Does Johnson & Johnson Pay Proper Wages to their Employees?

In recent news out of Los Angeles, an Orange County woman sued Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 8:17-cv-01608). The California woman, Nhung B. Tran, filed a wage and hour lawsuit on September 15th, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California listing Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. as the Defendant in the case. Tran claims that Johnson & Johnson failed to pay fair wages, which means they are in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In her complaint, Tran made allegations that she worked for 12 years in the Johnson & Johnson Quality Assurance department where she handled records management. According to Tran she worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid overtime wages. Tran alleges that the defendants failed to provide her with any overtime compensation for the hours she worked for the company that exceeded the 40 hours per week that is in violation of FLSA.

Definitions to Know:

Overtime: According to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), overtime means time worked beyond a prescribed threshold. The threshold prescribed by the FLSA defines the normal work period as a workweek of 7 consecutive days. The normal FLSA regulated overtime threshold is 40 hours per workweek. Some jobs may be governed by a different FLSA overtime threshold.

Allegation: In the legal world, an allegation is a formal claim against another individual, group or institution.

Overtime Compensation: Unless an employee is exempt, the FLSA requires that they be provided with overtime pay for hours worked above and beyond those as identified as “normal.” Overtime pay is required to be at a rate not less than time and one-half of the employee’s regular rate of pay. According to FLSA, there is no limit to the number of hours an employee aged 16+ can work in any workweek as long as they are being paid in accordance to overtime requirements.

Tran wishes to obtain a trial by jury as well as economic damages, general damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, legal fees, double damages, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate in the situation once they consider the facts.

If you have questions about the Fair Labor Standards Act or overtime compensation, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Pilot Claims Aetna is in Violation of ERISA

Bryan C. Trujillo, a commercial aircraft pilot, filed suit against Aetna (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 3:17-cv-04017-JSC). Trujillo alleges that Aetna is in breach of contract and that they violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The original complaint was filed on July 17th in U.S. District court for the Northern District of California.

Definitions to Know:

ERISA: ERISA refers to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Shortened to ERISA, the Act is a federal law that sets the minimum standards for voluntarily established pension and health plans in private industries. It is designed to provide protection for individuals in the voluntary pension and health plans from unfair or unethical behaviors that could be detrimental to plan members.

Allegation: In the legal world, an allegation is a formal claim against another individual, group or institution.

Trujillo, Plaintiff, listed Aetna Life Insurance Company as the Defendant in the case. Allegations against the Defendant included wrongfully denying a claim for disability benefits submitted by Trujillo. Trujillo described the events in the original complaint, stating that he worked as a commercial aircraft pilot for Federal Express. While working for the major shipping conglomerate, Trujillo became disabled. Trujillo was suffering from severe obstructive sleep apnea and a sleep-wake schedule disorder. When the issues arose, Trujillo applied for benefits expecting to be able to resolve the issue, but he was denied.

Trujillo alleges that Aetna Life wrongfully refused his claims – refusing to provide the needed ongoing disability benefits despite the fact that Trujillo provided the required proof of his disability to the company.

Trujillo hopes to obtain the needed benefits plus interest, statutory penalties, legal fees and any other relief that the court deems appropriate.

If you have questions or concerns regarding ERISA, how it applies to you or what protections it offers you in connection to our voluntary pension or health plan, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Market Research Company Faces Allegations of Failure to Pay Overtime

Information Resources Inc., a market research business, faces allegations of unpaid wages and violation of workers compensation acts from a California resident. Iram Bakhtiar filed the class action lawsuit on August 9th, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 3:17-cv-04559-JCS). Bakhtiar alleges the company failed to provide fair wages and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Terms to Know:

A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit in which a group of people (plaintiffs) with the same or similar injuries that are the result of the same product or action sue the Defendant/s as a group. Other names for lawsuits brought to bear on behalf of a “group” suffering similar injuries or losses are: mass tort litigation and multi-district litigation (MDL).

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law. It was designed to establish minimum wage, overtime pay eligibility, recordkeeping and child labor standards. Requirements set in place through the FLSA apply to full-time and part-time workers in the private sector as well as both full and part-time workers in federal, state, and local government positions.

Overtime pay refers to federal overtime provisions that are designated in the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA. Unless a worker qualifies (in accordance with FLSA) as exempt, employees must receive overtime pay for any hours worked over 40 in one workweek or 8 in one day at a rate o pay no less than time and one-half the worker’s regular rate of pay.

Bakhtiar, who worked for Information Resources Inc. client services from June 2011 through September 2016, worked over 40 hours a week with no overtime pay. This is in violation of FLSA. Bakhtiar also claims the Defendant failed to provide required meal and rest breaks during her employment.

Bakhtiar filed suit seeking unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, enjoin the defendant, legal fees, restitution, penalties, and other compensation/relief as deemed appropriate by the court.

If you have questions about overtime pay and overtime pay regulations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.

$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.

Nurses Call for Approval for $40M+ Settlement in Putative Class Action

In a putative consolidated class action alleging St. Joseph’s Healthcare System acted in violation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, counsel for the plaintiffs called for approval on a settlement in excess of $40 million. Counsel noted that a related high court ruling set their case back. When seeking preliminary approval, plaintiffs stated that St. Joseph’s already put $45 million towards an employee pension plan as a part of the proposed deal. This is $2.5 million more than is required by according to tentative agreements between parties.

The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval is unopposed and the completed payment represents half of the agreed upon funding. The plan is designed to offer relief to the class members and remove the uncertainty of litigation while addressing the original concern of improving the retirement security for plan participants/class members.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that St. Joseph’s denied ERISA protections to plan participants and beneficiaries of their pension plan and that they did so by incorrectly claiming the plan was exempt under ERISA due to claims that it was actually a church plan. Central to plaintiff arguments against this line of reasoning is that a church plan must be established by a church in order to legally qualify for this level of exemption.

On June 5th, a Supreme Court opinion extended ERISA’s religious exemption to include benefit plans that are maintained by church affiliates. This decision overturned a number of federal circuit court rulings maintaining that this particular exemption could only be applicable when the benefit plan was established by the church itself. The decision also effectively negated the plaintiffs’ main argument that only a church established plan can qualify as a “church plan” for ERISA.

The plaintiff case included additional arguments, but it cannot be argued that the June 5th Supreme Court opinion negatively affected the decision on the case. Due to this, the settlement is particularly favorable for the proposed class. The ruling was handed down after parties in the St. Joseph’s case had already negotiated settlement terms and memorialized key terms of the proposed agreement.

According to the Proposed Settlement Terms:

·       Accrued benefits will be paid over a seven-year period.

·       Summary plan descriptions will be provided.

·       Pension benefit statements will be provided.

·       Other certain protections similar to ERISA provisions will be included.

If you need to discuss an ERISA violation, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.
 

ERISA Fee Class Action Does Not Look Favorably on Edison International

Edison International was recently round liable for breaching its fiduciary obligations in accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) after a suit from works alleged the energy utility company used unnecessarily expensive retirement plans. Damages come close to $8 million.

Edison International was found liable for the actual loss due to excessive fees paid in a suit from a class of Midwest Generation LLC employees. The company is an LLC of Edison International unit Edison Mission Group Inc. Workers alleged that the company chose 17 different mutual funds in connection with the workers’ 401(k) plan, but that all of them were more expensive “retail class” fund shares instead of the wholesale “institutional class” shares that come at a significantly lower cost to investors.

The judge found that any prudent fiduciary should have invested in wholesale “institutional class” shares instead of the more expensive “retail class” fund shares. Edison argued that they had the right to choose the higher cost shares offering revenue sharing – which helps to significantly offset administration fees paid by the company – because the company provided notification to the plan participants of the availability of revenue sharing.

The judge did not find the company’s argument viable, stating that no prudent fiduciary would purposefully choose to invest in more expensive retail shares based on speculative fear that higher administrative costs may be reallocated to plan participants.

The decision in the case followed 10 years of litigation. On the 10th anniversary of the lawsuit’s filing, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing them to receive damages in accordance with the suggested formula.

If you need to discuss ERISA and how it applies to your retirement income, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Colgate Retirees Alleging Benefit Denial Receive Class Certification

A class of former Colgate-Palmolive Co. brought denial of benefits claims in an ERISA action. Their suit was filed in June 2016 following an earlier ERISA case that included allegations that Colgate miscalculated retirement benefits. The June 2016 suit resulted in a $45.9 million settlement.

In July 2017, a New York federal judge approved class certification. The certification of the class of former workers essentially shut down the company’s arguments stating that a former employee is not an adequate representative for a class that is seeking resolution on an additional benefits case.

Allegedly, Colgate miscalculated pension benefits for retirees under their “residual annuity amendment” the standard retirement plan/policy. The amendment was generated to correct an error that failed to provide beneficiaries with specific benefits when lump sum payments were taken out. The complaint alleges that Colgate didn’t address those payments until it was included in a previous Employee Retirement Income Security Act action.

The judge’s 15-page decision stated that the plaintiffs met all the requirements for certification (in accordance with Rule 23(a)). Colgate’s challenge to the putative class was based on typicality and adequacy requirements. No arguments were made regarding numerosity or commonality. Colgate specifically claims that plaintiff Rebecca McCutcheon is not an adequate representative because she defers to legal counsel. The judge did not find the argument persuasive enough due to the highly technical nature of the case at hand. McCutcheon, who is not a lawyer, would obviously have difficulty providing answers to questions about claims in the case. She exhibited a general understanding of the case and a general desire to be a “watchdog” for the proposed class in seeking corrections to calculations. The judge felt this was sufficient in fulfilling the adequacy requirements.

Colgate also stated that McCutcheon was atypical of the class and that claims being made were barred by the 180-day contractual limitations period as defined in the retirement plan. The judge disagreed. He found that the limitations period was unenforceable due to the omission from a denial latter Colgate issued in 2014 in reference to an administrative claim for benefits and the letter’s explicit statement that she had a year to file suit regarding the matter. As the judge found that the limitations period does not apply in regard to McCutcheon’s claim, the argument does not currently define McCutcheon as atypical.

The judge granted class certification and appointed McCutcheon class representative as well as naming counsel. The proposed class includes approximately 1,200 members and applies to specific subcategories of retirees that received lump sum payments from their retirement plan and who are still due additional benefits from the company.

According to the suit, Colgate agreed to provide a residual annuity benefit in 2005 that would provide a residual annuity benefit to workers for close to a decade. When the company started to pay the benefit out, they distributed it to some plan participants and not others. They also failed to provide the benefit to certain plan participants (like McCutcheon) who had already received lump sum payments of their benefits – even when they requested payment.

If you need to discuss alleged retirement benefit denial or if you are due retirement benefits you are not receiving, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.