Hair Cuttery Lawsuit Could Tee Up Coming Battles Over Layoffs Due to COVID-19
The suit, filed Tuesday in federal court in the District of New Jersey, could be a harbinger of a coming wave of litigation related to the mass layoffs in recent weeks at businesses whose operations were disrupted by COVID-19.
April 08, 2020 at 04:04 PM
4 minute read
A new wage-and-hour lawsuit claims the Hair Cuttery chain of salons withheld pay from employees when it suspended operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The suit, filed Tuesday in federal court in the District of New Jersey, could be a harbinger of a looming wave of litigation related to a spate of mass layoffs in recent weeks as the novel coronavirus disrupts business operations globally.
The suit says Hair Cuttery's stylists, working at 850 salons in 16 states, were told they would not be paid for their final week of work when the company ceased operations on March 21. Company president Phil Horvath and CEO Dennis Ratner, who are named as defendants in the suit, said in a video released to employees on April 3 that Hair Cuttery hoped to repay them later if the company gets federal pandemic relief funding or when operations resume, according to the suit.
The suit was brought by stylist Nicole Olsen individually and on behalf of others nationwide who are similarly situated, and brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Adam Malamut of Malamut & Associates in Cherry Hill filed the suit. His firm says it plans to file an amended complaint shortly with additional employees in other states.
"We are in an unprecedented economic crisis caused by this health emergency," Malamut said. "The idea that we can climb out of this crisis on the backs of working men and women is completely unfair, unjust and, as alleged by our client, illegal under federal and state law."
Employment lawyers are beginning to hear from prospective clients with grievances related to the mass layoffs that have accompanied the restrictions on activities necessitated by the coronavirus pandemic in recent weeks. More than 15 million people have filed for unemployment since mid-March, and states are struggling to keep up with applications for unemployment benefits.
The mass layoffs have already prompted inquiries to lawyers from people who claim they were picked to be laid off based on factors such as age or race or pregnancy, said Allan Schorr, a labor and employment lawyer with Schorr & Associates in Cherry Hill. And in addition, enhanced unemployment benefits signed into law under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, on March 27 are giving rise to a new kind of complaint, Schorr says.
The new law provides jobless people $600 a week on top of the existing unemployment benefits so that low-wage workers will get paid more on unemployment than while working, Schorr said. He has received inquiries from people who kept their job while others were let go, but would have preferred to be laid off, asking courts to find "wrongful retention" an adverse employment action.
"There's going to be a flood of litigation with regard to the way that unemployment is being paid. I think the court would see that as a valid cause of action. I think we are going to see a lot of lawsuits coming out of this," Schorr said.
Leslie Farber, who practices labor and employment law in Montclair, said she and her colleagues are getting calls from workers who are being forced to use benefit time during a COVID-19-related business shutdown. And an employer's determination as to whether a particular worker is entitled to work from home is another hot-button issue in the current climate, said Farber, who is investigating the case of a worker who was fired over a dispute on that issue.
The Hair Cuttery suit seeks treble damages on behalf of New Jersey employees under the state's Wage Payment Law. The suit is brought on behalf of employees who worked from March 15 to March 21 and were not fully and fairly compensated for their time. A collective action is appropriate because the employees perform the same or similar job functions, were subject to the same or similar unlawful practices, and have claims that are based on the same or similar factual and legal theories, the suit claims.
Employees at Hair Cuttery are paid through commissions, receiving a percentage of the revenue they generate for the salon in each shift. An employee who does not reach minimum wage under that formula in a given shift is paid minimum wage for that shift, the suit claims.
Horvath and Ratner could not be reached for comment about the suit. Telephones were not being answered Wednesday at the offices of Hair Cuttery and its parent, Ratner Companies, in Vienna, Virginia.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 26th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 3On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 4After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 5Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250