D R Horton employees even get the shaft
Insiders and sub contractors have offered inside information regarding D R Horton's shady business dealings.
Home Page
D R Horton is well known for defrauding consumers. Just visit www.drhortonsucks.info and the other dozen interlinked sites for that proof.
D R Horton also steals money from its own by not paying employees and subs. See the below law suits regarding illegal federal pay withholding.
Throughout the US, insiders have submitted information that sales agents and mortgage originators are fired before their commissions come due. Others state that the commissions are never paid, and when the employee demands them, the employee is fired. Cases filed for non payment and stealing employee's money include Hatton, 14-06-00262-CV, Brooks, 14-06-00099-CV, Collins, CV-99-330-PHX, Rielly, CV-00867-AG, Kandah, 07-CV-61030-WJZ, Huggins, 08-CV-00977, Scwartz, 08-CV-00117,
Lujan http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2004/01/26/daily15.html. These cases stretch from 1999 and most recently in 2008. These are just the people who have bothered to file. For each filing there are ten others who dont file in the even more expensive judicial system guaranteed to favor the deeper pocket.
Where contract employees and labor unions are concerned, D R Horton breaks its own contracts for the cheaper alternatives........immigrant non documented laborers to whom benefits need not be payed or preventative safety measures not provided. http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/540867.html
Moral of the story- Dont work for D R Horton unless you want to work for free and/or become a paraplegic as is the case in Punta Gorda Florida. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/021704/met_14837472.shtml
D R Horton also steals money from its own by not paying employees and subs. See the below law suits regarding illegal federal pay withholding.
Throughout the US, insiders have submitted information that sales agents and mortgage originators are fired before their commissions come due. Others state that the commissions are never paid, and when the employee demands them, the employee is fired. Cases filed for non payment and stealing employee's money include Hatton, 14-06-00262-CV, Brooks, 14-06-00099-CV, Collins, CV-99-330-PHX, Rielly, CV-00867-AG, Kandah, 07-CV-61030-WJZ, Huggins, 08-CV-00977, Scwartz, 08-CV-00117,
Lujan http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2004/01/26/daily15.html. These cases stretch from 1999 and most recently in 2008. These are just the people who have bothered to file. For each filing there are ten others who dont file in the even more expensive judicial system guaranteed to favor the deeper pocket.
Where contract employees and labor unions are concerned, D R Horton breaks its own contracts for the cheaper alternatives........immigrant non documented laborers to whom benefits need not be payed or preventative safety measures not provided. http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/540867.html
Moral of the story- Dont work for D R Horton unless you want to work for free and/or become a paraplegic as is the case in Punta Gorda Florida. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/021704/met_14837472.shtml
D R Horton insiders have been contacting me by the dozens.
Two former D R Horton inspectors from Florida have stated that construction was not code compliant with hurricane standards. Another sales agent there informed me that homes were sold without certificates of occupancy and final inspections.
In California, former DHI Mortgage brokers have confirmed that D R Horton is involved in predatory lending. D R Horton mandates that DHI agents "earn 2% on the back end of a loan." Sales agents both in California and Nevada have corroborated this scheme along with others such as when consumers attempt to get outside financing, that D R Horton colludes with DHI mortgage in antitrust violations to prevent that outside financing. D R Horton ties and conditions the purchase of the homes on the purchase of their very expensive and unaffordable financing. Visit www.drhortonsucks.info for HUNDREDS of consumer testimonials.
In Nevada, several sales agents have stated that their commissions were fraudulently withheld and that the only successful D R Horton officers were those that would over charge consumers.
Former warranty managers in several other states including South Carolina have said that agents who would side with consumers would be fired and have confirmed that D R Horton policy is to drag its feet in performing warranty service or provide poor service so that the consumer is worn into submission. A former sales agent from South Carolina was kind enough to forward internal emails written by CEO Donald Tomnitz and his agents regarding meeting wall street expectations and elections rigging. http://www.donaldhortonisacrook.info/Pennsylvania___S.html
In other filed lawsuits:
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Hatton, No. 14-06-00262-CV, 14-06-00284-CV, 2006 WL 3193722 (Tex. App. Nov. 07, 2006), Brenda Hatton brought suit against her employer, D.R. Horton, Inc. (D.R. Horton), alleging discrimination and breach of contract. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in an employee handbook. The Court disagreed with Brooks’s argument that the arbitration agreement was illusory, unconscionable, and too indefinite to form a binding contract. Here, D.R. Horton did not have the right to amend or rescind the arbitration clause, and the Court also disagreed that the costs of arbitration were prohibitive because D.R. Horton had offered to pay the costs of arbitration. This Court found that the facts of this case were very similar to those in D.R. Horton v. Brooks, Nos. 14-06-00099-CV, 14-06-00152-CV, 2006 WL 3091457 (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2006). In Brooks, the Court agreed with D.R. Horton’s argument that the denial of its motion to compel was an abuse of discretion. The Court considered Brooks to be controlling and concluded that arbitration clause was valid. The Court issued a conditional writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.
Two former D R Horton inspectors from Florida have stated that construction was not code compliant with hurricane standards. Another sales agent there informed me that homes were sold without certificates of occupancy and final inspections.
In California, former DHI Mortgage brokers have confirmed that D R Horton is involved in predatory lending. D R Horton mandates that DHI agents "earn 2% on the back end of a loan." Sales agents both in California and Nevada have corroborated this scheme along with others such as when consumers attempt to get outside financing, that D R Horton colludes with DHI mortgage in antitrust violations to prevent that outside financing. D R Horton ties and conditions the purchase of the homes on the purchase of their very expensive and unaffordable financing. Visit www.drhortonsucks.info for HUNDREDS of consumer testimonials.
In Nevada, several sales agents have stated that their commissions were fraudulently withheld and that the only successful D R Horton officers were those that would over charge consumers.
Former warranty managers in several other states including South Carolina have said that agents who would side with consumers would be fired and have confirmed that D R Horton policy is to drag its feet in performing warranty service or provide poor service so that the consumer is worn into submission. A former sales agent from South Carolina was kind enough to forward internal emails written by CEO Donald Tomnitz and his agents regarding meeting wall street expectations and elections rigging. http://www.donaldhortonisacrook.info/Pennsylvania___S.html
In other filed lawsuits:
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Hatton, No. 14-06-00262-CV, 14-06-00284-CV, 2006 WL 3193722 (Tex. App. Nov. 07, 2006), Brenda Hatton brought suit against her employer, D.R. Horton, Inc. (D.R. Horton), alleging discrimination and breach of contract. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in an employee handbook. The Court disagreed with Brooks’s argument that the arbitration agreement was illusory, unconscionable, and too indefinite to form a binding contract. Here, D.R. Horton did not have the right to amend or rescind the arbitration clause, and the Court also disagreed that the costs of arbitration were prohibitive because D.R. Horton had offered to pay the costs of arbitration. This Court found that the facts of this case were very similar to those in D.R. Horton v. Brooks, Nos. 14-06-00099-CV, 14-06-00152-CV, 2006 WL 3091457 (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2006). In Brooks, the Court agreed with D.R. Horton’s argument that the denial of its motion to compel was an abuse of discretion. The Court considered Brooks to be controlling and concluded that arbitration clause was valid. The Court issued a conditional writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.
