|
|
|
Class Action
Lawsuit Against
Tata America International Corporation
|
| |
| 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. |
| 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 further that Tata’s vacation pay policy does
not comply with California law. |
| In June 2006, 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, the Court heard oral argument on the motion and took it
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 plaintiff
and another set to Tata, negating any mutual agreement to arbitrate legal disputes. |
| "The
Court's order ensures that [the plaintiff] will have his 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 plaintiff] and the thousands
of workers he seeks to represent are an important step closer to obtaining
justice." Tata filed a notice of appeal from the Court's orders. The appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. |
| 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 2000. |
| The Plaintiff requests 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, and who were required to forfeit vacation
pay that they had earned. |
| 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. |
| Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a 50-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. |
|
|
|
|
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Notice: Lieff
Cabraser attorneys provide legal advice and practice law for clients in
federal district courts throughout the United States and in state courts
where we are licensed to practice. In states in which our lawyers are not
licensed to practice, we have affiliations with local attorneys who serve
as co-counsel with our firm. Please read our disclaimer. |
|
|
Copyright © 2008 Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP |
|
|
|
Read how we hold employers liable for discrimination and other unfair workplace practices. |
|
|
|