The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayTexas has a lemon law. It applies to new cars, and gives you substantial legal rights against the manufacturer. A car is a lemon if it has been in the shop four or more times for the same problems, or two or more times if the problem is a safety defect. Click here for more. Netflix Settles Privacy Class ActionYou may be getting an email from "Online DVD Class Action" in the near future. It may look like junk mail, but it isn't. Rather, the email was sent to current and past Netflix subscribers to inform them of their legal rights following a recent settlement with Netflix. USPS On Verge of DefaultThe United States Postal Service is in trouble again. Today, the USPS must pay $5.5 billion to to the federal government to prepay health care benefits for retirees. On September 30, the USPS will need to make another $5.6 billion payment. Unfortunately, the Postal Service doesn't have the money. The USPS has been struggling financially for years. Although there have been many suggestions made to streamline operations to reduce losses, nothing has stuck. Will the USPS default on its obligations? With years of multi-billion-dollar losses, how much longer can the Postal Service survive without more significant government intervention? Click here for more. Your MoneyHave you considered CD laddering? Using this strategy, an investor makes deposits over a period of several years. The goal is having all of one's money deposited at the longest term (and therefore the higher rate). Using the laddering technique, part of your investment matures annually. CD laddering is a great way to have both available cash, and investor income. Use this calculator to determine how "laddering" can help you invest Click here for more. For the LawyersArbitraion clause doesn’t cover job applicant. The First Circuit held that a mandatory arbitration clause in an employment application was unenforceable against a pregnant woman who brought suit after being denied a job. The employer argued that the arbitration clause unambiguously covered all disputes with job applicants. The court disagreed, holding that because the clause was ambiguous, and because the party that drafted it had all the bargaining power, it should be construed against the employer. “[N]othing in the arbitration clause refers to ‘applicants.’” “Instead every reference is to ‘your employment,’ ‘the employment process,’ or ‘pre-employment disputes.’ Accordingly, there is a reasonable basis for [the applicant’s] belief that she would only be bound by the arbitration clause if ultimately hired.” Click here for more. |
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |