Chipotle Worker Lawsuit Now Has Nearly 10,000 Plaintiffs

Nearly two years after a Chipotle employee filed a class-action seeking lawsuit accusing the fast casual restaurant of wage theft, the case has signed on nearly 10,000 former and current employees.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2014, claimed that Chipotle would automatically clock workers out before they were actually finished completing required work or attending mandated after-shift meetings.

According to CNN, 9,961 current and former workers from nearly every state in which a Chipotle is located have sent in consent forms to join the suit as of Aug. 26.

The lawsuit centers mostly on what happens when stores close and employees begin the process of winding down operations for the day.

While workers are supposed to end their shifts between 11 p.m. and midnight at many restaurants, some employees tell CNN that they almost never leave on time.

In fact, some employees say they are required to stay after that time frame to finish cleaning, preparing for the next day, or to attend meetings. This wouldn’t be an issue, they say, if Chipotle’s system wasn’t set up to automatically clock workers out by 12:30 a.m. in most places.

“Chipotle routinely requires hourly-paid restaurant employees to punch out, and then continue working until they are given permission to leave,” according to the class action lawsuit, claiming that the issues stem from Chipotle’s desire to meet budget goals.

One employee tells CNN that he recalled working until 1 a.m. one day and asking a manager to make sure his hours were adjusted. When the man received his paycheck, the extra hours were missing.

The chain has denied the wage theft accusations, often claiming that it was simply a few rogue managers requiring employees to clock out and continue working.

However, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs say that argument doesn’t seem to hold much water now.

“Our view, especially given the number of people opting in, is that it’s a systematic problem at Chipotle,” Kent Williams of Williams Law Firm tells CNN.

Chipotle has been on the receiving end of several wage theft lawsuits. In 2014, a Minnesota man filed suit accusing Chipotle of not paying workers for duties performed after clocking out. The 29-year-old former employee claims that Chipotle would conduct training, meetings and other activities in which employees are “required to attend, but for which they are not allowed to punch in.”

Nearly 10,000 workers sue Chipotle for unpaid wages [CNN]

Video Claims To Show Price Discrepancies Of Up To 78% At L.A. Zara Store

Last week, a Zara customer filed a lawsuit against the company accusing it of misleading customers by posting some prices in euros and others in U.S. dollars, and of making up its own exchange rates to charge more for those items with price tags in dollars. The plaintiff’s lawyers now say they have even more proof of this pricing switcheroo.

The attorneys at Geragos & Geragos posted a video on YouTube (careful: you’ll want to turn the sound down unless obnoxious music is your thing) of a visit to a Zara store in downtown Los Angeles that they say shows the company is ripping off customers with its pricing tacts.

“Since Zara apparently thinks American consumers are stupid, we decided to take the #ZaraChallenge and see how much we would be ripped off in 10 minutes of shopping,” the caption reads.

In the video, they show price tags for individual items, both in euros and in U.S. dollars, and then a calculated “ripoff” amount. In one example, the price on the tag for a pair of black shoes is €39.99, which as of today Google’s currency converter says works out to about $45. So the $79.99 listed price on another tag for the same pair of shoes means Zara is charging $35 more than the euro price on the first tag, for a “ripoff” difference of 78%.”

On another comparison, the camera shows a price tag of €29.95 on a navy cardigan, with another of the same sweater priced at $49.90, for a total discrepancy of about $16, or 48%, as the item should actually be about $33. All told, the lawyers claim that that shopping trip would’ve resulted in a total ripoff of more than $175, or 55%.

Might Zara simply be charging more for items sold in the U.S.? Perhaps, but the lawsuit claims that by including prices in both euros and dollars on the same items, consumers are confused into thinking they’ll pay slightly more in U.S. dollars, when in reality they shell out much more than the euro price would indicate.

“[T]he conversion rate is entirely misapplied — to the extent it is even applied at all — such that U.S. consumers are paying far more than the true prices of the products,” the complaint says. Furthermore, Zara’s practice of using euro pricing confuses customers “and lures them to the register,” where they are charged inflated prices that aren’t based on real exchange rates, according to the lawsuit.

Last week Zara called the lawsuit’s claims “baseless,” and said it prides itself in its “fundamental commitment to transparency and honest, ethical conduct with” its “valued customers.”

“We look forward to presenting our full defense in due course through the legal process,” the company said.

We’ve reached out to Zara US for comment on the video’s claims and will update this post if we hear back.

Court Throws Out Federal Government’s Lawsuit Over AT&T “Unlimited” Data Plans

Nearly two years ago, the Federal Trade Commission sued AT&T for allegedly misleading wireless customers by charging them for “unlimited” data plans while simultaneously throttling their cellular connection speeds when they passed certain monthly thresholds. AT&T failed in 2015 to get the case dismissed in District Court, but yesterday succeeded in convincing a federal appeals court to throw out the government’s complaint.

For those who don’t remember the throttling saga, here’s a quick refresher: When the iPhone launched, AT&T was the exclusive carrier in the U.S., and the company marketed unlimited data plans as a way to convince people to try out these new-fangled “smart” phones.

But after a couple of years, as smartphones became the norm and other carriers also started offering the iPhone, AT&T ceased offering new unlimited plans. Meanwhile, existing customers with these all-you-can-download plans were told they now faced a new limit: After reaching a certain monthly threshold their connections to AT&T’s cellular data network would be significantly slowed; in some cases effectively rendering the service useless until full access was restored at the start of the next billing cycle.

The FTC lawsuit involves only AT&T’s alleged failure to adequately disclose the throttling program to — and the possible impact it could have on — affected customers. The Commission contends that this shortcoming is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices.

The catch is that this law also includes a “common carrier” exemption for certain businesses, including landline voice service. The 2015 Open Internet Order (better known as Net Neutrality 2.0) recategorized wireless phone and data services so that they too came under the common carrier umbrella.

AT&T argued — at the same time it was arguing against reclassification of wireless service — that it should be shielded by this common carrier exemption by the mere fact that its cell service included voice calling. Only the Federal Communications Commission could bring this sort of action against a common carrier, claimed AT&T.

The FTC countered, and the District Court agreed, that the alleged violations occurred when wireless service was not considered a common carrier, and that this exemption only applies when a common carrier is “actually engaging in common carrier activity.”

In other words, because the FTC lawsuit is about a marketing disclosure and has nothing to do with whether or not throttling is allowed or fair to customers, the FTC was the correct agency to bring the action.

But AT&T was undeterred by this lower-court loss, and appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the common carrier exemption shielded the company from the FTC Act, even for alleged violations that have nothing to do with the activity of being a common carrier.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit agreed with AT&T, ruling [PDF] that the exemption is status-based, as opposed to activity-based.

The court points to the language of the FTC Act, which confers this exemption on generic types of institutions like “banks,” and “Federal credit unions,” without qualification that these sorts of companies must be involved in the activity of banking to enjoy the protection.

Because it determined that AT&T is automatically shielded from Section 5 complaints by this common carrier exemption, the appeals panel does not even delve into the issue of whether or not the FCC’s recent reclassification of wireless service — or the fact that the alleged violations occurred before that change — has any bearing on the case.

A rep for AT&T tells Consumerist the company is pleased with the decision.

Meanwhile, the FTC is not exactly thrilled by the Ninth Circuit’s conclusions.

“We are disappointed with the ruling and are considering our options for moving forward,” a rep for the Commission tells Consumerist.

Those options include appealing the ruling to either the full Ninth Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An appeal seems likely, given the potential precedent set by yesterday’s ruling. Unlike the financial institutions that are included in the FTC Act exemption, telephone companies don’t have a regulator that can hold them responsible for misleading marketing and unfair practices the way the FTC can.

The law would allow for the FCC to bring actions against AT&T for situations like those described in the FTC’s complaint. However, as the FTC noted in its response to AT&T’s initial appeal, “The FCC is not authorized to seek refunds for injured consumers, and its enforcement authority is limited to conduct going back one year.”

This is why the FTC and FCC have partnered in the past on actions involving bill-cramming — the practice of allowing third parties to place questionable charges for additional services on customers’ phone bills. The FTC has the authority to seek redress for consumers, while the FCC has the authority to seek penalties against the telecom providers.

Every major wireless provider now includes forced arbitration clauses in their terms of service, meaning customers no longer have the right to file lawsuits or join in class actions against their phone company. If the Ninth Circuit ruling stands — or is upheld by SCOTUS — it could take away one of the few remaining ways to hold telephone companies accountable when they deceive a large number of American consumers.

Airbnb Hosts Having Difficulty Refinancing Homes

Until recently, home loans generally covered two types of properties: primary residences or investments. That was before services like Airbnb allowed anyone with an extra room to make a bit of extra money by renting it out for short periods of time. This blurred line between “my house” and “my investment” is causing trouble for some homeowners when they go to refinance their mortgages.

More and more homeowners say they are finding themselves on the receiving end of rejection letters from their long-time banks when trying to refinance their mortgage, simply because they rent a room on Airbnb, the Wall Street Journal reports.

When applying to refinance their loans, owners say they were under the impression that having a higher income would improve their credit. So they reported all income drawn for short-term rental deals.

But banks don’t exactly see it that way, the WSJ reports.

Because short-term rentals made online through Airbnb are fairly new, banks are having a difficult time placing these homes in the two predefined categories.

The process of renting out one’s home or a room gives the impression that the house is now considered a rental, or an investment property.

And these types of properties have long been considered to be riskier for banks, as homeowners have shown a higher tendency to default on investment-property loans.

One Seattle man says his application to refinance his home’s loan through Bank of America was denied recently.

The man reported on the application that he had collected $30,000 last year from renting the cottage in his home’s backyard. The bank reportedly told him the request was rejected because it didn’t allow home-equity lines of credit on properties in which the homeowner is operating a business.

“Here’s a bank I’ve had a relationship with for 30 years,” he said. “The assumption to me was the more your income is, the less risk to them. That assumption was wrong.”

A rep for Bank of America tells the WSJ that it would consider a customer’s home an investment property if there was a “material amount of commercial activity,” but that “incremental renting” wouldn’t be an issue.

A similar situation played out for a San Francisco couple and Wells Fargo. When the pair wanted to refinance their home, which is active on Airbnb for half of the year, they were instead told to apply as if the home were an investment property. However, that came with a 0.5% higher interest rate.

A rep for the bank tells the WSJ that Wells Fargo has no policy of restricting short-term rentals on its borrowers’ properties. Still, the spokesperson says there can be some confusion and tiptoeing related to new Airbnb rentals and banks’ willingness to issue mortgages or refinance existing ones.

Banks’ unwillingness to provide refinanced loans or mortgages to properties drawing income from short-term rentals could be tied to the past housing crisis, the WSJ reports.

When a homeowner defaults on a mortgage, investors or the government could ask the lender to repurchase the soured loan. To avoid this fate, many banks are playing it safe — at least for now.

Airbnb Income: How It Can Mess With Your Mortgage ‘Refi’ [The Wall Street Journal]

Amazon Testing A 30-Hour Work Week For Some Employees

The dream of the four-day workweek is alive at Amazon, where the company is testing out a plan that has certain teams of workers on a part-time schedule.

The teams consist of information-technology specialists in Amazon’s human resources department, who will work Monday through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., using the 16 remaining hours as flex work throughout the week, the company noted in a recent post on Eventbrite (h/t Seattle Times).

Amazon decided to try something new because the usual 40-hour work week “may not be a ‘one size fits all’ model.” And although the company has folks in part-time positions elsewhere, this is a change from the norm because entire teams are organized on the same schedule.

The teams of part-timers are known as “two pizza teams” — not because they get to eat two pizzas every work week, which would be amazing, but because they have the right amount of people on them to be fed easily with just two pizzas. That’s about a dozen people, if I’m not there.

The tests are limited so far to three of these “two pizza” teams, with more than 20,000 full-time staff still toiling away on the usual schedule. The part-timers still get the same benefits as their colleagues, however.

“While the part-time employees’ projects will be carefully managed to align with schedules, they will share the same objective of all of our teams: to build great things on behalf of our customers,” the company wrote.

Whirlpool Recalls 15K Microwaves After Reports Of Three Fires

Microwaves are supposed to heat up your leftovers or make popcorn, not catch fire. So after learning about a handful of Whirlpool microwaves going up in smoke and/or flames, the company says it will recall more than 15,000 of the kitchen appliances.

Whirlpool announced the recall of 15,200 microwaves after determining a plastic component inside has the potential to catch fire.

“Internal arcing during use can ignite an internal plastic component, posing a fire hazard,” the company said Whirlpool said of the microwave-oven hood combination appliances.

According to a notice posted with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Whirlpool has received five reports of fire hazard incidents, including one home fire, two fires involving surrounding cabinets, one report of smoke, and one report of a burning odor.

The microwaves were sold in stainless steel, black, and white for between $370 and $470 at Best Buy, HH Gregg, Lowes, Sears, and other home improvement, home appliance and retail stores and by homebuilders nationwide from January 2014 through April 2016.

Affected microwaves can be identified by model and serial numbers located on the inside of the unit or above the oven cavity on the left side.

The follow models are affected:

Owners should immediately stop using the recalled microwaves, unplug the units and contact Whirlpool for a free replacement product, the company says.

[via MLive]

American Airlines Asks Passengers To Make Flying Experience Better (Because It Won’t)

American Airlines wants you to be happy in the air. Or at least, they want you not to cause an incident that will result in an emergency landing and major disruption. So instead of adding features, creating legroom, or improving their end of things, American’s asking you: have you considered being more zen and less face-punchy?

That’s the gist, if not the actual wording, of a new ad campaign American’s trying out, the New York Times reports. The theme of the campaign is that “great flyers make the best of their situation,” and they want you to be great, “no matter where you’re sitting.”

Your seat, the airline seems to concede, will be horribly unpleasant. Conditions will be cramped. Everyone will be angry and tired. So instead of advertising features — like WiFi or in-flight entertainment — that could make you want to fly with them, they’re trying a new tactic: asking you not to be a jerk.

American implores you: bring noise-canceling headphones if you don’t like the sound of babies crying. Ask someone before you raise or close the window shade! And let the person in the middle seat have the armrests.

Of course, as our colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports recently wrote, air rage is kind of endemic to modern air travel. And while each of us is an adult who needs to be responsible for our own actions… blaming all of the unpleasantness on the passengers is a bit unfair.

“The airlines are pitting passengers against each other by toughening their environment and creating less friendly and more competitive interactions,” an expert told Consumer Reports. It might be leg room and fee transparency that make travelers less stabby, but in a world of continually shrinking seats and shrinking competition, even those little perks can be hard to come by.

So, yes: passengers, definitely take a deep breath when confronted by an unpleasant situation, and don’t take it out on the people near you — they don’t like it either. Be polite, be civil, and don’t cause an incident we’d cover; nobody wants that.

But maybe if the airlines could literally give an inch, for shoulder and knee room, that would help too.

Great Fliers Make the ‘Best of Their Situation,’ American Airlines Suggests [New York Times]