Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help M*Modal Nuance New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Games Faith Board Prayer Requests Health Issues

ADVERTISEMENT



Nuance Today's Top Viewed: I Don't Know.. (Views: 34)

Lawyers have a history of being a disappointment - sm

Posted: Aug 9th, 2017 - 12:01 pm In Reply to: Texas law firm taking the case for TX employees - anon

Flahive's article doesn't give a precise timeline but judging by the screenshots there isn't much of a case.

From Flahive:
Screen 1: Kathleen's phone shows her manager asking her to work, but not promising anything if she does.

Screen 2: The email from 7/11 promised "an incentive here in some way for all of you." Does that include the $21.20 Kathleen was paid? Does the fact that she's paid on production and was allowed to work 27 hours in two days count as an incentive? More importantly, did that email go to both groups of MTs, the ones with downtime and those who could work?

Screen 3: From Enrich states the incentives are "to ensure your commitment could be recognized financially and any losses you may suffer due to inability to access our technologies could be minimized." Again, is the extra work itself an incentive for those who could access the technologies? Was the $1000 bonus and extra hourly pay only for those who had a platform with downtime?

Another quote from the article:
"Keane says her boss offered her incentives to work. First it was comp time, then it was time and a half for every hour with double time for everything over eight hours in a day. Finally, a $1000 bonus was offered if she worked 40 hours over five consecutive days."

This is stated near the top of the article which implies these incentives were made personally to Kathleen in quick succession. And maybe that's the case. But the evidence presented in the article indicates the bulk of these incentives were promised over the course of the next few weeks and applied only to people affected with downtime.

I say go for it. Try to sue Nuance and win.

On the other hand, don't be disappointed when this case ends up like all the others. You give all your documentation to the lawyers. Spend a bunch of time and months in the process. Then the lawyers tell you "This isn't something we're going to pursue. But you may have a case from this other angle. Try contacting an ABC attorney or some government department for additional information."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post A Reply Reply By Email Options

Complete Discussion Below: ( marks the location of current message within thread)
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved