Button - go to Our Firm page
Button - go to Attorney Profiles page
Button - go to Contact page
 
Graphic: Search our site   

Photo - Gavel and Law Books
Return to Home Page
Link to Our Offices page
Link to Current Cases page
Link to Practice Areas page
Link to Media Center page
Link to Articles page
Link to News page
Link to About Class Actions page
Link to Class Notices
Link to Newsletter page
Link to Public Interest Cases page
Link to Trial Experience page
Link to Legal Links page
Link to Employment page
Link to Disclaimer page
Link to Privacy Policy page
Link to Site Map page
 

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 further that Tata’s vacation pay policy does not comply with California law.
Case Status - Updated April 2008
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.
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 2000.
Relief Sought
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.
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 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.

Our offices
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
E-Mail: mail@lchb.com
Firm Website: www.lieffcabraser.com


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
 
Employment Law
Employment Law
Read how we hold employers liable for discrimination and other unfair workplace practices.
Footer