The Vivint Class Action Lawsuit
The settlement funds from a Vivint Class Action lawsuit could be quite substantial and provide compensation for those who were wrongfully terminated from their jobs with Vivint. The compensation from this lawsuit could also help ease some of the financial burdens which resulted from injuries sustained while at work.
It could also cover expenses such as vehicle repairs and medical bills, since at the time of the accident, it was required that the employees have been properly trained to perform their job duties in order to remain safe on the job. In the past, Vivint has been accused of paying kickbacks and other illegal benefits to its employees which could result in financial burdens for the plaintiffs in the case.
Vivint Class Action Lawsuit
On March 4, 2009, a U.S. District Court held that Vivint did not violate the rights of its employees when it applied certain policies and procedures during its manufacturing process. The plaintiff group was able to prove that there was discrimination due to race, gender, religion and national origin. In the U.S. District Court, there were facts that supported the plaintiffs’ claims, namely that over two hundred former and present employees filed suits for different types of injuries.
Some of them were awarded monetary payments, while others needed to undergo surgery and needed their medical bills covered. The majority of cases however went to trial, where the plaintiffs were able to prove that they had been injured while working at Vivint.
The crux of the class action lawsuit revolves around whether or not the security company complied with federal and state fair labor standards act.
The acts that are relevant in this case pertains to the conditions and policies designed to ensure that the workers are protected from harm during work hours. The crux of the case therefore revolves around whether or not the policies and procedures used by Vivint fell short of federal and state labor standards act requirements. In relation to these cases, it is believed that the crux lies on the fact that there was a discrepancy between what the company promised and what it actually did deliver.
There is also another claim that is being made in a Vivint Class Action Lawsuit that has nothing to do with the labor issues but more to do with the breach of warranty.
This is the claim that relates to the use of prerecorded voice to sell home security systems to consumers. It is being claimed that the voice on the prerecorded voice record was generic and did not accurately represent how the home security system actually worked.
Another claim that is being made is that the way that consumers were sold the product was in violation of the federal telephone Consumer Act. The act requires that a person selling a product to another person not misrepresent what the product actually does and is able to provide proof that the product cannot be altered in any manner.
The claim also argues that the company did not follow the necessary steps when they forced consumers to enroll in mandatory training programs.
Essentially the argument is that because the California state government set higher standards for their home security companies that this caused the security company to be less than reputable. Some additional arguments that have been made are that there was not sufficient proof that the consumer units that were sold to customers were the best models on the market and that the cellphones without the required mandatory training programs were also less effective than those that had the required programs.
Additionally, there was an illegal method of collecting debt from consumers through means that were not allowed by the state. There was also evidence that the company engaged in a number of practices that ran afoul of labor law in California.
According to the class action lawsuit, the main reason that they settled the case with the company was that they could not prove that the products sold were defective or that they should not be held responsible for the injuries that happened as a result of the products.
However, the settlement did not come without a few problems for the plaintiffs. First, it appears that the company did engage in illegal activities when it came to collecting upfront fees from consumers who signed up for the mandatory training programs. The company also never became fully compliant with the state’s regulations when it came to conducting its investigations and use of hidden camera in its investigations. It appears that the plaintiffs were never fully compensated for the damages that resulted from these investigations.