Did Verizon Fail to Provide Employees with Wage Statements and Accurate Pay?
/
Thousands of California Verizon employees claimed that the company issued defective wage statements over multiple years—now a $15 million class-action settlement has been approved in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Case Name: James Hernandez v. Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc.
Court: LA Superior Court
Case Number: 24STCV20608
The Plaintiff: James Hernandez v. Verizon
James Hernandez, a former Verizon field technician, originally filed this lawsuit in April 2010 after receiving wage statements that allegedly failed to meet the requirements of California labor law. Hernandez brought the case not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of thousands of similarly situated, non-exempt Verizon employees across California. His role as lead plaintiff in the class action has been instrumental in securing a $15 million settlement, which now awaits disbursement.
More About the Defendant: James Hernandez v. Verizon
The defendant, Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the United States. The company employs thousands of workers across California in various fields and technical roles. The lawsuit specifically focused on Verizon's payroll practices, particularly the accuracy and completeness of the itemized wage statements issued to bi-weekly employees over a two-year period.
The Allegations in the Wage and Hour Case: James Hernandez v. Verizon:
The complaint alleged that Verizon violated California Labor Code provisions by failing to include essential details on employees' wage statements. The plaintiffs claimed that their pay stubs omitted the pay period start date, applicable hourly rates, and the number of hours worked at each rate. According to the complaint, these omissions made it difficult or impossible for employees to verify that they had been paid correctly, raising concerns about underpayment or miscalculation.
Key Legal Question: James Hernandez v. Verizon
The central issue in the case was whether Verizon's wage statements failed to comply with the strict disclosure requirements of California Labor Code § 226 and if those failures caused actual harm to employees. The case also raised questions about the intentionality of the violations, which is relevant under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) when determining whether penalties should be applied.
Legal Implications: James Hernandez v. Verizon
This case reinforces the seriousness with which California courts treat wage statement compliance. Under California law, even technical omissions on pay stubs can trigger substantial penalties, particularly if the violations are found to be knowing and willful. The case also highlights the power of PAGA to enable employees to seek penalties not just for themselves but on behalf of the state. Employers throughout California should take note: detailed and accurate wage statements aren't just best practice—they're a legal necessity.
James Hernandez v. Verizon: The Employer's Position
Verizon initially sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the wage statement deficiencies were not material or injurious to employees. However, the court denied Verizon's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. Verizon ultimately agreed to a $15 million class-action settlement, without admitting wrongdoing, to resolve the claims and avoid prolonged litigation. The company has not issued a public statement regarding the terms of the settlement.
Why This Case Matters: James Hernandez v. Verizon
For California employees, especially those in large corporations with complex payroll systems, this case serves as a reminder that pay transparency and accuracy are protected by law. The ruling affirms workers' rights to receive complete and understandable wage statements, paving the way for similar claims against employers who fail to meet these statutory obligations. For employers, it signals the importance of regularly auditing payroll systems and ensuring compliance with wage statement requirements.
What Comes Next for James Hernandez v. Verizon
With the $15 million settlement approved, the next steps involve notifying class members, distributing funds, and finalizing any outstanding administrative details under court supervision. The settlement is expected to affect as many as 6,800 California Verizon employees, covering approximately 223,000 wage statements issued between April 2009 and May 2011. The case also sets a precedent for future litigation related to wage statement accuracy in California.
FAQ: James Hernandez v. Verizon
Q: Who qualified for the Verizon wage statement settlement?
A: Any non-exempt California employee who received itemized wage statements from Verizon between April 1, 2009, and May 2011 may be eligible for compensation under the class action settlement.
Q: What was wrong with Verizon's wage statements?
A: Plaintiffs alleged that the statements failed to include key information such as the pay period start date, hourly pay rates, and the total number of hours worked at each rate—violating California Labor Code § 226.
Q: What does California law say about wage statement penalties?
A: If violations are found to be intentional and harmful, California law permits penalties of $100 per inaccurate wage statement, in addition to other forms of relief like restitution and attorney's fees.
Q: Did Verizon admit to any wrongdoing?
A: No. Verizon settled the case for $15 million but did not admit liability or legal wrongdoing in connection with the wage statement claims.
Q: What role does PAGA play in cases like this?
A: Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), employees can bring claims for civil penalties on behalf of the state of California, significantly increasing potential liability for employers who violate labor laws.
Do you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
