Court Finds for Employees Impacting Thousands in Pending Class Actions
The six plaintiffs in this case were staffing managers who opted out of a pending class astion against their former employer, Robert Half International, Inc. At its core, the case claimed plaintiffs, like the thousands of other employees in similar positions at Robert Half, were mischaracterized as being exempt from overtime laws. Their claims included overtime wages owed, missed rest and meal breaks, false pay stub penalties, unpaid or underpaid bonus monies owed to three of the plaintiffs, and a related claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 for restitution for unfair competition. Each of the plaintiffs signed an employment agreement requiring them to pursue claims against defendants within six months of their termination. The court declared these agreements to be void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
The case was bifurcated and the plaintiffs' UCL claim was severed, tried first by the court without a jury, over defendant's objection. Judge Andrew P. Banks granted the defense motion to try the exemption defense first and to allow defendant to go first in presenting its proof. The trial of the UCL exemption defense lasted 17 days. After the defense rested, plus about three hours of oral argument, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the bifurcated issue of whether the plaintiffs were administratively exempt, and declared its findings were dispositive of the untried Labor Code claims as well. The court specifically held that all six plaintiffs were "production" employees who were not eligible for the administrative exemption because they worked in the company's "day to day operations." The judge also ruled that defendant's evidence did not establish that plaintiffs had the requisite discretion and independent judgment to be administratively exempt. He further held they did not work under only general supervision in a specialized line of work. The parties were able to agree on the amount of damages, while preserving the defendant’s right to appeal.
RESULT: $1,609,625 ($615,000 judgment entered on Feb. 8, 2008; $978,122 attorney fees awarded on June 10, 2008; $16,503 costs).
Defendant is appealing the judgment. Plaintiff - Robert C. Robinson (Quest Law Firm, Tustin); Ross E. Shanberg, Shane C. Stafford (Shanberg Stafford, LLP, Irvine).
Defendant - Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr., Michael D. Mandel (Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles).
(Reported in the Verdicts and Settlements section of The Los Angeles Daily Journal in August 2008.)
