Active Cases

A
  • Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network
    overview
  • Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network

    On March 17, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Advocate Health Care Network and Subsidiaries.  The class action is brought on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Advocate Health Care Network pension plan.  Plaintiffs allege that Advocate is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding the Advocate Plan by claiming the Plan is exempt for ERISA’s protections because it is a “church plan.”  On December 31, 2014 the Federal District Court ruled that Advocate wrongly classified their pension plan as a “Church Based Plan” to avoid providing benefits  as required by federal law.  Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, upholding  the trial court’s ruling that Advocate wrongly classified their pension plan as a “Church Based Plan.” If you work or worked for Advocate, or any other religious-affiliated hospital, and want more information on your employee rights, please contact us.

  • Lukas v. Advocate Health Care
    overview
  • Lukas v. Advocate Health Care

    Stephan Zouras currently represents participants and beneficiaries of the Advocate Health Care Network pension plan.  Plaintiffs allege that Advocate is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding the Advocate Plan by claiming the Plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church based plan.”  As a result of its misclassification, we believe Advocate underfunded its Plan by tens of millions of dollars.  On December 31, 2014, Federal District Court Judge Edmund Chang ruled in our favor, specifically holding, “the Advocate plan does not meet the criteria of an exempt church plan under ERISA.”  If you work or worked for Advocate, or any other hospital wrongly claiming a religious affiliation to deny benefits under a pension plan, and want more information on your employee rights, please contact us. 

  • Albu v. Home Depot
    overview
  • Albu v. Home Depot

    On 2/11/15, Stephan Zouras, LLP and Nichols Kaster, PLLP filed a complaint against Home Depot for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA.)  Plaintiffs allege Home Depot violated the FCRA by failing to provide a stand-alone disclosure authorizing Home Depot to obtain a consumer report.  If you work for Home Depot or are a service provider to Home Depot and would like more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Edwards v. Aramark
    overview
  • Edwards v. Aramark

    Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents Route Service Representatives “RSRs” seeking unpaid overtime wages against Aramark.   Plaintiffs claim they were misclassified as exempt and are entitled to overtime pay for all the time they worked over 40 hours per week.  If you worked for Aramark as a RSR and want more information on your overtime rights, please contact us.

  • Reynolds v. Axiom Global Inc.
    overview
  • Reynolds v. Axiom Global Inc.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former Contract Reviewers for Axiom Global Inc., a/k/a Axiom Law who worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid an overtime premium of 1 ½ times their regular rate.  Plaintiffs, who were paid by the hour, allege they were misclassified as exempt because they were not paid a guaranteed salary.  If you worked at Axiom or any other companies, such as Robert Half Legal and want more information on your rights, please contact us.  To join the case, please CLICK HERE .


  • Smith v. Adventist Midwest Health
    overview
  • Smith v. Adventist Midwest Health

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Pathologists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On July 27, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Adventist Midwest Health at any time from July 27, 2013 to the present.  

    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Adventist Midwest Health and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • B
  • Butler v. Direct Sat
    overview
  • Butler v. Direct Sat

    On April 10, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' motion and conditionally certified a collective class of technicians working for DirectSat out of their Waldorf, Maryland and Beltsville, Maryland warehouses. Plaintiffs are pursuing unpaid wages and other damages based on allegations that Defendant failed to pay an overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 hours per week in violation of state and federal law.  On September 18, 2014 the United States District Court for the District of Maryland sided with Plaintiffs and denied Direct Sat USA’s motion to decertify.  As a result of the court’s ruling, Plaintiffs’ claims will proceed as a collective action on behalf of all opt-in Plaintiffs.  

  • Brand v. Comcast
    overview
  • Brand v. Comcast

    Our firm represents line technicians who allege they were not paid for all time worked.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege they were not paid for time spent: (1) logging on to their lap top computers and receiving work assignments; (2) working through meal breaks; (3) performing work after the end of their shift; and, (4) on call.  If you worked for Comcast as a line technician and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Bell v. Perry Johnson Registrars
    overview
  • Bell v. Perry Johnson Registrars

    On February 12, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Perry Johnson Registrars (PJR) on behalf of auditors who were classified as independent contractors.  Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified by PJR and are therefore entitled to the same protections afforded employees, including the right to overtime pay.  On April 2, 2016, the Arbitrator granted conditional certification for PJR auditors and lead auditors that were classified as an independent contractor from 2011 to present.  To join the case click here.   Please contact us for more information on your rights.

  • Meier v. Bob Rohrman Auto Group Managers
    overview
  • Meier v. Bob Rohrman Auto Group Managers

    On July 14, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a motion seeking class action status on behalf of Managers of the Bob Rohrman Auto Group.  Plaintiffs allege the defendants, who operate several auto dealerships in the Chicagoland area, made illegal deductions in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.  Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of lost wages for the past 10 years, plus 2% per month interest on the deductions made.  Stephan Zouras represents General Managers, F & I Managers, New and Used Car Sales Managers, General Sales Managers, and other similarly-titled positions.  If you work or worked for Bob Rohrman and have questions on your rights, contact us.  

  • Bergstrom v. Coco Pazzo
    overview
  • Bergstrom v. Coco Pazzo

    On May 21, 2014, Stephan Zouras filed a collective action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of current and former Coco Pazzo servers, bartenders, bussers, food runners and expediters.  Plaintiffs allege that Coco Pazzo violated the tip-credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring tipped employees to participate in a mandatory, involuntary tip pool from which “non-tipped employees” – specifically managers – were permitted to take tips.  On September 2, 2014 the Court certified the case as a collective action, meaning all tipped employees who worked for Coco Pazzo from May 2010 to the present can participate in the case.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages based on Defendants’ operation of the invalid tip pool.  If you worked for Coco Pazzo and would like more information regarding your rights, contact us. 

  • Fields v. Bancsource
    overview
  • Fields v. Bancsource

    On June 5, 2015, Stephan Zouras, LLP won a ruling to conditionally certify a collective action and issue notice to field technicians nationwide informing them of the case and their right to participate in the unpaid wages lawsuit.  Specifically the plaintiffs allege they were not paid for time spent before and after their scheduled shifts checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, completing key audits, logging mileage, documenting ETA’s and working through unpaid meal breaks.  If you work or worked for Bancsource and want more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Baffield v. MasTec
    overview
  • Baffield v. MasTec

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former MasTec technicians from across the United States who have joined the fight to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay.  Recently, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action and issue notice to all the technicians nationwide informing them of the case and their right to participate.  Amongst other things, Plaintiffs claim that MasTec failed to pay them for time spent before their scheduled shifts receiving work assignments, checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, providing ETA’s, pre-calling customers and driving to their first job of the day.  If you work or worked for MasTec and would like more information on your employee rights, please contact us.

  • Cook v. Bank of America
    overview
  • Cook v. Bank of America

    On August 2, 2016 Stephan Zouras, LLP obtained final approval of a $3.25 million settlement on behalf of several hundred class members who worked for Bank of America “BOA”.  Plaintiffs and class members worked for BOA as Treasury Services Advisors “TSAs” and other similarly-titled positions.  In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that they and others similarly situated were misclassified as “exempt” and denied overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week.  Plaintiffs’ counsel, Catherine Mitchell, stated that the significant recovery helps reconcile for all of the unpaid overtime performed by these hard working employees.  If you worked for BOA, or any other bank or financial institution, and would like more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.
    overview
  • Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists and Medical Social Workers, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On November 30, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a nationwide class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Bayada Home Health Care. Inc.  at any time from November 30, 2013 to the present.  Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Brown v. Health Resource Solutions
    overview
  • Brown v. Health Resource Solutions

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On November 16, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Health Resource Solutions at any time from November 16, 2013 to the present.  Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Health Resource Solutions and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Byrne v. Centegra Health System
    overview
  • Byrne v. Centegra Health System

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  


    On January 3, 2017, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Centegra Health System at any time from January 3, 2014 to the present.  


    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  


    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 


    If you work or worked for Centegra Health System and would like more information on your rights, contact us.

  • C
  • Comcast Call Center Litigation
    overview
  • Comcast Call Center Litigation

    Our firm represents current and former call center representatives in states across the country, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Washington, who claim they were not paid for time spent booting up their computers, initiating software applications and performing other work before the start of their scheduled shifts, amongst other things.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages.  If you worked for Comcast, or any other company, as a call center representative and want more information on your rights, please contact us .

  • Brand v. Comcast
    overview
  • Brand v. Comcast

    Our firm represents line technicians who allege they were not paid for all time worked.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege they were not paid for time spent: (1) logging on to their lap top computers and receiving work assignments; (2) working through meal breaks; (3) performing work after the end of their shift; and, (4) on call.  If you worked for Comcast as a line technician and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Heba v. Comcast
    overview
  • Heba v. Comcast

    We represent current and former Customer Account Executives (CAEs) employed by Comcast at its Pennsylvania call centers.  Plaintiffs allege that Comcast failed to pay them for work performed before their scheduled shift start times booting up their computers, starting various computer applications, reading e-emails and performing other tasks.  According to Plaintiffs, Comcast required them to work at least 15 minutes a day before their shift start time performing these tasks without pay, allowing Comcast to collectively save millions of dollars in earned overtime wages.  We are seeking all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages on behalf of our clients.  If you worked for Comcast as a CAE in Pennsylvania or any other state and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Elder v. Comcast
    overview
  • Elder v. Comcast

    On February 17, 2012 we filed a complaint on behalf of all service technicians who alleged they were not paid for all time worked.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege they were not paid for time spent:  1) accessing handheld devices and receiving work assignments; (2) working through meal breaks; (3) performing work after the end of their shift.  If you worked for Comcast as a service technician and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Kurgan v. Chiro One
    overview
  • Kurgan v. Chiro One

    Stephan Zouras currently represents Chiropractic Technicians (CTs) and Chiropractic Assistants (CAs) who work or worked for Chiro One Wellness Centers (Chiro One).  In a recent ruling by the United States District Court, the judge certified a class of employees seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  This means all individuals who worked for Chiro One as a CT or CA between April 27, 2007 and December 17, 2012 can join the case seeking unpaid wages and unpaid overtime.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege Chiro One misclassified them as “exempt” to deprive them from earned overtime pay.  If you work or worked for Chicago One and have questions on your employee rights, contact us.

  • Bergstrom v. Coco Pazzo
    overview
  • Bergstrom v. Coco Pazzo

    On May 21, 2014, Stephan Zouras filed a collective action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of current and former Coco Pazzo servers, bartenders, bussers, food runners and expediters.  Plaintiffs allege that Coco Pazzo violated the tip-credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring tipped employees to participate in a mandatory, involuntary tip pool from which “non-tipped employees” – specifically managers – were permitted to take tips.  On September 2, 2014 the Court certified the case as a collective action, meaning all tipped employees who worked for Coco Pazzo from May 2010 to the present can participate in the case.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages based on Defendants’ operation of the invalid tip pool.  If you worked for Coco Pazzo and would like more information regarding your rights, contact us. 

  • Carver v. Presence Health Network
    overview
  • Carver v. Presence Health Network

    On April 2, 2015, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Presence Health Network and Subsidiaries.  The class action is brought on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Resurrection Health Care Defined Benefit Plan and the Provena Employees’ Retirement Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that Presence is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding their pension plans by claiming the Plans are exempt for ERISA’s protections because they are a “Church Plan.”  If you work or worked for Presence Health, or any other hospital or other employer which claims a religious affiliation, and want more information on your employee rights, please contact us. 

  • Korenblum v. Citigroup Inc.
    overview
  • Korenblum v. Citigroup Inc.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents current and former information technology workers for Citigroup Inc. that were required to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay.  Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as exempt and subjected to a Professional Week or Professional Day pay plan that required them to provide free labor to Citigroup each work week.   If you worked under a Professional Day or Professional Week pay plan and want more information on your rights, please contact us.  To join the case, click here .

  • Cain v. Compass Group
    overview
  • Cain v. Compass Group

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former “Assistant Managers” of the Compass Group and its subsidiary, Morrison Healthcare, who allege they were misclassified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  The Compass Group is a nationwide provider of contract foodservice and support services.  We claim that Compass Group improperly pays Assistant Managers a “salary” to avoid paying overtime at time and a half when they work more than 40 hours in a week.  If you or anyone you know were employed by the Compass Group as an Assistant Manager in the last three (3) years and would like more information about your rights, please contact us.

  • Ostrander v. Customer Engineer Services
    overview
  • Ostrander v. Customer Engineer Services

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents Technical Service Representatives  “TSRs” who have joined the fight to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay.  In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that Customer Engineering Services “CES” failed to pay them for time spent before their scheduled shifts receiving work assignments, checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, providing ETA’s, pre-calling customers and driving to their first job of the day.  If you work or worked for CES and would like more information on your rights or how to join this case, please contact us.

  • Gursky v. Citigroup
    overview
  • Gursky v. Citigroup

    Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents current and former IT employees seeking unpaid overtime wages against Citigroup.  Plaintiffs allege that Citi often hired these IT workers IT through staffing agencies but controlled their work and terms of employment.   Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid for all the overtime they worked.   If you worked for Citi as an IT worker and want more information on your rights, please contact us. 

    PRESS 

  • Cook v. Bank of America
    overview
  • Cook v. Bank of America

    On August 2, 2016 Stephan Zouras, LLP obtained final approval of a $3.25 million settlement on behalf of several hundred class members who worked for Bank of America “BOA”.  Plaintiffs and class members worked for BOA as Treasury Services Advisors “TSAs” and other similarly-titled positions.  In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that they and others similarly situated were misclassified as “exempt” and denied overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week.  Plaintiffs’ counsel, Catherine Mitchell, stated that the significant recovery helps reconcile for all of the unpaid overtime performed by these hard working employees.  If you worked for BOA, or any other bank or financial institution, and would like more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Byrne v. Centegra Health System
    overview
  • Byrne v. Centegra Health System

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  


    On January 3, 2017, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Centegra Health System at any time from January 3, 2014 to the present.  


    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  


    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 


    If you work or worked for Centegra Health System and would like more information on your rights, contact us.

  • D
  • Butler v. Direct Sat
    overview
  • Butler v. Direct Sat

    On April 10, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' motion and conditionally certified a collective class of technicians working for DirectSat out of their Waldorf, Maryland and Beltsville, Maryland warehouses. Plaintiffs are pursuing unpaid wages and other damages based on allegations that Defendant failed to pay an overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 hours per week in violation of state and federal law.  On September 18, 2014 the United States District Court for the District of Maryland sided with Plaintiffs and denied Direct Sat USA’s motion to decertify.  As a result of the court’s ruling, Plaintiffs’ claims will proceed as a collective action on behalf of all opt-in Plaintiffs.  

  • Jacks v. Direct Sat USA
    overview
  • Jacks v. Direct Sat USA

    On June 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Plaintiffs’ motion and certified a class of several hundred satellite technicians and installers who worked for Direct Sat USA and allege they were not properly paid overtime.  If you worked for DirectSat as a satellite technician and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Frisari v. Dish Network
    overview
  • Frisari v. Dish Network

    On July 18, 2014 the Arbitrator granted Claimants’ motion for class certification.  Specifically, the Arbitrator certified the following classes:

    1) All individuals who have signed the requisite arbitration agreement and who were employed or are currently employed by Respondent in the State of New Jersey during the applicable statute of limitations period as Inside Sales Associates who performed work before and/or after their scheduled shifts without pay and worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work week or worked less than 40 hours bit were not paid for any such additional work and were not credited for the time expended on such work.

    2) All individuals who have signed the requisite arbitration agreement and who were employed or are currently employed by Respondent in the State of New Jersey during the applicable statute of limitations period as Inside Sales Associates who were not paid one and one-half time their regular rate of pay when they worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work week.

    If you worked as an Inside Sales Associate for Dish anytime since 2011 and want more information on your rights, please contact us. 

  • Darne v. Ford Motor Company
    overview
  • Darne v. Ford Motor Company

    On November 8, 2013 Stephan Zouras filed a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company on behalf of truck owners and lessees who purchased a 2003-2012 Ford F450 Super Duty truck.  Plaintiffs allege that even with proper vehicle maintenance, there are defects with the 6.4L engine.  Some examples include, loss of power, Engine Gas Recirculations (EGR) cooler failure, oil cooler failure, radiator failure, blown head gaskets, warped head bolts, fuel injector failure, and coolant entering the engine ventilation system.  Plaintiffs also allege that Ford refused to adequately repair certain defects during the warranty period, which required out-of-pocket repair costs when their vehicles’ engines failed after their warranty expiration.  If you own or leased a 2003-2012 Ford F450 and experienced problems requiring repairs, contact us for more information your rights.

  • Davis v. Vanguard Home Care and Tenet Healthcare
    overview
  • Davis v. Vanguard Home Care and Tenet Healthcare

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, and Physical Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On July 15, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed at any time from July 15, 2013 to the present.  

    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Vanguard Home Care and/or Tenet Healthcare and would like more information on your rights, contact us or click here to join the case.

  • Donoghue v. Verizon Communications Inc.
    overview
  • Donoghue v. Verizon Communications Inc.

    On September 9, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of former wireline workers employed by Verizon.  Plaintiffs allege that Verizon and other companies including TesInc and Evans Splicing violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying them at a straight rate instead of the required overtime rate (1 1/2 (x) their straight rate) for hours worked above 40 per week.  If you worked for one of these companies and would like to join the case or want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • E
  • Elder v. Comcast
    overview
  • Elder v. Comcast

    On February 17, 2012 we filed a complaint on behalf of all service technicians who alleged they were not paid for all time worked.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege they were not paid for time spent:  1) accessing handheld devices and receiving work assignments; (2) working through meal breaks; (3) performing work after the end of their shift.  If you worked for Comcast as a service technician and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Edwards v. Aramark
    overview
  • Edwards v. Aramark

    Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents Route Service Representatives “RSRs” seeking unpaid overtime wages against Aramark.   Plaintiffs claim they were misclassified as exempt and are entitled to overtime pay for all the time they worked over 40 hours per week.  If you worked for Aramark as a RSR and want more information on your overtime rights, please contact us.

  • F
  • Frisari v. Dish Network
    overview
  • Frisari v. Dish Network

    On July 18, 2014 the Arbitrator granted Claimants’ motion for class certification.  Specifically, the Arbitrator certified the following classes:

    1) All individuals who have signed the requisite arbitration agreement and who were employed or are currently employed by Respondent in the State of New Jersey during the applicable statute of limitations period as Inside Sales Associates who performed work before and/or after their scheduled shifts without pay and worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work week or worked less than 40 hours bit were not paid for any such additional work and were not credited for the time expended on such work.

    2) All individuals who have signed the requisite arbitration agreement and who were employed or are currently employed by Respondent in the State of New Jersey during the applicable statute of limitations period as Inside Sales Associates who were not paid one and one-half time their regular rate of pay when they worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work week.

    If you worked as an Inside Sales Associate for Dish anytime since 2011 and want more information on your rights, please contact us. 

  • Darne v. Ford Motor Company
    overview
  • Darne v. Ford Motor Company

    On November 8, 2013 Stephan Zouras filed a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company on behalf of truck owners and lessees who purchased a 2003-2012 Ford F450 Super Duty truck.  Plaintiffs allege that even with proper vehicle maintenance, there are defects with the 6.4L engine.  Some examples include, loss of power, Engine Gas Recirculations (EGR) cooler failure, oil cooler failure, radiator failure, blown head gaskets, warped head bolts, fuel injector failure, and coolant entering the engine ventilation system.  Plaintiffs also allege that Ford refused to adequately repair certain defects during the warranty period, which required out-of-pocket repair costs when their vehicles’ engines failed after their warranty expiration.  If you own or leased a 2003-2012 Ford F450 and experienced problems requiring repairs, contact us for more information your rights.

  • Finnegan v. Federal Savings Bank
    overview
  • Finnegan v. Federal Savings Bank

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former loan officers in a class and collective action seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages.  Plaintiffs allege that The Federal Savings Bank, a residential mortgage company, failed to pay its loan officers a guaranteed salary and misclassified them as “exempt” to avoid paying minimum and overtime compensation.  Plaintiffs also claim the defendant failed to record actual time worked by its loan officers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act “FLSA” and applicable state wage law.  On May 20, 2016 the Court granted conditional collective certification for 600 “outside sales” loan officers nationwide, alleging The Federal Savings Bank willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying them as “exempt” and depriving them of overtime pay.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover unpaid earned wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages on behalf of “outside sales” loan officers who worked anywhere in the United States.  If you worked for The Federal Savings Bank as a loan officer you can join the case or if you have questions regarding your wage and hour rights contact us. 

  • Fields v. Bancsource
    overview
  • Fields v. Bancsource

    On June 5, 2015, Stephan Zouras, LLP won a ruling to conditionally certify a collective action and issue notice to field technicians nationwide informing them of the case and their right to participate in the unpaid wages lawsuit.  Specifically the plaintiffs allege they were not paid for time spent before and after their scheduled shifts checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, completing key audits, logging mileage, documenting ETA’s and working through unpaid meal breaks.  If you work or worked for Bancsource and want more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Fatah v. Reza's Restaurant
    overview
  • Fatah v. Reza's Restaurant

    On December 17, 2015 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action on behalf of servers employed by Reza’s River North, Inc., and Reza’s Andersonville, Inc., doing business as Reza’s Restaurant.  Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former servers who contend they were not paid minimum wage or overtime for all time worked.  This is one of the first class actions filed under the new Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (CMWO), which became effective July 1, 2015.  Violations of the CMWO can result in employees recovering three times their unpaid wages along with attorneys’ fees, and the employer is subject to losing their business license.    

  • Fries v. Residential Home Health
    overview
  • Fries v. Residential Home Health

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, hysical Therapists and Speech Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On March 28, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Residential Home Health at any time from March 28, 2013 to the present.  

    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Residential Home Health and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Reed v. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC
    overview
  • Reed v. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC

    On February 11, 2015, Stephan Zouras filed a class and collective action complaint on behalf of current and former Friendly's Servers.  Plaintiffs allege that Friendly's and its franchisees, owners of roughly 300 restaurants from Maine to Florida, violated federal and state law by knowingly requiring its Servers to work “off-the-clock” during unpaid meal breaks and after their scheduled shifts without properly tracking this work or paying any wages for it.  In addition, Plaintiffs claim that Friendly's Servers spent more than 20% of their work time each week on non-tipped tasks for which they were paid the tipped minimum wage.  On May 11, 2016 the Court denied the motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims filed by both Friendly's and one of its franchisees.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages.  If you have worked as a Friendly's Server and would like more information about this case or your legal rights, please contact us.

  • G
  • Guida v. Home Savings of America
    overview
  • Guida v. Home Savings of America

    Our firm is prosecuting an action against Home Savings of America, Inc. ("Home Savings"), seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation on behalf of all loan officers nationwide. We allege that Home Savings violated federal law by deliberately failing to keep accurate time records and failing to pay all wages earned, including overtime, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Our clients allege that hundreds, or thousands, of inside loan officers working for Home Savings were victimized by Home Savings' unlawful practices and are eligible to join this lawsuit. This action is brought on behalf of all loan officers employed by Home Savings within the last three years.  Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to wages for all hours worked and time-and-a-half pay for all time worked over 40 hours worked in a workweek, unless they are exempt from the Act. Federal law also requires employers to maintain accurate records of hours actually worked by employees.  In this case, we allege that inside loan officers were not exempt from the FLSA because, among other reasons, they were not paid a guaranteed salary as required by the Act. Rather, Home Savings paid its loan officers primarily on a commission-only basis. Our clients allege that they often worked overtime hours in excess of 40 per week selling residential loans and that Home Savings failed to record the time worked by its loan officers.  If you are currently employed or have been employed in the past three years by Home Savings as a loan officer and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Gursky v. Citigroup
    overview
  • Gursky v. Citigroup

    Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents current and former IT employees seeking unpaid overtime wages against Citigroup.  Plaintiffs allege that Citi often hired these IT workers IT through staffing agencies but controlled their work and terms of employment.   Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid for all the overtime they worked.   If you worked for Citi as an IT worker and want more information on your rights, please contact us. 

    PRESS 

  • Rocha v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P.
    overview
  • Rocha v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former loan officers in a nationwide class and collective action seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages.  Plaintiffs allege that Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P. (“Gateway”), a residential mortgage lender, failed to pay its loan officers a guaranteed salary and misclassified them as “exempt” to avoid paying minimum and overtime compensation.  Plaintiffs also claim the defendant failed to record actual time worked by its loan officers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act “FLSA” and applicable state wage law. On June 1, 2016, the Court granted conditional collective certification for almost 600 inside-sales loan officers nationwide who allege Gateway willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying them as “exempt” and depriving them of minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiffs are seeking to recover liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, back interest and other damages on behalf of all loan officers who worked anywhere in the United States.  If you worked for Gateway as a loan officer and have questions regarding your wage and hour rights, please contact us.

  • H
  • Heba v. Comcast
    overview
  • Heba v. Comcast

    We represent current and former Customer Account Executives (CAEs) employed by Comcast at its Pennsylvania call centers.  Plaintiffs allege that Comcast failed to pay them for work performed before their scheduled shift start times booting up their computers, starting various computer applications, reading e-emails and performing other tasks.  According to Plaintiffs, Comcast required them to work at least 15 minutes a day before their shift start time performing these tasks without pay, allowing Comcast to collectively save millions of dollars in earned overtime wages.  We are seeking all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and other damages on behalf of our clients.  If you worked for Comcast as a CAE in Pennsylvania or any other state and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Guida v. Home Savings of America
    overview
  • Guida v. Home Savings of America

    Our firm is prosecuting an action against Home Savings of America, Inc. ("Home Savings"), seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation on behalf of all loan officers nationwide. We allege that Home Savings violated federal law by deliberately failing to keep accurate time records and failing to pay all wages earned, including overtime, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Our clients allege that hundreds, or thousands, of inside loan officers working for Home Savings were victimized by Home Savings' unlawful practices and are eligible to join this lawsuit. This action is brought on behalf of all loan officers employed by Home Savings within the last three years.  Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to wages for all hours worked and time-and-a-half pay for all time worked over 40 hours worked in a workweek, unless they are exempt from the Act. Federal law also requires employers to maintain accurate records of hours actually worked by employees.  In this case, we allege that inside loan officers were not exempt from the FLSA because, among other reasons, they were not paid a guaranteed salary as required by the Act. Rather, Home Savings paid its loan officers primarily on a commission-only basis. Our clients allege that they often worked overtime hours in excess of 40 per week selling residential loans and that Home Savings failed to record the time worked by its loan officers.  If you are currently employed or have been employed in the past three years by Home Savings as a loan officer and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Albu v. Home Depot
    overview
  • Albu v. Home Depot

    On 2/11/15, Stephan Zouras, LLP and Nichols Kaster, PLLP filed a complaint against Home Depot for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA.)  Plaintiffs allege Home Depot violated the FCRA by failing to provide a stand-alone disclosure authorizing Home Depot to obtain a consumer report.  If you work for Home Depot or are a service provider to Home Depot and would like more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.
    overview
  • Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists and Medical Social Workers, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On November 30, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a nationwide class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Bayada Home Health Care. Inc.  at any time from November 30, 2013 to the present.  Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Brown v. Health Resource Solutions
    overview
  • Brown v. Health Resource Solutions

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On November 16, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Health Resource Solutions at any time from November 16, 2013 to the present.  Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Health Resource Solutions and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • J
  • Jacks v. Direct Sat USA
    overview
  • Jacks v. Direct Sat USA

    On June 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Plaintiffs’ motion and certified a class of several hundred satellite technicians and installers who worked for Direct Sat USA and allege they were not properly paid overtime.  If you worked for DirectSat as a satellite technician and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • K
  • Kurgan v. Chiro One
    overview
  • Kurgan v. Chiro One

    Stephan Zouras currently represents Chiropractic Technicians (CTs) and Chiropractic Assistants (CAs) who work or worked for Chiro One Wellness Centers (Chiro One).  In a recent ruling by the United States District Court, the judge certified a class of employees seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  This means all individuals who worked for Chiro One as a CT or CA between April 27, 2007 and December 17, 2012 can join the case seeking unpaid wages and unpaid overtime.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege Chiro One misclassified them as “exempt” to deprive them from earned overtime pay.  If you work or worked for Chicago One and have questions on your employee rights, contact us.

  • Korenblum v. Citigroup Inc.
    overview
  • Korenblum v. Citigroup Inc.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP currently represents current and former information technology workers for Citigroup Inc. that were required to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay.  Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as exempt and subjected to a Professional Week or Professional Day pay plan that required them to provide free labor to Citigroup each work week.   If you worked under a Professional Day or Professional Week pay plan and want more information on your rights, please contact us.  To join the case, click here .

  • L
  • Lee v. THR & Associates
    overview
  • Lee v. THR & Associates

    We represent a group of employees given job titles such as “Buyers”, “Auditors” and “Managers” who were misclassified by THR & Associates (“THR”) as exempt from the FLSA and deprived of significant overtime wages.  While THR claimed to pay our clients, who routinely worked well in excess of 40 hours a week, a “salary”, Plaintiffs did not perform the work duties which would permit THR to take advantage of any exemption under the FLSA.  In April 2014, the Court awarded a $12M judgment against Jeffrey A. Parsons.  Plaintiffs are aggressively pursuing this matter against THR and its responsible executives, Jeffrey A. Parsons, Mike DeLong and Jason DeLong.  If you worked for THR and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • Lukas v. Advocate Health Care
    overview
  • Lukas v. Advocate Health Care

    Stephan Zouras currently represents participants and beneficiaries of the Advocate Health Care Network pension plan.  Plaintiffs allege that Advocate is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding the Advocate Plan by claiming the Plan is exempt from ERISA’s protections because it is a “church based plan.”  As a result of its misclassification, we believe Advocate underfunded its Plan by tens of millions of dollars.  On December 31, 2014, Federal District Court Judge Edmund Chang ruled in our favor, specifically holding, “the Advocate plan does not meet the criteria of an exempt church plan under ERISA.”  If you work or worked for Advocate, or any other hospital wrongly claiming a religious affiliation to deny benefits under a pension plan, and want more information on your employee rights, please contact us. 

  • M
  • Meier v. Bob Rohrman Auto Group Managers
    overview
  • Meier v. Bob Rohrman Auto Group Managers

    On July 14, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a motion seeking class action status on behalf of Managers of the Bob Rohrman Auto Group.  Plaintiffs allege the defendants, who operate several auto dealerships in the Chicagoland area, made illegal deductions in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.  Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of lost wages for the past 10 years, plus 2% per month interest on the deductions made.  Stephan Zouras represents General Managers, F & I Managers, New and Used Car Sales Managers, General Sales Managers, and other similarly-titled positions.  If you work or worked for Bob Rohrman and have questions on your rights, contact us.  

  • Mumps Vaccination Lawsuit
    overview
  • Mumps Vaccination Lawsuit

    On September 5, 2014 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Merck’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.  In doing so, the court held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged claims for violations of the Sherman Act.  First, Plaintiffs demonstrated that Merck, as the sole manufacturer of the MMR vaccine, had monopoly power in the market.  Second, Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Merck willfully maintained such monopoly power through falsifying data related to the efficacy of the MMR vaccine.  Accordingly the court held that “taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentations about Defendant’s own product, coupled with the unique facts of the this case (e.g., the 100% monopoly of the market and arguable statutory and contractual duties to disclose information) create the basis for an antitrust claims that Defendant willfully maintained monopoly power through exclusionary tactics.”  If you own a pharmacy or are a health care provider and purchased the Mumps Vaccine, M-M-R®, M-M-R®II or ProQuad®, contact us for more information on your rights. 

  • Baffield v. MasTec
    overview
  • Baffield v. MasTec

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former MasTec technicians from across the United States who have joined the fight to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay.  Recently, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action and issue notice to all the technicians nationwide informing them of the case and their right to participate.  Amongst other things, Plaintiffs claim that MasTec failed to pay them for time spent before their scheduled shifts receiving work assignments, checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, providing ETA’s, pre-calling customers and driving to their first job of the day.  If you work or worked for MasTec and would like more information on your employee rights, please contact us.

  • Meadows et al v. NCR
    overview
  • Meadows et al v. NCR

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents Customer Engineers “CEs” who have joined the fight to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay.  In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that NCR failed to pay them for time spent before their scheduled shifts receiving work assignments, checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, providing ETA’s, pre-calling customers and driving to their first job of the day.  If you work or worked for NCR and would like more information on your rights, contact us or to join the case click here.

  • N
  • Ohle v. Neiman Marcus
    overview
  • Ohle v. Neiman Marcus

    In October 2012 our firm filed a complaint alleging that Neiman Marcus violated Illinois law by inquiring and obtaining credit reports on its job applicants.  The Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act, which was enacted on January 1, 2011, prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history; ordering or obtaining an applicant’s or employee’s credit report; or failing to hire, discharging or otherwise discriminating against an applicant or employee because of their credit report. If an employer or prospective employer has inquired or obtained your credit report, and you want more information on your rights, please contact us.




  • Meadows et al v. NCR
    overview
  • Meadows et al v. NCR

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents Customer Engineers “CEs” who have joined the fight to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay.  In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that NCR failed to pay them for time spent before their scheduled shifts receiving work assignments, checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, providing ETA’s, pre-calling customers and driving to their first job of the day.  If you work or worked for NCR and would like more information on your rights, contact us or to join the case click here.

  • O
  • Ohle v. Neiman Marcus
    overview
  • Ohle v. Neiman Marcus

    In October 2012 our firm filed a complaint alleging that Neiman Marcus violated Illinois law by inquiring and obtaining credit reports on its job applicants.  The Illinois Employee Credit Privacy Act, which was enacted on January 1, 2011, prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history; ordering or obtaining an applicant’s or employee’s credit report; or failing to hire, discharging or otherwise discriminating against an applicant or employee because of their credit report. If an employer or prospective employer has inquired or obtained your credit report, and you want more information on your rights, please contact us.




  • Ostrander v. Customer Engineer Services
    overview
  • Ostrander v. Customer Engineer Services

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents Technical Service Representatives  “TSRs” who have joined the fight to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay.  In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that Customer Engineering Services “CES” failed to pay them for time spent before their scheduled shifts receiving work assignments, checking routes, loading and unloading their vehicles, providing ETA’s, pre-calling customers and driving to their first job of the day.  If you work or worked for CES and would like more information on your rights or how to join this case, please contact us.

  • P
  • Bell v. Perry Johnson Registrars
    overview
  • Bell v. Perry Johnson Registrars

    On February 12, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Perry Johnson Registrars (PJR) on behalf of auditors who were classified as independent contractors.  Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified by PJR and are therefore entitled to the same protections afforded employees, including the right to overtime pay.  On April 2, 2016, the Arbitrator granted conditional certification for PJR auditors and lead auditors that were classified as an independent contractor from 2011 to present.  To join the case click here.   Please contact us for more information on your rights.

  • Riggenbach v. Passages Hospice, LLC
    overview
  • Riggenbach v. Passages Hospice, LLC

    On April 4, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Passages Hospice, LLC, its owners and other executives on behalf of Passages employees discharged following the recent federal fraud indictment against owner and operator, Seth Gillman. Plaintiffs allege Passages and its operators violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to pay approximately 200 hospice care workers for an entire month of earned wages, by wrongly causing them to forfeit accrued vacation pay, and deducting insurance premiums from their wages without actually procure health insurance for them.  We are proud to represent such dedicated, hardworking and caring individuals who attend to gravely ill patients and their families during some of the most difficult times.  If you worked for Passages Hospice, you may be entitled to unpaid earned wages. 

  • Carver v. Presence Health Network
    overview
  • Carver v. Presence Health Network

    On April 2, 2015, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Presence Health Network and Subsidiaries.  The class action is brought on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Resurrection Health Care Defined Benefit Plan and the Provena Employees’ Retirement Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that Presence is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding their pension plans by claiming the Plans are exempt for ERISA’s protections because they are a “Church Plan.”  If you work or worked for Presence Health, or any other hospital or other employer which claims a religious affiliation, and want more information on your employee rights, please contact us. 

  • R
  • Riggenbach v. Passages Hospice, LLC
    overview
  • Riggenbach v. Passages Hospice, LLC

    On April 4, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Passages Hospice, LLC, its owners and other executives on behalf of Passages employees discharged following the recent federal fraud indictment against owner and operator, Seth Gillman. Plaintiffs allege Passages and its operators violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to pay approximately 200 hospice care workers for an entire month of earned wages, by wrongly causing them to forfeit accrued vacation pay, and deducting insurance premiums from their wages without actually procure health insurance for them.  We are proud to represent such dedicated, hardworking and caring individuals who attend to gravely ill patients and their families during some of the most difficult times.  If you worked for Passages Hospice, you may be entitled to unpaid earned wages. 

  • Fatah v. Reza's Restaurant
    overview
  • Fatah v. Reza's Restaurant

    On December 17, 2015 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action on behalf of servers employed by Reza’s River North, Inc., and Reza’s Andersonville, Inc., doing business as Reza’s Restaurant.  Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former servers who contend they were not paid minimum wage or overtime for all time worked.  This is one of the first class actions filed under the new Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (CMWO), which became effective July 1, 2015.  Violations of the CMWO can result in employees recovering three times their unpaid wages along with attorneys’ fees, and the employer is subject to losing their business license.    

  • Fries v. Residential Home Health
    overview
  • Fries v. Residential Home Health

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, hysical Therapists and Speech Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On March 28, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Residential Home Health at any time from March 28, 2013 to the present.  

    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Residential Home Health and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • Reed v. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC
    overview
  • Reed v. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC

    On February 11, 2015, Stephan Zouras filed a class and collective action complaint on behalf of current and former Friendly's Servers.  Plaintiffs allege that Friendly's and its franchisees, owners of roughly 300 restaurants from Maine to Florida, violated federal and state law by knowingly requiring its Servers to work “off-the-clock” during unpaid meal breaks and after their scheduled shifts without properly tracking this work or paying any wages for it.  In addition, Plaintiffs claim that Friendly's Servers spent more than 20% of their work time each week on non-tipped tasks for which they were paid the tipped minimum wage.  On May 11, 2016 the Court denied the motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims filed by both Friendly's and one of its franchisees.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages.  If you have worked as a Friendly's Server and would like more information about this case or your legal rights, please contact us.

  • Rocha v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P.
    overview
  • Rocha v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former loan officers in a nationwide class and collective action seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages.  Plaintiffs allege that Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P. (“Gateway”), a residential mortgage lender, failed to pay its loan officers a guaranteed salary and misclassified them as “exempt” to avoid paying minimum and overtime compensation.  Plaintiffs also claim the defendant failed to record actual time worked by its loan officers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act “FLSA” and applicable state wage law. On June 1, 2016, the Court granted conditional collective certification for almost 600 inside-sales loan officers nationwide who allege Gateway willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying them as “exempt” and depriving them of minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiffs are seeking to recover liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, back interest and other damages on behalf of all loan officers who worked anywhere in the United States.  If you worked for Gateway as a loan officer and have questions regarding your wage and hour rights, please contact us.

  • Reynolds v. Axiom Global Inc.
    overview
  • Reynolds v. Axiom Global Inc.

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents current and former Contract Reviewers for Axiom Global Inc., a/k/a Axiom Law who worked more than 40 hours per week without being paid an overtime premium of 1 ½ times their regular rate.  Plaintiffs, who were paid by the hour, allege they were misclassified as exempt because they were not paid a guaranteed salary.  If you worked at Axiom or any other companies, such as Robert Half Legal and want more information on your rights, please contact us.  To join the case, please CLICK HERE .


  • S
  • Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network
    overview
  • Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network

    On March 17, 2014 Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Advocate Health Care Network and Subsidiaries.  The class action is brought on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Advocate Health Care Network pension plan.  Plaintiffs allege that Advocate is violating numerous provisions of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), including underfunding the Advocate Plan by claiming the Plan is exempt for ERISA’s protections because it is a “church plan.”  On December 31, 2014 the Federal District Court ruled that Advocate wrongly classified their pension plan as a “Church Based Plan” to avoid providing benefits  as required by federal law.  Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, upholding  the trial court’s ruling that Advocate wrongly classified their pension plan as a “Church Based Plan.” If you work or worked for Advocate, or any other religious-affiliated hospital, and want more information on your employee rights, please contact us.

  • Smith v. Adventist Midwest Health
    overview
  • Smith v. Adventist Midwest Health

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Speech Pathologists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On July 27, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed by Adventist Midwest Health at any time from July 27, 2013 to the present.  

    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Adventist Midwest Health and would like to join the case, CLICK HERE.   For more information on your rights, contact us.

  • T
  • Lee v. THR & Associates
    overview
  • Lee v. THR & Associates

    We represent a group of employees given job titles such as “Buyers”, “Auditors” and “Managers” who were misclassified by THR & Associates (“THR”) as exempt from the FLSA and deprived of significant overtime wages.  While THR claimed to pay our clients, who routinely worked well in excess of 40 hours a week, a “salary”, Plaintiffs did not perform the work duties which would permit THR to take advantage of any exemption under the FLSA.  In April 2014, the Court awarded a $12M judgment against Jeffrey A. Parsons.  Plaintiffs are aggressively pursuing this matter against THR and its responsible executives, Jeffrey A. Parsons, Mike DeLong and Jason DeLong.  If you worked for THR and want more information on your rights, please contact us.

  • V
  • Vaginal Mesh Cases
    overview
  • Vaginal Mesh Cases

    Thousands of women are suffering serious complications from surgically implanted transvaginal meshes, also known as pelvic slings.  In our most recent trial, a jury awarded $3.27 Million to our client after finding Ethicon, a division of Johnson and Johnson, liable for defective design, failure to warn and negligence.  The verdict is one of the highest compensatory damages awarded on record against a vaginal mesh manufacturer.  We continue to represent women who suffer from serious vaginal mesh complications.  Click here to read our vaginal mesh lawsuit FAQs.   If you have had a transvaginal mesh surgically implanted and are experiencing pain or other complications, please contact us.  

  • Mumps Vaccination Lawsuit
    overview
  • Mumps Vaccination Lawsuit

    On September 5, 2014 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Merck’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.  In doing so, the court held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged claims for violations of the Sherman Act.  First, Plaintiffs demonstrated that Merck, as the sole manufacturer of the MMR vaccine, had monopoly power in the market.  Second, Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Merck willfully maintained such monopoly power through falsifying data related to the efficacy of the MMR vaccine.  Accordingly the court held that “taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentations about Defendant’s own product, coupled with the unique facts of the this case (e.g., the 100% monopoly of the market and arguable statutory and contractual duties to disclose information) create the basis for an antitrust claims that Defendant willfully maintained monopoly power through exclusionary tactics.”  If you own a pharmacy or are a health care provider and purchased the Mumps Vaccine, M-M-R®, M-M-R®II or ProQuad®, contact us for more information on your rights. 

  • Davis v. Vanguard Home Care and Tenet Healthcare
    overview
  • Davis v. Vanguard Home Care and Tenet Healthcare

    Stephan Zouras, LLP represents skilled care home health Clinicians, such as Registered Nurses, Occupational Therapists, and Physical Therapists, who have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but did not receive overtime pay because they have been misclassified as “exempt” under federal and state wage laws.  

    On July 15, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of current and former Clinicians employed at any time from July 15, 2013 to the present.  

    Because the Clinicians were paid for their work on a combination of a “per visit” basis for time spent visiting patients and hourly basis for other work, we contend they were not paid on a legally-recognized salary or fee basis and thus, are entitled to overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  

    You can learn more about common questions and answers regarding home health care clinicians lawsuits HERE. 

    If you work or worked for Vanguard Home Care and/or Tenet Healthcare and would like more information on your rights, contact us or click here to join the case.

  • Donoghue v. Verizon Communications Inc.
    overview
  • Donoghue v. Verizon Communications Inc.

    On September 9, 2016, Stephan Zouras, LLP filed a class and collective action on behalf of former wireline workers employed by Verizon.  Plaintiffs allege that Verizon and other companies including TesInc and Evans Splicing violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying them at a straight rate instead of the required overtime rate (1 1/2 (x) their straight rate) for hours worked above 40 per week.  If you worked for one of these companies and would like to join the case or want more information on your rights, please contact us.