SAN FRANCISCO –(May 6, 2013) – In separate rulings issued against Wells Fargo and Citibank, a federal judge in California rejected attempts by the two banking giants to dismiss lawsuits filed by Baron and Budd on behalf of mortgage holders. The lawsuits allege that fraudulent charges were assessed by the banks on the mortgage accounts of borrowers who had fallen behind on their loan payments. Baron and Budd attorneys Daniel Alberstone, Roland Tellis and Mark Pifko represent the borrowers in the lawsuits.

The lawsuits center around fees for so-called “property preservation” services, including “drive-by” inspections and Broker’s Price Opinions (BPOs). When borrowers are behind on their loan payments, banks order these services from third parties and charge borrowers for the costs. The lawsuits explain that standard language in borrowers’ loan agreements only allows the banks to charge borrowers for the amounts the banks actually paid to the third parties for these services, with no mark-up. According to the lawsuits, however, Wells Fargo and Citibank developed a scheme to cheat borrowers by secretly marking up the amounts they paid to third parties for these services by 100% or more, and then hiding the mark-up from borrowers. This scheme generated enormous profits for the banks. A third case concerning these issues is pending against JP Morgan Chase.

As asserted in the lawsuits, to hide the inflated charges from borrowers, the banks used vague descriptions like “Other Charges,” “Delinquency Expenses” or “Corporate Advances.”

“The Court’s rulings in the cases against Wells Fargo and Citibank mark the first step in our efforts to hold these banks responsible for their deceitful conduct and respond to the pleas of bank customers whose cries for help have been largely ignored by these ‘too big to fail’ institutions,” said Daniel Alberstone of Baron and Budd. “As the lawsuits move forward, it is our hope that we will provide long awaited relief to borrowers,” added Baron and Budd’s Mark Pifko.

If you feel that you have been charged inflated or marked-up fees in connection with your home mortgage loan, please call us at 1.866.844.4556 or email info@baronbudd.com to learn more. There is no cost or obligation for our complementary review. All calls to Baron and Budd are confidential.

For more than 35 years, Baron and Budd has been a leader in meaningful consumer litigation. The firm held a leadership position in the litigation surrounding the banking industry’s manipulation of overdraft fees, which ultimately resulted in a $410 million settlement with Bank of America and a $110 million settlement with JPMorgan Chase. Additional settlements are still in negotiation. The case also forced banks nationwide to change their policies regarding overdraft fees.

About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with over 35 years of “Protecting What’s Right” for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd’s size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, unsafe drugs and medical devices, Chinese drywall, deceptive advertising, consumer financial fraud, securities fraud and asbestos cancers such as mesothelioma.

Alert: Granuflo Has Been Link to Serious Health Issues, Including Heart Attack, Stroke and Cardiopulmonary Arrest

DALLAS –(May 2, 2013) –Baron and Budd, a nationally recognized plaintiffs’ law firm, is now handling lawsuits related to the Granuflo recall. Granuflo is the brand name of a dialysate used in dialysis, a long-term medical treatment used to treat kidney conditions, and has been linked to various health issues, such as heart attack and stroke. Baron and Budd Granuflo lawyers are currently working to assist patients and families that have suffered significant health issues after using Granuflo.

On March 29, 2012, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Granuflo recall to revise the drug’s prescribing instructions. The recall stated that using Granuflo could lead to significant heart problems in patients, such as cardiac arrhythmia and low blood pressure.  However, the manufacturer of Granuflo, Fresenius, knew that the product could harm patients before it was even released onto the market, according to an internal company memo.

“Just because your doctor prescribes something does not always mean that it is safe, and not because the doctor is wrong, but because the manufacturer has actively chosen to hide the truth about their product,” said Russell Budd, president and managing shareholder at Baron and Budd. “Granuflo is a perfect example of how corporate negligence can harm people. If Fresenius chose to conduct more tests on Granuflo to make certain that it was safe prior to release, we may not be having these issues now.”

Fresenius Medical Care is the world’s largest producer of products and services for kidney dialysis and more than one-third of the over 400,000 Americans who undergo dialysis treatments each year go to Fresenius clinics.

If you or someone you know has received Granuflo treatments and suffered serious health issues, contact our Granuflo lawyers today at 1.866.855.4556 or email us at info@baronbudd.com. For more information about Granuflo lawyers and Baron and Budd, visit Baron and Budd’s website here: http://baronandbudd.com/areas-of-practice/pharmaceuticals/granuflo-lawyer/.

For more than 35 years, Baron and Budd lawyers have been protecting the rights of people against negligent companies. The firm has an established track record of success when going up against large corporations, including pharmaceutical companies. Recently, our lawyers were involved in the litigation surrounding diabetes drug Avandia. Baron and Budd represented more than 7,000 patients harmed by Avandia use, and currently represents numerous states in lawsuits against manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline. In the 1990s, the firm was closely involved in the litigation surrounding then-popular diet drug Fen-Phen. The resulting settlement was valued at over $1.275 billion.

About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with over 35 years of “Protecting What’s Right” for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd’s size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, unsafe drugs and medical devices, Chinese drywall, deceptive advertising, consumer financial fraud, securities fraud and asbestos cancers such as mesothelioma.

“This is another step forward in the fight for justice for these workers,” said attorney Vaught, head of Baron and Budd’s overtime wage violations litigation section. “Many employees do not realize that they may be due significant back wages and damages when their employers misclassify them as independent contractors in an effort to side-step the federal overtime wage laws.”

Under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law that governs overtime wages, employees are lawfully entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Independent contractors, on the other hand, do not have to be paid overtime pay. However, if the reality of the relationship is that the worker is actually an employee, the employer cannot get around paying overtime simply by attaching the label of independent contractor. This is true even if the worker agrees to be called an independent contractor.

Attorney Vaught has represented numerous clients in cases involving overtime wage violation issues. In fact, Vaught was named “Litigator of the Week” last year by Texas Lawyer for his work in an unpaid overtime lawsuit on behalf of mechanics that were misclassified as independent contractors.

If you think you that you are not being paid all the overtime you are lawfully allowed, or to learn more about the FLSA, feel free to contact Allen Vaught at 1.866.495.1255 or via email at avaught@baronbudd.com. 

About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with over 35 years of “Protecting What’s Right” for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd’s size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, unsafe drugs and medical devices, Chinese drywall, deceptive advertising, consumer financial fraud, securities fraud and asbestos cancers such as mesothelioma.

DALLAS–(April 19, 2013) -Baron and Budd, a Dallas-based law firm dedicated to protecting the rights of people who have been harmed by corporate negligence, is investigating possible lawsuits in the wake of the tragic explosion of the West Fertilizer Co. plant in West, Texas. According to the latest media reports at the time of this release, the tragedy has claimed the lives of at least 15 people and injured more than 160 people. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the explosion in West registered as a 2.1m seismic event.

“Our firm is headquartered in Dallas, not far from West, and we have clients there. We are concerned about all the devastation this explosion has left in its wake. We stand ready to help the people of West as they work to rebuild their lives.”

“This horrible tragedy hits home for us,” said Russell Budd, founder and managing partner of Baron and Budd. “Our firm is headquartered in Dallas, not far from West, and we have clients there. We are concerned about all the devastation this explosion has left in its wake. We stand ready to help the people of West as they work to rebuild their lives."

According to a required company emergency planning report uncovered by The Dallas Morning News, West Fertilizer Co. stated that there was “no” risk of a fire or explosion at the West plant. While the report did state that the company had approximately 54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, a potentially dangerous chemical with suffocating fumes that can explode if lit at very high temperatures, on hand, it claimed that the worst-case scenario would be a 10-minute release of gas that wouldn’t cause any injuries or deaths.

In 2006, West Fertilizer Co. was cited by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality for failing to obtain or qualify for a permit. The company was also fined in 2006 by the EPA for failing to have an adequate risk management plan, according to WFAA.

If you have suffered any harm or have been adversely affected by the West fertilizer plant explosion, contact the attorneys at Baron and Budd at 1.866.855.4556 immediately to learn more about your legal rights. Visit Baron and Budd’s website for more information: http://baronandbudd.com/areas-of-practice/west-fertilizer-plant-explosion/.

Baron and Budd has a 35-year history of protecting consumers’ rights and prides itself on remaining at the forefront of significant consumer litigation. The firm serves on the highest attorney leadership committee in the litigation surrounding the BP oil spill, and has previously taken on BP/Amoco, as well as other big oil companies, in other environmental lawsuits.

About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with over 35 years of “Protecting What’s Right” for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd’s size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, unsafe drugs and medical devices, Chinese drywall, deceptive advertising, consumer financial fraud, securities fraud and asbestos cancers such as mesothelioma.

More information from The Daily Journal:
Thursday, April 4, 2013

By Fiona Smith Daily Journal Staff Writer

It hardly ever happens – a trial over the state’s unique toxics warning law. The high-stakes case scheduled to open Monday concerns lead in baby food, fruit juice and canned fruit and unlike almost all other cases brought under Proposition 65, it has not settled out of court. The fight revolves around whether major food companies violated the law by failing to notify consumers that some of its products contain the toxin. Under the 1986 voter initiative, companies must warn the public if their products contain unsafe levels of cancer causing or reproductively toxic chemicals. Litigating such claims is technical and expensive, leading most cases to get resolved out of court. But businesses, faced with a growing number of legal threats over lead in food, are fighting this case and may be hoping a victory here could squelch a potentially costly problem. A loss means food companies must either label some products as potentially toxic or spend time and money to find ways to reduce lead levels and avoid a warning. The plaintiff, Oakland nonprofit Environmental Law Foundation, is facing off Monday against companies including Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., Del Monte Corp., Dole Food Co. and Gerber Products Co.- competitors that have all banded together with one law firm, Morrison & Foerster LLP, to defend the case. The Environmental Law Foundation has brought on Texas-based Baron & Budd P.C.. Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. RG 11597384 (Alameda Super. Ct., filed Sept. 28, 2011) The foundation claims lead levels in more than 100 of the companies’ products, such as carrot baby food, grape juice and fruit cocktail expose consumers to unsafe levels of lead and that the companies should do more testing and improve food handling to cut down on the toxin. The companies counter that the lead levels are so low that they do not trigger a Prop. 65 warning, and even if they did, the lead is exempted from the law because it is naturally occurring in the environment. They also argue that a warning label on such food products is preempted by the federal Food and Drug Administration’s food safety programs. "[The companies] have adopted the perspective that they know the lead is there, they are not going to do enough to get the lead out…and they are not going to tell consumers about it," said James R. Wheaton, an attorney and head of the Environmental Law Foundation. "It’s lead, for God’s sake, and it’s children." Lead exposure can lead to miscarriages and organ damage in adults and low levels of lead exposure in children can cause brain damage and slowed growth, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Several defendant companies either did not return calls seeking comment or declined to comment on pending litigation. Michele B. Corash, a Morrison & Foerster partner heading up the case, did not return calls seeking comment for the story. The defendants will be spending millions of dollars on the trial and Prop. 65 attorneys will be watching this case closely, said Carol R. Brophy, a longtime Proposition 65 defense attorney with Sedgwick LLP, not involved in the case. "The reason this case is going to trial is this is a product that absolutely cannot tolerate a warning because no one will buy baby food with a Prop. 65 warning on it because it’s babies and that’s why it was chosen," Brophy said. "To try to control the lead levels would completely change the whole agricultural pattern of commerce … and would be unworkable." In court filings, the companies argue that its calculations of lead exposure show the foods do not pose a risk to the public and that they already employ good agricultural and manufacturing processes to avoid lead contamination. "The warning remedy plaintiff seeks…will mislead consumers, conflict with federal goals of encouraging increased fruit and vegetable consumption, and make it impossible for producers to comply with both state and federal requirements," Morrison & Foerster lawyers argue in court papers. "Plaintiff has constructed a bet-you-can’t-do-this maze of aspirational best practices, whose efficacy is untested and whose impact on the industry would be catastrophic," they added. Wheaton counters that other companies are selling similar products that do not contain lead, and the companies could set standards on suppliers to cut lead exposure. Possible sources of lead contamination include past use of lead arsenate pesticide, lead pollution from gasoline exhaust or coal plants, lead contaminated soil or lead leaching from metal processing equipment, he said. "They don’t want to do anything that raises the cost, even by a penny," Wheaton said. "Most of the foods are sourced worldwide – these are just commodities and it’s … a race to the bottom in terms of cost." Since voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986, litigation has mostly centered on products such as jewelry, artifical turf and household faucets rather than food. But that appears to be changing. In the past few years, there have been cases over mercury in tuna and the chemical acrylamide in potato chips and other baked goods. The Environmental Law Foundation case is the first over lead in food, but there could be wave of such cases in the near future. In 2013, the number of notices plaintiffs’ attorneys have sent to companies alleging Proposition 65 violations of lead in food has dramatically increased, according to information compiled by the attorney general’s office. The Environmental Law Foundation sent the first such notice over lead in food in 2010, which led to the current case. Of the more than 50 total notices now out there, close to half were filed in the first few months of the year. The notice letters, which are a required precursor to a lawsuit, include claims over lead in canned oysters, cookies, maple syrup, honey and licorice.

fiona_smith@dailyjournal.com

Law360, Los Angeles (April 04, 2013, 7:55 PM ET) — A California federal judge ruled Wednesday that Managed Health Network Inc. and its subsidiary couldn’t compel arbitration of a putative class action alleging it misclassified licensed counselors working at U.S. military bases in order to avoid paying overtime wages, finding the counselors’ arbitration provisions were unconscionable.

In a 13-page order, U.S. District Judge Susan Y. Illston ruled that the arbitration provision imposed on the counselors by Managed Health Network and MHN Government Services Inc. was procedurally unfair to the counselors because it was buried in “paragraph 20 of 23 paragraphs” in the contract.

The arbitration clause also was substantively unconscionable because its six-month statute of limitations was not sufficient for the plaintiffs to discover Fair Labor Standards Act violations, allowed MHN to “unilaterally choose the pool of arbitrators” deciding the dispute, prohibited punitive damages and would force plaintiffs to pay a $2,600 American Arbitration Association filing fee — “over seven times greater than the fee in [the Northern District of California] and almost 15 times greater than the AAA fee for employment disputes,” Judge Illston ruled.

The plaintiffs, a putative class of “military family life consultants” whom MHN hired to provide counseling to military service members and their families, filed suit last October in California federal court. They claim that San Rafael, Calif.-based MHN misclassified them as independent contractors and argued instead that should be classified as employees who — unlike independent contractors — are entitled to overtime compensation.

The MHN defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that it was a provision in the plaintiffs’ contracts. The plaintiffs opposed, asking Judge Illston to keep the dispute in the public forum of a courtroom.

In denying MHN’s motion to compel arbitration, the judge noted that “although the disparity in bargaining power is diminished because [military family life] consultants are well-educated professionals, it is not fully dispelled.”

“Moreover, signing the agreement was a condition of employment with MHN, and MFL consultants were given no general opportunity to renegotiate the terms,” she said.

Jahan C. Sagafi, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his clients were “pleased the court recognized the incurable problems with MHN’s mandatory arbitration clause and that the claims will now go forward in a court of law.”

Representatives for MHN did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The plaintiffs are represented Mark P. Pifko, Natasha K. Mehta, Roland K. Tellis and Allen R. Vaught of Baron & Budd PC, and Jahan C. Sagafi and Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

MHN Government Services and Managed Health Network are represented by Timothy J. Long and Lauri A. Damrell of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Thomas Zaborowski et al. v. MHN Government Services Inc. et al., case number 3:12-cv-05109, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

–Editing by Lindsay Naylor.

Since 2005, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), a nonprofit organization dedicated to giving asbestos patients a unified voice, has been a driving force behind this resolution. Headed by mesothelioma widow Linda Reinstein, ADAO is the largest independent non-profit organization in the U.S. dedicated to asbestos patients. Taking a stand for patients, ADAO’s mission is to ultimately ban the use of asbestos and eradicate mesothelioma and other asbestos cancers completely.

"While there has been some progress made in the area of asbestos awareness, there is still more work that needs to be done and this resolution emphasizes that,” said John Langdoc, mesothelioma lawyer at Baron and Budd. "Though many people think that asbestos is a thing of the past, it is still being imported and used in the U.S. today. It’s time we stopped bringing this deadly carcinogen into our country and banned its use."

Asbestos, a known human carcinogen, is linked to a variety of diseases, including asbestosis, asbestos lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), asbestos is responsible for more than 107,000 deaths each year. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. imported more than 1,000 metric tons of asbestos between 2010 and 2011.

Baron and Budd is a 2013 Platinum-level sponsor of ADAO, and is proud to support the organization’s efforts for asbestos patients.

ADAO’s Ninth Annual Asbestos Awareness Conference will be March 22-24 in Washington, D.C.

About Baron & Budd

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has a more than 30-year history of “Protecting What’s Right” for asbestos sufferers and their families. As one of the first law firms to successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd continues to actively represent veterans, industry workers and others who are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos. Baron & Budd achieved the largest mesothelioma verdict ever in the state of Texas, a $55 million verdict for an asbestos sufferer and his family in El Paso, Texas. Contact Baron and Budd at 1.866.855.1229 for additional information on mesothelioma treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment centers and mesothelioma attorneys.

Baron and Budd attorneys Roland Tellis and Mark Pifko believe that these issues may be industry-wide, and that many other cosmetics brands are making claims similar to those discussed in the AVON and L’Oreal lawsuits. Other major anti-aging lines include the popular Estée Lauder “Repairwear,” Clinique “Youth Surge,” La Prairie “Cellular” and ReVive “Intensite” collections. The AVON and L’Oreal lawsuits allege that these companies purposely misled consumers about their products and profited handsomely as a result of the false claims.

“Our lawsuits assert that the advertisements for skincare brands prey on consumers’ desire to find a safer and more cost-effective alternative to surgery to combat the effects of aging,” said attorney Mark Pifko of Baron and Budd’s California office. “But, companies go too far when their marketing materials use scientific-sounding claims about pharmaceutical technologies that purportedly operate on a molecular level to convince consumers to believe that their anti-aging products actually work. The truth is that these products are cosmetics, not drugs.”

Tellis and Pifko are co-lead counsel in the lawsuit against AVON regarding deceptive labeling of the company’s Anew anti-aging products. Last year, the FDA issued a warning claiming that the cosmetics company was making claims about some of their products that would classify the products as drugs under FDA regulations. The lawsuit alleges that AVON used predatory marketing techniques intended to mislead consumers into believing that the company’s anti-aging products were capable of turning back time and offering at-home results to consumer that would usually require a dermatologist.

Baron and Budd is looking to speak with people who have purchased anti-aging products from these luxury skincare product lines. If you have purchased these products and feel that you were misled by the false advertising claims, contact us at info@baronbudd.com or call 1.866.844.4556.

About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with over 35 years of “Protecting What’s Right” for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd’s size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, unsafe drugs and medical devices, Chinese drywall, deceptive advertising, consumer financial fraud, securities fraud and asbestos cancers such as mesothelioma.

DALLAS –(December 13, 2012) –Baron and Budd, a national law firm dedicated to protecting the rights of mesothelioma patients, has underwritten the printing and distribution of the updated patient guidelnes from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®). Made possible by the generous support of the mesothelioma lawyers at Baron and Budd, these new guidelines are a translation of the latest version of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). The guidelines are currently available for free download from NCCN.com and NCCN.org.

The updated NCCN Guidelines for Patients®: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma translates the latest version of NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma into an understandable resource for patients and caregivers. The updated NCCN Guidelines for Patients®: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma give patients access to information about the most recent advancements in mesothelioma treatment to help them make informed decisions about their care.

The NCCN Guidelines® are the centerpiece of the NCCN. The Guidelines are created by multidisciplinary panels of cancer experts from NCCN member cancer centers. The NCCN Guidelines for Patients® translate these clinical guidelines into patient-friendly materials that offers understandable information for patients seeking to make informed decisions about their cancer treatment.

“Since mesothelioma is only diagnosed in approximately 3,000 people each year, it can be difficult for patients to find quality resources about treatment,” said Russell Budd, founder and managing shareholder of Baron and Budd and Board member of the NCCN Foundation Board. “As a firm dedicated to mesothelioma patients, we wanted to help bring valuable information to patients suffering from this horrible cancer. We are proud to partner with the NCCN on the translation of these updated guidelines.”

Baron and Budd was one of the first law firms to successfully handle a mesothelioma lawsuit in the United States and is proud to continue fighting on behalf of mesothelioma patients 35 years later. Under the leadership of firm founder Russell Budd, Baron and Budd has contributed to numerous non-profit organizations to help advocate for asbestos vicitms and find a cure for mesothelima. Budd is the only attorney who holds a seat on the Board of the NCCN Foundation. The firm was also an inagural donor to the International Mesothelioma Program (IMP) at Brigham and Women’s in Boston and a 2013 Platinum-level sponsor of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). Baron and Budd also previously underwrote the book Understanding Mesothelioma from CURE media group.

For a complimentary copy physical copy of the updated NCCN Guidelines for Patients®: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, call 1.866.855.1229 or email info@baronbudd.com.

About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The national mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has a more than 30-year history of “Protecting What’s Right” for asbestos sufferers and their families. As one of the first law firms to successfully litigate an asbestos lawsuit, Baron & Budd continues to actively represent veterans, industry workers and others who are suffering as a result of exposure to asbestos. Baron & Budd achieved the largest mesothelioma verdict ever in the state of Texas, a $55 million verdict for an asbestos sufferer and his family in El Paso, Texas. Contact Baron and Budd at 1.866.855.1229 for additional information on mesothelioma treatments, mesothelioma cancer doctors and treatment centers and mesothelioma attorneys.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), companies may only deduct from an employee’s pay when that employee takes a break greater than 20 minutes. However, Alorica forced its employee to log out of their system, meaning that the employee was not being paid during the log out period, for every single break the employee took, including short restroom breaks that spanned just a few minutes. By the end of an employee’s pay period, these seemingly small time deductions would add up, translating to significant decreases in pay.

“What Alorica is doing is against the law,” said Allen Vaught, head of Baron and Budd’s overtime pay violations practice area. “The worst part is that many people probably don’t realize that they are being cheated out of lawful pay.”

To learn more about these Alorica wage violations or to see if you may be affected, contact attorney Allen Vaught at 1.866.495.1255 or email avaught@baronbudd.com. Your call is confidential and federal laws prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for seeking lawful wages.

Baron and Budd has been protecting the rights of consumers for almost 35 years. Baron and Budd attorney Allen Vaught has taken on a number of significant overtime pay cases in recent years including a national case against SuperMedia for off-the-clock-related overtime violations.

About Baron & Budd

The law firm of Baron & Budd, with offices in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally recognized law firm with over 35 years of “Protecting What’s Right” for people, communities and businesses harmed by negligence. Baron & Budd’s size and resources enable the firm to take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals, governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65 violations, unsafe drugs and medical devices, Chinese drywall, deceptive advertising, consumer financial fraud, securities fraud and asbestos cancers such as mesothelioma. http://baronandbudd.com