The loan documents stated that the initial interest rate  would be the sum of a specified Index plus a set Margin or, a rate less than that sum.  The documents also stated  “Your interest rate will be based on the weekly average yield on United States Treasury securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 1 year (the ‘Index’) plus an amount called a ‘Margin.’”

Later in the document, the disclosures stated that “Your initial interest rate may be discounted and will not be tied to the Index.”   Thus the bank allegedly charged the borrowers an initial interest rate higher than the sum of the Index and Margin.

Chase Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) Lawsuit is a post from: Class Action Lawsuits

The case states that Domino’s did not comply with the legal requirements of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by (1) running background checks on employees without proper authorization, and (2) “systematically” failing to provide employees with copies of their background checks prior to taking adverse employment action against them.

Claims have been made that checks were performed on individuals before they started working, and they were subsequently dismissed based on undisclosed information discovered during their background checks.  This information was never shared with them by Domino’s.  Also they were not provided a copy of the report or advised of any rights before the termination. Additionally  they were required to sign a consent form that contained extraneous information and was not separate from the application packet.

The law states that employers must provide certain information to consumers before taking any adverse action against them – including not hiring them or terminating them – if the background check is completed after hiring. A a copy of the background check report as well as a statement of their rights prepared by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces the FCRA should be given at that time. Consumers are thus protected against inaccurate or incomplete background checks and are given the opportunity to set the record straight.

Up to $1,000 damages per person can be awarded in this case.

Domino’s Background Check Lawsuit is a post from: Class Action Lawsuits

There are a couple of leitmotifs lawyers deal with when representing injured people who are either illegal immigrants or appear to be. First, if they are legally here in this country, you have to get that out on direct. There are some jurors who - let's face it - are going to view anyone with an accent as an illegal immigrant. In the real world, there is a prejudice against illegal immigrants. If you can kill that perception, do it.

Conversely, you need to move in limine to bar any evidence, suggestion, or argument regarding the immigration status of plaintiff (or any witness, for that matter) simplly because it is prejudicial. Put in front of a jury that the plaintiff is legally working in this country, yet suppress any mention of immigration status if the plaintiff is undocumented? Is firing off these two seemly contradictory statements in the span of seconds lawyer double talk or even duplicitous. Actually, it is not. Juries don't say "Gee, we have a documented immigrant, let's open up the checkbook" but they might discriminate against a plaintiff because they don't think he/she belongs in this country. Doors don't always swing both ways.