By Amy Traub and Desiree Busching
Just as designers must be cognizant of copycat fashions, employers must be cognizant of copycat lawsuits. In February of this year, Xuedan “Diana” Wang filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Hearst Corporation, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that the company violated federal and state wage and hour laws by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime to interns working for Harper’s Bazaar. Wang had worked for Harper’s Bazaar during the fall of 2011. Her lawsuit was filed in February 2012, only five months after a similar one had been filed by interns working for Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., who claimed that unpaid interns were performing compensable work in connection with the production of the film, “Black Swan.” Following Wang’s February lawsuit, in March 2012, a third intern filed suit against her employer, “The Charlie Rose Show,” citing the same claims as her predecessors.
On Tuesday, July 3rd, yet another lawsuit was filed. This time, however, the copycat was Wang herself. Wang’s second lawsuit is now against Dana Lorenz and her company, Fenton Fallon, for whom she worked in the summer of 2011 – before she worked for Hearst Corporation at Harper’s Bazaar. Not surprisingly, the allegations in the lawsuit are strikingly similar to the allegations in her previous lawsuit against Hearst Corporation, and those against Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., and those against the “The Charlie Rose Show.” Wang is alleging that she and interns with whom she worked side-by-side were not paid appropriate wages for their work.
As we previously advised in February and March, these cases should have alerted employers to examine their own practices and policies with regard to their internship programs in order to protect themselves from future wage and hour liability under both federal and state wage and hour laws. Considering that the FLSA has a 2-year statute of limitations, or a 3-year statute of limitations if a violation is “willful,” employers should now be looking back to examine past practices and proactively assessing potential risk and liability in the event a former intern of their own “follows suit.” In fact, although Wang’s first lawsuit against Hearst Corporation was filed in February 2012, the company now finds itself defending against alleged violations from three years ago. On Thursday, July 12, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan conditionally certified a class of interns that includes all persons who worked as unpaid or underpaid interns at any of Hearst’s magazines dating back to February 2009.
In assessing the potential exposure associated with a wage and hour claim by unpaid interns, employers should also consider ancillary costs, such as the effect of negative publicity on a company’s image, disclosure of confidential business information during litigation proceedings, or the substantial litigation costs of defending against a potential class action claim. If an employer believes that it may be vulnerable to a potential lawsuit by former unpaid interns, understanding its potential liability and legal options before a lawsuit is filed could prove to be an invaluable decision.
Bottom line – Employers must be wary of the fact that copycat lawsuits are continuing in this arena and take affirmative steps to avoid being the subject of one. Indeed, as soon as the first “unpaid intern” potential class/collective action hit the scene, other interns immediately took note, following with their own similar lawsuits. And now, some may even be considering making careers as full-time plaintiffs.