Halunen & Associates

Halunen & Associates is investigating Urban Express for misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees. The investigation likely will lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the drivers.

The investigation concerns Urban Express’ classification of pick up and delivery drivers as independent contractors. Thus far, the investigation has revealed that Urban Express requires drivers to purchase or lease their trucks and pay for all operating expenses, including workers compensation insurance, liability insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc.

We intend to seek, among other things, reimbursement of business expenses, wage deductions, damages as a result of Urban Express’ misrepresentations and unfair business practices, and an order prohibiting Urban Express from continuing to violate the laws.

You may be part of the case if you worked as a pickup and delivery driver for Urban Express and were classified as an “independent contractor.” However, you are not required to do anything at this time. It would be helpful to the case and to the class representatives if you would be willing to document your own experiences. If you are interested in doing so, please contact us. We will protect your name and all confidential information you submit. Contacting us does not automatically create an attorney-client relationship between you and our firm. We can only serve as your attorney if both you and our firm agree, in writing.

It is unlawful for Urban Express to retaliate against you for any involvement in this investigation. If you believe it is doing so, please contact our offices immediately.

The staff at Halunen & Associates is always available to answer any questions you have about this matter. If you would like us to consider your case, or for more information, please contact our offices by telephone at 612-605-4098 or fill out a contact form.

Halunen & Associates is investigating U.S. Messenger & Logistics for misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees. The investigation may lead to a class action lawsuit on behalf of the drivers.

The investigation concerns U.S. Messenger & Logistics’s classification of certain pick up and delivery drivers as independent contractors. Thus far, the investigation has revealed that U.S. Messenger & Logistics requires some drivers to purchase or lease their trucks and pay for all operating expenses, including workers compensation insurance, liability insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc.

We intend to seek, among other things, reimbursement of business expenses, wage deductions, damages as a result of U.S. Messenger & Logistics’s misrepresentations and unfair business practices, and an order prohibiting USML from continuing to violate the laws.

You may be part of the case if you worked as a pickup and delivery driver for U.S. Messenger & Logistics and were classified as an “independent contractor.” However, you are not required to do anything at this time. It would be helpful to the case and to the class representatives if you would be willing to document your own experiences. If you are interested in doing so, please contact us. We will protect your name and all confidential information you submit. Contacting us does not automatically create an attorney-client relationship between you and our firm. We can only serve as your attorney if both you and our firm agree, in writing.

It is unlawful for U.S. Messenger & Logistics to retaliate against you for any involvement in this investigation. If you believe it is doing so, please contact our offices immediately.

The staff at Halunen & Associates is always available to answer any questions you have about this matter. If you would like us to consider your case, or for more information, please contact our offices by telephone at 612-605-4098 or fill out a contact form.

Halunen & Associates is investigating a possible class action lawsuit against Target Stores alleging that the company illegally discriminates against older employees. If you are a current or former Target employee who believes that you were treated differently, including having your employment terminated, because of your age, please contact our office.

Halunen & Associates is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against MW Windows. Some customers have reported that MW windows are prematurely failing by leaking water and rotting, and are not living up to warranty claims.

If you or anyone you know has had problems with MW windows, please do not hesitate to contact us. We would be happy to help you review your situation with a free initial consultation.

Halunen & Associates is investigating a potential lawsuit against several cosmetic companies for misrepresentations about the purported benefits of their eye wrinkle reducing claims. Many advertisements claim that certain eye creams contain various ingredients that significantly reduce or eliminate eye wrinkles, when in reality the products have little or no impact on wrinkles.

If you are a consumer who purchased Elite Wrinkle Eraser or some other eye wrinkle cream, and if you found that it did not have the desired impact on your skin, please contact us regarding this investigation.

Halunen & Associates is investigating a potential lawsuit against General Mills for misrepresentations about the purported benefits of its Yo-Plus yogurt product. Yo-Plus advertisements claim that because of the added ingredients in Yo-Plus, the product benefits digestive health in a way that its normal Yoplait yogurt does not.

If you are a consumer who purchased Yo-Plus for its added benefits above other yogurts and if you found that Yo-Plus did not have an impact on your digestive health, please contact us regarding this investigation.

Halunen & Associates is currently investigating the possibility of bringing a class action lawsuit against composite deck manufacturer Alcoa. The specific product at issue is Oasis composite decking. Some customers have reported that the decking molds, mildews, cracks, delaminates, or otherwise shows signs of failure shortly after the product is installed. Our investigation will help us determine whether the problems some customers have reported are suitable for a class action lawsuit.

If you have Alcoa Oasis decking on your home or would like more information about this investigation, please visit call us toll free at (866) 523-8533 or e-mail us here.

Joni Thome and Frances Baillon represented Ellen Bahr, a former employee, in her reprisal discrimination suit against her former employer, Capella University. The former employee vocally opposed the manner in which her former employer was treating her subordinate employee, an African-American woman. The former employee’s supervisor instructed her to treat the subordinate employee differently because of her race. The company’s refusal to place the subordinate employee on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), caused the former employee’s own job performance to suffer. She spoke out against the treatment which she believed to be unfairly discriminatory toward that minority employee and the other non-minority employees. Just weeks after opposing this treatment, she was fired..

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the former employee. (Click here to read the Court of Appeals’ opinion). It found the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) requires that an employee claiming retaliation allege specific facts to support a claim of a good-faith, reasonable belief that an employment practice was discriminatory; and further, the employee need not prove that the practice opposed was, in fact, a violation of law.

The company appealed the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Frances Baillon presented oral argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of the former employee. The argument centered around whether, in order to gain protected status under the MHRA, an employee must report an actual violation of the law, or just a reasonable, good faith belief that a violation occurred. Also at issue was whether the act of not placing an employee on a PIP because of her race was, in and of itself, a violation of the MHRA.

The parties are awaiting the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling.

Joni Thome and Frances Baillon represented a former employee, David Hollenkamp in his disability discrimination and FMLA retaliation suit against his former employer, Jennie O Turkey Store and Hormel Food Corp. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) makes it illegal for an employer to fire an employee because of his/her disability. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) makes it illegal for an employer to interfere or retaliate against an employee who seeks to exercise his/her rights and take leave under FMLA. The former employee worked for Jennie-O for 36 years, most recently as a sanitation supervisor. During the last several months of employment, he was diagnosed with rectal cancer. The condition required he miss several weeks of work. When he returned to work, with lifting restrictions and a limit on the number of hours he worked, his supervisor told him that he believed the employee was faking or exaggerating the severity of his condition. For the first time in 36 years of employment, his performance was rated as subpar. The supervisor also informed him that he could no longer use sick days− but would have to use vacation days− when he missed work.

Later that same year, the former employee required surgery related to a hernia and bowel obstruction and had to miss work for more than two months on a combination of FMLA leave and vacation days. While he was on leave, the supervisor gave him another subpar performance evaluation. Ultimately, the company offered him the choice to be fired or take a demotion to an hourly position that paid significantly less, that would have caused him to lose his pension and profit-sharing eligibility, and required him to perform physical tasks outside his medical restrictions. The employee declined this demotion and was fired. He claimed he was fired because his medical expenses were costing the company too much money, causing him to take too much time away from work, and his work restrictions prevented him from performing some of his job functions without accommodations.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied defendant Jennie-O’s motion for summary judgment. Jennie-O claimed it fired the former employee because his last performance rating was not satisfactory and therefore he was not “qualified” for the job. But, the court found “an employer’s subjective evaluation cannot establish that an employee was unqualified for the job. “ (Click here to read the court’s opinion). The court also held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Jennie-O’s stated reason for terminating the employee was merely pretext, or an excuse, to terminate him because of his disability or his taking of FMLA leave.

Halunen & Associates is currently investigating Scherer Brothers Far North brand windows which are reportedly rotting a number of years after installation. It has been alleged that the windows are of substandard quality, are prematurely failing, and are not living up to warranty claims.

We are currently attempting to gather information for this case. If you or anyone you know has had problems with Scherer Brothers Far North windows, please do not hesitate to call our offices, or fill out a contact form. We would be happy to help you review your situation with a free initial consultation.