ALC-Litigation Reports Oversight Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
3 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Chair
Unverified
1:30
We'll call this meeting to order. This is Litigation Report Oversight Subcommittee of ALC. All right, we'll get started here. Co-chair, do you have any comments?
Nope. I have no comments. We'll get right into it. We'd asked Marcus Devine if he would please come on up, and we'll start on C, litigation review. Mr. Devine, would you
Speaker 3
2:16
go ahead and identify yourself for the record? Good
Marcus Devine
Unverified
2:26
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Marcus Devine. I am counsel at the Labor Department.
Chair
Unverified
2:31
Okay. We'll start with 1A, and I'll let you proceed with that. If you don't mind, I
Marcus Devine
Unverified
2:40
guess I'll go through all of
Marcus Devine
Unverified
2:45
time. We'll review them one at a time. Sure. The Department of Labor and Licensing, of course, is the successor to the Department of Labor, and I am one of the counsel at the Department of Labor along with Denise Oxley who is the other. She is actually the general counsel. I am associate general counsel and we do a host of
things for the department including of course counsel for the staff, counsel for the various divisions. We also of course work on legislation and also regulations and then we also help to collect debts, including debts for fees and licenses, and then, of course, the occasional litigation for the collection of monies owed to employees from various counties around the state. And so if some employee is not paid according to what they were supposed to, they can call us,
and many of them do, and we will initiate a wage claim, a wage and hour claim, and then move forward to collect that. If there is resistance from the employer, we will bring that matter to litigation in the county of record when that is necessary. And so that is the host of what we have today. I think we have maybe a couple of fees, but most of these are wage and hour claims. We do have the provision that you've allowed us as legislators to move forward with the doubling and occasionally
the tripling of these cases when and if the employer pays the employee with a check that bounces, that presents NSF, then they can be penalized for that and we can actually double or triple potentially the cost of that claim. So the first one that we have listed today is the Department of Labor versus Jessica Kelly. This one is a wage collection, and it did move
forward in Washington, actually Washington and Carroll County, for the non-payment of wages for this individual. And we did move forward with the wage collection, and we did move forward with the summons, and litigation that, like many of these do, did not have an answer from the other party. And many times we have a default judgment, and then we are in position to collect that default judgment because the employer or defendant did not answer and did not show up
to answer. So with that, I'll answer any
Speaker 4
5:29
questions that you may have. Seeing no questions, we'll consider a review. 1B.
Marcus Devine
Unverified
5:38
That is the second one that we have. That is one of the ones that I mentioned before that is not a wage claim, but is a claim for boiler invoice. We also, as I mentioned, do collect for fees that are owed.
and when those fees are not paid then we do on occasion move forward to litigation. This one was in Crawford County. The amount of the fee was $157. That was not paid and so then we moved forward with litigation to collect that. In this case also the regulated individual did not show for court and so then we were able to move forward toward a default judgment.
Speaker 4
6:28
we'll consider 1B reviewed. 1C. That is the third one that
Marcus Devine
Unverified
6:33
I have. That is the Department of Labor v. Nelson Mindjavar. That is a claim for $578. And as I mentioned, these do vary in amounts and severity. but they're always important to the employee because this is often their means of living,
and without this money, they do struggle. So this one was for an initial amount of $578.50. With the addition of court fees and service fees, it increased by $120. This was filed in Little Rock versus Nelson Menjivar for this claim for this individual for the lack of payment for their wages. The individual is Jose Torres, and as I mentioned, this is in the city of Little Rock, and this
is ongoing and has not resolved
Speaker 10
7:40
none, will 1C be reviewed? The fourth one is
Marcus Devine
Unverified
7:44
the Department of Labor v. Hogs Blues Cafe here in central Arkansas. The facility is actually in North Little Rock. Initially, it was a wage claim for $694.57. We did move forward toward litigation for the nonpayment of wages for an individual
With the addition of fees and cost, it did raise to $814 total because of the process, which we never stop. And because of the notice on the party, this party actually brought in a check this morning to pay this claim off. And so this one was paid actually this morning. It was with the check from the company. And so we typically do not resolve them fully until 30 days.
That gives us time to let the check clear. And then we will cut an additional check, a warrant, from the state of Arkansas to the person, the employer, employee, I'm sorry. And so that way we will make sure that that check issued to the employee does not have any chance of being NSF. But again, as I mentioned, if a check NSF is sent to us, we have the ability to recollect that and even triple those damages. So this one was paid today.
Speaker 4
9:01
Any questions? Seeing none, we'll consider it reviewed.
The next one that I have is
Speaker 10
9:09
number 5E. This is Doug. This one is listed, Doug Balling, and we list this as a claim for $404 and court fees of $80
Marcus Devine
Unverified
9:28
and $40, which raises $120 more. and this is also in the city of Little Rock and as you may know
we have moved this one forward toward litigation and we have not resolved it as yet but it is in the process of being litigated. I think it's Ballinger but
Speaker 18
9:50
there is no relation just for the record. I knew not. That
Speaker 19
9:54
would have made it a very different day today if that had been the case.
Speaker 12
10:00
Any questions? Seeing no questions, item 1C is reviewed. The next thing
Marcus Devine
Unverified
10:10
we have is the Department of Labor versus Thomas Harper individually.
This is one that we have moved forward toward a default judgment. The money damages are $950. We did move forward with the service and with the litigation, adding court fees and service fees of $130 more, dollars, so a total of $1,080 even. We did not receive any sort of response from the employer, and as such, we are moving forward on the default judgment and the collection
process. As many of you may know, the collection process after default can include and potentially will include garnishment and any other collection activities that we are
Chair
Unverified
10:59
allowed to do under law. Any questions? Seeing none,
Speaker 4
11:04
we'll consider 1F being reviewed. The next one I
Marcus Devine
Unverified
11:09
show is for $1,129. It is against Bandit Transportation Company. This is one that
we are moving forward in Boone County. The amount is $1,129.50 with court fees and service fees of $130, raising the total amount to $1,259.59. We have just now moved that one toward litigation, and it is in process now. Any questions? Seeing none,
Marcus Devine
Unverified
11:55
reviewed. The last one that we have is the Department of Labor v. Ray Nihal. This is one in Miller County, Texarkana area. Also a claim with an individual who was not paid according to the hours that she worked. the claimant Stephanie Parker in Arkansas and in Wake Village, Texas. The amount total that we
show is $536.50. We are moving this one forward now, and we will aggressively pursue it like we do all the others. Representative Fortner,
Chair
Unverified
12:36
you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Jack Fortner
Unverified
12:38
Mr. Chairman. Just a question for information. How many of these types of claims do you get? These are just the ones that were found to be worthy of being reviewed. Is that correct? How many do you get, do you think?
Marcus Devine
Unverified
12:53
Not quite. We get many. I guess we could look to see how many. I don't need
twice as many? Oh, no, no. Maybe even five times as many. Okay. So that runs the whole gamut across the state when and if anyone in all of your various counties, if someone feels like they weren't paid or maybe you have a wage claim or maybe even an hour claim where they feel like they've worked overtime and didn't get paid appropriately they can call the department of labor so these
Representative Jack Fortner
Unverified
13:20
are just the ones that you have reviewed and found that needed to be
Marcus Devine
Unverified
13:24
these are just the ones that we have reviewed and then found substantiated and then tried to collect
from the employer and then didn't get the employers to say that they would pay us and then had to
Chair
Unverified
13:36
sue yeah so this is really is just the top part thank
Speaker 33
13:42
you chairman no problem Senator Malik you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair and I'm just going to follow up on Representative
Speaker 35
13:48
Fortner's you know most of these are relatively small amounts and but I fully support your efforts to collect and what you're doing but I was just going to have you to just outline briefly on each of these cases I mean just as a general rule what your collection efforts are
and what kind of leverage do you have over some of these businesses maybe to collect it without having to go to actually filing a
Marcus Devine
Unverified
14:10
suit? Sure. That's a great question. And I think that the reason that we're in position to leverage these amounts, which are by their number relatively small, but you have to think about the fact that if someone's working as a waitress or as someone cleaning a hotel and this is your money, then it would be a big deal to you. And so that's the way we look at it, plus the fact that as the state of Arkansas, we charge
no fee, we have no contingency, we have no arrangement where we take any of this money from the employee. So that's pretty attractive, that they can collect their money and they don't have to pay anyone to do it. Many lawyers, which of course I'm one, wouldn't take a case for less than $2,000. It wouldn't be anything that they would really take the time to do, but we can do that because U-Haul have mandated us to do it. That's the first thing. Secondly, we can move forward with the state of Arkansas behind us and so that's pretty attractive to have the conversation with employers that you need to pay this money we're not going anywhere
we're not going to be dissuaded and we can't be put off and so all those things
Speaker 35
15:15
are attractive follow up in the cases in most of the cases that get to this point is is there a real difference in opinion on whether they owe the money or is it just you just can't get a response from them? Yeah,
Marcus Devine
Unverified
15:32
it varies. There are occasions when, and we deal with it from the very beginning, so one of your constituents may call us and say that they weren't paid
$300. And so we would then begin the investigation and try to make sure that it's founded, that it's substantial. And if that's the case, then we would bring those investigators in, and they would do the initial legwork, and then it would come to legal. By the time it comes to us, we would call. I always, as a matter of practice, call the employer to let him know that we've completed this investigation. Here's the amount. At that point, some employers do say that, you know, John Doe took something from my company, and because he
took that, I'm not going to pay him. He took this tool or took that wrench, and so I'm not going to pay him this amount. On occasion, they say that this person took money from the till. And because they took money from the till, I'm not going to pay them that amount. Or they didn't work as long as they said they worked. And so we always try to flesh that out and figure out if there's any validity to that. If that's the case, I have personally, and Denise has also, we have reduced claims to reflect that. Because we really do try to move forward to get to an agreement on what the amount is if we can't then we go forward but when we do have that we can mitigate less than the
Speaker 40
16:50
amount that's owed thank you for sure thank you mr
Speaker 41
17:01
chair is there any other questions yes representative cervello what is the final course do you um is there a lien what what is
Marcus Devine
Unverified
17:09
is that basically what what happens yes after um the whole process has gone through The collection can include lien, like you mentioned, garnishment. We don't have the ability to take tax returns or anything like that,
but we can garnish and we can be pretty aggressive in going to collect monies, maybe even up to leaning on some property. And
Speaker 12
17:35
so we do have that ability. Seeing no other questions, we'll consider 1-H being
Chair
Unverified
17:41
reviewed. Marcus, we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on to item D, settlement reviews.
Speaker 12
17:48
Ms. Robinson, would you please come up?
Speaker 14
18:02
If you would, please identify yourself for the record. I'm
Speaker 44
18:07
Sherry Robinson, Associate General Counsel with UAMS. I'm Leslie
Speaker 47
18:14
Fiskin. Would you mask the button, please? Leslie Fiskin, Liaison for Institutional Relations with UAMS.
Speaker 44
18:21
Okay. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We bring before you today a case Amber Ashley versus the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas and others for review of a settlement.
This case was filed, I'm sorry, I can't remember the exact date, but would have been back in 2018 by a former employee of UAMS. bringing claims that included harassment and retaliation. She brought them against the Board of Trustees as is required by law, as well as several employees at UAMS. We were able to mediate a settlement, which everyone has determined was in the best interest of all parties, particularly since there were several employees and former employees who were named as defendants,
and there would have been a very costly matter to conduct the litigation in. I'll take any questions you have. Any questions? Senator Subbeville, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How much was that settlement? I apologize. It's in
Speaker 51
19:28
there. I believe it was $85,000 total. And that involved how many individuals
Speaker 44
19:32
as far as the defendants were concerned? As far as defendants, we would have had the board five defendants total.
Speaker 7
19:40
all right thank you mr chairman okay any other questions seeing
Chair
Unverified
19:55
none we'll consider this reviewed thank you mr chairman no you're quite welcome all right we have no other business that i know of to come before us uh we will meet in january and we'll notify you later this month. Is there any other business?
Seeing none, we are adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Comments by Co-Chairs
C. Litigation Review [Exhibits C.1a – C.1h]
D. Settlement Review
E. Other Business
F. Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — ALC-LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE, Nov 14, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit D1 Settlement Review - Amber Ashley v Board of Trustees of the U of A and UAMS | Exhibit | 8 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibits C1a - C1h | Exhibit | 8 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Marcus Devine
Unverified
Speaker 7
Speaker 4
Speaker 12
Speaker 14
Speaker 10
Speaker 18
Speaker 19
Representative Jack Fortner
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 35
Speaker 40
Speaker 41
Speaker 44
Speaker 47
Speaker 51