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.

$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.

Kindred Attempts to Settle Wage, Meal Break Claims with $12M Deal

A $12 million settlement is on the table to settle allegations that Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc. and its subsidiary Gentiva Certified Healthcare Corp. violated California labor law. The company allegedly failed to provide workers with minimum wage and required meal breaks. The proposed class of approximately 1,600 workers were employed by the company. The class members asked a California federal judge to grant preliminary approval of the $12 million agreement with the health care company and its subsidiaries. This would result in an average $5,415 recovery per class member after payments were deducted for the state and other associated fees related to the settlement.

The proposed class’ legal counsel seeks $3 million in fees and $125,00 in costs. The lead plaintiff’s incentive award portion of the settlement would total $20,000.

Also pulled from the settlement would be $150,000 payment for the claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 allowing private citizens to sue for civil penalties on their own behalf and on behalf of other employees and the state. 75% of the payment will go to California. The rest would be distributed to appropriate class members.

Employees involved in the suit requested that the federal judge certify them for settlement. Included in the proposed class are: clinicians or piece rate workers employed by the health care company and their subsidiaries after August 24th, 2012 whose job duties included providing skilled home care. The employees argued that certification was appropriate because the proposed class was numerous, and the legal questions involved were common to all included class members.

The original suit was filed in August 2016 with Cashon alleging that Kindred and Gentiva failed to pay appropriate wages and overtime and did not provide required meal breaks, rest periods or wage statements. The companies claim they were involved in no violations and that they were in compliance with labor laws. Early mediation occurred in April 2017 but did not result in resolution. After discovery, parties engaged in a second bout of mediation in November 2017 which resulted in the proposed settlement.

If you have questions about overtime laws in California or if you need to know what it takes to gain class certification, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$16.8M Overtime Deal on Kellogg Case is a Go

A federal judge threw preliminary support behind a $16.8 million deal to settle overtime claims against Kellogg Co. The suit alleges that the company misclassified its workers and failed to properly compensate workers for overtime they earned. If the settlement goes through it ends claims that Kellogg violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to plaintiff, Patricia Thomas, Kellogg deprived their territory managers and their retail store representatives of premium pay when workers were completing hours in excess of 40 per week. In early 2014, the class was certified. Following class certification, Kellogg attempted to squash the suit repeatedly by arguing that the employees failed to show that class members were similarly situated. In their bed for the judge’s approval, the class brought two things to the judge’s attention: without proving that Kellogg willfully violated the FLSA, 20% of the plaintiffs would recover nothing, and if the company proved that the fluctuating workweek applies, but the class prevailed on all other issues, the plaintiffs’ recovery dropped to about 30% of the total damages claimed.

In March 2014, the third amended complaint was filed claiming that the territory managers and retail store reps often worked over 60 hours in one workweek but did not receive the time-and-a-half premium overtime rate that the workers were allegedly due.

Plaintiffs allege that their job duties were to police the store locations contracted with Kellogg to ensure their products were properly displayed, that Kellogg received access to the correct amount of square footage on shelves, to build and stock Kellogg displays at customer store locations, and to monitor the freshness of the Kellogg products. Specifically, the amended complaint stated that the rep’s primary job duty was not sales. Motions for summary judgement were rejected in late 2016. The core issues of the case include: whether or not plaintiffs engaged in sales and were sales the primary duty. The settlement comes after years of litigation.

If you need assistance determining overtime payment or if you aren’t being paid overtime you are due, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Labor Code Lawsuit Alleges RFI Enterprises Failed to Pay Overtime

A California Labor Code lawsuit was recently filed against RFI Enterprises. According to the suit, the company wrongfully denied their employee overtime.

Plaintiff, Brian P., was employed at RFI Enterprises’ San Jose location. The company is a multi-systems integrator established in 1979 that does business across the nation with offices in California, Washington and Nevada. They install and monitor fire and life safety solutions. They offer a number of different systems: life safety systems, electronic access control, intrusion detection, closed circuit television, alarms, and fire safety. Their monitoring center provides 24/7 support to their various systems.

According to California labor law, employers are required to pay overtime. The required overtime pay rate is one and a half times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked over eight in one day or 40 in one week. According to the plaintiff in this case, the company did not factor wage premiums or shift differential pay into the regular rate of pay used to calculate their overtime pay rates.

According to the overtime lawsuit against RFI Enterprises, the company calculated overtime pay rates that were based on the employees’ base hourly rate of pay. This resulted in a lower overtime pay rate below the minimum overtime pay rate required by law. California labor law also requires that employers provide their employees with accurate wage statements. The plaintiff in the case also alleges that the employer was in violation of this regulation.

Not only does the plaintiff claim that the company was in violation of overtime pay rates and the regulation requiring that they provide accurate wage statements, but that the company did so maliciously and intentionally. According to the complaint, the company was unwilling to current their unfair business practices.

RFI Enterprises, the Defendants, allegedly engaged and have continued to engage in both unfair and unlawful business practices as detailed above. The plaintiff proposes to represent a class of employees in the California class action. A subclass has also been proposed to represent employees paid shift differential pay after Jan. 12, 2017.

If you fear your employer is in violation of California labor code or you have questions about what makes an employee exempt from overtime, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Home Depot Faces Former Employee's Allegations of Overtime Violations

Marco A. Batani, out of San Diego, recently filed suit against Home Depot, alleging unlawful business practices and failure to pay overtime. The complaint was filed January 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In Batani’s complaint, it states that he was employed at Home Depot between 2016 and 2017 as a sales consultant, but that he was misclassified as an outside salesperson. Yet his duties while on the job consisted of mainly non-exempt tasks.

In promotional materials describing potential careers with The Home Depot, the one-stop shop for customers building a home, the company describes a warm workplace culture. The company website states that they couldn’t have “done it without the culture and feeling of home and family among the associates in our stores, distribution centers and corporate office.” Yet the claims made by Batani in the recent California overtime lawsuit paint a far different picture of the situation.

In Batani’s suit, he claims that during his employment he consistently worked over eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week – without being provided with the legally required overtime compensation. (According the FLSA, employers are required to provide overtime pay for any hours worked beyond “full time.” The law also defines full time as 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours/week.) 

Batani also alleges that he was not provided with the legally required meal periods and was not reimbursed for all job expenses.

In addition to the above allegations, Batani claims that Home Depot USA failed to provide employees with wages due at separation, failed to provide timely and accurate wage statements, and failed to reimburse business expenses. All of the allegations are in vio0lation of state law.

Batani seeks a trial by jury. He filed suit to seek damages of $100, an aggregate penalty up to $4,000, compensatory and liquidated damages, nominal damages, restitution and disgorgement, punitive and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. He also seeks any additional relief the court may deem just in the situation.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if your employer is refusing to provide you with required meal and rest breaks, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Based Newspaper Fires Employees Who Demanded Overtime With Expensive Consequences

Can a company fire an employee because they sued for back overtime? Recent news indicates that the answer is no – at least in California. This is exactly what Joong-Ang, publisher of Korea Daily (a Korean language newspaper based in California), found out when the court ordered him to pay $584,612 to three former employees.

The story began in June of 2013. Three of the newspaper’s employees filed a California overtime lawsuit alleging that they were not paid overtime wages as required by law. Only a couple months later – the three employees were fired from their jobs with Korea Daily.

Some claim this was a coincidence – which is arguable considering the fact that on the same day the three employees who filed suit were let go, all the employees at the same printing facility were also let go. Yet all the employees let go from that printing facility were rehired by another company that took over the operations – all except the three employees who filed a California overtime lawsuit against the newspaper. According to the three plaintiffs, they were not advised of the opportunity alongside their co-workers.

When they discovered what had happened, the three now unemployed workers added more claims to their suit including wrongful termination.

The courts sided with the plaintiffs. They won the case. The Korean language newspaper appealed, but late last month, Korea Daily lost their appeal.

According to California Labor Code Section 1199, it is illegal for an employer to fail to provide overtime wages in accordance with the Industrial Welfare Commission. As occurred in this case, the employees have the right to overtime wages and may exercise that right (in this situation by filing an overtime lawsuit). If the employer then terminates the employee for exercising their right to overtime pay, the worker could be entitled to additional “damages” due to wrongful termination.

So, essentially, Joong-Ang, the publisher of Korea Daily, was ordered by the court to pay $584,000 for firing employees who demanded they be paid overtime the company was required to pay by law. If you are a company in California make sure you are familiar with both federal and state overtime rules. Employees are entitled to overtime and are seeking restitution in court more than ever before.

If you are a California business that needs assistance with employment law violations or if you are a California employee who is not paid overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.