Class Action Lawsuit Against Tata America International Corporation
Unjust Enrichment Lawsuit Filed Against Tata
On February 14, 2006, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Tata. The suit charged that Tata unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata.
Allegations
The complaint alleges that Tata has required its non-U.S.-citizen employees to sign power of attorney agreements delegating an outside agency to calculate and submit each employee’s tax return to state and federal authorities. Tata then required its non-U.S.-citizen employees who received tax refunds from state and federal tax authorities to endorse the tax refund checks and demanded that they send those checks back to Tata.
Among other violations of California and federal law, the complaint charges that Tata’s conduct violates the California Labor Code Section 221, which provides it is unlawful "for any employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee."
The complaint also alleges that Tata did not pay its non-U.S.-citizens employees the amount promised to those employees before they came to the United States. The complaint states that Tata violated California law by improperly classifying employees as exempt from overtime pay, and failed to pay employees for work in excess of eight hours a workday and forty hours a workweek. The complaint states further that Tata’s vacation pay policy does not comply with California law.
Case Status - Updated February 2010
In June 2006 and April 2007, Tata America International Corporation and its parent corporations Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to as "Tata"), filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the case should be arbitrated in India rather than the United States. Lieff Cabraser opposed the motion. In November 2006 and June 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the motions and took them under submission.
On March 13, 2007 and February 14, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker denied Tata's motion to compel arbitration in India and dismiss the nationwide class action lawsuit in United States court. The Court held that the documents purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of rules to plaintiffs and another set to Tata, negating any mutual agreement to arbitrate legal disputes.
Tata appealed. On July 30, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion of Tata to compel arbitration in India and dismiss the nationwide class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Read a copy of the appellate decision.
"The Court's orders ensures that [the plaintiffs] will have their day in court in the United States before a neutral judge, not in India in front of a private arbitrator of Tata's choosing," explained Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser, co-class counsel for the plaintiffs. "[The plaintiffs] and the thousands of workers they seek to represent are an important step closer to obtaining justice."
In November 2009, Tata filed a motion to dismiss most of Plaintiffs' claims, arguing that the heart of Plaintiffs' case lacked legal merit. On February 4, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and decided not to dismiss this lawsuit. All of Plaintiffs' substantive legal claims for breach of contract and violations of state wage and hour laws will go forward. Read a copy of the order.
Who Is In This Class?
The proposed class consists of thousands of current non-U.S.-citizen employees of Tata working in the United States, plus former Tata employees dating back to 2002.
Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs request that a federal court certify the case as a class action and issue an injunction against Tata, preventing it from requiring its employees to endorse their tax refund checks to the company to the extent it is still doing so.
The Plaintiff also seeks compensation and damages for current and former employees who were not paid what they were promised, who were deprived of their tax refunds, who did not receive overtime pay, and who were required to forfeit vacation pay that they had earned.
Share Your Experience/Contact An Attorney
Current and former Tata employees who wish to learn more about the lawsuit or to join the lawsuit should contact a Lieff Cabraser attorney. All information will be kept confidential as provided under the law.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a 60-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Our firm is committed to protecting the rights of employees nationwide to equitable treatment and fair wages. Lieff Cabraser employment attorneys have represented thousands of employees seeking to vindicate their rights in cases involving gender and race discrimination, overtime pay and wage and hour violations, and the mishandling of funds in pension and 401k plans.
We served as counsel in a class action suit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which led to a novel, precedent-setting settlement in 2005. The settlement required the retail clothing giant to pay $40 million to Latino, African-American, Asian-American and female applicants and employees who charged the company with discrimination. In addition, Abercrombie was required to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.
We served as class counsel for approximately 25,000 female employees of,
and applicants for employment with, Home Depot. In 1998, the Court approved
a settlement of the case in which Home Depot agreed to modify its hiring,
promotion and compensation practices, and paid $87.5 million, one of the highest
amounts ever paid in a gender discrimination case.
Lieff Cabraser has obtained lost wages and benefits for employees in overtime pay lawsuits, including the successful representation of employees of Denny's, Carrow's, the advertising firm TMP Worldwide, the California State Automobile Association, as well as several corporations in the computer industry including IBM and Computer Sciences Corporation.
Notice
This website is sponsored by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, a national plaintiffs' law firm.
Notice: Lieff Cabraser attorneys provide legal advice and practice law for clients in
federal courts throughout the United States and in state courts where we are
licensed to practice. Please read our disclaimer.
Copyright © 2010 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.
No persons pictured on this website are clients of Lieff Cabraser.