Menu
CB Cleaning Services / Laundry Review of coverall franchisees
coverall franchisees

coverall franchisees review: owners are brain dead 54

R
Author of the review
10:47 am EDT
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
Featured review
This review was chosen algorithmically as the most valued customer feedback.

this is for all of you brain dead coverall frinchise owners who can't make your business work. you DO NOT WORK FOR COVERALL

Update by rick pugliese
Feb 22, 2011 4:50 pm EST

naturally someone is a goon when the point out your short comings. i have owned a franchise for 22 years, and if i don't know a little something about this than an idiot like you sure can't. franchise owners just can't accept the fact that they are to blame for the failure of the franchise they own. YOU DO NOT WORK FOR COVERALL, ACT LIKE IT AND GO TO WORK AND CREATE YOUR OWN BREAKS BY SHOWING UP AND WORKING YOUR ### OFF EVERY DAY.it's a shame that people who don't want to work and just sit back and expect coverall to do everything for them are the ones that can be heard the most.go get a job, and work for someone else.

Update by rick pugliese
Mar 31, 2011 4:20 pm EDT

i have no doubt that there are law suits against coverall, there are suits against every body.i do know that i am not an employee, and as a matter of fact, i really don't have that much contact with coverall.i get my own customers, and run my business without dealing that much with coverall. but i will say, they are there if i need help with anything, but i rarely do.i have the ability to earn whatever i want, it's all up to me.you have to WORK

Resolved

The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.

54 comments
S
S
StandUpStraight
Balt, US
Mar 28, 2014 8:31 pm EDT

Franchising does not entitle you to a free ride. Read the janitorial franchise agreement BEFORE you sign it. If you sign it then take care of business and stop blaming everybody for your failures other than yourself. This country was built by do-ers, NOT whiners.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Jun 22, 2012 1:52 pm EDT

Judge Presiding over the Jan-Pro Case rules against Jani-King. If the same Judge that is Presiding over the Jan-pro case just ruled against Jani-King then we can expect the same fate to follow against Jan-Pro.

Another Judge once again rules against the cleaning franchisors this time against Jani-King. They to like coverall will have to pay back there cleaners there franchise fees. The cleaners are ruled to be employees. I'm only posting a small portion of the article to read the whole article you can go to the following link.

http://www.bluemaumau.org/11679/deja_vu_janiking_workers_are_not_franchisees

Posted Wed, 2012/06/20 - 13:23 by Janet Sparks

Deja Vu: Jani-King Workers Are Not Franchisees

BOSTON – A district judge once again has issued an order stating that Jani-King International and other entities misclassified its janitorial workers in Massachusetts by labeling them as franchisees.

In doing so, the world’s largest janitorial cleaning service franchisor will have to pay damages to the employees, which will include the franchise fees and additional business fees, as well as all insurance payments made by the workers. The judge also denied the company’s efforts to decertify the class action lawsuit, at this time representing approximately 300 janitorial workers

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
May 17, 2012 9:29 pm EDT

See my comments on the Jan-Pro Line, too stupid to go there, send money to liss-riordin or the other idiot Fortman, because your too stupid to realize that NO MONEY WILL EXCHANGE HANDS!

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
May 17, 2012 9:46 am EDT

Coverall has to post a 3 MILLION DOLLAR BOND before they can appeal!

Here is the most recent article.

Franchisor Nightmare: The Scandal At Coverall

By Carol Tice, Forbes Magazine 5/11/2012

Janitorial franchise Coverall is receiving a $3 million bill from a Massachusetts court this week in a lawsuit other franchisors are watching closely. At the heart of the case is a controversy over whether some franchise owners aren’t franchisees at all, but rather employees who’ve had to pay fees for the right to have their job.

The court ruled last fall that the Boca Raton, Fla.-based franchisor must pay back the franchise fees over 100 people — mostly new immigrants — paid the company, plus interest and lawsuit costs. The court’s opinion? Privately held Coverall misclassified its employees as franchisees, so their fees should be refunded.

The damages calculation was just completed this week, says attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of the firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who represents workers in the case. She says this judgment may only be the beginning — more than 700 additional Massachusetts Coverall workers are still pressing their claims.

Coverall’s woes stem from the way the company structured their franchise arrangements. Most franchises work like this: An owner pays a franchise fee and receives training and marketing help from the parent company. But other than that, the franchisee is in charge of their own business, and finds clients, makes sales, and records revenue. Out of that revenue, a franchise royalty is then sent off to the corporate parent.

Many of the big janitorial franchises operate differently, the suit claims.

Instead of funds flowing from franchise units up to the corporate parent in the form of royalties, “money flows downhill, ” Liss-Riordan says. The suit documented that in general, Coverall finds the clients, assigns them to franchisees, negotiates contracts, bills and collects payments — and then pays the franchisee their share. This structure led the court to conclude the relationship is really that of employer and employee.

As you might expect, the ruling in Awuah v Coverall North America Inc. has sent a shiver down the spine of the franchising industry ever since the state court ruled against Coverall last year. Similar suits are in process in other states and against other major janitorial franchisees, including Jani-King and Jan-Pro, says Liss-Riordan. Attorneys are looking to other states with strong employment laws, such as California, as likely places to pursue similar class-action lawsuits on behalf of franchisees.

For its part, fast-growing Coverall plans to appeal the Massachusetts decision. The company issued a statement saying, “Coverall still believes its Franchised Owners are independent business owners and not employes; as such, they operate their commercial cleaning service businesses, maintaining accounts and hiring independently.”

Unsurprisingly, the International Franchise Association is also unhappy with the ruling, which is the first time courts have ruled against franchisors in this manner. “We continue to believe that the franchise industry should not be subjected to this Massachusetts independent contractor law, ” IFA said.

Will there be more cases like this? Bet on it, says Liss-Riordan. But don’t expect this to spread throughout the franchise world.

Most franchises don’t structure their agreements with franchisees the way janitorial chains do, Liss-Riordan says. Asked to identify another industry that might be next, she says she’s heard of no others with similar franchise setups.

“This decision has not ended franchising as we know it, ” says Liss-Riordan. “The sky is not falling.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/caroltice/2012/05/11/are-some-franchisees-really-employees/

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
May 11, 2012 5:13 am EDT

Coverall Ponzi Scheme

It looks like the people who bought into the coverall Ponzi Scheme will soon get Justice.

Here is part of the article. To read the whole article you can go to the link bellow.

‘The Sky is Not Falling’

Although ruling in Coverall case could cause sweeping changes
By Julie Bennett
As published in: Franchise Times – May 2012

Coverall’s five-year legal battle over whether its Massachusetts franchisees are really company employees is not over, but the lawsuit’s growing success is generating alarm within the franchise community. In March, District Court Judge William Young ruled again in the franchisees’ favor, stating that a group of at least 115 franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors and are eligible for the benefits employees would have earned during their tenure with Coverall, including back wages and overtime pay.
He ordered Coverall to refund the monies the franchisees had spent on franchise fees, cleaning contracts and insurance, and said he would impose triple damages on the cleaning company back to 2006. “We’re talking tens of thousands of dollars for most of the workers, ” said Shannon Liss-Riordan, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston.
Judge Young was expected to rule on the total amount of damages in mid-April. And as soon as that happens, lead defense attorney Norman Leon, a partner in DLA Piper’s Chicago office, said that Coverall would file another appeal. In order to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, to review Judge Young’s most recent ruling, Coverall will have to post a bond based on the total damage amount, Leon said.

http://franchisetimes.com/content/story.php?article=02367

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
May 11, 2012 5:09 am EDT

What you can do to get Justice.

Near the back of your franchise disclosure document there is a section that contains a List of Former Franchisees.

Step 1 – Call everyone on this list and talk to them ad tell them your store, they will tell you their reason for leaving Franchisor, you must all ban together.

Step 2 – Then call all radio and television broadcasting stations near all you and tell them your story, one of them will want it exclusive and they will broadcast it.

Step 3 – Get a transcripts from both radio and television broadcasts, and yes get a video from television broadcast too.

Step 4 – Find a attorney that will take your case without putting any money down as he will see he can get paid when he wins your case.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Mar 25, 2012 6:58 pm EDT

Coverall Looses Coverall to pay triple damages. Good article that came out on Bluemaumau.org
Here is the link to the full story

http://www.bluemaumau.org/11385/coverall_pay_triple_damages

Coverall to Pay Triple Damages

Posted Sat, 2012/03/17 - 21:53 by Janet Sparks

BOSTON – A federal judge ruled last Thursday that Coverall North America must pay triple damages to hundreds of workers classified as franchisees instead of employees, dating back from 2006. Previously, he had ruled that the court would triple damages from 2010. That changes the calculation of damages dramatically, adding the four year period.

In addition to the award on damages, the global janitorial cleaning franchisor will have to pay all the initial franchise fees and additional business fees, as well as recovering insurance deductions. The judge said those fees were unlawful and can be recovered as provided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, representing the class plaintiffs, said they were excited about the order. “We are very pleased that the workers who did not have arbitration agreements will be getting a judgment, and can finally see a conclusion to their case, ” she declared.

Liss-Riordan said the parties were given 30 days to submit what final calculations are based on from this order. She added, “We are now looking forward to the judge’s further rulings on the workers who had arbitration agreements. That will be the next step.”

The case, Awuah v Coverall North America Inc., has been closely watched by the franchise community since it began in 2007. The original complaint filed by eight purported franchisees alleges that they were misclassified as independent contractors instead of the reality of being employees. They accused Coverall of not providing the promised volume of cleaning contracts to them after they paid $6, 000 to $30, 000.

As employees, the plaintiffs assert that Coverall is also liable for minimum wage, overtime and wage law violations. In the lawsuit, the employees claim breach of contract, misrepresentation, deceptive and unfair business practices and unjust enrichment.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Mar 25, 2012 6:50 pm EDT

To lying source you still wont tell us your name or who you are? Why are you so scared. Don't you get tired of hiding like a Rat in a Cave.

I noticed that you joined bluenaunau LOL. I see that you are trying to do some Damage control LOL. I noticed you call yourself churn LOL. Thats the word that coverall, jan-pro and janiking use to steal accounts from people.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Mar 24, 2012 6:00 pm EDT

1st amendment, poor ###...Your second best "hero" Richard Solomon, just informed you on Blue Mau Mau that your hero and her clients will get absolutely nothing by the time it is all said and done. You have been drinking the Kool-Aid thinking that you are going to be a millionaire and now all of a sudden, your world has begun to crumble. Really a sad moment for you isn't it.? I almost feel sorry for you, all your dreams, all your hopes, all your promises are fading away fast...

Maybe you can get Fortman to comfort you, take you for a ride in his old Mercedes that has over 250k miles on it, buy you an ice-tea and tell you how wonderful his life is as he is paying his back child support, finding himself another girlfriend in his office etc...

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Mar 19, 2012 7:14 pm EDT

To lying source,

You still wont tell us who you are. I guees you are SCARED! By the way its really funny how you say "man up to get some " How ever you wont say who you are? You continue to hide like a Rat in a cave. You are the one who wont man up.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Mar 14, 2012 12:31 pm EDT

1st amendment, It doesn't matter who was nominated him for his postion, in MASS there are nothing but Liberals, Full of Liberal bias, Complete with Liberal leanings, look at Scott Brown, look at Mitt Romney, both CLAIM to be Republicans, both are nothing but Moderate Democrats! In regards to Bankruptcy, even Fortman knows better, Liss-riordin already knows what is going to happen and in all honesty, between the SEIU money already in her coffers, the publicity and additional STATUS she has gotten from fighting this "good fight" she has made millions for herself and her firm! In regards to me, who I am, what I do, who I work for is really none of your business...I've been right more times than wrong...I seem to know more about things than you do as an "insider" with liss-riordin and supposidly the "lead plantiff of a class action against Jan-Pro". As I've stated to Fortman (the loser that he is) anytime you decide to "man up" then "cum get sum"!

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Mar 12, 2012 11:46 pm EDT

To Lying source,

We are hopeful that Judge Young will do the right thing. Just for your information Young was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985. This shows that even a conservative appointed Judge knows a Ponzi Scheme when he sees one.

Even when a company files for bankrupcy it doesn't mean that they are off the hook. They don't just walk away.They will pay or be forced to. They will be arrested and put in prison if they don't comply. Assets will be seized. However the most important thing is that no more people will be ROBED of there life savings. They will pay eventually. We will also not stop there. We will also keep pursuing them until these people go to PRISON just like Madoff got 100 years in PRISON so should the people at corporate! They were running a PONZI SCHEME and people who run PONZI SCHEMES go to PRISON !

To Lying Source I don't know who you are and you wont tell us because you are afraid, you are Scared. However if I ever find out who you are and If I find out that you are someone at corporate trust me I will do everything that I can so that you are charged with FRAUD and put in PRISON !

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Mar 07, 2012 1:41 pm EST

As 1st amendment and Jonathan Fortman continue down the path of ###ic Sublime, let me be the first to tell them both what will happen with Monday's Ruling in MASS:

a) Judge will award approx. 6 million in damages to Plantiffs
b) DLA Piper will file appeal that is still open in previous judgement file
c) After Coverall loses that appeal, probably within 90 days, Coverall will file for bankruptcy protection in MASS, because the holding company that oversse's the state of Mass for Coverall, is seperate from actual Coverall Corp. Structure. At end of day, Plantiff's will get next to nothing, SEIU got nothing but alot of pain for no gain as their will be detailed questions about the mis-use of union dues, Liss-Riordin got SEIU's money and she got the "bump" as being a "bulldog" for pursuing this money loser of a case, 1st amendment will be able to thump his chest, but at end of day, he will get nothing, because he has no "standing" in the Coverall Case and Fortman after making himself out to be a complete ### on numerous levels, will say his case against Stratus is different, forgetting that even his "non-sense" in regards to Masters being taken hostage by Stratus Corp. will have failed in Missouri court system on lack of merit.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 29, 2012 4:44 am EST

To lying source,

Law suits are getting filled all over the country in many different states. There also getting filled in other countries like the Uk, Australia and Canada. It's only a mater of time before all the people at corporate are arrested and put in Prison.

Richard Kissane the president of jan-pro knows what is going on. When jan-pro was exposed on Television for ripping of all of those cleaning ladies he said he would take care of the situation and rectify the mater and he never did. HE LIED ! Richard Kissane is part of this Ponzi Scheme and needs to be put in Prison!

Webster Capitol bought jan-pro a few years ago. They took investors money to buy jan-pro. I don't think that Investors are going to be very happy with the purchase that Donald Steiner managing partner, Rob long senior general partner, david malm senior general partner, charles larkin general partner, andrew mcgee general partner, kyle hynden senior associate, jenny betzwieser senior associate, mark greene chief financial officer, or sarah mcbride associate. I dont know why Webster Capitol continues to let jan-pro and it's president Richard kissane and the other people in his cave run things when they constantly continue to run a Ponzi Scheme!

Thousands of us who got ripped off by jan-pro and webster capitol are coming together and we are growing in numbers everyday. We will continue our Fight until we get JUSTICE!

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Feb 24, 2012 9:47 pm EST

1st amendment, the above, plus the sum of $1.00 will buy you and Fortman an iced-tea! As we still "speak", Coverall has not paid one cent to any of the "plantiffs" in the case! I can post one year from now, two years from now, five years from now and this will still be a true statement...You know what will also be true? Obama won't be President, SEIU will be investigated for misuse of union dues, liss-riordin will move on to chasing down strippers in other states for collective bargaining rights!

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Feb 21, 2012 1:23 pm EST

1st amendment, OK? As I've said all along, What happens in MASS, is the only place it is going to happen. If you think Coverall is going to do anything else but the following: You are a bigger fool than Fortman:

a) Appeal 1st ruling by Young
b) Appeal 2nd ruling by Young
c) Appeal MASS Supreme Judicial Ruling
d) If loses any/all of the above, offer peanuts for settlement
e) File for Bankruptcy in MASS and Plantiffs get nothing, because Liss-Riordin and her SEIU friends come 1st...

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 20, 2012 2:11 am EST

The following article recently came out on the National Law Journal

Judge certifies class of cleaning workers misclassified as 'franchisees'

Sheri Qualters
The National Law Journal February 13, 2012

A Boston federal judge has certified as a class a broad swath of
purported franchisees of cleaning company Coverall North America
Inc. who are suing the company for misclassifying them as
independent contractors instead of employees.
In a Feb. 10 order in Awuah v. Coverall North America Inc., Judge
William Young of the District of Massachusetts defined the class as
individuals who owned a Coverall franchise and performed work for Coverall customers
in Massachusetts at any time since Feb. 15, 2004, who didn't sign an arbitration
agreement or have their claims previously adjudicated.
Young's recent ruling expanded the class he certified on Sept. 22, 2011, to include
some people who obtained a franchise through transfer. The class includes individuals
who became franchise owners through a consent-to-transfer agreement but did not
receive a copy of Coverall's franchise offering circular, which outlined terms of the
janitorial franchise agreements, including mandatory arbitration.
Eight named plaintiffs claimed in their February 2007 complaint that the company
misclassified franchisees as independent contractors. They also alleged Coverall did
not provide the promised volume of cleaning work to franchisees who paid $6, 000 to
$30, 000. And they claimed Coverall targeted immigrants who do not speak English as a
first language or fully understand the company's legal documents.
Since they are employees, the plaintiffs contend that the company is liable for minimum
wage, overtime and wage law violations. The legal claims include breach of contract,
misrepresentation, deceptive and unfair business practices and unjust enrichment. In March 2010, Young granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the
misclassification claim. In that ruling, he found that Coverall did not meet the second
prong of the state's three-part test that defines independent contractors, which requires
workers to provide services that are "independent, separate and distinct" from the
employers' business.
The other two parts of the test require independent contractors to be "free from control
and direction in connection with the performance of the service" and customarily
engaged in the same trade, profession or occupation that they're doing contractually.
In his Feb. 10 ruling, Young expanded the class to include people who didn't sign an
arbitration agreement and get notice of the arbitration agreement, so "it's a pretty
straightforward commonsense ruling, " said one of the plaintiffs' lawyers on the case,
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan. "People can't be bound by an
arbitration agreement that they didn't get notice of or a copy of."
Liss-Riordan said the plaintiffs are looking forward to Young's pending ruling on the
"illusoriness" or validity of Coverall's arbitration agreement. "We have challenged the
arbitration agreement as a whole, " Liss-Riordan said.
She also said the case "raises very interesting questions about whether companies
really want to compel hundreds of individuals to go to arbitration or [whether they] are
they hoping they can deter people."
"This case is showing these issues are not going to go away, " Liss-Riordan said." It's
going to be even more expensive and complicated [for companies]."
The plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment on damages, which is slated for
hearing on Feb. 14, based on Young's March 2010 ruling. They're seeking several types
of damages, including: $916, 844.65 for initial franchise fees and additional business
fees; $894, 433.78 for insurance deductions: $106, 535.77 for funds collected to offset
unpaid customer bills; and $122, 932.25 for interest on late payments.
The plaintiffs are also asking for triple damages based on a 2008 amendment to the
Massachusetts law concerning unpaid wages that allowed for the increase in damages.
Aside from that change, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2005
in Wiedmann v. The Bradford Group that courts can treble damages for unpaid wages
when there is a showing of "outrageous[ness], because of a defendant's evil motive
or…reckless indifference" to workers' rights."
"He'll either assess the damages based on the papers or will have a trial in March to
determine those damages for the class members, " Liss-Riordan said.
Liss-Riordan said those amounts don't include fees paid by class members before
February 2004 and after June 2010, or fees paid by the class members added by Young's Feb. 10 ruling. Neither fee category has been calculated, she said.
Lawyers at DLA Piper who represent Coverall were not available to discuss the case.
Coverall did not respond to a request for comment.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 20, 2012 2:04 am EST

Lying source your a ###, the Pius Awuah case is diferent than the Rhina Alvarenga case and diferent from the other case settled in 2006. It's 3 diferent cases, two of them were settled a long time ago. You are either very stupid or a Big Dum ###! Do you want me to post all 3 diferent ones?

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Feb 19, 2012 10:24 pm EST

1st amendment, you ###...Liss Riordin first met with the people in the awiah case in 2004. It does matter, and in fact as we still speak, the only one that has any type of judgement in the awiah case, is poor old, dumb, disgruntled, taken advantage of by liss-riordin and exploited by losers like you and Fortman is awiah... By the time the appeals are done, awaih will be back in his native country and still dirt poor thanks to you and liss-riordin.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 17, 2012 4:36 am EST

To Lying source

Still afraid to give us your real name ? Can you tell us why you are so afraid to give us your real name? Why do you hide? I guees that is the way jan-crap and all the other fake cleaning franchisors do business, hide like rats in a cave.

The Pius Awuah case was filled in 2007. It doesn't matter how long it takes as long as we get JUSTICE just like Rhina Alvarenga did.

If you have been ripped-off by jan-pro there is several things that you can do.

1. File a complaints with the FTC Federal trade commisiion www.ftc.gov

2. File a report with your states attorney general and U.S attorney general.

3. Talk to everyone that bought into the ponzi scheme, look for an attorney and take legal action

4. You can contact me i'm Jerry and a plaintif you can call me at [protected] I can give you more information.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Feb 17, 2012 1:17 am EST

1st amendment, you absolute ###, I'm talking about good ole Aiwah and liss-riordin. Not Alarenga. 2004 till 2012 is still 8 years. I know that in Mexico they don't speak or understand English, but at least you could get Fortman or someone in his office to translate for you...How's your case in California going? Not so well, think there is a common theme, NO WHERE ELSE BUT MASS! Now Fortman is trying to drag Masters into his lawsuit (pretty stupid) in order to gain some traction in Missouri...Pretty sure he is simply "yelling at windmills" and drinking Ice-Tea from the corner mart in his old, broken, beat down Mercedes and still avoiding his child support payments! But at least he has his current wife, former mistress, past employee to lean on in times of trouble.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 16, 2012 11:16 pm EST

To Lying source,

The Rhina Alvarenga case was concluded back in 2006 it lasted 2 years. The case was won by Rhina Alvarenga. Thats 2 years! Then coverall tried to sue the Goverment LOL, LOL, LOL... The Judge scolded coverall and made them pay the Office of Unemployment and Rhina Alvarenga. The other case was filled in Massachusetts in 2007 so it hasn't been as long as you said. Either way it doesn't matter how long it takes what matters is that we eventually get Justice, Just like Rhina Alvarenga did.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Feb 09, 2012 11:26 pm EST

1st amendment, per liss-riordin's own website, she states she met with and then decided to pursue a legal case against Coverall in 2004... Now I don't know how you count in your country of origin (Mexico), but here in the good ole USA we count from 2004 to 2012 as 8 Years... Hope you and Fortman have fun in the coming month's, I have a feeling this is coming to a head, sooner than later. Once Obama is voted out of office, your cases are history, because the money will be gone from SEIU!

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 09, 2012 9:59 am EST

To Lying source,

Just so you know one of your favorate Lawyers was on the winning side of Justice in this LANDMARK and HISTORIC CASE!

Rhina Alvarenga v. Coverall of North America d/b/a Coverall Cleaning Concepts and Coverall of Boston. Sunrise Senior Living. Inc. d/b/a Sunrise of Arlington, et al (Superior Court, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case No. MICV2005-01782-A), filed on May 2, 2005 and Amended on August 8, 2005. Plaintiff, a former Coverall franchisee, filed this eleven count complaint against Coverall and one of its customers, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. ("Sunrise"), variously alleging common law fraudulent inducement, and claimed damages in the amount of $19, 654.11; violation of the Massachusetts General Laws 93A; the right to rescission; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the Massachusetts Minimum

Fair Wage Act; violation of timely payment of wages statute; overtime violations under the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act; and unjust enrichment. The case was settled and Coverall paid.

Not only that but they also had to pay Rhina Alvarenga unemployment benefits. Coverall didn't want to but Coverall lost in court again.

Coverall North America, Inc. v. Com’r of Div. of Unemployment, 447 Mass. 852 (2006) (amicus) (Supreme Judicial Court held that “franchisee” cleaning worker was employee entitled to unemployment compensation upon termination, not independent contractor)

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Feb 07, 2012 5:41 am EST

To lying source its not 8 years its 3. You are such a liar and a COWARD because you are to chiken to say who you are. If you have been ripped-off by jan-pro there is several things that you can do.

1. File a complaints with the FTC Federal trade commisiion www.ftc.gov

2. File a report with your states attorney general and us attorney general

3. Talk to everyone that bought into the ponzi scheme and look for an attorney and take legal action

4. You can contact me Jerry at [protected] I can give you more information.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Jan 10, 2012 1:11 pm EST

1st amendment, now we are in 8 years since Liss-Riordin first took on the various cases that she has... How much money has actually been paid to the supposed "disenfranchised"? Absolutely ZERO! She has some legal victories, but at the end of the day, the only one with a judgement against them is poor old Aiwah! 1st amendment, you should be the one along with Liss-Riordin who should go to jail for deception. With a track record of calling everyone in, deceiving them into thinking the franchisor is the only reason for their failures in life, the only one responsible for them not making any money, the only one responsible for being on food stamps etc... What about Personal Responsibility? 2012 will be an interesting year for sure...

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Jan 10, 2012 10:24 am EST

To lying source,

2012 is here and we are going to fight harder than ever. I will never give in until we get Justice. I think my congressman is going to be very interested in hearing of how these Ponzi Scheme cleaning rackets are ripping of many of his constituents. Oh and here is another article, hope you enjoy because I have more coming.

The following is an article from bluemaumau.org 12-31-2011

Shannon Liss-Riordan: Petite Sledgehammer

BOSTON — An attorney in a boutique Boston law firm, Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, has gone after giants and won. Many with deep pockets, who employ some of the country's largest law firms, are licking their wounds and probably asking themselves if having been a little fairer in the first place may not have been the easiest route.

It's not just franchisors who are wary of her. Franchise owners too. She has won restaurant tip cases. Liss-Riordan focuses on class action litigation involving failure to pay wages, overtime, gratuities and minimum wage. She took on franchisors who pretended their employees were franchise owners.

Representing pole dancers, waitresses and newly immigrated franchisees, she is known as a champion of the little guy. Her legal wins have gained a reputation in the state, the country and the franchise world.

Her clients dub her "Sledgehammer Shannon."

In August of this year, attorney Liss-Riordan had the final win in a franchise case she was representing. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court smacked Coverall janitorial franchise system with a huge bill for labeling its employees franchisees. The high court ruled that the franchisor must pay back franchise-related fees, including promissory note payments, additional business fees, franchise fees and insurance payments.

Another Boston-based attorney, Seth Stadfeld, explains that janitorial services like Coverall find customers through the national office, call them, collect money and then give back to the franchisee what's left over. He explains that most franchisors aren't like Coverall. "The money flows uphill (franchisees collect money from customers and pay royalties up to their franchisor), while in Coverall and cleaning service franchises, the money flows downhill, " says Stadfeld. "In Coverall, the customer relationships flow downhill. It is the franchisors that determine whether you can service the customer or not. For purposes of independent contract status, that really is different."

Experts think the ruling that franchisees can be disguised employees will ripple down to other franchise systems and other states.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Dec 30, 2011 2:20 am EST

1st amendment, are you and the owner of unhappyfranchisee.com and Jonathan Fortman going to get together soon in St. Louis? If so, let me know and I will be more than happy to buy all three of you an ice tea! Heck, I'll even buy dinner... The owner of unhappyfranchisee.com is on food stamps and has to have a telethon at least twice per year to raise enough cash to keep things going. Fortman's got a car with 250K miles on it and he is your SAVIOR! Only reason Liss-Riordin isn't part of this issue is the fact she was smart enough to get SEIU and the union dues to pay her salary! Looking forward to 2012!

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Dec 28, 2011 10:41 pm EST

To Lying source, Your still avoiding the QUESTION? What is your real name? What is your real name ? Why do you hide like a RAT in a Cave ? Be a Man and say who you are. What is your name and why are you so afraid to say who you are ?

The Lawsuits are going well. Don't let this Rat from corporate intimidate you. If you have been Ripped-off by a cleaning Ponzi Scheme like a Judge recently compared them to you can take action to get Justice.

The following are things that you can do.

1. File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. They are a Goverment agency with the Power to take action. They can and will go into a building with armed police officers and agents and take action. You should file a complaunt with the Federal Trade Commission. www.Ftc.gov They will take action once they get enough complaints . Your complaint with them is confidential. WWW.FTC.GOV

2. File a complaint with the Attorney General let them know that these companies are in violation of the Rico and Raqueterring Acts. WWW.Justice.Gov

3. Let your local News Stations and newspapers know what is going on with these cleaning companies and how they are a "Ponzi Scheme" Thats what a Judge recently said.

4. Organise with other cleaners who have been ripped-off. When you go to pick ip your paycheck talk to everyone.

5. Look for an attorney or Lawfirm. There is many pursuing lawsuits at this moment.

6. Picket and warn other people of this Scam!

6. If you call me I can give you a copy of the lawsuit and more information. Jerry [protected]

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Dec 27, 2011 3:55 pm EST

1st amendment, aka Dude Love, aka I love America, aka SEIU Stooge... Glad to see that liss-riordin was able to secure your safe passage back from Mexico! Was getting worried about you...Hope your Jan-Pro lawsuit is still going on? Wait a second, that is still in hiatus isnt it? What happened, got a feeling you were about to lose, therefore, just asked for continuance again? Time is running short for you isn't it?

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Dec 26, 2011 3:10 am EST

To Lying source Hey you keep hidding like a Rat in a Cave. You still won't give me your name or where you live. I guees you have much to HIDE so you won't say your real name.

Don't let these criminals intimidate you. If you have been ripped-off by a cleaning franchise Ponzi Scheme Like a Judge recently compared them to you can do the following.

1. File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission www.Ftc.gov

2. File a complaint with the Attorney General www.Justice.gov

3. Organise with other cleaners and look for an attorney or lawfirm and get Justice.

Coverall has many Lawsuits and it looks like the Goverment will come down on them soon.

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Nov 05, 2011 6:01 pm EDT

1st amendment, you, Fortman, Liss-Riordin have no answer for me, Here I am an industry veteran standing up for the nearly 100, 000 owner-operators performing quality services on a nightly basis throughout the U.S. They are currently cleaning over 2.5 BILLION dollars per year of commercial cleaning accounts and top quality accounts at that... Problem for you and the other 100 (your number) or so, disgruntled, uncaring, underperforming owner-operators is that SEIU and Big Labor after their miserable attempt trying to get commercial cleaners to unionize decided to "get into bed" with companies such as Many Large National Providers and make an agreement that if they could get rid of the "franchise based commercial cleaning companies" they could begin increasing costs, wages and UNIONIZE all facilities overa a certain size and/or geographic area. HERE"s the problem, outside of MASS, there have been only minor victories... THEY need a BIG ONE to pop and soon...All of a sudden companies like Coverall have awoken and aren't going to SETTLE any more! 1st amendment, Fortman, Liss-Riordin your days of Easy Money are over...IF you don't win something soon and do it outside of MASS then SEIU will pull the plug, they've got to put all money into trying to change an election in 2012!

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Oct 27, 2011 8:17 pm EDT

To Lying source, the jan-pro case is going very well. Why does it bother you that I have met some people who work for coverall and are getting ripped-off? I'm a freindly person who simply warns people about these Ponzi Scheemes if people want to organise and protest and take action it's there right..

If you have been ripped-off by coverall in California please give me a call as soon as possible.

By the way Lying source will you ever tell us your name? Probably not because you are a scared little mouse.

Jerry
[protected]

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Oct 27, 2011 8:07 pm EDT

So, you trying to do more legwork for Liss-Riordin? Think it's funny how your case against Jan-Pro is going nowhere, now you are trying to "piggy back" onto Coverall Ruling in MASS! Have you spoken to TEAM FORTMAN lately? Are you finally realizing that outside of the state of MASS that NOTHING is going to happen? SEIU won't support anything for Liss-Riordin anymore either without another victory soon...Might want to try another avenue.

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Oct 27, 2011 3:05 am EDT

If you are working for coverall or have in the past worked for them in California please give me a call as soon as possible.

Jerry
[protected]

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Oct 04, 2011 6:14 pm EDT

Well, there you go again 1st amendment, lying to your "adhoring public" aka Jonathan Fortman...Let us go over this one more time, just for the record:
a) Jonathan Fortman is a second tier attorney that has to report to his children in order to learn things such as Internet Troll and Shill.
b) Jonathan Fortman is trying to cash in on the SEIU and BIG Labor money that liss-riordin has been getting and just discovered that even Big Labor thinks he is a joke!
c) Coverall can/will still file an appeal on earlier ruling
d) Coverall has quit selling franchises in MASS only
e) Liss-Riordin hasn't won a cleaning franchise case outside of MASS
f) 1st amendment's own lawsuit is on purpose being "sidelined" for lack of funds
g) No awards have been given out...

So in a "nutshell" both you and Fortman are losers!

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Oct 04, 2011 5:17 am EDT

Coverall Stops selling there fake franchises !

Coverall is " Treading on eggshells "

They have been Stopped!

6 Judges of the High Court have Ruled and required coverall to pay back all the franchise fees, royalties and insurance premiums they had collected from their misclassified employees.

They are now treating there cleaners like employees and paying for there insurance.

Read the following and newest article on how Coverall has been stopped!

http://www.franchisetimes.com/content/story_result.php?article=02283

S
S
1st Amendment
Bloomington, US
Sep 14, 2011 10:46 pm EDT

Here are the links to the Coverall law suit that Coverall LOST! Here are some articles to the decision.

http://www.bluemaumau.org/10644/franchisor_hit_hard_pretending_employees_are_franchisees

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/08/31/sjc-employers-not-workers-must-pay.html

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-01/business/30102317_1_coverall-north-america-franchise-fees-commercial-cleaning-industry

I
I
Informed source
Connersville, US
Sep 13, 2011 12:15 pm EDT

Bob, How ridiculous of a statement is that, most franchise/owner-operator companies do a much better job cleaning all types of facilities than traditional based companies. Main reason is the commitment that these men/women make to themselves and to the customer. Traditional companies hire part-time workers at/right around minimum wage, give them a set time by which they must get the facility cleaned in. The main problem that companies such as Coverall do, is they don't hire quality enough Operations Team to teach owner/operators the ins/outs of the cleaning business. Here's the "kicker", neither do most traditional cleaning companies or their management Team spends more time "shuffling" people from site to site because of the high rate of turnover and sick calls.

B
B
Bob89857
Bethesda, US
Sep 13, 2011 2:38 am EDT

Coverall is just a terrible business model for 99% of people. They basically hire any idiot with a few grand and let them be franchise owners. Then they train them with a viedo that explains the products they are supposed to use (many of the franchise owners do not use the materials they are supposed to) and then they start getting them accounts. problem is, Coverall dupes a lot of businesses into using them because they are so much cheaper than a good cleaning company, and the businesses are many times industrial areas and very dirty. In the end, the franchise owners don't clean well because of a lack of proper training, or in some cases, just because they are lazy and didn't realize how hard it would be. The business owners end up mad because the cleaning sucks, and Coverall is basically making money off of all the misery. Out of probably fifty franchise owners, on average five are actually taking it seriously and making some kind of money, and even they have problems that actual real cleaning companies don't have. The rest are constantly losing accounts and being let go. It really is a Ponzi scheme in many ways...they make money off of selling accounts and duping franchise owners out of their money, they don't offer any service other than finding a crappy business for a usually crappy FO to clean, and they usually lose both the business and the FO within a year or so. If they wanted to hire people amc train them to clean and then find businesses to sell cleaning services to, they should just do that. They basically set it up where they carry no risk and have all the reward.

Trending companies