By: Elizabeth Lopez

A law firm in New York has recently filed a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile USA, claiming that the cellular service giant has been underpaying their overtime. The lawsuit involves employees’ from T-Mobile nation-wide who have been employed since July 10th, 2006 to present. The allegations by retail associates and supervisors alike state that they have not been paid regular wages for all hours worked or overtime in excess of forty hours per week.

The Complaint is also asserting New York State Labor Law claims on behalf of the New York employees, as well as California Wage Law claims on behalf of the California employees who worked for T-Mobile from July 10th, 2006.

The sales representatives and supervisors claim to have been hired to work over forty hours per week and were not paid wages or overtime for all the hours they worked. The employees were all issued “T-Mobile smart devices” and were required to review and respond to any and all T-Mobile related emails and text messages at all hours, whether or not they were logged into the company’s time keeping system. They were also required to work “off the clock” during scheduled lunch breaks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Complaint seeks an award of damages for all unpaid wages and liquidated damages.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other laws specifically govern which employees can receive overtime pay and the minimum amounts that employers have to pay. If your employer has tried to rewrite these rules, talk to us.

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, our employment law attorneys handle unpaid overtime wage disputes for clients on Long Island and throughout the New York City area, and have had significant success in these matters, our firm files claims on behalf of individual clients as well as groups, and can take unpaid overtime wage disputes on a nationwide basis as well.

For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658

By Karen Best

Romell Broom was sentenced to death for the September 14th rape and murder of 14 year old Tryna Middleton. Broom was just a needle away from being executed in the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility when his vein collapsed. A prison log book blames the problem on Brooms previous drug use. The log book also indicated that the medical team took an hour to find the vein that did not work.

Broom was reportedly cooperating with the medical team because he  was ready to die. He assisted the team in trying to find other veins in his arms and legs but nothing worked. The execution had to be called off because the medical team didn’t believe the vein would be able to hold once the execution reached the point for the lethal drugs to be administered.

Governor Ted Strickland ordered Broom a one week reprieve after Broom’s lawyer faxed and e-mailed a request to the Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice. There is an Ohio law that requires executions to be quick and painless. His lawyer also stated, continuing the effort would have been a violation of Broom’s constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.

It is possible that Broom’s execution might not occur in a week if there are legal challenges. A representative from Death Penalty Information Center believes there might be an issue of Ohio’s standards of decency to subject an individual to multiple executions. The Americans Civil Liberties Union of Ohio also interjected on behalf of Broom. Counsel from the organization stated “Ohio’s execution system is fundamentally flawed. If the state is going to take a person’s life, they must ensure that it is done as humanely as possible.”

Civil rights are different from any other rights we have as citizens of a free country. They represent basic principles of democracy and fairness, and protect our individual abilities to live life on our own terms. Because of that, whenever a person’s civil rights are violated by another — whether that person is an employer, a police officer or a government agency — the violation is deeply personal. As a firm, we have experience in all aspects of civil rights litigation, and are frequently sought out by radio, television and print media journalists to discuss these topics. For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By Karen Best

On a trip to Ukraine to do charity work Elton John visited a hospital for HIV-infected children. While touring the hospital John and his partner David Furnish met and fell in love with a baby named Lev. The couple took to Lev so much they decided they wanted to adopt him.

Unfortunately for John, he did not meet the qualifications to adopt under Ukrainian law. Ukrainian family minister, Yuriy Pavlenko, informed John that because he is over 45 years older than Lev and isn’t in a traditional marriage he was ineligible to adopt. In Ukrainian homosexual marriages are not recognized. Also, the adopting parents must not be over 45 years of the adopted child and John is 62.

Pavlenko stated, “Foreign citizens who are single have no right to adopt children … and the age difference between the adopter and the child cannot be more than 45 years.” “The law is the same for everybody: for a president, for a minister, for Elton John.”

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we try to accommodate as many of our clients’ legal needs as possible. This builds trust and provides value to the client in many ways. And although our firm has earned a tremendous reputation in cases that can generally be described as civil rights or employment litigation, the experience and skills we have developed in those matters translate very well to matters involving family law. For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By: Elizabeth Lopez

At a time where retirement does not seem like a reasonable option for most people, some companies are attempting to keep their old employees out of a job by denying them the possibility of reemployment. In New York, the U.S. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the telecommunications giant AT&T, Inc., after they reportedly refused reemployment to previously retired employees.

The EEOC is charging AT&T with discrimination against a class of retired workers who claim they were denied reemployment based solely on their decision to retire early, under such plans as the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP), Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program (EPR) to name a few. AT&T’s decision on this matter resulted in a disproportionate amount of workers being unable to apply for reemployments, a clear violation of the Age Discrimination Act (ADEA). John Yates, a former AT&T employee who filed the discrimination charge with the EEOC, along with a class of other retired AT&T workers all claim that they were denied employment because they had participated in the VRIP, EPR or other retirement program. Yates along with the other retirees are 40 years of age or older and by law are all protected from discrimination because of their age under the ADEA.

AT&T’s policy is in direct violation of the ADEA and has been ongoing since at least October 1, 2006, the EEOC said. “We’ve been taking a new and hard look at age discrimination recently, and we’re intent on enforcing the ADEA strategically and vigorously”, said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis added, “All employees, regardless of their age, should be permitted to complete for jobs equally. That is the fundamental right that the ADEA grants to older workers. We hope this lawsuit sends a message to such employers that the EEOC will seek relief when it finds the law has been violated.”

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we believe that discrimination at work, or anywhere else, has no place in a free and democratic society. The law agrees. More employers might agree too — if only they could feel the same kind of personal devastation, loss of self-esteem, desperation and depression that their victims do. If you have been discriminated against by an employer, talk to us.    Contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By Karen Best

What would a soap opera be without a dramatic storyline? It would probably be a sitcom or a television series. One of the star’s of the show One Life To Live intents to bring some of the on camera drama to real life.

Fourteen year soap opera veteran, Patricia Mauceri, is considering taking legal action against television company ABC.  Mauceri believes she was terminated by the show because of her religious beliefs. When Mauceri received storyline changes for her character, Charlotte Vega, she decided to ask questions. Mauceri objected to the changes because she is a devout Christian and the storyline required her to be supportive of her on camera son, possibly being gay.

Mauceri claims she “did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline … And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character’s belief system is aligned to.”

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we believe that discrimination at work, or anywhere else, has no place in a free and democratic society. For more than two decades, attorneys at Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC have been championing the rights of employees and fighting discrimination in the workplace. If you have been discriminated against by an employer, talk to us. Contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.