3 Interesting Overtime Results

$4,385,000 settlement in class action case against DIRECTV, Inc:

Michael Cicero, on behalf of himself and other installers, filed a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV alleging he and other installers were not paid overtime and were not paid for time spent driving to and from installation sites.  Cicero alleged installers were paid based on the number of installations performed and did not receive meal breaks.  The parties settled prior to trial and DIRECTV agreed to establish a $4,385,000 settlement fund for the class.

$2,910,000 settlement in class action against Kaiser Foundation:

Yvette Smith, Tim Dodson, and Molla Enger, on behalf of themselves and other business application coordinators and senior business application coordinators, sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals alleging the employees were misclassified as exempt employees.  Kaiser contended the employees were exempt under the California and Federal administrative exemptions.  The plaintiffs asked for $6.46 million, but settled for $2.91 million prior to trial.

County of Los Angeles defeats paramedic overtime claim:

Richard Dupless and Tom Fahrny, on behalf of themselves and 82 similarly situated department employees, sued the County of Los Angeles alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The plaintiffs argued that the county incorrectly calculated their regular pay rate because the county did not consider hazard bonuses paid to the employees.  The plaintiffs also alleged that they were not paid overtime when doing hazardous materials handling.  The county argued that it correctly calculated the regular rate of pay because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the bonuses unless they worked shifts in paramedic or hazardous materials position, therefore the bonuses were not part of the regular pay for the non-paramedic and non-hazardous materials positions.  The county also argued that the paramedics were not entitled to overtime unless they worked more than 182 hours in a week.  The judge granted the county’s motion for summary judgment.  No word yet on whether there will be an appeal.

The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
95 South Market Street, Suite 520
San Jose, CA 95113
Tel. 408-293-6341
 
Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
 

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *