accurate wage statements. The lawsuits claim the paystubs were missing important information – such as the total number of hours worked and hourly pay rates – and that this violates state labor law.
A number of Amazon delivery drivers have sued the companies they work for, alleging that they’re not being paid properly.
Class action lawsuits have been filed alleging that Zantac exposes users to unsafe levels of a probable carcinogen and that the manufacturers knew about the risk but failed to disclose it.
A federal court has blocked a Trump administration policy that categorically denies bond hearings to asylum-seekers. The policy, announced April 16 by Attorney General William Barr, targeted asylum-seekers whom immigration officers previously determined have a “credible fear” of persecution or torture if returned to the places they fled. The American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and American Civil Liberties Union challenged the policy with the lawsuit Padilla v. ICE.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a ruling blocking a Trump administration policy that categorically denies bond hearings to asylum seekers. The case is Padilla v. ICE.
In April 2019 , just after the court ordered the government to provide qualifying individuals with bona fide asylum claims with prompt bond hearings, Attorney General Barr issued a decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N 509 (AG 2019), that would have eliminated bond hearings altogether for Padilla bond hearing class members. The district court issued a decision preventing Matter of M-S- from taking effect and affirming that the government must either to provide qualifying individuals with bona fide asylum claims with prompt bond hearings before an immigration judge with a set of procedural protections within seven days of their request or to release them from detention.
Asylum seekers detained after entering the United States are entitled to prompt and fair credible fear interviews and , for those found to have credible asylum claims, bond hearings. This case challenges the punitive practice of keeping asylum seekers in custody for weeks or months without access to credible fear interviews or bond hearings and the lack of basic procedural protections—like hearing transcripts and written decisions—in bond hearings, as well as whether asylum seekers must bear the burden of proof in bond proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the preliminary injunction in part, requiring the government to provide class members with bond hearings. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the 9th Circuit’s decision in the case to allow for further proceedings. The decision of the district court, as modified by a 9th Circuit decision on the government’s motion to stay, remains in place.
A federal appeals court ruled that asylum seekers must continue to receive bond hearings while the court considers the Trump administration’s appeal to deny bond hearings with procedural protections to asylum seekers.
All individuals must receive their new bond hearing by February 2, 2018.
2017). Hernandez requires that, when determining the conditions of release for an individual detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers and immigration judges (“IJ”) must consider the person’s (1) financial ability to post bond and (2) suitability for release on non-monetary alternative conditions of supervision. As the Court explained, these basic procedures are necessary to ensure that “no person [is] imprisoned merely on account of his poverty,” in violation of his or her due process rights.1
Hernandez is a class action lawsuit filed in April 2016 in the Central District of California to challenge the government’s failure to consider an individual’s financial ability to post bond and suitability for alternative, non-monetary conditions of supervision when determining his or her conditions of release under Section 1226(a). Plaintiffs argue that the government’s failure to