|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Banks, Paychecks, Service Fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 08-19-2009 11:46 AM
So by your logic, as long as you put a sign in your theater that your policy was to take back half of the pop corn from the large bucket when I present my coupon... that makes it OK?
And as far as "Why hasn't anyone sued yet?" ...
They have.
quote:
The law firm of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against U.S. Bank of California for charging employees of business payroll accountholders a $10 fee to cash their paychecks. Many of these employees are lower-paid workers who do not hold personal checking accounts and rely on their employers' banks to cash their checks.
"We are seeking an injunction to stop the bank from charging $10 per paycheck cashing fees without notifying its accountholders of potential adverse legal consequences, or at the very least, to require U.S. Bank to disclose these practices to current and future business customers," says Nicholas P. Roxborough, co-managing partner of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye who filed the lawsuit. "In the meantime, our client is reimbursing his employees who, to their knowledge, are being charged this additional fee-a practice that has not been disclosed by the bank to our client or other customers."
The plaintiff in the suit against U.S. Bank of California is Leae Asset Management, a granite, marble and recycling business that believes the bank's fees have placed the company in violation of Section 212 of the California Labor Code, which requires that paychecks 'be negotiable and payable in cash, on demand, without discount.' The plaintiff is acting on behalf of other California employers in the state, many who have lower-paid workers living paycheck to paycheck.
"Our suit against U.S. Bank of California doesn't focus on whether or not a bank has the right to charge a check cashing fee, but it does strongly contend that a bank cannot do so without advising its clients of the legal consequences, and more specifically, that this practice may subject employers to liability of certain provisions of the Labor Code," explains Roxborough.
The Department of Industrial Relations, which is responsible for enforcing the Labor Code, has already concurred that this type of bank fees violates the California Labor Code, stating that it subjects employers to criminal prosecution and substantial penalties under Labor Code 215 and 225.
Based on the outcome of similar lawsuits filed by Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye over the past two years, Roxborough is confident the bank will reach a resolution and the right thing will be done for both consumers and the employer community. Lawsuits against Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank resulted in settlements benefiting tens of thousands of employers and employees throughout California.
It's interesting that the EMPLOYER is suing the bank because it believes that the bank's practice is putting them (the employer) in violation of California labor laws.
But that practice is strangely still going on - at least around here.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic