OVERTIME lAWSUIT

Allstate employees, please use this forum to offer suggestions about issues you feel might help the company in dealing with claims, or that might help us as insureds to deal with Allstate.

Re: OVERTIME lAWSUIT

Unread postby RatPak11 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:02 pm

9th Circuit District Court Denies Overtime Pay by Finding Insurance Sales Agent is Independent Contractor –
Los Angeles Wage & Hour Claims Attorneys Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
by NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL on JANUARY 3, 2013

When employers want to avoid paying workers overtime pay, they misclassify them as exempt administrative, professional, or executive personnel. Or they claim the employee is actually an independent contractor. Recently, a 9th Circuit District Court allowed a classification of independent contractor to stand.

In Daskam v. Allstate, an Allstate insurance sales agent sued claiming Allstate intentionally misclassified him as an independent contractor to avoid paying him overtime wage benefits. The insurance agent argued he was actually an employee because:

1) He had worked with Allstate for many years;
2) Allstate controlled how he primarily performed his work, including setting his hours, establishing prices, choosing products to sell, and providing customer forms;
3) His work was similar to work performed by Allstate employees; and
4) His work was essential to Allstate’s business.

The district court found that while Allstate did exercise some control over how the insurance sales agent conducted his business, the amount of control exerted was not sufficient to make him an employee since the sales agent had the freedom to hire others to work for him and determined how much profit he would make.

If you are not being paid overtime and feel you have been misclassified as exempt from overtime pay, call an experienced Los Angeles labor attorney today at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik at (310) 981-3918. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The firm dedicates its practice to contingency fee employment law work for issues involving misclassification as a salaried worker exempt from overtime, failure to pay vacation wages, misclassification as an independent contractor, off-the-clock work, wrongful termination, discrimination and other California labor laws.
RatPak11
Done That
Done That
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: OVERTIME lAWSUIT

Unread postby RatPak11 » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:58 pm

click here for full document:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us



Filed 12/6/13
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT



CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Petitioners,

v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Real Party in Interest. B244043


(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC382577)





APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John Shepard Wiley Jr., Judge. Vacated and remanded with direction.


Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes and Gregg Lander; Trush Law Office and James M. Trush, for Petitioner.


No appearance for Respondent.


Seyfarth Shaw, Andrew M. Paley, Sheryl L. Skibbe, James M. Harris and Kiran Aftab Seldon, for Real Party in Interest.

__________________________
Appellant Christopher Williams petitions for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order decertifying appellant’s class action claim that alleged Allstate Insurance Company failed to pay overtime wages to Allstate’s auto field adjusters. A writ shall issue forthwith directing the trial court to vacate its decertification order and to recertify the class.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Allstate Insurance Company employs several hundred auto field adjusters in California. Auto field adjusters travel to sites such as body shops to inspect, and analyze the value of, damaged vehicles. In 2005, Allstate changed the classification of its auto field adjusters from salaried employees to hourly employees in response to litigation challenging their misclassification as employees exempt from the protection of overtime wage laws. (Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012, No. LA CV 10-08486) 2012 WL 1366052,*4 (Jimenez).)
Auto field adjusters receive their daily work schedules of vehicle inspection appointments by logging onto Allstate’s “Work Force Management System” software loaded onto their work laptops. Although the adjusters are hourly employees entitled to overtime if they work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, the Work Force Management System software is not a time record keeping program, nor does Allstate maintain any other time clock system.[1] An Allstate executive testified in deposition: “Q. Is there any timekeeping system such as a time clock or a computer punch-in and punch-out system that auto adjusters punch in and punch out in order to keep track of the start and the end of their day? [¶] A. No timekeeping punch-in, punch out system, no. [¶] Q. Is there any timekeeping system of any type, whether it’s a time clock, a computer system or a manual system, that records the actual start time and the actual end time of the auto adjuster’s workday? . . . [¶] A. No.” Rather than track the actual hours an adjuster works, the Work Force Management System instead presumes each adjuster’s eight-hour workday begins when the adjuster arrives at his first vehicle-inspection appointment of the day. As the Allstate executive explained, “Their day begins at the first stop.”
Allstate’s presumption that an adjuster’s workday begins with the first appointment as set by the Work Force Management System does not take into account any work the adjuster may have performed before the day’s first appointment. As the Allstate executive explained in deposition, “Q. The eight-hour workday upon which the system is based assumes that the eight-hour workday begins at the first appointment, correct? [¶] A. Yes. . . . [¶] Q. [T]he eight-hour workday upon which the system is based does not take into account any work that may have been done before the first appointment; isn’t that right? . . . [¶] A. That’s correct. The system doesn’t take into account anything that somebody might have done prior to that first assignment.”
Belying Allstate’s assumption of an 8-hour workday, appellant submitted declarations from numerous adjusters stating they typically worked more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week after Allstate reclassified them from salaried to hourly employees. Among the overtime tasks those adjusters declared they performed outside their eight-hour shifts were (1) logging onto their work computers, (2) downloading their assignments, (3) making courtesy calls to auto repair shops and car owners to confirm appointments, (4) checking their voice mail, and (5) traveling to and from their first and last appointments of the day. For an adjuster to work overtime, Allstate’s official company policy required the adjuster to get his supervisor’s prior approval. But the adjusters’ declarations stated the adjusters hesitated to request overtime because they did not want to be perceived as “bad” employees.
In 2007, appellant Christopher Williams filed a class action complaint for himself and all others similarly situated. The complaint sought class certification for all Allstate auto field adjusters working in California, a group of several hundred employees defined as “all auto adjusters in California that perform field inspections using the Workforce Management System (‘WFMS’) with the title Claim Adjuster, Senior Claim Adjuster, Staff Claim Adjuster, Claim Service Adjuster, Senior Claim Service Adjuster, Staff Claim Service Adjuster, Appraiser, Claim Representative, Claim Specialist and Claim Consultant.” The complaint alleged Allstate had a policy and practice of not compensating adjusters for work performed before they arrived at their first vehicle inspection of the day and for work performed after completing the last inspection of the day. The complaint alleged various wage violation causes of action.
Appellant moved for class certification. At the December 2010 class certification hearing, the trial court found evidence in the record “supports a class of Auto Field Adjusters with respect to off-the-clock claims . . . that are performed pre-first inspection and post-last inspection in connection with logging on and off the computer timekeeping system, including, but not limited to, setting voicemail messages and checking for schedule and travel changes.” The court therefore certified an “Off the Clock” class, defined as Allstate’s “California-based hourly-paid Auto Field Adjusters from January 1, 2005 to the present, to the extent that [Allstate] failed to pay for off-the-clock work for the following specific tasks performed prior to the first inspection of the day: logging on and off computer systems, preparing and checking voicemail messages, checking for schedule and travel changes, obtaining directions to the first inspection if there is a travel change, and making courtesy calls.”[2]
Half a year later in June 2011, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2541 (Dukes). Dukes involved class certification of 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees from 3,400 stores who alleged Wal-Mart denied them promotions or pay raises because of their gender. (Id. at pp. 2547-2548.) The Supreme Court noted that the 1.5 million nationwide claimants were required to prove that thousands of store managers had the same discriminatory intent in preferring men over women for promotions and pay raises. The Supreme Court found the women could not pursue their claims as a class action because they lacked evidence that they did not receive promotions or pay raises for the same reason, namely their gender. In reversing class certification, Dukes found that there was no unifying theory holding together “literally millions of employment decisions.” (Id. at p. 2552.)
In a trial court status conference in July 2011 one month after Dukes, the parties and trial court discussed Dukes. The trial court thereafter permitted Allstate to file a motion based on Dukes for decertification of the Off-the-Clock class. In its decertification motion, Allstate emphasized two points from Dukes. First, “there must be some ‘glue’ holding the class members’ claims together, such that common facts can resolve the claims for everyone in the class.” And, second, “a trial-by-formula using statistical sampling is an improper means to try class claims, as it deprives a defendant of due process by precluding a defendant from proving its individual defenses against each class member.” Allstate told the trial court, “In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes[, supra,] 131 S.Ct. 2541, which the Court admitted changed the relevant legal landscape for this case, and additional discovery since the class certification order, it is apparent that the close call on certification must be reversed.”
The trial court agreed, and decertified the Off-the-Clock class (as well as a corresponding Unfair Competition Claim). Relying on Dukes, the trial court’s written order stated Allstate’s decertification “motion is granted because [Dukes, supra,] 131 S.Ct. 2541 has changed the law.” The trial court concluded that “After Dukes, Allstate is entitled to litigate its defenses to the claims of each individual class member.” Allstate’s defenses included purported evidence that not all adjusters worked off the clock, and for that portion of those adjusters who might have worked off the clock, their time was de minimis. (See Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680, 692 [“a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours [are mere] trifles [and] may be disregarded”].) According to the trial court’s order, a “trial in which Allstate presents evidence of affirmative defenses to more than 200 individuals would be unmanageable,” making class certification inappropriate.
Appellant filed in this court a petition for writ of mandate, which we summarily denied. Appellant then filed a petition for review by our Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court granted the petition and returned the matter to us with directions to issue an order to show cause why the relief sought in appellant’s petition should not be granted. We issued the order to show cause, received further briefing, and held argument.
Last edited by RatPak11 on Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
RatPak11
Done That
Done That
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: OVERTIME lAWSUIT

Unread postby RatPak11 » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:05 pm

http://www.uclpractitioner.com/2013/12/ ... state.html

Monday, December 09, 2013

Another new class certification opinion, this one construing Dukes: Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Ins. Co.)

It has been an eventful couple of weeks in the development of California class action jurisprudence. Jones v. Farmers was published on November 26, 2013; Hendleman v. Los Altos Apartments was depublished on the same day; and Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack was published on December 4, 2013.

Then, last Friday, came Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Ins. Co.), ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Dec. 6, 2013). In Williams, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) reversed an order granting the defendant's motion for decertification, which the trial court had issued in the wake of Dukes.

The case asserted overtime claims on behalf of non-exempt field insurance adjusters who were not compensated for time worked at the beginning and the end of the day. Instead of tracking and paying for this time, Allstate's uniform policy was to assume that the adjusters did not begin working until the start time of the day's first field appointment. Slip op. at 2-4.

Initially, in June 2010, the trial court granted class certification. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Dukes. In July 2012, the trial court granted Allstate's motion to decertify the class. Slip op. at 5-6. The order reasoned that Dukes "has changed the law," and that "[a]fter Dukes, Allstate is entitled to litigate its defenses to each individual class member," including the defense that certain adjusters never worked unpaid overtime despite Allstate's uniform policy, as well as the defense that overtime worked by certain adjusters was de minimis. Id. at 5 (quoting order at 1, 2).

The plaintiff filed a writ petition, which the Court of Appeal summarily denied in October 2012. Undiscouraged, he filed a review petition with the California Supreme Court, and in December 2012, that court issued a "grant and transfer" order, directing the Court of Appeal to consider the writ petition on the merits. Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Ins. Co.), No. S206441.

As an initial matter, the Court of Appeal opinion summarizes the standards governing motions for decertification of a certified class, stressing the defendant's burden to show "a significant change in circumstances":

Decertification requires new law or newly discovered evidence showing changed circumstances. (Weinstat v. Dentsply Internat., Inc. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1225.) A motion for decertification is not an opportunity for a disgruntled class defendant to seek a do-over of its previously unsuccessful opposition to certification. “Modifications of an original class ruling, including decertifications, typically occur in response to a significant change in circumstances, and ‘[i]n the absence of materially changed or clarified circumstances . . . courts should not condone a series of rearguments on the class issues.’ [Citation.].” (Driver v. AppleIllinois, LLC (N.D. Ill., Mar. 2, 2012, No. 06 C 6149) 2012 WL 689169, *1 (Driver).) “A class should be decertified ‘only where it is clear there exist changed circumstances making continued class action treatment improper.’ ” (Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 147.)

Slip op. at 7 (emphasis added).

Because the trial court relied wholly on Dukes in decertifying the class, the opinion discusses Dukes at length. It is the first California appellate-level court to correctly acknowledge that the infamous "trial by formula" language of Dukes appeared in a section of Dukes addressing, first of all, Rule 23(b)(2) class actions (not (b)(3) cases), and, secondly, the unique statutory procedures of Title VII cases. On the latter point, the opinion explains:

The Supreme Court’s second area of focus in Part III of Dukes involved the statutory affirmative defenses in the anti-discrimination statute Title VII. Because the affirmative defenses were statutory, Dukes concluded a class proceeding could not deprive Wal-Mart of its right to present those defenses. (Dukes, supra, 131 S.Ct. at pp. 2560-2561.) As those affirmative defenses required individualized evidence, Dukes disapproved a “Trial by Formula” of Wal-Mart’s affirmative defenses because it prevented Wal-Mart from offering its individualized evidence. (Id. at p. 2561.)

Slip op. at 11 (emphasis added).

This aspect of Dukes is something that I, and many other members of the plaintiffs' class action bar, have been trying to emphasize since Dukes was first handed down. See, e.g., Kimberly A. Kralowec, “Dukes and Common Proof in California Class Actions,” 21 Competition 9, 11-12 (Summer 2012); Brief for Amicus Curiae National Employment Lawyers Association in Support of Appellees' Petition for Panel Rehearing, Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Nos. 08-55483 & 08-56740 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2013); Brief of Amicus Curiae California Employment Lawyers Association in Support of Respondents Sam Duran et al., Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assn., No. S200923 (Cal. May 8, 2013).

The panel then explained that the claim for unpaid overtime was properly certified for class treatment under the framework of Dukes itself, and that the claim should not have been decertified:

At the certification stage, the concern is whether class members have raised a justiciable question applicable to all class members. Although Allstate may have presented evidence that its official policies are lawful, “this showing does not end the inquiry.” (Jimenez, supra, 2012 WL 1366052, *8.) Here, the question is whether Allstate had a practice of not paying adjusters for off-the-clock time. (Ibid.) The answer to that question will apply to the entire class of adjusters. If the answer to that question is “yes” – which is the answer the trial court initially assumed when it first certified the Off-the-Clock class, and is the answer we must presume in reviewing decertification (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1023) – then, in Duke’s [sic] phrase, that answer is the “glue” that binds all the class members. (Dukes, supra, 131 S.Ct. at p. 2552 [a class requires the “glue” of a single answer for a question applicable to all class members].)

Slip op. at 12 (emphasis added).

The panel then turned to, and rejected, Allstate's argument that certification should be denied because Allstate could show that some adjusters may not have worked any unpaid overtime:

An unlawful practice may create commonality even if the practice affects class members differently. “[C]lass treatment does not require that all class members have been equally affected by the challenged practices—it suffices that the issue of whether the practice itself was unlawful is common to all.” (Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2012) 2012 WL 2374444, *6 ....) It may be true that some adjusters never worked off the clock, and such adjusters were thus not injured by Allstate’s practice of adjusters working off the clock. But the existence of individuality as to damages does not defeat class certification. (Jimenez, supra, 2012 WL 1366052, *19 [“[O]vertime claims may present a number of individualized questions, including whether individual employees worked off-the-clock. [Citation.] Nonetheless, courts have certified classes and allowed collective actions to proceed notwithstanding such circumstances. . . . [¶] Here, Plaintiffs allege a company-wide policy of discouraging and limiting overtime.”]; Espinoza v. 953 Assocs. LLC, supra, 280 F.R.D. at p. 130 [“Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation as a result of certain policies and practices. Although plaintiffs’ claims may raise individualized questions regarding the number of hours worked and how much each employee was entitled to be paid, those differences go to the damages that each employee is owed, not to the common question of Defendants’ liability.”].)

Slip op. at 18-19 (emphasis added).

Achieving this result required some top-flight legal work by plaintiff's counsel. Sparking the interest of the California Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal summarily denied their writ petition was an especially impressive accomplishment. Congratulations to Kevin Barnes, Gregg Lander and Jim Trush. A copy of their successful petition for review can be downloaded at this link.

Posted by Kimberly A. Kralowec at 04:00 AM in Class actions - certification | Permalink
RatPak11
Done That
Done That
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: OVERTIME lAWSUIT

Unread postby RatPak11 » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:12 pm

http://capstonelawapc.wordpress.com/201 ... -williams/

CAPSTONE LAW APC –
CLASS DECERTIFICATION VACATED IN WILLIAMS V. SUPERIOR COURT
by Capstone Law APC in Legal.
December 10, 2013

Capstone Law – Class Decertification Order in Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Insurance Company)

In Williams v. Superior Court (Allstate Insurance Company) – filed December 6, 2013, Second District, Div. Eight, the Second Appellate District granted a petition for writ of mandate, vacated a trial court class decertification order, and remanded. The court held that the trial court erred in concluding that a proposed class of some 200 insurance adjusters was not certifiable because only some, but not all, of those class members might have suffered damages due to a company policy precluding compensation for certain tasks.

In action for failure to pay overtime wages, the trial court abused its discretion by decertifying the plaintiff class based on the precedent in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2541, holding that a plaintiff class could not be certified in a gender discrimination action, because proof of discriminatory intent would be required as to each individual store manager. However, Dukes did not establish an absence of commonality as to a plaintiffs’ claim that the employer required class members to work “off the clock” at the beginning and end of each work day. Because an employer who knew, or should have known, of overtime work may be liable for overtime wages as a matter of state law, a pattern or practice of employees working off-the-clock in order to complete their daily work can sustain a common question of fact or law that supports commonality for class certification.

All-State Auto field adjusters, employees who travel to sites such as body shops to inspect and analyze the value of damaged vehicles, receive their daily work schedules of vehicle inspection appointments by logging onto Allstate’s “Work Force Management System” software loaded onto their work laptops. Although the adjusters are hourly employees entitled to overtime if they work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, the Work Force Management System software is not a time record keeping program, nor does Allstate maintain any other time clock system.

Rather than track the actual hours an adjuster works, the Work Force Management System instead presumes each adjuster’s eight-hour workday begins when the adjuster arrives at his first vehicle-inspection appointment of the day. As the Allstate executive explained, “Their day begins at the first stop.”

Allstate’s presumption that an adjuster’s workday begins with the first appointment as set by the Work Force Management System does not take into account any work the adjuster may have performed before the day’s first appointment.

Post by Capstone Law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://shawvalenza.blogspot.com/2013/12 ... order.html

Saturday, December 07, 2013
Court of Appeal Reverses Order Decertifying Class

Allstate employs auto insurance field adjusters. They track work time via a computerized system. The system "assumes" that the arrival at the first job site for the day is the beginning of the work day. Therefore, there is the potential that adjusters performing work for the company before the arrival is "work off the clock."

Among the overtime tasks those adjusters declared they performed outside their eight-hour shifts were (1) logging onto their work computers, (2) downloading their assignments, (3) making courtesy calls to auto repair shops and car owners to confirm appointments, (4) checking their voice mail, and (5) traveling to and from their first and last appointments of the day.

Allstate claimed it had a policy prohibiting work off the clock. It had a policy requiring approval for overtime. If an adjuster worked before the start of the day, there was a means to claim the work time.

The Allstate workers filed a class action, in part alleging that Allstate's timekeeping system was illegal because Allstate permitted off the clock work. The trial court initially granted certification. After Wal-Mart v. Dukes came out, though, the company filed a motion to "decertify" the class. The trial court granted decertification, which prompted the plaintiff to appeal.

The Court of Appeal here reversed the trial court and decided that the class should have been certified. Here are the key points:

- A motion to "decertify" a previously certified class action can be brought only when there has been a significant change - newly discovered facts or new law.

- On review of a motion to decertify, the court of appeal evaluates the trial court's stated rationale. If the trial court's stated rationale is wrong, the appellate court will reverse.

- The court will ignore individual issues regarding how to calculate damages for individual employees if there is a common question applicable to all class members regarding liability:

Damage calculations have little, if any, relevance at the certification stage before the trial court and parties have reached the merits of the class claims. At the certification stage, the concern is whether class members have raised a justiciable question applicable to all class members. Although Allstate may have presented evidence that its official policies are lawful, “this showing does not end the inquiry.” (Jimenez, supra, 2012 WL 1366052, *8.) Here, the question is whether Allstate had a practice of not paying adjusters for off-the-clock time. (Ibid.) The answer to that question will apply to the entire class of adjusters. If the answer to that question is “yes” – which is the answer the trial court initially assumed when it first certified the Off-the-Clock class, and is the answer we must presume in reviewing decertification (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1023) – then, in Duke’s phrase, that answer is the “glue” that binds all the class members. (Dukes, supra, 131 S.Ct. at p. 2552 [a class requires the “glue” of a single answer for a question applicable to all class members].) If some adjusters had more uncompensated time off the clock than other adjusters, that difference goes to damages.

- The court's analysis of whether common questions predominate - usually the central issue on a motion for class certification is notable because it is part of a recent trend of holding that the absence of commonality does not preclude a finding of commonality:

Commonality exists when the class claim poses a question for which the answer advances the litigation. As Dukes explained, class “claims must depend upon a common contention . . . . That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” (Dukes, supra, 131 S.Ct. at p. 2551.) * * *

* * * *
Allstate disputes whether a company-wide practice existed of adjusters working off the clock. According to Allstate, it instructs adjusters not to begin work before they arrive at their first appointment. Allstate asserts that at most “the evidence shows that reactions differed from manager to manager and from employee to employee, purportedly leading some adjusters to work off-the-clock, while others did not.” Allstate also asserts its policy is to pay for all overtime that adjusters work, and indeed, appellant concedes he received overtime pay 70 times.

But the Court of Appeal wasn't hearing it:

We need not, however, address the accuracy of Allstate’s assertions because doing so goes to the merits of the class claims. As our Supreme Court said in Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at page 1024, inquiries into the merits as part of a certification motion are “closely circumscribed.” We instead assume based on the evidence appellant and other adjusters put to the trial court that Allstate had a company-wide practice of adjusters working off-the-clock. (Id. at p. 1023 [court assumes claims have merit].) An unlawful practice may create commonality even if the practice affects class members differently. “[C]lass treatment does not require that all class members have been equally affected by the challenged practices—it suffices that the issue of whether the practice itself was unlawful is common to all.”

So, this means that to defeat class certification, it is necessary to establish through evidence the absence of an unlawful practice. Yet, the court says that the employer's evidence that a practice is not unlawful as to all potential class members is part of the "merits" and, therefore, not part of the certification inquiry. That seems like a rather one-sided ruling, says Captain Obvious.

Anyway, this case is an important warning to employers with timekeeping systems that "assume" that hours worked start at a given time. Employers should ensure timekeeping systems are not based on automatic punching and allow a worker to clock in or out based on when the work day (or meal breaks) actually starts and stops.

This case is Williams v. Superior Court and the opinion is here:.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B244043.PDF


Posted by Greg at 11:00 AM
Last edited by RatPak11 on Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RatPak11
Done That
Done That
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: OVERTIME lAWSUIT

Unread postby RatPak11 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:15 am

http://www.overtimepaylaws.org/allstate ... ay-claims/


Jan 2014
Allstate Motor Club Roadside Assistance Workers Overtime Pay Claims

Often times, roadside assistance technicians work long grueling hours, but are denied overtime pay. Unfortunately for many of these workers, employers will either deny benefits or misclassify technicians so that they can avoid paying them what they rightfully deserve.

There are several roadside service companies located throughout the U.S., however one of the largest companies is Allstate Motor Club Roadside Assistance. If you or someone you know works as a roadside service technician for Allstate Motor Club Roadside Assistance and has been denied overtime pay benefits, you do have legal rights and a lawsuit may be able to filed to collect back all unpaid wages, as well as compensation for other damages.

Allstate Insurance includes more than 70,000 professionals made up of employees, agency owners and staff servicing the United States. It was founded in 1931 and became a publicly traded company in 1993.

They provide private passenger auto and homeowners insurance under the Allstate and Encompass and Esurance brand names. Esurance provides brand auto insurance products directly to consumers online, through call centers and through select agents, including Answer Financial.

The services its roadside technicians provide include towing, tire changes, jumpstarts, lockouts, fuel delivery, trip planning, travel discounts, legal defense, and arrest bond cards.

According to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), roadside assistance technicians are entitled to receive overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours in a single work week. In general, “hours worked” includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal activity of the work day to the end of the last principal work activity of the workday.

For more information about filing a an unpaid overtime lawsuit against Allstate Motor Club, call our top rated overtime pay attorneys today at (855) 754-2795. We offer a Free, No Obligation Case Review and will represent you under our No Win, No Fee Promise. This means that there are no legal fees or costs to you whatsoever until we win or settle your case. Call now! Every day you wait to call you could be losing out on significant money.
RatPak11
Done That
Done That
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Previous

Return to Employee Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron