Recruiting Manager Files Overtime Suit Against Robert Half

On September 5, 2014, a California recruiting manager filed an overtime suit against Robert Half International Inc. The recruiting manager, Theresa Daniels, worked at Robert Half as a recruiting manager from January 2014 through June 2014. She filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court in California.

The suit filed by Ms. Daniels made a number of claims, including:

• The company misclassified her and other, similar employees as exempt from overtime.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial duties that would classify them as exempt from California overtime laws.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial authority.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, had only a minimal role in supervising employees and not authority to make employment related decisions regarding other employees.
• All recruiting managers, Theresa Daniels included, were strictly monitored and tightly controlled by both the company policy and their direct supervisors.

The suit seeks class action status and back overtime pay for unpaid wages.

Robert Half indicated that there are meritorious defenses to the allegations being made by Ms. Daniels and they will be defending themselves against litigation.

If you or someone you know are misclassified as exempt – preventing you from receiving the overtime pay you are entitled to at work, please contact your southern California employment law experts right away: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Ninth Circuit Ignores Legal Written Policy in Favor of Using Statistical Sampling to Certify Class

September 3, 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a certification of class in Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.: 800 nonexempt insurance claims adjusters claimed that they worked overtime and did not receive payment. This is in spite of the company’s written policy stating that nonexempt employees would be paid for all the hours they work.

The Ninth Circuit based their decision on the discovery that three common questions existed:

1. The existence of an “unofficial” Allstate policy that discouraged employees from reporting overtime.
2. Whether or not employees’ workloads forced them to work overtime (in excess of eight hours in one day or over 40 hours in one week).
3. If Allstate’s timekeeping method resulted in unpaid overtime or underpayment for overtime.

The court discovered that the adjusters weren’t responsible for the preparation of time sheets/clocking in and out. Instead the time cards were set to a default of eight hours each day and 40 hours each week. Supervisors could submit “exceptions” for hours that were worked outside of the default schedule. The Ninth Circuit decided that a common question did exist in relation to the question of whether the timekeeping method resulted in unpaid overtime for adjusters.  

The Ninth Circuit also held that liability for the problem and whether or not the employer should have known its employees were working off the clock could be resolved with statistical sampling. Although, it is important to note that the Ninth Circuit did not specify exactly how the issues could be resolved through statistical sampling.  

This decision could provide a basis for a legal standard, making an employer’s lawful written policy not enough to completely insulate the company from class certification questions. The recent decision is a deviation from previous rulings as in the Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart Stores v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

If you have questions regarding class certification or the method of timekeeping used at your place of business, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik for additional information. 

California Labor Law: Governor Brown’s New Law

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill 1897, creating new Labor Code section 2810.3. The new labor code section created by the Assembly Bill applies to almost all companies with 25+ employees that obtain or receive workers to complete work through the “usual course of business” from other businesses that provide workers (otherwise known as labor contractors). The new law makes such companies liable for three things:

• Payment to contractor’s employees
• Any contractor’s failure to secure appropriate workers’ compensation coverage as required
• Compliant actions regarding occupational health and safety requirements (OSHA) in place

Companies will now have a new statutory liability. The legal contraction of labor services in regards to the new Labor Code section isn’t related to the required finding of joint/co-employment or any type of control over working conditions, the method of payment, scheduling of work hours, or the overall work site environment. Under the new law, each company is liable even if they can exhibit proof that they were not aware of violations that existed or occurred.

The new labor code law applies to workers who are completing their job in the normal course of business on site. California employees who are exempt from overtime (i.e. executive, administrative and professional employees) are excluded from the new law’s reach. There are also a few exemptions from the definition of a “client employer” who is covered under the new law: companies with fewer than 25 workers, companies who use 5 or less labor contract workers at any given time, state organizations, homeowners and home-based businesses who receive labor contract services in their homes, and companies providing transportation services. Additional limited exemptions in relation to non-profit, community organizations, unions, apprenticeship programs, motor club services, cable operators, telephone corporations, etc.

The new law will be effective as of January 1, 2015. For additional information regarding exceptions and exclusions of the new labor law, contact your southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Pennsylvania Grocery Salesman Files Suit to Seek Overtime Pay

A Pennsylvania grocery distributor claims he is entitled to overtime pay from his employer. According to the federal suit he filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Brian Place claims his regular salary didn’t compensate for the number of hours that he worked as Sure Winner Foods’ sales administrator. The Maine based distributor specializes mostly in frozen foods.

Brian Place alleges that the distributor violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act. Place complains that he worked for Sure Winner Foods from February 2014 through April 2014. During the three month time period, Place traveled to various stores in central and eastern Pennsylvania. His job duties required that he stock products on store shelves for Sure Winner Foods clients. Place alleges that he spent substantially more than a full 40 hour work week on his standard schedule, received a fixed salary and that he was classified as exempt from overtime pay.

According to Mr. Place, his exempt status was incorrect and other employees at the distribution company are in similar positions with no recognition or pay for overtime. He alleges that he and other individuals filling similar positions in the company were (and are) being cheated out of wages they deserve. The suit specifies overtime pay violations specifically between 2011 an 2014. Mr. Place is seeking individual relief and collective relief from Sure Winner, urging other employees to step forward.

According to the Department of Labor site, employers must pay at least time and a half wages to any and all employees who work one or more hours over the 40-hour workweek mark. To discuss any of the many exemptions to the rule, contact the California overtime pay experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Failure to Pay Overtime Has Navy Federal Credit Union Making News

In recent news, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Navy Federal Credit Union failed to pay appropriate overtime wages. Accusations were made against the Vienna based federal credit union by some of the branch workers. The original suit was filed by Anthony Lee out of Clark County, Nevada on May 27^th in the U.S. District Court, but he plans to seek class action status so others can join in the suit. Mr. Lee has been a member services representative at Navy Federal Credit Union for almost six years. This position is categorized as non-exempt from overtime (according to the suit filed).  Lee claims that he and other workers in jobs with similar duties have been frequently required to work off the clock both before their shift starts and after it ends. The total of the “off the clock” work was approximately 30-45 minutes per day per employee. The lawsuit alleges that this practice of requiring off the clock work before and after shift work is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In addition to allegations that the Navy Federal Credit Union violated FLSA, Lee claims that one of his previous managers in the workplace referred to him by the “N” word on multiple occasions. In response, a statement was issued by Navy Federal: “The fair treatment and well-being of our employees is of the utmost importance to us…we take this claim seriously and are looking into it.”

The Navy Federal Credit Union is the largest credit union in the United States employing approximately 11,000 employees worldwide. It’s possible that up to 500 of their workers might be a part of the class action started by Lee in regards to FLSA violations, etc. The suit will be seeking a declaratory judgment that the allegations made were illegal as well as an injunction preventing further similar activities. Damages are unspecified, but will include waiting time penalties as well as court costs.

Class action lawsuits serve an important function in the workplace. They provide employees with the opportunity to come together and assert their rights under California Labor Laws and federal employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik with questions on class action suits in California. 

Work Off the Clock: Nurses Allege Wage and Hour Violations at Houston Methodist Hospital

Allegations have been made that the Houston Methodist Hospital requires nursing staff to work off the clock due to a payroll system that automatically deducts a 30 minute lunch break. A former nurse named Joy Corcione is seeking permission from a local federal court for collective action on behalf of over 5,000 workers from the facility. The lawsuit Corcione filed alleges that as a result of the automatic lunch break deductions the hospital owes back wages to the nurses, nursing assistants, patient care assistants, etc. Corcione explains that workers are required to respond to patient calls as well as meet with doctors and perform other duties as necessary during their so called “lunch breaks.” The lawsuit also alleges that sometimes nurses and other hospital employed caregivers don’t get to eat lunch at all, they are too busy.

The hospital has responded to the allegations made in the suit saying:

1. They make sure to pay workers appropriately even if their lunch is interrupted.

2. Hospital administration makes a great effort to ensure a fair compensation process as well as a fair work place environment.

3. The hospital will address claims otherwise during the process of litigation.

According to the Federal Labor Law, employers don’t have to pay employees during their lunch breaks if they are not working, but it’s been specified that if workers are still on duty (answering calls, going through emails, performing other work-related activities) during their lunch break then this time is considered work time even if they are eating, making personal calls or texts etc. while performing said duties.

It will be interesting to see what U.S. District Judge Gregg Costa has to say about the payroll system that automatically deducts the 30-minute break and the alleged discouragement of employees to manually correct the deduction of meal time and break time on their time sheets. The judge will need to decide whether or not to certify it as a collective action, but if he does, other nurses and patient care employees from the hospital can expect to receive notices regarding their chance to opt in – only employees who opt in can share in any eventual settlement.

If you have any questions about class action lawsuits or meal break violations, please get in touch with the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Workers are Filing Wage and Hour Lawsuits at a Record Pace

Experts are noting that federal wage and hour lawsuits were filed at record rates throughout 2013-2014. (According to data collected by the Washington-based Federal Judicial Center, the education and research agency for the federal court system).

While the full range of data is extensive, there are some interesting pieces of information included in the analysis that can provide a clear summary of recent filing activity related to wage and hour allegations:

8,126 federal wage and hour lawsuits were filed between the dates of 4/1/13 and 3/31/14.

This was almost a 5% increase in comparison to the year previous in which only 7,764 cases were filed

Since the year 2000, the number of cases has risen 438%

Many experts predict that the wage and hour litigation epidemic will continue and even expand in the upcoming year. The rise in the number of cases is shocking, but doesn’t even take into account the number of suits filed in state courts regarding state pay practices. The number of cases is expected to continue to accelerate in the coming months as a result of multiple factors: the tightening of federally mandated standards for class certification, the possibility of an increased minimum wage, the President’s directive to the Secretary of Labor to complete revisions for regulations on white-collar exemptions, etc.

Wage and hour issues are a common problem in many workplaces. If you feel pressured to work more hours than you are paid for or if you feel that your pay is inadequate in relation to the federal wage and hour standards, get in touch with the experienced attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.