$5.95 Million Settlement Reached in Record Time in California Overtime Suit

A California overtime pay class action suit is setting records – in how quickly a settlement can be reached. Final approval was granted by a California federal judge for a $5.95 million settlement to resolve the class action brought by service managers against Ecolab Inc. alleging California overtime law violations.

Court records show that the plaintiff class alleged improper classification as overtime exempt. In reality, workers were due overtime for any hours worked in excess of 8 hours in any given day, and 40 hours in any given week. The terms of the settlement indicate that the class includes 158 workers. Each should receive $442 per week of work in accordance with the terms of the settlement.

In addition to the $442 per week of work, the five class representatives will receive an additional allotment of $5,000. $15,000 will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $9,000 will be paid to the claims administrator.

Some say the speed with which the parties reached a settlement is due to the fact that it follows on the heels of another, similar case against Ecolab. The other case against Ecolab, Ross v. Ecolab, ended in a $35 million settlement in March 2016. The settlement in Ross v. Ecolab was preceded by seven years of litigation. Campos v. Ecolab was filed in August 2016 and was in mediation after only three months. Final approval for the proposed $5.95 million settlement was granted within a year of the original lawsuit filing.

Both Ross v. Ecolab and Campos v. Ecolab included allegations of misclassification and failure to pay overtime. In Ross v. Ecolab, the class was made up of dishwasher servicers, and employees undertaking promotion and marketing tasks for Ecolab’s line of cleaning products. Campos v. Ecolab plaintiffs sought similar relief, but class members were route managers and service managers that were not included in the previous lawsuit. The quick resolution of the case is due in large part to work already done in the Ross litigation. In fact, due to the known association between the two cases the judge handling the case decreased the legal fees given for handling Campos v. Ecolab as most of the heavy lifting was already taken care of due to the prior Ross v. Ecolab.

If you are worried about not receiving overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

West Covina Police Officers File Suit Seeking Overtime Pay

Five police officers from the West Covina Police Department allege that the city is not paying them proper overtime pay. The plaintiffs filed their California overtime lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Central District of California on May 17th.

The five-page complaint includes allegations that the city is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of not providing proper compensation for overtime to their police officers/employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant is not paying for all hours worked above/beyond the overtime threshold and they are also not including all forms of compensation in the calculation of the Plaintiffs’ regular rate of pay, which reduces the amount of overtime they receive for hours over 8 in one day or 40 in one work week.

Officers represented in the California overtime lawsuit are:

• Keith Freeman
• Bryan Gaboury
• Anthony Huacuja
• Joseph Meyers
• Doug Weischedel

All the officers involved are seeking to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, as well as other damages and attorneys’ fees appropriate for the case.

Officials for the city (Defendant) state that the lawsuit stems from a similar case out of San Gabriel where police officers argued that the benefits program in place (that allows all city employees to collect cash in replacement of health benefits) should be factored into their regular rate of pay prior to using the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime compensation. While the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the police officers in the San Gabriel case last year, the city appealed the case and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on May 15th.

According to City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow, the two city benefits programs are not identical, but some employees could be eligible for additional overtime compensation if they are receiving cash payments as a replacement for health coverage through the benefits program. She stated that she is currently in the midst of evaluating the appeals court ruling on the San Gabriel case in order to pinpoint how and if it applies to West Covina’s benefits program and current situation. If it does apply, she will also be attempting to determine how many employees would be affected and how much they would be owed in unpaid overtime. The city hopes for a speedy resolution of the matter.

If you aren’t receiving overtime compensation for overtime hours, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Compass Group USA, Inc. Facing Allegations of Failing to Pay Overtime

Compass Group USA, Inc. is facing a federal class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all employees who worked as route and delivery drivers in California since June 20, 2013. The California lawsuit claims that the company failed to comply with the California Labor Code mandates. As a result, Plaintiffs allege that they have been underpaid, and denied rest breaks/meal breaks as required by employment law.

The complaint against Compass Group USA, Inc. alleges that the company failed to pay route and delivery drivers for ‘Canteen’ and/or ‘Canteen Vending’ brands minimum wage and overtime wages as required. Drivers for these divisions service vending machines and corporate cafeterias on behalf of the company throughout the state of California. The lawsuit goes further claiming that the Compass Group’s violations are a systemic problem and that they are in violation regularly in a number of ways:

·       Failure to keep and maintain appropriate records of time worked

·       Engaging in policy and/or practice of refusing to offer workers meal/rest breaks

·       Failing to offer a method for workers to receive payment for missed breaks

·       Failing to compensate workers for “off-the-clock” work

·       Failing to reimburse workers for company-mandated use of cell phones

·       Failing to pay all wages in accordance with California employment law

·       Failing to pay overtime wages in accordance with California employment law

·       Failing to pay commissions in accordance with California employment law

The attorney for the Plaintiffs stated on the record that employees such as those represented in this lawsuit are feeling more and more pressure to do more in less time in order to improve the company’s bottom line – and keep their positions at the company. He further indicated that this is the case with the drivers he represents. In an effort to keep their jobs amid the company’s labor practices, they have lost out on wages, reimbursements, and other rightful compensation they are due in accordance with the law.

If you feel you are due overtime compensation that you are not receiving or if you have questions about the legality of your employer’s policies and practices, please get in touch with an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.  

Lamar Dawson’s Lawsuit Against the NCAA, Pac-12 is Dismissed

Lamar Dawson, ex-USC football player, filed a California lawsuit against the NCAA and Pac-12 that was dismissed earlier this month by a federal judge, Judge Richard Seeborg. Dawson’s class action was filed in September 2016 seeking minimum wage and overtime pay as well as additional compensation as a result of alleged NCAA and Pac-12 Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code violations.

Lamar Dawson started out at USC as a linebacker his freshman year in 2011, but was injured. His injuries disrupted his football career and he lost his shot at the NFL – mostly due to a torn ACL that occurred in 2013. He redshirted in 2014 and played in 8 games throughout the 2015 season, finishing with 31 tackles.

This decision to dismiss was reminiscent of a similar case last year involving former track and field athletes from the University of Pennsylvania. The three-judge panel in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in that case ruled former student-athletes at NCAA Division I schools are not technically considered employees under the rules set down by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dawson contended during the course of the case that his specific situation was different than the case of University of Pennsylvania’s track and field athletes because football is a revenue-generating sport (in comparison to track). The judge ruled that revenue generation as a determination of employment status is not supported legally. Seeborg set aside the policy question of how Division I FBS college football players should be compensated for what he considered a more fundamental issue determining the direction of the case and his eventual ruling: legal basis for finding them employees under the FLSA. He found none.

The NCAA and Pac-12 were not surprised by the ruling. Both had previously stated similar opinions regarding the validity of Dawson’s claim dating back to the original filing. The NCAA is pleased with the outcome and reiterated their stance that there is no legal support for college athletics participation constituting “employment” with the university. They went on to specify that playing college sports is an opportunity for students to obtain a quality education and build skills that prepare them for educational success at the college level. They concluded their thoughts on the matter by regretting the wasted funds and resources that are spent on cases such as this that will eventually be dismissed. The Pac-12 was also pleased with the ruling finding that it reaffirmed their conviction that college athletes are students – not employees.

If you have questions regarding employment status or whether or not you are misclassified on the job, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Overtime Lawsuit: Hotel Housekeepers Denied Overtime Pay

While many domestic workers had cause to celebrate in September of 2016, some California hotel housekeepers quickly found that the bill granting permanent California overtime protection for domestic workers did not apply to them. For instance, a hotel owner in East Oakland refused to provide overtime compensation to six housekeepers in his employ. As a result, the employees, along with a legal advocacy firm working on their behalf and the City of Oakland, filed a California Overtime Lawsuit against the Oakland Quality Inn.

In the California overtime lawsuit, the plaintiffs cited additional employment law violations, including:

·       The hotel required employees to work off the clock both before and after shifts.

·       The hotel did not provide mandatory breaks as required by labor law.

·       The hotel retaliated against employees who phoned in sick to work.

The labor law violations cited by the plaintiffs have allegedly been in practice for a minimum of four years. The plaintiffs, one of which only speaks Spanish, got in touch with attorneys at a legal advocacy to seek assistance in obtaining resolution of the matter.

Media reports indicate that legal counsel involved in the case indicated that both fear and employer retaliation are a big problem not just at this one isolated hotel in Oakland, but throughout the housekeeping industry and that they are a tool used to exploit housekeeping staff. The six immigrant women involved in this particular case had to overcome great personal fear in order to seek justice in their difficult situation.

Lead plaintiff in the case gave a city statement saying that she felt bad about her housekeeping position with Oakland Quality Inn because they were suffering in their position – they were worked excessively, were not provided overtime compensation, or offered any overtime or sick time. She specified that they weren’t paid for time off even if they provided a doctor’s note to the hotel.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the City of Oakland and a legal advocacy firm in Alameda County Superior Court on January 31st, 2017. According to Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker, it is the city’s first lawsuit under the minimum wage ordinance that voters passed in the fall of 2014. As of March 2015, Oakland’s minimum wage was set at $12.25 with a cost of living increase annually bringing it up to $12.86 per hour.

In the state of California all domestic workers, including hotel housekeepers, are entitled to overtime compensation.

Statistics from the UCLA Labor Center make it clear just how applicable the issue is to California workers with about 2 million California households hiring domestic workers:

·       Housecleaning (54%)

·       Homecare Support for Seniors/Disabled Individuals (27%)

·       Childcare (19%)

Many domestic workers are live-in workers with a number of them working 24-hour shifts. While the signing of bill AB241 granted overtime protection for domestic workers, many are still being exploited in hotels, private facilities, and private homes. While legal protections are in place, the question now is one of enforcement.

The suit seeks unpaid wages/compensation for employees plus penalties and damages.

If you need assistance determining whether or not you are entitled to overtime pay, or if you need to discuss other labor law violations in your workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced northern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

US Airways Requests Rejection of Overtime Claims

Legal representation for US Airways in the California class action overtime lawsuit filed in 2012 requested that the federal judge hearing the case on January 13th, 2017 reject overtime claims brought by the certified class of US Airways fleet service agents. The company claims that the unionized workers’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) as well as the Railroad Labor Act (RLA) makes the workers involved in the suit exempt from some state labor laws.

The attorney argued that it is not uncommon for state legislatures to remove RLA collective bargaining agreements because of interstate commerce concerns and that these concerns are often applicable to flight crews. In a January 26th motion, it was requested that the court consider legislative history materials in regards to Assembly Bill 60 concerning overtime exemptions. It was argued that the legislative history does not support the plaintiffs’ arguments that the collective bargaining exemption in the California Labor Code is in conflict with the RLA exemption. Legal Representation pointed out the plain language of the two statutes failing to indicate a conflict.

The judge will need to rule on an October 2016 motion filed by US Airways legal counsel to decertify “grace period” fleet workers that were previously certified in 2014. These workers claimed they should have received payment for work during “downtime” required between clocking in and clocking out. The company stated that workers were free to do as they wished during the unpaid time and that in some cases they had enough time to fulfill preparatory duties on the clock. The judge found that discovery suggested that requests for compensation in regards to putting on gear (“donning and doffing”) were handled differently depending on the airport. The judge also questioned the difference between the estimated time for “donning and doffing” as offered by the opposing attorneys. Plaintiffs indicate five minutes is necessary, but the judge questioned the accuracy of the estimate. US Airways attorneys suggest the task can be completed in less than a minute.

If you have questions or concerns regarding off the clock work or unpaid overtime, please get in touch with an experienced southern California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

FLSA Mercedes Dealer Suit Sees Second Reversal from 9th Circuit

The 9th Circuit again reversed a decision on the FLSA Mercedes Dealer suit alleging the a California Mercedes-Benz dealer is shorting their “service advisers” on overtime pay. They found that Congress never had intentions of exempting advisers from overtime pay. The panel of three judges based their findings on the “extensive legislative record” including amendments from 1966-1974. The record used for the basis of the panel’s findings constituted tens of thousands of pages that spanned close to two decades. In all of the data, there is barely a mention of service advisors. The few times they are mentioned, were connected in no way to concern regarding overtime pay.

Service advisers diagnose vehicle service and repairs and recommend additional work that, while not immediately necessary, would be beneficial for the car. A group of these employees filed suit in 2012 listing allegations that Encino Motorcars LLC was in violation of FLSA legislation because service advisers were paid strictly on commission even though their collective hours for the week on average amounted to more than the legal standard work of 40 hours.

The Mercedes-Benz dealership urged the court to dismiss the claims made by service advisers stating that the FLSA exemption for salesmen, mechanics, partsmen, etc. (whose primary functions are to sell or service vehicles) also applied to service advisers. The plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime and state-law claims were dismissed by district court in January 2013.

In March 2015, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, citing DOL regulations that state that only workers who sell cars were to be designated as salesmen and that only workers who personally provided service to cars were to be designated as mechanics. The 9th Circuit found the definitions to be reasonable and in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chevron standard, this in spite of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits so far declining to adopt the DOL’s definitions.

In June 2016, the Supreme Court justices voted 6-2 to vacate the appellate ruling. They ordered the 9th Circuit to reconsider the matter without taking into consideration the DOL rules/definitions as they were issued in 2011 and were not offered alongside appropriate explanation that would enable them to be used as guidance in this type of dispute.

In August 2016, the DOL secretary presented arguments that the 9th Circuit got it right when they originally reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims. They argued that the FLSA explicitly exempts three occupations in the dealership setting from overtime pay and overtime requirements and that according the plain language of the section being applied to the case, the statute does not include (or therefore apply) to service advisers. Encino Motorcars continued to stand behind arguments that the court should hold that service advisers are exempt like its sister circuits instead of deferring to the DOL’s redefinition of “salesman.”

After reconsidering the matter, the 9th Circuit again reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the FLSA claims and related state claims, finding that even without considering the DOL definitions, the plain language of the law indicates Congress did not intend for service advisers to be exempt from overtime requirements/overtime compensation. In addition, it was noted that even if the text of the FLSA statute were decidedly ambiguous, the legislative history of the FLSA and amendments confirm Congress’s intentions for overtime exemptions and the list did not include service advisers. During discussions, Congress’ silence regarding exempting service advisers was significant and taken as a strong suggestion that they not be exempt to overtime pay.

If you have questions regarding overtime pay or exemptions from overtime pay, please contact an experienced southern California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.