Footlocker Class Action Lawsuit

law

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Locker, Inc. in a class-action lawsuit claiming that Foot Locker, Inc. violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to adequately pay some of its non-employee, non-exempt hourly retail workers even when they are not on the premises of Foot Locker, Inc. The company was recently ordered by a federal court to pay over $5 million to its thousands of employees and to make significant changes to its policies and practices.

Foot Locker, Inc., was founded in 1958 by Larry Fuqua, John Krakower and William Strauss. The company became a well known name in the fashion industry and the company continues to operate in New York City and in many other major cities throughout the United States. The company was originally named the “Foot Locker” but later changed its name to Footlocker in an attempt to escape from the negative stigma that was often associated with the business.

In the past Footlocker was one of the largest companies in the fashion industry. It also had a reputation as a place where women shopped for clothing and accessories. However, it has also been accused by former employees of discriminating against those with disabilities or other disadvantages.

There were at least three instances of discrimination that occurred while working at Footlocker’s New York City stores. First, a manager instructed her employee to wear a mask to prevent herself from being discriminated against because she has a hearing impairment. Another employee stated that he was terminated from the company because his hearing device was stolen. Still another employee claims that the company discriminated against him because he was overweight and because of a pre-existing back condition.

Foot Locker denied the allegations of discrimination in the Footlocker lawsuits. In response to the allegations of discrimination in the New York City stores, Footlocker’s lawyers said that they had never fired anyone because of their hearing impairment or a pre-existing condition. Footlocker’s attorneys also stated that the company did not have a policy of discriminating against overweight individuals with any pre-existing condition. The plaintiffs and their lawyers disagreed, and a lawsuit was filed in January 2020 on behalf of these former Footlocker employees in the Footlocker class-action lawsuit.

As a result of the lawsuit, Foot Locker and the state of New York were ordered to pay the plaintiffs and their attorneys a total of more than $5 million in damages. for their unlawful discrimination and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Footlocker was ordered to compensate each of the plaintiffs for lost wages, emotional suffering, mental anguish and loss of wages; and pain and suffering due to being subjected to illegal treatment.

Foot locker must demonstrate that it is not liable to the class because of the defendants’ alleged failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, and it cannot seek to settle out of court because plaintiffs failed to show that the alleged conduct was a factor that caused plaintiffs’ harm. The court will determine the extent of liability based on its findings and will determine the class size, composition, number of cases, the number of plaintiffs and types of plaintiffs’ injuries, duration of the complaint and the level of injury. If Footlocker proves liability, Footlocker may be liable to the plaintiffs for compensatory damages; punitive damages and other damages; the court may order a partial or full refund of costs and fees.

The Footlocker class action lawsuit is only the second class action lawsuit to be filed against a company within the New York City market in recent years, but this one has received favorable results. As part of the settlement agreement, Footlocker agreed to make significant changes in their employment practices; to train its employees on the rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals; to institute an annual program designed to help employees overcome difficult tasks; to encourage employees to use appropriate equipment and communicate effectively with each other; and to allow employees to take vacations at least once a year. Although this class action case has ended, similar litigation is still pending in some other locations in the United States and around the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *