Kim v. Citigroup-Class Action Defense Cases: Forfeiture Aspect Of Capital Accumulation Plan Did Not Violate State’s Wage Act Illinois Court Holds

Trial Court Erred in Finding that Employees Voluntary Participation in a Capital Accumulation Plan Violated Illinois Wage Act Because of Two-Year Forfeiture Period

Plaintiff filed a class action against Citigroup, Travelers Group, Primerica Financial Services, Salomon Smith Barney Holdings and Salomon Smith Barney alleging that a voluntary capital accumulation plan (CAP), whereby a portion of employee compensation and wages were paid in the form of restricted stock, violated Illinois labor laws because the CAP contained a two-year forfeiture period. Kim v. Citigroup, Inc., ___ N.E.2d ___, 2006 WL 2796362 (Ill.App. September 29, 2006). Plaintiff argued that the forfeiture of a portion of the stock upon termination of employment violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“the Act’), which requires that employees be paid all earned wages upon termination of employment. Defense attorneys argued that the CAP program is for the benefit of employees and does not violate state law. The trial court sided with plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed.

Plaintiff was a financial consultant for Salomon Smith Barney with responsibility for managing $30-$40 million in assets. He voluntarily agreed to participate in the CAP, which he believed to be “an innovative and attractive savings vehicle.” Slip Opn., at 2. Plaintiff elected to have 10% of his compensation paid in the form of restricted stock, which allowed him to receive Citigroup stock at a 25% discount subject to a two-year vesting period. Id., at 2-3. When plaintiff left to join UBS Paine Webber, Salomon Smith Barney kept the unvested shares of his CAP stock, which represented approximately $18,000 in earned wages. Id., at 3.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Pennsylvania Jury Finds Wal-Mart Liable In Employee Overtime/Rest Breaks Class Action Case And Awards $78 Million In Damages Plus Attorney Fees

Defense Attorneys Plan to Appeal Jury Verdict that Wal-Mart Failed to Provide Employees with Rest Breaks and Overtime, and that Wal-Mart Acted in Bad Faith

The jury is in on a labor law class action on behalf of 187,000 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club employees brought in Pennsylvania state court. The lawsuit alleged that employees were not provided rest breaks and were required to work “off the clock,” depriving them of overtime pay. The jury awarded $78.5 million in damages, and that figure may be dramatically increased because the jury also found that Wal-Mart acted in bad faith, opening the door to an additional $62 million in damages, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers. The jury agreed with defense attorneys that Wal-Mart had not forced employees to work through meal breaks. Several news sources have reported on the verdict, including Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times and James Covert of the Wall Street Journal.

Class Actions In The News Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

IBM Class Action Defense Case-Syverson v. IBM: General Release And Covenant Not To Sue Created Confusion In Employee Layoff Agreement Rendering Waiver Of ADEA Claims Unenforceable Ninth Circuit Holds

Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court Judgment Enforcing Employee Waiver of ADEA Claims Because Language was not “Written in a Manner Calculated to be Understood by an Average Individual Selected by IBM for Employment Termination” and so was not “Knowing and Voluntary”

A putative class action was filed against IBM based on the allegation that an employee layoff program violated the federal Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Syverson v. International Business Machines Corp., 461 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 2006). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint based on the executed wavier of ADEA claims and covenant not to sue signed by the plaintiffs as part of the layoff program. Id., at 1150. The district court granted the defense motion to dismiss the class action, but the Ninth Circuit reversed.

In 2001, as part of a workforce reduction plan, IBM offered employees that had been selected for termination severance pay and benefits if they executed a “Microelectronics Resource Action (MERA) General Release and Covenant Not To Sue.” Syverson, at 1149. Plaintiffs filed age discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the EEOC dismissed the charges because it found that “the MERA Agreement satisfies the OWBPA’s minimum requirements for ‘knowing and voluntary’ waiver of ADEA rights and claims and is enforceable, thus depriving the employees of their right to pursue their age discrimination claims.” Id., at 1150. The EEOC issued plaintiffs notices of right to sue, and they commenced a putative class action challenging, in part, “the MERA Agreement’s use of both a release covering ADEA claims and a covenant not to sue excepting them, the pairing of which allegedly caused confusion over whether ADEA claims were excepted from the release.” Id.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Koehl v. Verio-Class Action Defense Cases: Class Representatives Hit With Damages And Half-Million Dollar Attorney Fee Award By California Court After Losing Labor Law Class Action Against Former Employer

California Court Holds that Compensation Scheme Permitting Chargebacks Against Monies Advanced Against Unearned Commissions did not Violate State Labor Laws Because Such Commissions were not Wages

Four former employees filed a class action in California state court against internet service provider Verio for violations of California’s labor laws on the grounds that Verio’s compensation scheme – which provided for a base salary, plus commissions that were subject to charge backs under certain conditions – violated California Labor Code § 221 because the commissions were wages. Koehl v. Verio, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 749, 751 (Cal.App. 2006). “The complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) commission chargebacks in violation of Labor Code sections 221, 223, 225 and 400-410; (2) waiting penalties pursuant to section 203; and (3) unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 _et seq._” _Id._, at 759 (footnote omitted). Verio cross-complained against the class representatives for commissions recoverable as charge-backs under the compensation scheme, _id._ The trial court agreed that the commissions were not wages, awarded the employer compensatory damages (for overpayment of unearned commissions) and prejudgment interest totaling more than $250,000, and awarded the employer more than $548,000 in attorney fees. _Id._, at 759-60. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

NLRB Decision In Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB No. 37, Clarifies Definition Of “Supervisor” Under Section 2(11)–Class Action Defense Issues

The NLRB issued a broad and long-awaited decision on September 29, 2006 which affects the definition of “supervisor” under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB NO. 37, and two other companion cases, impact all industries and could undermine the power of labor unions as millions of employees could potentially be re-classified as “supervisors.” As “supervisors,” these employees would be precluded from joining unions and would no longer be covered by collective bargaining agreements. Not surprisingly, labor unions are in an uproar over the Oakwood Healthcare decisions. They have called them “outrageous” and are threatening strikes against employers who re-classify employees under the new decisions.

Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as an employee who has the authority to perform any of 12 tasks in the interest of the employer while using independent judgment. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court provided general guidance on the definition of “supervisor” under Section 2(11) in NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706 (2001). Using Kentucky River‘s guiding principles, the NLRB clarified the definition of “supervisor” under Section 2(11). In a well-written and thorough decision, the NLRB defines previously ambiguous terms such as “assign,” “responsibly to direct,” and “independent judgment” as used in Section 2(11).

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Goin v. Bass Pro: Defense Removal Of Class Action To Federal Court Improper Because Lawsuit Arose Under Workers’ Compensation Law

Tennessee Federal Court Grants Motion to Remand Because 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) Prohibits Removal of Actions “Arising Under the Workmen’s Compensation Laws”

Following a work-related injury, a store manager retained a lawyer to negotiate a workers’ compensation settlement with her employer. She maintains that her employer retaliated and ultimately fired her. Her attorney filed a putative class action in state court against her employer alleging “reprisal and/or retaliatory discharge for asserting workers’ compensation rights.” Going v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 437 F.Supp.2d 762, 764 (W.D. Tenn. 2006). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court on grounds of diversity; plaintiff’s lawyer moved to remand the lawsuit on the grounds that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) prohibited removal. Id. The district court rejected defense arguments and remanded the class action to state court.

The district court explained that the general rules governing removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 do not apply to actions “arising under the workmen’s compensation laws,” as such actions are specifically exempted from removal under § 1445(c). Goin, at 765-66. The question, then, is whether plaintiff’s lawsuit “‘arises under’ the [state’s] workers’ compensation laws, which in turn hinges upon the legal source of the cause of action at issue.” Id., at 766. The controlling authority for this inquiry is the Sixth Circuit opinion in Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004).

Employment Law Class Actions Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Boeing Class Action Defense Case-Carpenter v. Boeing: Federal District Court Orders In Labor Law Class Action Decertifying Subclass And Granting Defense Motion For Summary Judgment Affirmed By Tenth Circuit

Tenth Circuit Holds that Interlocutory Review of Class Certification Orders Must be Sought within 10 days of Initial Order, not Order Denying Reconsideration, and that Plaintiffs’ Statistical Evidence Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case of Disparate Impact Because Males may have Worked more Overtime Hours for Reasons Other than Gender

Female employees filed a putative employment class action in federal district court alleging Title VII Civil Rights Act sex discrimination against Boeing on theories of both disparate impact and disparate treatment. Following substantial litigation, that included class certification of certain subclasses, the district court granted a defense motion for summary judgment as to the “hourly” wages subclass “disparate impact” overtime claim. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling – which the district court certified as a final judgment under FRCP Rule 54(b) – and several other class-certification ruling. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006).

The Circuit Court began with the class certification rulings, noting that interlocutory appeal of class certification orders may be granted only if sought within 10 days of entry of the order. Carpenter, at 1189 (citing FRCP Rule 23(f)). In this appeal, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the district court granted in part and denied in part. Almost a year later, plaintiffs filed a “Renewed Motion for Class Certification”; the motion was denied. A few months later plaintiffs filed a “Second Renewed Motion for Class Certification”; this, too, was denied and plaintiffs filed their Rule 23(f) application within 10 days thereafter. Id., at 1188. Boeing argued that the application was untimely, id., at 1189; the Circuit Court agreed and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, id., at 1190-92.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Bickley v. Caremark: ERISA Class Action Plaintiff Properly Required To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Eleventh Circuit Holds

Circuit Court Affirms District Court Order Granting Defense Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Complaint Because Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

An employee filed a putative ERISA class action on behalf of his employer’s health insurance plan against the Pharmacy Benefits Manager alleging breach of fiduciary duties for profiting from “undisclosed discounts, rebates, coupons and other forms of compensation from drug companies and pharmacies.” The district court granted the defense motion to dismiss the class action with prejudice because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., 461 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006).

The Circuit Court summarized the allegations in plaintiff’s class action complaint at page 1328 as follows:

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Trezvant v. Fidelity-Class Action Defense Cases: Massachusetts Federal Court Grants Defense Motion To Partially Dismiss Class Action That Sought Overtime Pay Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) And New Hampshire State Law

Massachusetts District Court Grants Joint Motion To Decertify Class And Grants Defense Motion To Dismiss New Hampshire State Law Class Action Overtime Claims

Salaried employees filed a putative class action alleging that they were misclassified as exempt and seeking overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and under New Hampshire state law. Trezvant v. Fidelity Employer Servs. Corp., 434 F.Supp.2d 40 (D. Mass. 2006). During the litigation, the Massachusetts federal district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to conditionally certify an FLSA class action, and a defense motion to dismiss the state law claims contained in the class action complaint. Later still, the district court granted a joint motion to decertify the class because only a few class members opted into the lawsuit. The court then issued a single memorandum discussing these rulings. Id., at 42.

Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Saxton v. Title Max: Certification Of Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class Action Denied For Failure To Demonstrate That Class Members Desired To Opt-In And That Plaintiffs Are Similarly Situated Alabama Court Holds

Defense Attorneys for Employer Successfully Defeat Plaintiff Lawyer’s Motion to Conditionally Certify Class on Grounds that Employees Failed to Meet Eleventh Circuit’s Two-Part Dybach Test

Employees filed a putative class action alleging overtime pay violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Saxton v. Title Max of Alabama, Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 1185 (N.D. Ala. 2006). Over defense objections, the employees sought conditional class certification and permission to send notice of the class action to class members. The lawsuit alleged that the employer’s assistant managers were systematically denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, id., at 1186, despite the fact that the employer “has a policy, which store managers are directed to enforce, that assistant managers are not to work over 40 hours in a week,” id., at 1188. The district court agreed with class action defense attorneys that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the two-part test enunciated in Dybach v. State of Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 942 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1991), and therefore denied the motion.

Certification of Class Actions Class Action Court Decisions Employment Law Class Actions Uncategorized