In a recent article on the web site of an online law firm, I read an interesting post about the lawsuit that was filed by a law firm’s former employee against the world-known shoe manufacturer of the same name. The gist of the account was that the former employee had been working for Shinola for over a decade and he was fired for asking to be paid a higher wage. His case made it all the way to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but his appeal was turned down by the full Circuit. Apparently, his lawyers had not taken advantage of certain provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that provide additional protection for employees such as:
– Payment of back wages. – Paid vacation and sick leave. – Reasonable notice of continuation. – Job stability. – Reasonable accommodations for disabilities.
The court denied the claim, citing that the FLSA only required employers to offer equal wages and/or other specified benefits. According to the lawyer who wrote the post on the law firm’s web site, the case was actually turned down because the judge did not consider it a case worthy of review. His contention was that if the Court does not order the company to pay for damages, then it is not binding on the corporation to make any changes. He further claimed that if the case was not settled he will file a lawsuit against the company. Since I doubt this will occur, I will save the details for another time.
What is interesting is that the same lawyer who authored the post at the law firm’s site is now advising me on another matter regarding a case that had been submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals by the lawyer who represented the defendant in the original lawsuit. In that case, the lawyer for the plaintiff submitted an affidavit purporting to show that the defendant had engaged in widespread accounting fraud. Specifically, the affidavit stated that the defendant “actively and negligently” set out to thwart efforts by its manufacturing employees to unionize and create supervisory jobs. The manufacturing employee, in seeking a settlement, hired a law firm to represent him and submitted specific medical reports, employment assessments and other documents that supposedly showed the activities were illegal. However, the Circuit Court found no evidence that these activities occurred or were intended to violate any union rights. Consequently, the case was ruled in favor of the employer and the complaint was dismissed.
At the same time, the lawyer who authored that post on my blog representing the defendant in the original case has advised me on yet another potential lawsuit. In that case, a former employer had fired the plaintiff without just cause. The employer had filed a complaint against the plaintiff after the case was denied, but had not yet filed a complaint with the Circuit Court. The lawyer for the plaintiff, appearing on his client’s behalf, petitioned the Circuit Court to allow him to pursue the case until such time as the complaint is filed. The Circuit Court granted the motion and the case was closed.
Whatever may be the case, the fact remains that this case closed before it really even got started. It will be interesting to see what happens next and whether or not the case moves forward. However, the settlement seems to indicate that the future of the labor relations problem is in the best interest of attorneys. If labor unions can show that employers have used unfair labor practices to intimidate their employees, rather than benefits, wages or other fundamental issues, then a lawsuit of this nature may very well force an employer to address the behavior.
