Former Employees Sue the State of Arizona for Lay Offs
National News
Arizona violated its own rules by firing employees without five days notice and without offering a voluntary separation program, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court. The Service Employees International Union Local 5 Arizona and its members want the state enjoined "from terminating their employment in violation of their rights."
The Arizona Administrative Code sets forth termination procedures including "the use of a 'retention point' system to determine the order of terminations ... with points based on an employee's performance evaluation and length of service," five-day notice of termination, the ability to request a termination review before it becomes official, and "the offer of a voluntary separation agreement," according to the union.
Plaintiffs were or will be fired in a force reduction, effective on the day they receive notice, the union says. They were not offered a voluntary separation program and one plaintiff never received a response from the Department of Administration after requesting a review of her termination, according to the lawsuit.
SEIU Local 5 Arizona represents 5,000 state employees. It claims that more than 700 state employees will be fired as part of the force reduction.
The union and eight named plaintiffs are represented by SEIU attorney Gene B. Mechanic and Nicholas J. Enoch with Lubin & Enoch.
Related listings
-
UBS Bank Agrees to Pay $780M to SEC
National News 02/19/2009The second largest bank in Europe, UBS AG, has agreed to pay $780 million to settle SEC charges of unethical investment practices that allowed clients to avoid taxes through offshore accounts. The Securities and Exchange Commission brought charges ag...
-
McDermott Will & Emery Lay of 60 Attorneys, 89 Staff
National News 02/06/2009McDermott Will & Emery LLP has laid off 60 attorneys and 89 staff members, becoming the latest Chicago law firm to retrench amid a sharp decline in business. In an internal memo sent to employees Tuesday, Chairman Harvey Freishtat said the firm p...
-
SEC Charges Merrill Lynch with Securities Violations
National News 02/02/2009The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and two of its former investment adviser representatives with securities laws violations for misleading pension consulting clients about its money ma...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.