Call Center Class Action Overtime Lawsuit Against Wentworth

A class action call center overtime lawsuit alleges that Wentworth Home Lending LLC failed to provide loan officers (and other workers in similar positions at the company) payment for all hour worked. The charge is being led by Plaintiff Patrick H., a man from Pennsylvania who filed the claim on behalf of himself and others in similar situations at the company.

Patrick H. alleges that he and others at the company were consistently denied proper payment for hours they worked at Wentworth Home Lending LLC. Patrick H. worked as a loan officer assigned the Wayne Call Center location. He worked both on site at the call center and out of his home telecommuting. This was a typical setup for loan officers with Wentworth Home Lending LLC. Patrick worked in this capacity from December 2015 through March 2017. He also worked with at least 40 other loan officers over the last 3 years.

As of 2015, Wentworth Home Lending classified Patrick and others in similar positions as non-exempt for overtime. They were eligible for benefits when they worked enough hours to qualify (in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA). The overtime rule determined by the FLSA is that non-exempt employees are eligible for overtime pay and overtime rates of pay when they work more than 40 hours in one week. When this qualification is met, employers are required to pay their employees an overtime rate of 1.5x their hourly rate. They are also required to keep accurate wage statements that reflect hours worked. Allegedly, the company did not do this. They did not pay overtime as required to Patrick and others in similar work situations.

According to the call center overtime lawsuit, the plaintiff and other loan officers were hourly plus commissions for home loan product sales. Yet if a loan officer’s commission exceeded their hourly rate of pay for a period, they were compensated only the commission without their hourly rate of pay as a basis. This system of payment resulted in many loan officers being shorted their full compensation. The plaintiff alleged that he worked 65-70 hours in one week and did not receive compensation for the hours.

Unpaid overtime is one of the most common concerns in the American workforce. If you have concerns about unpaid overtime or if you are misclassified as exempt, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Wage & Hour Settlement In Case of Nurses Classified as Exempt

A settlement was proposed to settle a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging that nurses and other medical personnel were misclassified as exempt by Health Resource Solutions Inc. The plaintiff group included both registered nurses and clinicians. The proposed settlement was for $738,000 to close out the overtime class action lawsuit.

The case was founded on the allegations that 79 workers were wrongfully classified as exempt from overtime. Both parties involved in the case agreed on the settlement amount. The plaintiffs noted that estimate distribution amounts to claimants should represent close to 90% of maximum individual claims for overtime wages (exclusive of liquidated/other damages under FLSA and IMWL). April 19th was set as the final approval hearing for the settlement.

The company, Health Resource Solutions, will retain $162,000 of the original proposed settlement amount of $900,000. The amount of the proposed settlement was reduced after a smaller number of plaintiffs became claimants (only 79 of the expected 175 that was originally estimated). The unclaimed settlement funds totaling $162,126.77 will be kept by Health Resource Solutions.

Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the judge approve legal fees to be taken out of the settlement fund totaling $300,000. The fee was 1/3 of the original settlement amount but will be 41% of the final settlement fund if the request is approved. Attorneys argued that their actions resolved the case prior to incurring the expense of lengthy class action litigation, trial costs, and likely appeals to the court’s decisions.

Monique B. originally filed the complaint in 2016 alleging that the company, HRS or Health Resource Solutions, wrongfully classified their employees – leaving them exempt from overtime they legally deserved. This was done in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). In order for an employee to be legally classified as exempt they must meet very specific requirements.

If you have questions about overtime violations or other violations of California labor law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$3 Million Unpaid Overtime Class Action Settlement from JP Morgan

In a recent unpaid overtime class action settlement, JP Morgan Chase & Co. will pay $3 million to class members. The settlement will end claims made in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to provide mortgage bankers with overtime compensation.

The unpaid overtime settlement was approved by Illinois federal judge Susan Cox. Under the settlement agreement, the class of close to 2,000 bankers will receive compensation for unpaid overtime in case. The settlement covers $1 million in attorneys fees and an enhancement award for the lead plaintiff totaling $1,000. It will also cover appropriate administrative and court costs.

Mortgage bankers in the class claim the company did not compensate them for overtime between April 5th, 2014 and November 30th, 2017. The representatives claim that the company’s overtime payment practice was in violation of both state and federal labor laws.

35% of the qualifying class members in the case submitted claims for settlement compensation. According to the settlement terms, JP Morgan Chase keeps any settlement funds left unclaimed. The judge approved of the deal, noting that it seemed like a good deal from the perspective of the court, and that given the allegations that were made in the case and the defense presented, it was a good resolution. She also found it significant that no qualifying banker objected to the settlement.

According to allegations, JP Morgan Chase used a system of base pay plus commissions for their mortgage bankers. Internally the pay structure was referred to as “incentive pay.” Yet bankers allege the system did not account for the fact that many of them worked over 40 hours per week. They claim they were not compensated for time spent working outside of the normal, full time, 40-hour work week.

Bankers were allegedly required to keep track of their hours by recording them in the company’s computer system. They were also required to record an unpaid lunch break (that many claim they spent working). Allegations were made that the system as it was set up did not allow mortgage bankers to record time spent working during the evening. Additional allegations were made that the company failed to pay earned commissions within a 13-day window as required by Illinois state law.

If you have questions about overtime, overtime compensation or how overtime payment should be calculated, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Overtime Settlement For Health Workers Gets Final Approval

Health workers were granted the requested final approval on an overtime settlement in their class action lawsuit against the Defendant Health Resource Solutions (HRS). Allegations were made that HRS failed to pay legally required overtime to healthcare workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Sources report that the healthcare company misclassified a group of clinicians, registered nurses, occupational therapists, and other therapists, categorizing them as exempt from overtime pay. The judge noted that the $900,000 overtime settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. He also made note that it seemed in the best interest of the class members who were settling.

The settlement would include covering:

·      $7,878 – settlement administration expenses

·      $300,000 – attorney’s fees

·      $7,500 – to the class representative

·      70 additional claims that were filed prior to the parties’ cutoff on April 2nd.

The class representative is plaintiff Monique B. One class member opted out of the deal with no other objections made. The plaintiff and the Class allege that HRS was in violation of both the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by misclassifying their employees that work with patients on a homecare basis as exempt. The settlement will end the litigation brought by the hybrid class and the collection action brought forth by Monique against HRS and co-owners of HRS, Robert M. and Glenn S.

The allegations in the original complaint indicated that the company, HRS, and the company’s owners knew that the employees being classified as exempt did not actually meet the necessary qualifications for the classification. In order for an employee to be legally classified as exempt, they must demonstrate the worker performs job duties that meet certain criteria and that they received compensation on either a salary or fee basis. According to the complaint, HRS created its own pay structure for workers.

·      Office time and staff meetings were compensated on an hourly basis.

·      Advancement was set for visits’ pay.

·      Travel time, scheduling/coordinating patient care with providers/speaking to patients about scheduling was not compensated.

·      Additionally, overtime weeks to which employees worked but were not compensated totaled 10,000 employee weeks.

The allegedly misclassified employees included 175 people. It has been reported that HRS will first cover employee claims and any settlement money remaining will be retained.

If you are considering filing an FLSA class action lawsuit or if you have questions about being misclassified, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility Faces Employee Claims of Asbestos Exposure

On February 20, 2018, a former employee of MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility (YCF) filed a lawsuit claiming exposure to asbestos-containing materials. The plaintiff alleges that the facility’s management knowingly allowed staff (and young offenders assigned to the location) to be exposed to asbestos-containing materials while they worked on a project to upgrade campus cottages and buildings. The plaintiff, John N., advised the media that he was knowingly exposed while he spent close to a year and a half supervising a group of youth helping out on some MacLaren YCF remodeling.

The remodeling project was approved by Oregon State Legislature in 2015. The plaintiff was ordered to replace wallboard panels that had been removed in an in-process campus cottage in February 2017 by his supervisor, Mike B. Mike had discovered there was an unexpected tour of state officials. He is a named defendant in the case. He was heard by the plaintiff explaining that he didn’t want the officials to discover the asbestos-containing materials in the walls of Kincaid Cottage.

The plaintiff was alarmed by the information and was floored that management had not advised anyone of the situation. John alleges that after his supervisor made this confession to him and a painter on site, they were put on administrative leave. He was accused of assisting minors on site in concealing items that were not allowed at the facility while he supervised teams of youth working on the remodel.

John, the plaintiff, filed a complaint with Occupational and Safety Administration (OSHA) within the month. A fine was levied against Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) for dual violations of the Oregon Safe Employment Act. OSHA’s investigation also found negligence on the part of OYA in notifying employees about the presence of the asbestos-containing materials he, other workers and the youth crews were exposed to on site. The organization was also found non-compliant in providing necessary employee training regarding asbestos.

John N. was also fired only days after OYA was formally fined. As retaliating against an employee is also in violation of employment law, John is asking for damages amounting to $935,000.

If you have questions regarding an unsafe workplace or if you are experiencing retaliation in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Class Action Lawsuit Over Lowe’s Weak Fund for 401(k)

Employees of Lowe’s hardware store who participate in the 401(k) plan claim that the company chose a weak fund that lost plan members money. Benjamin Ritz, plaintiff, alleges that he had all his retirement funds invested with Lowe’s. He further claims that he was financially injured due to Lowe’s choice to move over $1 billion from eight other investment funds into one other fund: Hewitt Growth Fund. Lowe’s made this move on the advice of Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting Fund. Ritz also claims that if Lowe’s had not moved the funds, plan participants would have made $100 million more.

Ritz further claims that this situation represents a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ritz seeks damages for himself and other plan participants who were similarly affected by Lowe’s funds transfer. Ritz would like to force the companies to pay for the participants’ losses, force Hewitt to disgorge profits related to the transfer of funds and stop Lowe’s from further investments in the Hewitt Growth Fund in the future.

According the ERISA class action lawsuit, Lowe’s moved the plan funds on the advice of Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, the owner of the Hewitt Growth Fund. Plaintiffs claim that this behavior was self-serving. They were encouraging the transfer to support the fund, which was exhibiting poor performance. The plaintiff claims that Hewitt put its own interests ahead of the interests of plan participants, which is in violation of ERISA. The plaintiff also alleges that Lowe’s should have been more vigilant – considering quality and reliability of the information received from the advisor, particularly considering Hewitt’s conflict of interest.

The company’s plan reportedly has approximately $5.2 billion in assets, 250,000 participants and has been taking investment advice on their 401(k) plans since 2009.

If you have questions about mismanagement of your plan’s funds or if you suspect your employer of ERISA violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$6M PG&E Wage Deal Leaves Judge Suspicious

Preliminary approval was granted for a $6 million settlement struck between Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and company employees alleging their paychecks were shorted, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean is wary as it appears that the union is hiding something. After giving an early sign-off to the proposed agreement, the judge ruled that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 must disclose how much they are paying into the settlement prior to it being finalized. PG&E call center employees allege that the union does not fairly represent them as members.

The judge noted that the hardest part of the workers’ unopposed motion for approval of the deal method of notification to employees about amounts PG&E and the IBEW would each pay into the fund. The judge brought notice to the fact that the union was the only party that objected to the contribution disclosure. The union’s desire to keep their contribution amount undisclosed greatly troubled the judge. Judge Grosjean stated that without disclosure workers would assume payment came from PG&E.

The judge didn’t see any legitimate reason for delaying disclosure of the amount paid until after the settlement is finalized. It gave the impression that the union the information could affect the workers’ decision to accept the settlement’s terms. The judge also stated that the situation left the impression that the union may plan to bury the information eventually disclosed in annual financial reports where workers would not notice or pay attention to the information.

The lawsuit was originally filed in July 2015, alleging:

·       PG&E violated California’s labor law.

·       PG&E failed to pay all wages owed.

·       PG&E falsely advertised wages on a website for a customer service position.

·       PG&E had a consistent policy and practice of failing to abide by the IBEW’s collective bargaining agreement.

The proposed settlement would apply to workers hired for the call center from January 2022 through June of 2015 with a minimum of 18 months of clerical job experience and who were affected by the alleged violations. It is alleged that 175 workers would receive close to $20,000 each because their work experience qualifies them for a higher wage rate. Other workers would receive $250.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or if you need assistance with wage and hour violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.