Certification Granted in Verizon Commission Chargeback Case
March 24, 2006
We just learned that the class action for Verizon advertising sales reps has been certified by the Orange County Superior Court. In Gabriel v. Verizon Communications Inc. (OCSC Case No. 04 CC 00591), three former Verizon telephone directory advertising sales representatives allege that the company unlawfully deducted business losses from their wages by taking "charge backs" against incentive compensation revenues lost when a customer does not pay for its ads or when the company gives discounts or credits to its advertisers for business reasons, whether or not the discount was due to the sales rep's own mistake.
Sounds like Steinhebel, no?
Posted by: Tom | March 24, 2006 at 04:04 PM
Can an employer solely pay commission with no hourly base? For example, selling goods door to door.
Posted by: Jose | April 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM
Please call me if you have any interest or experience in taking these types of cases .
Employer discriminated against Mr. Lirette on the basis of his age, his disabilities,retaliated and terminated our client due to fact he was on FMLA. This conduct violated federal and state laws including, without limitation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and CA. WHISTLEBLOWER LAW. On or about November 3, 2002, the Employer hired Mr. Lirette as a Senior Sales Representative at their California office. During the course of his employment, Mr. Lirette was promoted to Senior Area Project Engineer and to Account Executive. Mr. Lirette always received excellent performance reviews.
On June 14, 2004, Mr. Lirette was in an automobile accident (In A Company Car) while performing his job duties requiring hospitalization for three days and absence from work for nine days. After the accident, Mr. Lirette continued to be on pain medication and continued to have back problems. On February 10, 2005, Mr. Lirette's doctor put him on work restriction and placed Mr. Lirette on a pain management program which required limited duty and bed rest. Mr. Lirette was on intermittent leave from February 10, 2005 until May 12, 2005. The manager allowed Mr. Lirette to work from home, on the telephone, to attend certain sales meetings, present presentations to customers, and provide technical assistance and sales support as needed. Mr. Lirette continued to perform these duties and functions without problem or complaint.
On April 27, 2005, Mr. Lirette discovered that his employer had been providing Centrifugal Chiller's retrofits with Variable Frequency Devices without doing the necessary critical path analysis on wheel sizes. If the chiller were to operate for any length of time in its critical frequency, it could cause the chiller to come apart. Mr. Lirette notified his upper management.
About two weeks later, on May 12, 2005, his manager terminated Mr. Lirette for economic reasons. This excuse for Mr. Lirette termination is pre-textual as at least three other employees were hired prior to Mr. Lirette termination. These other employees were not only younger than Mr. Lirette but were also under the age of forty. At the time of his termination Mr. Lirette was fifty-six (56) years old. The young employees were placed in similar positions to Mr. Lirette. Additionally, there were at least twenty-five (25) positions open throughout the country that Mr. Lirette could have filled. He was not offered or given the chance to apply for any of these positions. When Mr. Lirette had previously applied for the position of Account Executive for Orange County, he was told that he was denied the position because management (Sales Manager) wanted someone with more seasoning. Due to your Manager's Negligent and Malicious Intend to harm Mr. Lirette and thier inept ablility in dealing with terminating employees has cause Mr. Lirette Sever Traumatic Experience in being Terminated, Mr. Lirette is now under Psychiatry care, Psychology counseling and on Medication since your actions.
Under Mr. Lirette's contract with his employer he was to have received a base salary of $60,000.00 per year, plus eligibility for 2003 incentive plan commisssions, and a two week notice should his employment be terminated. In March of 2004, Mr.Phil Cirone, the Southwest Area Manager, promoted Mr. Lirette to the Area Level for the Southwestern Region. At this time, Mr. Cirone told Mr. Lirette that he would receive three (3) percent commission on all sales volume in the Southwestern Region. However, whenever any of these projects came to fruition, Mr. Lirette was denied any commission. Mr. Lirette is owed around $877,561.00 in unpaid commissions.
Additionally, Mr. Lirette is owed funds in his medical savings account totaling approximately $ 1,272.74.
The above claims present the potential for substantial monetary liability which could include full front pay, back pay, interest on back pay, reinstatement to the job, emotional and punitive damages.
Thanks
Wil Lirette
12 Northampton Place
Coto de Caza, CA. 92678
949-589-1998 Office
949-636-1209 cell
[email protected]
Posted by: Wil Lirette | May 13, 2006 at 05:55 PM