Employment Law

Is CVS Illegally Keeping Pharmacists from Required Meal and Rest Breaks?

Pharmacist filling Prescription

Lieff Cabraser is investigating widespread allegations that CVS knowingly fails to provide proper off-duty meal and rest breaks for its pharmacists, in deliberate violation of California law. CVS pharmacists complain that CVS companywide policy requires pharmacists to remain on duty and responsible for pharmacy operations during “meal and rest breaks” that do not meet the standard of bona fide meal and rest breaks to which they are legally entitled.

Use the form below or call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 to discuss your case

Affected CVS pharmacists include employees with the job titles such as Pharmacy Intern, Pharmacy Intern Graduate, Staff Pharmacist, and Pharmacy Manager, who have worked at a CVS retail location in California since 2014.

Contact us today

If you have been employed as a pharmacist at CVS in California since 2014 and have any concerns about whether you are getting proper and appropriate meal and rest breaks, we encourage you to contact us today at the number above or by using the form below. There is no cost or obligation, and your information will be kept strictly confidential.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Job title at CVS:

What are/were the dates of your employment at CVS?

Please describe your experience missing rest breaks at CVS:

Please feel free to provide any additional comments:


Dominos No-Poach Employee Restriction Agreements

PIZZA

Lieff Cabraser represents Dominos’ fast-food employees in a lawsuit challenging Dominos’ practice of restricting employees who worked at a Dominos’ store from being hired by other Dominos stores. The practice allegedly violated the antitrust laws, and caused workers’ wages to be lower than they otherwise would have been. It also made it harder for Dominos’ employees to move to other stores within the Dominos system, limiting their career mobility and advancement. Dominos workers allegedly would have received higher wages but for this anticompetitive practice.

Contact an Employee Rights Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you work for Dominos now or recently, you may have a legal claim because your job opportunities or wages may have been suppressed by Dominos’ no-poach agreements. We urge you to contact Lin Y. Chan or Yaman Salahi via the form below for a free, confidential, and no-obligation review of your case. The information you provide will help us hold Dominos’ accountable for any violations of the antitrust laws.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience, if any, with suppressed pay or job mobility restrictions at Dominos:

Little Caesars Restaurants No-Poach Employee Restriction Agreements

PIZZA

Lieff Cabraser represents Little Caesars’ fast-food employees in a lawsuit challenging Little Caesars’ practice of restricting employees who worked at a Little Caesars’ store from being hired by other Little Caesars stores. The practice allegedly violated the antitrust laws, and caused workers’ wages to be lower than they otherwise would have been. It also made it harder for Little Caesars’ employees to move to other stores within the Little Caesars system, limiting their career mobility and advancement. Little Caesars workers allegedly would have received higher wages but for this anticompetitive practice.

Contact an Employee Rights Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you work for Little Caesars now or recently, you may have a legal claim because your job opportunities or wages may have been suppressed by Little Caesars’ no-poach agreements. We urge you to contact Lin Y. Chan or Yaman Salahi via the form below for a free, confidential, and no-obligation review of your case. The information you provide will help us hold Little Caesars’ accountable for any violations of the antitrust laws.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience, if any, with suppressed pay or job mobility restrictions at Little Caesars:

Jimmy John’s Restaurants No-Poach Employee Restriction Agreements

Jimmy John's No-Poach Cases

Lieff Cabraser represents Jimmy John’s fast-food employees in a lawsuit challenging Jimmy John’s practice of restricting employees who worked at a Jimmy John’s store from being hired by other Jimmy John’s stores. The practice allegedly violated the antitrust laws, and caused workers’ wages to be lower than they otherwise would have been. It also made it harder for Jimmy John’s employees to move to other stores within the Jimmy John’s system, limiting their career mobility and advancement. Jimmy John’s workers allegedly would have received higher wages but for this anticompetitive practice.

The district court has denied Jimmy John’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, which is currently being litigated.

Contact an Employee Rights Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you work for Jimmy John’s now or recently, you may have a legal claim because your job opportunities or wages may have been suppressed by Jimmy John’s no-poach agreements. We urge you to contact Lin Y. Chan or Yaman Salahi via the form below for a free, confidential, and no-obligation review of your case. The information you provide will help us hold Jimmy John’s accountable for any violations of the antitrust laws.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience, if any, with suppressed pay or job mobility restrictions at Jimmy John's:


Lieff Cabraser’s Experience With “No-Poach” Cases

In 2011, Lieff Cabraser filed a groundbreaking class action against seven of the world’s largest tech companies, including Apple, Google, and Intel, alleging a conspiracy to suppress employee pay through “no-poach” agreements. In 2015, that case resolved for settlements totaling $435 million, the largest resolution in history of antitrust claims in an employment setting. The California Daily Journal described the case as the “most significant antitrust employment case in recent history,” adding that it “has been widely recognized as a legal and public policy breakthrough.”

Lieff Cabraser continues to investigate and bring cases on behalf of employees whose compensation and mobility have been suppressed as a result of non-compete and job mobility restriction agreements.

Walgreens Pharmacists Rest Breaks Class Action

Pharmacist filling Prescription

This class action lawsuit alleges that Walgreens knowingly fails to provide proper, off-duty rest breaks for its pharmacists, in deliberate violation of California law. Plaintiffs claim that Walgreens’ companywide policy requires pharmacists to remain on duty and responsible for pharmacy operations, including by staying on Walgreens’ premises and logged into the computer system—and therefore responsible for all prescriptions filled at the pharmacy during that time—during “rest breaks” that do not meet the standard of bona fide rest breaks to which they are legally entitled.

Use the form below or call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 to discuss your case

The pharmacists in the proposed class include employees with the job titles Pharmacy Intern, Pharmacy Intern Graduate, Staff Pharmacist, and Pharmacy Manager, who worked at a Walgreens retail location in California at any time after July 27, 2014.

Lieff Cabraser is co-counsel with King & Siegel LLP, who filed the case on July 27, 2018. Read the Class Action Complaint here.

Contact us today

If you have been employed as a pharmacist at Walgreens at any time after July 27, 2014 through the present, you are not required to take any action to be included in this class action. If you have questions, you may submit your information in the fields below.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Job title at Walgreens:

What are/were the dates of your employment at Walgreens?

Please describe your experience missing rest breaks at Walgreens:

Please feel free to provide any additional comments:


Google Gender Case

employees

On September 14, 2017, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a federal gender discrimination case against Google in California state court in San Francisco. Thereafter, on January 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint in California state court. Read a copy of the First Amended Complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that Google has paid and continues to pay women less than men who are doing substantially similar or substantially equal work in certain covered positions at Google offices in California since September 14, 2013.

For more information on the case, visit GoogleGenderCase.com.

Employment Visa Fraud and the Rights of Employees Working in the U.S. on Business Visas

Workers in silhouette

B-1 Visas vs. H-1B Visas: Two Very Different Work and Travel Visas

B-1 visas are short-term travel visas that allow workers to travel to the U.S. for a short-term visit, such as to attend a conference, negotiate a contract, or participate in short-term training. B-1 visa holders may not perform labor — skilled or unskilled — while in the U.S.

H-1B visas are non-immigrant visas that allow employers to temporarily employ foreign nationals in positions that require specialized knowledge and high levels of education. The application process is highly regulated, and the number of H-1B visas granted is restricted to 65,000 visas annually. The employer must certify that the salary of the employee with the H-1B visa is within the prevailing salary for similarly qualified and educated employees working in the U.S.

How Are Companies Committing Visa Fraud?

Lawsuits have revealed that some companies knowingly and deliberately use B-1 visa holders to perform skilled labor in the U.S. in order to fill employment positions that otherwise would have been performed by U.S. citizens or legitimate H-1B visa holders. Companies do this to increase their profits by minimizing costs of securing visas, obtaining an unfair advantage over competitors, and avoiding tax liabilities.

There are companies that routinely submit “invitation letters” to U.S. Consular Officials containing materially false representations regarding the true purpose of a B-1 visa holder’s travel in order to deceive U.S. Consular Officials and/or Customs and Border Protection Officers and secure entry of the visa holder into the United States. These “invitation letters” often state that the purpose of travel is for “meetings” or “discussions” when the true purpose is to engage in work activities not authorized under the more easily obtained B-1 visas.

In addition to deceiving the government and underpaying taxes and other fees, companies committing visa fraud often harm the employees themselves by:

  • Failing to pay the amount promised in the H-1B visa application for the employee;
  • Failing to pay the amount promised in the contract with the employee;
  • Having the employee work full time on a B-1 visa and paying the employee in the currency of the employee’s nation of origin and at a much lower salary than that paid to U.S. employees with similar qualifications and performing similar work;
  • Making improper deductions of pay;
  • Requiring employees to pay the company the entire amount of their federal and state tax refund checks;
  • Charging assessments and exorbitant fees for visa applications, recruitment, and other charges never disclosed or in breach of the employment agreement; and
  • Failing to provide overtime compensation, meal breaks, or rest breaks in accordance with state and federal law.

What to Do If You Become Aware of Visa Fraud

If you or anyone you know has been subjected to any violations of labor laws, or an employer has breached the employment contract, we invite you to use the form below to submit your complaint so that we can learn of your experiences. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your claim. All information will be kept strictly confidential as provided under the law.

Or you are welcome to call Lieff Cabraser and ask to speak to employee rights attorney Lin Chan or Daniel Hutchinson toll-free at 1 800 541-7358.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe the issues or problems with your employment:

Additional comments:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

DuPont Stock Options Breach of Contract

employees
Jang v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 15-03719-NC (N.D. Cal.).Lieff Cabraser represents certain former DuPont employees in a breach of contract action alleging that DuPont unlawfully terminated employees’ unvested stock options. DuPont’s standard stock option award contract states that unvested options will continue to vest in accordance with their vesting schedule. In practice, however, DuPont unilaterally cancelled unvested stock options one year from employees’ termination, regardless of whether the options had vested.

The complaint was filed on August 15, 2015. DuPont filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins on November 19, 2015. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral argument was held on April 21, 2017. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision.

Microsoft Gender Discrimination

Computers

Issue/Allegation: Gender discrimination

Case Update

On September 20, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ permission to appeal the district court’s June 25 denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Plaintiffs’ opening brief in the appeal is due on January 30, 2019. (See Ninth Circuit case no. 18-35791, docket entry 6.) Plaintiffs expect briefing to be completed in spring 2019 and, based on the timing of other recent Ninth Circuit civil appeals, anticipate that the Ninth Circuit will hold oral argument in late 2019 or early 2020.

Unfortunately, the court’s denial of class certification means that it is possible that any individual claims you may have against Microsoft may no longer be protected by the lawsuit at this time.

If you wish to pursue your own federal claims against Microsoft, you may need to file your own charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It is possible that your deadline to do so may run from June 25, 2018, the date that the district court denied Plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Generally, the time to file an EEOC charge is either 180 or 300 days from the last act of discrimination, depending on the state in which you worked. In Washington state, the deadline is 300 days for such federal claims. If you wish to discuss the timing and filing of the charge of discrimination to fully protect your potential legal claims, you may contact us at (212) 245-1000 or (415) 956-1000.

Previous Case Updates

Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion for class certification on February 9, 2018. A public version of the motion is available here. Plaintiffs filed three expert reports in support of their reply brief. Public versions of these expert reports are available herehere, and here.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on October 27, 2017. A public version of the motion is available here. Plaintiffs are currently seeking to unseal most of the evidence in support of their motion and expect more of that material to be publicly available in the coming months. Microsoft’s opposition to the motion for class certification is due on January 5, 2018, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due on February 9, 2018. After that, the Court will issue an order, which typically takes from one to five months. Plaintiffs’ motion seeks certification of a class of female employees who worked in the Engineering or I/T Operations Professions and in stock levels 59-67 from September 16, 2012 to the present.

On October 14, 2016, the district court denied Microsoft’s second motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims in the case. The court also ruled that the statute of limitations for the Washington state law claim extends back to September 16, 2012. Read a copy of the court’s order here.

On March 8, 2016, the district court denied Microsoft’s first motion to dismiss the case. The court ruled that discovery shall proceed based on Plaintiffs’ current class definition, which includes all current and former female technical professionals employed by Microsoft in the U.S. The court gave Plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint pleading their disparate impact claim in more detail. The amended complaint was filed on April 7, 2016. Read a copy of the court’s order here. Read a copy of the amended complaint here.

On September 16, 2015, a gender discrimination class action lawsuit was filed against Microsoft Corporation. The class action, Moussouris v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 15-cv-01483, was brought by a former female Microsoft technical professional on behalf of herself and all current and former female technical professionals employed by Microsoft in the U.S. On October 27, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, adding current Microsoft employees Holly Muenchow and Dana Piermarini as named plaintiffs, in addition to Ms. Moussouris.

Allegations of Sex Discrimination in the Workplace by Microsoft

The class action complaint alleges that Microsoft has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against female employees in technical and engineering roles (“female technical employees”) with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment. The unchecked gender bias that pervades Microsoft’s corporate culture has resulted in female technical professionals receiving less compensation than similar men, the promotion of men over equally or more qualified women, and less favorable performance evaluation of female technical professionals compared to male peers.

The complaint alleges that the disadvantage to female technical employees in pay and promotion is not isolated or exceptional, but rather the predictable result of Microsoft’s policies and practices and lack of proper accountability measures to ensure fairness, and that Microsoft has implemented these policies and practices despite knowing that they have a long-standing disparate impact on female technical employees.

The complaint further alleges that Microsoft’s continuing policy, pattern, and practice of sex discrimination against female technical employees violates federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

The proposed class includes women who worked at Microsoft from September 16, 2012 to the present.

Complete case information is available at microsoftgendercase.com. Female Microsoft employees and ex-employees who wish to speak with case attorneys are encouraged to call case attorney Anne Shaver at 1 800 254-3079 or use the contact form on that website.

Major League Baseball Overtime

baseball

Issue: Unlawful denial of overtime pay

Senne v. Major League Baseball, No. 14-cv-00608 (N.D. Cal.).

Lieff Cabraser represents current and former Minor League Baseball players employed under uniform player contracts in a class and collective action seeking unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws.

The complaint alleges that Major League Baseball (“MLB”), the MLB franchises, and other defendants paid minor league players a uniform monthly fixed salary that, in light of the hours worked, amounts to less than the minimum wage and an unlawful denial of overtime pay.

Contact us

Please use the form below to contact an employment attorney at Lieff Cabraser about your Major League Baseball overtime case. Any information you submit will be held in strict confidence.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please list the year(s) you played in the MLB minor leagues. If you are still a current player, please include that information:

Any additional comments:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Protecting Employee Rights in Stock Option Agreement Disputes

employees

At many high-tech companies a significant portion of an employee’s compensation can consist of stock options. Stock option rights agreements, however, may contain vague language that leads to disputes when employees to exercise their rights, and specifically when they can seek to sell stock they were promised. For example with startups, when they grow and move to issue an IPO, senior management may look for ways to improperly prop up stock value by denying requests from employees to approve stock transactions.

Lieff Cabraser Attorney Dean Harvey Explains Employee Stock Option Rights

Lieff Cabraser has successfully represented employees whose company wrongfully refused to allow the sale of vested stock. If you have a stock options dispute with your company, please contact Lieff Cabraser attorneys Kelly Dermody or Dean Harvey. Both can be reached at 415 956-1000., or toll free at 1 800 541-7358. Or feel free to complete the contact form below.

We will confidentially review your claim and advise you if you have a case. We conduct this review for free and without any obligation on your part.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

At what company did you receive stock options?

Please describe your complaint:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Goldman Sachs Gender Discrimination

Employment law and employee rights cases

Issue: Gender discrimination

Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs, Inc., Case No. 10-6950 (S.D.N.Y.).

Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleges that Goldman Sachs has engaged in systemic and pervasive discrimination against its female professional employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The complaint charges that, among other things, Goldman Sachs pays its female professionals less than similarly situated males, disproportionately promotes men over equally or more qualified women, and offers better business opportunities and professional support to its male professionals.

On March 30, 2018, District Court Judge Analisa Torres issued an order certifying the plaintiffs’ damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3).

For more detailed information and to contact a plaintiff attorney, please visit GoldmanGenderCase.com.

Premera Blue Cross Overtime

hospital

Result: $1.45 million settlement
Year: 2011

$1,450,000 Settlement Reached for 133 Employees in Premera Overtime Lawsuit

We are happy to report that the parties have reached a settlement, which was presented to the Court for final approval on June 10, 2011.

The settlement provides that $1.45 million (minus attorneys’ fees and costs, costs of administration, and a class representative service award) will be paid out to the approximately 133 class members. The average net recovery per class member is over $7,000 each.

The class is defined as Premera employees who worked at any time between April 7, 2006 to early 2011 in the following positions:

  • Application Support Engineer I & II;
  • Database Administrator I;
  • Information Security Administrator III;
  • IT Analyst I & II;
  • Network Administrator III;
  • PeopleSoft Systems Administrator;
  • Production Control Analyst III;
  • Senior Middleware Administrator;
  • Senior Network Administrator;
  • Senior Systems Administrator;
  • Software QA Analyst;
  • Software Test Engineer I;
  • System Administrator – HCS;
  • Systems Administrator I, II, & III;
  • Systems Engineer IT;
  • Telecommunications Administrator I, II, & III; and
  • Telecommunications Engineer I

Final approval was granted on August 26, 2011, and checks will be mailed by September 30, 2011.

More information is available at the Settlement Administrator’s website ( http://pbcclassaction.com/).

Background on Premera Employee Overtime Complaints Litigation

In April 2010, a technical support worker at Premera Blue Cross ("Premera") filed a class action lawsuit against Premera, and its subsidiaries LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon and LifeWise Assurances, Co., seeking overtime pay. Premera’s technical support workers are responsible for installing, maintaining, and/or supporting computer software and hardware. The complaint alleges that Premera has a common practice of misclassifying its technical support workers as exempt and failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked in violation of federal overtime pay laws. these workers were unlawfully denied overtime pay.

Best Buy Race Discrimination

Employment law and employee rights cases

Result: Changes in personnel policies
Year: 2011

On June 17, 2011, Best Buy and civil rights lawyers announced a settlement of an employment discrimination class action brought on behalf of women and minority employees of Best Buy. On November 9, 2011, the Court approved the settlement.

Through the settlement, Best Buy agreed to changes to its personnel policies and procedures that will enhance the equal employment opportunities of the thousands of women, African Americans, and Latinos employed by Best Buy nationwide. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that “Best Buy’s commitment to these changes makes it a ‘best in class’ employer of women and minorities and a leader in the areas of diversity and inclusion.” Best Buy said that these changes are part of Best Buy’s continuous improvement of its employees’ experience and the systems which support that experience.

Background on the litigation

The lawsuit, filed in December 2005, alleged that Best Buy discriminates against women, African-American, and Latino employees of Best Buy retail stores in the United States by denying them promotions and more lucrative sales positions. Best Buy has denied any wrongdoing throughout the litigation.

In reaching this proposed settlement, the parties agreed that it was in the interest of Best Buy, the plaintiffs, and the employee classes to resolve the matter through a settlement that provides injunctive relief to all class members, rather than to proceed with litigation.

The case was Holloway v. Best Buy, Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-05056-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

McCormick & Schmick’s Restaurants Race Discrimination

Employment law and employee rights cases

Result: $2.1 million settlement
Year: 2008

Wynne, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc. Race Discrimination Lawsuit

In August 2008, the Court granted final approval to a settlement valued at $2.1 million, including substantial injunctive relief, for a class of African-American restaurant-level hourly employees.

The consent decree created hiring benchmarks to increase the number of African Americans employed in front of the house jobs (e.g., server, bartender, host/hostess, waiter/waitress, and cocktail server), a registration of interest program to minimize discrimination in promotions, improved complaint procedures, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

Adecco Vacation Pay Class Action

Employment law and employee rights cases

Result: $3.1 million settlement
Year: 2006

Senior v. Adecco USA, Inc.; and Hyatt v. Adecco USA, Inc. Employee Vacation Pay Lawsuit

In April 2006, Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, won final court approval of two class action settlements on behalf of Adecco USA, Inc. (“Adecco”) employees in California denied vacation benefits wrongfully withheld by Adecco, the nation’s largest staffing agency.

The cases involved both full-time (“colleague”) employees (in Senior v. Adecco USA, Inc., Case No. CGC 04-431031 (S.F. Co. Sup. Ct.)) and temporary employees (in Hyatt v. Adecco USA, Inc., Case No. RG05198979 (Alameda Co. Sup. Ct.)). Read the final settlement approval order in the Senior case or read the final settlement approval order for the Hyatt case .

Over 500 Class members in the Senior case were paid over $700,000 in compensation for the vacation benefits they were wrongfully denied.

Over 15,000 Class members in the Hyatt case were paid $2,400,000 in compensation for the vacation benefits they were wrongfully denied.

These benefits were paid out during the summer of 2006 by the claims administrator, Gilardi & Co.

Inter-Con Security Services Wage & Hour Lawsuit

employees

Result: $4 million settlement
Year: 2008

Adams v. Inter-Con Security Services Employee Wage & Hour Lawsuit

On February 25, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the Northern District of California granted final approval to the class action settlement in Adams v. Inter-Con Security Services.

Specifically, Inter-Con has agreed to pay $4,000,000 to a class of approximately 15,000 current and former Inter-Con Security Officers nationwide. Inter-Con has also agreed to cease the unlawful practices. (This class action settlement is separate from the Williams v. Inter-Con and Ferris v. Inter-Con cases, which together were settled for $2,500,000 recently in Los Angeles Superior Court. Those cases involved current and former Security Officers working in California only.)

Summary of Lawsuit Allegations Against Inter-Con Security

In the complaint filed September 5, 2006, Plaintiffs charged that Inter-Con unlawfully required its Security Officers to attend 15-minute security briefings prior to each 8-hour shift, without paying them. New employees were also required to attend several hours of unpaid orientation and training. Additionally, Security Officers were not paid interest on deposits made for their required uniforms.

Plaintiff Roy Adams worked as a security guard protecting the South San Francisco Kaiser hospital from June 2004 until January 2008. Adams stated, “I’m bringing this suit to ensure that my coworkers and I get paid properly for all the work we do. I’ve been in security and law enforcement for many years, and I like knowing that I’m helping protect my neighbors. But we can’t afford to work for free.”

Inter-Con Employee Class Definition

The settlement includes all Inter-Con security officers employed on a non-U.S. State Department (UPSP) contract:

  • in California between September 5, 2002 and October 29, 2007; or
  • in Illinois and/or Maryland between January 29, 2004 and October 29, 2007; or
  • in any other state between September 5, 2003 and October 29, 2007

Settlement Awards and Injunctive Relief (Policy Changes):

In April 2008, the Claims Administrator sent award checks to the class members who submitted valid claim forms in accordance with the process set forth by the Court in the February 2008 settlement order.

In addition to making $4,000,000 in payments to class members, Inter-Con has also given notice that they will cease to require unpaid off-the-clock work, and will now pay interest on uniform deposits.

Wells Fargo IT Workers Overtime

Computers

Result: $6.72 million settlement
Year: 2011

Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co. IT Workers Overtime Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel on behalf of approximately 330 I/T workers who alleged that Wells Fargo had a common practice of misclassifying them as exempt and failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked in violation of federal and state overtime pay laws. In April 2011, the Court granted collective action certification of the FLSA claims, and approved a $6.72 million settlement of the action.

Settlement checks were mailed to class members on June 21, 2011.

Lieff Cabraser Has Recovered Over $100 Million in Overtime Pay for Tech Workers

In recent years, our firm (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP), along with co-counsel, has represented technical support workers seeking to recover overtime pay in similar class action cases. Such cases have resulted in settlements for the technical support workers, including: $24 million for IT workers at Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) in 2005, $12.8 million for BSCs at Wells Fargo in 2007, $65 million for IT workers at IBM in 2007, and $7.7 million for IT workers at Cadence in 2008.

Cadence Design Systems Overtime

Computers

Result: $7.6 million settlement
Year: 2008

Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Unpaid Employee Overtime Lawsuit

In July 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $7.664 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former technical support workers for Cadence seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that Cadence illegally misclassified its employees who install, maintain, or support computer hardware or software as “exempt” from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws.

Farmers Insurance Exchange

Employment law and employee rights cases

Result: $8 million settlement
Year: 2010

In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, MDL No. 1439 (D. Ore.).

Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented claims representatives of Farmers’ Insurance Exchange seeking unpaid overtime. Lieff Cabraser won a liability phase trial on a classwide basis, and then litigated damages on an individual basis before a special master. The judgment was partially upheld on appeal. In August 2010, the Court approved an $8 million settlement.