Tata loses decision in class-action lawsuit
Tata loses decision in class-action lawsuit
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2007 6:05 PM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1659 -- 3/18/2007 >>>>>
Recently I sent out a newsletter about a lawsuit that Charleston County
filed against the Indian owned bodyshop and outsourcer Tata Consultancy
(TCS). Charleston's complaints that Tata bungled a huge software contract
isn't the only legal problem they are facing in the U.S. There is a
class-action lawsuit pending against Tata that could be far bigger and more
damaging.
The story begins with an Indian named Vedachalam who agreed to work for
Tata on an indentured contract in 1997. He was indentured for for Rs 50,000
(rupees) and was liable to pay that amount of money to Tata for failure to
fulfill the contract. The 50,000 rupees was paid by Vedachalam's father.
The indentured contract was for a 2-3 year time period and the Rs 50,000
was to be paid back at the end of the labor contract. Indentured contracts
of this type are quite common in India.
Vedachalam came to the United States on an L-1 visa in the year 2000. In
addition to the Rs 50,000, Vedachalam was subject to a $30,000 charge for
liquidated damages if he was charged with breach of contract while in the
U.S. He would also be responsible to repay Tata's litigation and attorney
fees if there was a disagreement.
Vedachalam signed a document that said he agreed to work long hours without
compensation in the U.S. If Vedachalam didn't meet expectations he would be
subject to all penalties mentioned above. The agreement also states that
all disagreements will be settled in Indian courts, not in the USA.
By the time Vedachalam arrived in the U.S. he was yoked to the grinding
stone.
Signed documents between Tata and and Vedachalam showed an agreement that
legal disputes will be handled in India's court system. That was a cozy
agreement for Tata since India endorses indetured servitude and would be
very unlikely to help Vedachalam in any kind of labor dispute. There is one
major catch -- newer documents were found that said legal disputes will be
settled in the U.S. -- not India. When Vedachalam tired of being ripped off
by Tata and decided that being a "slave boy" wasn't in his best interests,
he took the dispute to the U.S. courts instead of India.
Vedachalam was supposed to be paid a salary of $74,000 a year, but he
alleges that in 2004-2005 he didn't receive that much. In addition to being
ripped off on his wages, he said that Tata pocketed about $25,000 of state
and local taxes that belonged to him.
Vedachalam's complaint against Tata boils down to two major items:
1) Breach of contract because Tata didn't pay what it promised.
2) Thievery because Tata pocketed tax refunds that were due to him.
Not surprisingly Tata refused to pay back the Rs 50,000 indenture fee. That
didn't go over too well with the Federal District Court in California who
determined that Vedachalam served his 2 year indentured labor contract, and
was therefore not liable to the fee. It appears that unless Tata can
somehow reverse this decision they will have to pay Vedachalam's father the
money back. The dispute over jurisdiction could have international law and
trade implications which I won't ponder in this newsletter.
Just in case you are wondering how much Rs 50,000 is in U.S. currency, it
is about $1,100. Go here for conversions:
http://coinmill.com/INR_USD.html
Just recently the U.S. Federal Court in California gave Tata some major bad
news -- they ruled that the arbitration case with Vedachalam is subject to
U.S. law so the lawsuit will take place in the U.S. not in India.
The bad news for Tata doesn't stop there!
Vedachalam's initial complaint has morphed into a huge class action lawsuit
against Tata. H-1B and L-1 visa holders are filing lawsuits to get tax
money that they claimed was ripped off by Tata. Tata tried to head this
lawsuit off by asking for a motion to dismiss the case. U.S. District Court
Judge Vaughn Walker refused to let Tata get away with this transparent
effort at moving the case to India. Big bummer for Tata! U.S. courts aren't
nearly as friendly to tax fraud and indentured slavery as the Indian
courts. Tata's odds of winning just went down a notch!
To find out more about the Vedachalam case go to this web page:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/20070314-tata-order.pdf
If you ever wondered how indentured servitude works in the context of L-1
visas, that court document will give you a very good glimpse inside India's
dark secrets. Don't let its antiseptic legal language fog your thoughts --
read it carefully and closely and you will see for yourself just how bad
things are for workers in India, and just how close we are to adopting
India's labor standards as our own.
To find out more about the class action lawsuit, be sure to read this
newsletter in the archives:
2006-02-15 Class action lawsuit against Tata
Be sure to read these FAQS for further background:
Do nonimmigrants pay FICA and taxes?
http://www.jobdestruction.info/ShameH1B/H1BFAQs.htm#DoWorkersPayFICA
Why are H-1Bs called indentured workers? Info on liquidated damages:
http://www.jobdestruction.info/ShameH1B/H1BFAQs.htm#WhyIndentured
Additional materials
Gopi Vedachalam and Kangana Beri vs. Tata Consultancy
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/20070314-tata-order.pdf
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/lawsuitagainsttata.htm
Class Action Lawsuit Against Tata America International Corporation
http://lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=11176
Class Actions - Federal Court Denies Effort by Tata America International
to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit against Tata for Requiring Workers to Hand
over Federal and State Tax Refunds
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070314005963&newsLang=en
Federal Court Denies Effort by Tata America International to Dismiss Class
Action Lawsuit against Tata for Requiring Workers to Hand over Federal and
State Tax Refunds
INTERESTING COINCIDENCE: There will be a California Federal Court hearing
on the Vedachalam case on 3/27/2007. Almost at the same time, an H-1B fraud
case in California will get a court hearing in United States District Court
in Los Angeles on March 29. I hope to have an article about this case
published on Vdare soon. Keep tuned for more! For a sneak preview read
this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-visafraud2mar02,1,823639.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
It's interesting to note that the LA Times has a retraction in a small
blurb called "For the Record". Perhaps in the future the LA Times will be
more factual about H-1B visas.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/lawsuitagainsttata.htm
Class Action Lawsuit Against
Tata America International Corporation
Unjust Enrichment Lawsuit Filed Against Tata
On February 14, 2006, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against Tata. The suit charged that Tata
unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen employees
to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata.
Allegations
The complaint alleges that Tata has required its non-U.S.-citizen employees
to sign power of attorney agreements delegating an outside agency to
calculate and submit each employees tax return to state and federal
authorities. Tata then required its non-U.S.-citizen employees who received
tax refunds from state and federal tax authorities to endorse the tax
refund checks and demanded that they send those checks back to Tata.
Among other violations of California and federal law, the complaint charges
that Tatas conduct violates the California Labor Code Section 221, which
provides it is unlawful "for any employer to collect or receive from an
employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said
employee."
The complaint also alleges that Tata did not pay its non-U.S.-citizens
employees the amount promised to those employees before they came to the
United States. The complaint states further that Tatas vacation pay
policy does not comply with California law.
Case Status - Updated March 2007
In June 2006, Tata America International Corporation and its parent
corporations Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons, Ltd.
(collectively referred to as "Tata"), filed a motion to dismiss the case,
arguing that the case should be arbitrated in India rather than the United
States. Lieff Cabraser opposed the motion. In November 2006, the Court
heard oral argument on the motion and took it under submission.
On March 13, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker denied Tata's
motion to compel arbitration in India and dismiss the nationwide class
action lawsuit in United States court. The Court held that the documents
purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of rules to
plaintiff and another set to Tata, negating any mutual agreement to
arbitrate legal disputes. "The Court's order ensures that [the plaintiff]
will have his day in court in the United States before a neutral judge, not
in India in front of a private arbitrator of Tata's choosing," explained
Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser, co-class counsel for the plaintiffs.
"[The plaintiff] and the thousands of workers he seeks to represent are an
important step closer to obtaining justice."
Who Is In This Class?
The proposed class consists of thousands of current non-U.S.-citizen
employees of Tata working in the United States, plus former Tata employees
dating back to 2000.
Relief Sought
The Plaintiff requests that a federal court certify the case as a class
action and issue an injunction against Tata, preventing it from requiring
its employees to endorse their tax refund checks to the company to the
extent it is still doing so.
The Plaintiff also seeks compensation and damages for current and former
employees who were not paid what they were promised, who were deprived of
their tax refunds, and who were required to forfeit vacation pay that they
had earned.
Share Your Experience/Contact An Attorney
Current and former Tata employees who wish to learn more about the lawsuit
or to join the lawsuit should contact a Lieff Cabraser attorney. All
information will be kept confidential as provided under the law.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a fifty-plus attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Since 1972, we have
successfully represented plaintiffs in a wide range of cases including tens
of thousands of employees seeking to vindicate their rights. Learn more
about our firm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=11176
Class Actions - Federal Court Denies Effort by Tata America International
to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit against Tata for Requiring Workers to Hand
over Federal and State Tax Refunds
Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO-- LAWFUEL - Class Actions --Class counsel announced that
District Court Judge Vaughn Walker yesterday denied the motion of Tata
America International Corporation and its parent corporations Tata
Consultancy Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to
as "Tata") to compel arbitration in India and dismiss the nationwide class
action lawsuit in United States court. The complaint, brought in Federal
court in San Francisco by Gopi Vedachalam, an employee of Tata America
International Corporation, alleges Tata unjustly enriched itself by
requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and sign over
their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata.
"Judge Walker upheld the principle that before a company can force an
employee working in the United States to give up the right to have his or
her claims heard in a United States court, it must show that both the
company and the employee clearly and mutually agreed that these claims
would be heard elsewhere," stated Steven M. Tindall of Rukin Hyland Doria &
Tindall, co-class counsel for plaintiffs. "The Court found that the
documents purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of
rules to Mr. Vedachalam and another set to Tata, negating any mutual
agreement to arbitrate legal disputes."
"The Court's order ensures that Mr. Vedachalam will have his day in court
in the United States before a neutral judge, not in India in front of a
private arbitrator of Tata's choosing," explained Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, also co-class counsel for plaintiffs.
"Mr. Vedachalam and the thousands of workers he seeks to represent are an
important step closer to obtaining justice."
The complaint alleges further that, at least until July 2005, Tata required
its non-U.S.-citizen employees to sign power of attorney agreements
delegating an outside agency to calculate and submit each employee's tax
return to state and federal authorities. Tata then required its
non-U.S.-citizen employees who received tax refunds from state and federal
tax authorities to endorse the tax refund checks and send them back to
Tata. Under California Labor Code Section 221, it is unlawful "for any
employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages
theretofore paid by said employer to said employee." The complaint charges
that Tata's conduct violates this Code section as well as the common law
forbidding unjust enrichment and conversion.
From 2000 to 2003, plaintiff Gopi Vedachalam worked in Hayward, California,
as a Tata project manager assigned to Target. Since 2003, he has worked as
a Tata project manager for 21st Century Insurance in Woodland Hills,
California.
One of India's largest business conglomerates, Tata's revenues in the last
fiscal year totaled nearly $22 billion. The proposed class consists of
thousands of current non-U.S. citizen employees of Tata working in the
United States, plus former Tata employees dating back to 2000. Mr.
Vedachalam seeks compensation and damages for current and former employees
who were not paid what they were promised and who were deprived of their
tax refunds.
Further Information
If you wish to read a copy of the Court's order or earn more about the
lawsuit, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com/lawsuitagainsttata.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070314005963&newsLang=en
March 14, 2007 02:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Federal Court Denies Effort by Tata America International to Dismiss Class
Action Lawsuit against Tata for Requiring Workers to Hand over Federal and
State Tax Refunds
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Class counsel announced that District Court
Judge Vaughn Walker yesterday denied the motion of Tata America
International Corporation and its parent corporations Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to as "Tata") to
compel arbitration in India and dismiss the nationwide class action lawsuit
in United States court. The complaint, brought in Federal court in San
Francisco by Gopi Vedachalam, an employee of Tata America International
Corporation, alleges Tata unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its
non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state
tax refund checks to Tata.
"Judge Walker upheld the principle that before a company can force an
employee working in the United States to give up the right to have his or
her claims heard in a United States court, it must show that both the
company and the employee clearly and mutually agreed that these claims
would be heard elsewhere," stated Steven M. Tindall of Rukin Hyland Doria &
Tindall, co-class counsel for plaintiffs. "The Court found that the
documents purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of
rules to Mr. Vedachalam and another set to Tata, negating any mutual
agreement to arbitrate legal disputes."
"The Court's order ensures that Mr. Vedachalam will have his day in court
in the United States before a neutral judge, not in India in front of a
private arbitrator of Tata's choosing," explained Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, also co-class counsel for plaintiffs.
"Mr. Vedachalam and the thousands of workers he seeks to represent are an
important step closer to obtaining justice."
The complaint alleges further that, at least until July 2005, Tata required
its non-U.S.-citizen employees to sign power of attorney agreements
delegating an outside agency to calculate and submit each employee's tax
return to state and federal authorities. Tata then required its
non-U.S.-citizen employees who received tax refunds from state and federal
tax authorities to endorse the tax refund checks and send them back to
Tata. Under California Labor Code Section 221, it is unlawful "for any
employer to collect or receive from an employee any part of wages
theretofore paid by said employer to said employee." The complaint charges
that Tata's conduct violates this Code section as well as the common law
forbidding unjust enrichment and conversion.
From 2000 to 2003, plaintiff Gopi Vedachalam worked in Hayward, California,
as a Tata project manager assigned to Target. Since 2003, he has worked as
a Tata project manager for 21st Century Insurance in Woodland Hills,
California.
One of India's largest business conglomerates, Tata's revenues in the last
fiscal year totaled nearly $22 billion. The proposed class consists of
thousands of current non-U.S. citizen employees of Tata working in the
United States, plus former Tata employees dating back to 2000. Mr.
Vedachalam seeks compensation and damages for current and former employees
who were not paid what they were promised and who were deprived of their
tax refunds.
Further Information
If you wish to read a copy of the Court's order or earn more about the
lawsuit, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com/lawsuitagainsttata.htm
Contacts
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Kelly M. Dermody, 415-956-1000
or
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP
Steven M. Tindall, 415-421-1800 ext. 207
Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window
Back to archives