Automotive News reported that two former employees of Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. filed a lawsuit claiming that Bill Heard Enterprises did not provide notice of a plant closing or mass layoff as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (”WARN”). Under WARN, an employer must give 60-days notice of a plant closing or mass layoff unless it could not reasonably foresee business circumstances that led to the closing. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, seeks to represent all similarly-situated Bill Heard Employees as a class-action.
With dealers caught in the middle of the credit crunch, high gas prices, and declining overall sales, it is likely that many will have to face the difficult decisions with respect to reductions in force or outright closures. These actions raise legal issues that most dealers have never seen, so if you are faced with these actions, you should definitely consult with a good labor lawyer.
Source: Automotive News [sub. required]
Tags: WARN
September 25th, 2008 · No Comments
After the earlier reports that GMAC had pulled Bill Heard’s floorplan financing, it was not a huge surprise to learn that his stores closed their doors yesterday. But watching interviews of some of his technicians on the news last night brought home the reality of 2700 people suddenly losing their jobs. Looking at those technicians reminded me of how it felt to wake up with a job and then find out that your employer had closed. I also remember what it was like to have to drive home and tell my wife that I no longer had a job. Regardless of how you feel about Bill Heard’s stores, an overwhelming majority of the people who lost their jobs yesterday were just hard-working people trying to support their families. So while we all look at Bill Heard’s situation with varying degrees of interest, please take a few moments to think of the people who just lost their jobs in a very tough economy. [Read more →]
Tags: Dealers in Trouble · Uncategorized
The Automotive News reported today that more than 50 dealerships in Missouri have been sued for charging doc fees. The theory of the case is that the collection of doc fees constitutes the illegal practice of law. The suits, which could take years to decide, could result in refunds of doc fees for up to five years and penalties. If the plaintiffs prevail, the dealers could be responsible for refunds of doc fees and penalties which could cost each dealer millions. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys have are trying to make these cases class actions. The suit was triggered by a state Supreme Court case that was not related to automobile dealerships. According to the Automotive News, mortgage companies, motorcycle dealers and RV dealers are also being targeted.
Stay tuned. I’ll dig around and try to find more details about these suits.
Automotive News (Subscrition Required)
Tags: Doc Fees
The general manager of Carl Gregory Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Hyundai of Albany, Georgia was arrested on charges that he stole up to $9000 from customers. The sheriff’s office claim that general manager, Joseph Martin, and “top salesman,” Mark “Bo” Kennedy, worked together to steal money from customers. Allegedly, the pair revised customers’ paperwork in order to scoop their down payments. They were also accused of taking in trades, not paying them off and then pocketing the money. They were caught when a customer complained to another Carl Gregory employee and produced a receipt that was not an official receipt from the store. [Read more →]
Tags: Dealers in Trouble · Embezzlement
The United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a novel issue for the circuit courts in Boschetto v. Hansing, No. 06-16595 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008). That is, “[d]oes the sale of an item via the eBay Internet auction site provide sufficient “minimum contacts” to support personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the buyer’s forum state”? The court concluded that, under the facts of this case, a single sale of an item over eBay does not create jurisdiction in the buyer’s state.
San Francisco resident Paul Boschetto bought a 1964 Ford Galaxie on eBay from the Wisconsin-based Boucher Automotive Group. Boschetto arranged to have the car picked up and delivered to him in San Francisco. When it arrived, he was unhappy with the condition and tried to rescind the transaction (or to use the technical term, he tried to “p#ss backwards on the deal.”) When he was unable to resolve the issue with Boucher or eBay, Boschetto sued in federal court and based his claims on California law. [Read more →]
Tags: Long-Arm Jurisdiction