Court Tosses Workplace Lawsuit Waiver

April 29, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A federal appellate court has struck down an employment lawsuit waiver signed by a Michigan couple when they applied for paramedics jobs in 2005.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the waivers, in which Alan and Kimberly Alonso promised not to sue Huron Valley Ambulance over workplace issues, were not valid because the couple never got enough information to “knowingly and intelligently” give up their right to go to court.  The couple didn’t know exactly what they were signing nor were they clear on what the alternatives to litigation would be; in the Alonsos’ case, the waiver provided that disputes would go to an internal Grievance Review Board, the court said.

The appellate court held the Alonsos can move forward with claims they were discriminated against and were the victims of retaliation despite having signed the waiver documents.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

“At the time the Alonsos signed waivers of their rights to a judicial forum, they had no idea what the Grievance Review Board process entailed. They were never informed of their right to revoke their waiver. They were not given any documentation regarding the process until almost a month after they began their employment,” the court wrote.

The Alonsos’ allege that Huron Valley Ambulance retaliated and discriminated against them for taking time off for health issues.

In February 2008, Alan Alonso was terminated for allegedly lying about his attendance at an Army National Guard training course and testing positive for drugs while at work.  Meanwhile, Kimberly Alonso, who had requested time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) due to a pregnancy, was allegedly subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against for taking FMLA leave. A district court dismissed all claims.

The company has defended its actions, saying it believes its dealings with the Alonsos were legal.

Massage Parlor Didn’t Bare All about Job Requirements

April 29, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A former employee of a massage business in Australia has been fined $1,500 after admitting to misleading jobseekers by failing to reveal they would be mostly naked and massage naked men.

The former employee of Bikini Girls Massage pleaded guilty in the Perth Magistrates Court to two counts of conduct liable to mislead in relation to employment, a breach of the Fair Trading Act, according to the Australian Associated Press. The Western Australia consumer protection commissioner alleged job vacancy ads in community newspapers disguised the true nature of the work, which involved female staff wearing bikinis while massaging naked or mostly naked men.

The commissioner’s lawyer described the recruitment practices as predatory and the chief magistrate expressed concern over the use of phrases like ‘health salon’ in ads really recruiting for massage parlors.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Consumer Protection has also charged the alleged operators of Bikini Girls, Bon Levi and Colin Burton, on multiple counts of misleading advertising – Levi faces 91 charges and Burton faces 14 charges, the AAP said. They are due to face trial on September 1, and both have pleaded not guilty.

«