I agree. In reality, however, nobody would sue. The predatory banks have us by the balls. The law firms and agencies know this. As temps, we lose all of our rights as American citizens at the document review basement door.
"I was doing some research for a friend of mine who was recently fired from her job and I came across a classic textbook cause of action for all temp workers who have been fired for making complaints or threatening to make complaints against their employers to government agencies. NY recognizes a cause of action called "retaliatory discharge" which accrues when an employee is fired specifically (quid pro quo)because they threaten to disclose illegal activity by the company to a government agency (see Holston vs. Sisters of St. Francis,650 N.E. 2d 985 (Ill., 1995) and Kraus vs. New Rochelle Hospital Medical
Center, 628 N.Y.S. 2d 361 (N.Y. App., 1995).. Given the number of blatant OSHA violations you've cited, the number of suits that could be filed would be significant. The advantage is that all of the persons these actions have been taken against are all admitted attorney's who can file their own complaints pro se. With a little bit of guidance on matters of NY civil procedure (we could create a sort of "how to" manual for how to file the complaints), we could flood these bastards with lawsuits; either that or compile them into class action suits against the various temp companies.
I get the feeling that that is the only way to get them to listen, hit them in the wallet where it hurts. The goal wouldn't even be to actually win the lawsuits. By filing individually, pro se, the individual lawyers incur almost no expenses (outside of an meager filing fee) while forcing the temp companies to spend large sums of money defending themselves; it literally throws their whole structure back in their faces. They might have to settle the suits quickly to avoid the inevitable expenses incurred by their own bloated structure. Ironically, it may even have the effect of creating more of a demand for temp workers to process the discovery demands from the lawsuits of other temp workers. All you would need would be a handful of ex-temp workers who really don't give a shit about doing temp work again to file the suits (because they will certainly be black balled), and there must be an abundance of them.
Proving the quid pro quo, namely that the termination was directly in response to the threat of making a complaint to a government agency and not for some other reason is the hard part. It wouldn't be all that difficult however to produce the basic affidavits necessary to make a prima facie case and survive the inevitable pre-answer motions to dismiss and subsequent motions for summary judgment. Simply by creating a triable issue of fact, they would be forced to expend significant resources just to respond. You could even specifically arrange test cases with willing subjects who specifically, and rather vocally, in the presence of multiple witnesses, speak to a supervisor and threaten to report them to a government agency regarding the present work conditions. The statements of the supervisor would be admissible under the opposing party admission exception to hearsay. This is just a rough outline but I'm sure a more comprehensive blueprint could be organized.
Maybe I'm a wild eyed dreamer, but it's about time someone hit these guys where it hurts. Let me know what you think. Is this at least worth posting?"