Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker Jackson, P.C.

Wage & Hour Cases

Investigations

Vacation Pay Class Actions

Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., has successfully represented workers in numerous vacation pay class actions in California and Illinois. We have obtained forfeited vacation pay for more than 50,000 class members, including former employees of Providian, Adecco, Sodexho, CKE Restaurants, Bakers Square, and Gottschalks.

We are currently investigating several California, Illinois and Maryland employers in the retail, fast food and temporary staffing industries with “use it or lose it” vacation pay policies or vacation pay policies that delay accrual of vacation time until year-end .

If you are an individual with a potential vacation pay, Paid Time Off, overtime pay or other employment-related question, please contact Dan Feinberg or Todd Jackson.

back to top

Current Cases

Arrez v. Kelly Services, Inc. Case No. 07-cv-01289

Final Approval of KSI Settlement. On October 8, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of the class action settlement in Arrez v. Kelly Services, Inc., making the $11 million settlement one of the largest wage-and-hour class action settlements ever achieved for an Illinois-only class. The named plaintiffs alleged that Kelly Services, Inc., violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to pay class members for all of the unused vacation time that they had earned in their final paychecks. In addition, the Complaint alleged that Kelly Services, Inc. had failed to provide proper Wage Payment and Notice, as required by the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. Class members filed 27,316 timely Claim Forms to participate in the settlement.

For more information, contact Daniel Feinberg.

Kairy, et al. v. SuperShuttle Inc., et al. Case No. 08-02993 JSW, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. along with co-counsel, represent current and former SuperShuttle California van drivers. Plaintiffs contend that SuperShuttle has misclassified the van drivers as “franchisees” and/or “independent contractors” rather than as employees. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiffs claim that SuperShuttle has violated California law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay overtime and minimum wage, failing to reimburse the drivers for business expenses, taking wrongful deductions from drivers’ pay, forcing drivers to make certain purchases from Defendants, and failing to provide lawful meal breaks.

On April 9, 2009, the Court conditionally certified the federal FLSA claims in this lawsuit as an opt-in collective action of individuals who drove passenger vehicles for SuperShuttle in California during the period commencing April 9, 2006 to the present. Pursuant to this ruling, such individuals can participate in the FLSA claims in this lawsuit if they submit a Consent to Join Collective Action that is postmarked on or before September 30, 2009.

Plaintiffs’ claims under California law are brought as a class action on behalf of the same individuals.

For more information, contact Kirsten Scott or Julia Campins, or review the case documents below.

Helgren v. Amgen, Inc. Case No. 06-07182, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., Case No. 06-01985, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, along with co-counsel, represent current and former pharmaceutical representatives in several class action lawsuits seeking to recover for unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs claim that defendants of violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage and hour laws by failing to pay overtime.

For further information about the case, please contact Todd Jackson or Jim Keenley.

Gutierrez v Schmid Insulation Contractors Inc., et. al. Case No. CV 07-5852-GW

Case description

A settlement in this class action for construction workers was granted final approval by U.S. District Court Judge Dale Fischer of the Central District of California on March 10, 2009. Workers will begin receiving settlement checks by mail in mid-April.

The suit was filed on behalf of certain current and former California employees. The settlement resolves all of the named plaintiffs’ and affected employees’ wage claims against defendants in exchange for an $8.5 million payment.

While the Companies deny any liability, the suit alleged violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The lawsuit did not involve any claims or allegations of unlawful discrimination.

The class, as finally approved by the Court, includes current and former California installers who worked for Western Insulation, L.P., at any time from October 13, 2002, to September 30, 2008; for Schmid Insulation Contractors, Inc., from October 13, 2002, to December 31, 2007; and for Masco Contractor Services of California, Inc., at any time from January 1, 2008, until September 30, 2008.

The measures contained in the settlement include:

  • Affected current and former employees will be entitled to monetary compensation from a fund created by the settlement.
  • The amount received by the affected employees will depend on the individual employee’s length of covered employment and his or her specific job and wage rate.
  • Affected employees will begin receiving their checks by mail, without having to fill out any claim forms.
  • Affected employees are encouraged to call 888-546-7439, with any questions about the settlement.

For more information contact Todd Jackson or Catha Worthman, view the press release (Spanish) about the settlement, or review case documents listed below.

In Re: Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation MDL Docket No. 1439 (All Cases)

For more information on the status of this litigation, please see www.farmersovertime.com.

In re: American Family Mutual Insurance Company Overtime Pay Litigation MDL Case No. 1743, United States District Court for the District of Colorado

In a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Denver, Colorado, plaintiffs charge that American Family Mutual Insurance Company has a common practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its auto property damage claim adjusters in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime laws of four states. The plaintiffs allege that American Family Mutual Insurance Company unlawfully characterizes the claims adjusters as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay.

For further information about the case, please www.americanfamilyovertimelawsuit.com or contact Todd Jackson.

back to top

Significant Past Cases

Giannetto, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp. Case No. 03-CV-8201 TJH

On April 21, 2005, Counsel for plaintiffs announced that the parties have reached a settlement of an overtime pay class action lawsuit against Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) on behalf of a group of technology workers. The settlement, approved by U.S. District Court Judge George P. Schiavelli of the Central District of California, resolved all of the named plaintiffs’ and class members’ overtime claims against CSC in exchange for the payment by defendants of $24 million.

The settlement included all persons who worked for CSC as an Associate Member of Technical Staff (“S01”), Member of Technical Staff B (“S02”), Member of Technical Staff A (“S03”), Senior Member of Technical Staff (“S04”), or Computer Scientist (“S05”) at any time between November 12, 2000, and April 1, 2005. The state law classes include the same persons from January 6, 2000, for all states (except New York and Maine), Guam, and Puerto Rico, for New York from October 1, 1998 and for Maine from January 6, 1998.

Counsel for named plaintiffs and class members are Todd Jackson and Margo Hasselman of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., along with co-counsel.

Rosenburg, et al., v. IBM Case No. C06-0430 (JCS)

In early 2006, Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson, along with co-counsel, filed suit against IBM, alleging that the company had failed to pay overtime to technology workers. In July of 2007, Judge Hamilton of the Northern District of California granted final approval of a settlement of $65 million for a class of present and former technology workers employed by IBM. The settlement covers technology workers at IBM who install, maintain or support computer software or equipment and who plaintiffs alleged IBM of failed to pay overtime wages.

For further information about the case, please contact Todd Jackson.

Vacation Pay for Providian Employees

On January 21, 2004, the California Superior Court in San Francisco gave final approval to the settlement of a class action suit seeking unpaid vacation pay on behalf of approximately 7,000 former employees of Providian Financial Corporation, Providian Bancorp Services, and First Select Corporation. The settlement provided $4.5 million in vacation pay to class members. Class payments were then mailed directly to class members, without requiring them to make claims or fill out paperwork. The Class was represented by Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker, & Jackson, P.C.; Levy, Ram & Olson, LLP; and William F. Adams Law Offices.

If you are an individual with a potential vacation pay, Paid Time Off, overtime pay or other employment-related question, please contact Dan Feinberg or Todd Jackson. We are currently investigating several California and Illinois employers in the retail and fast food industries with “use it or lose it” vacation pay policies or vacation pay policies that delay accrual of vacation time until year end.

Gerlach, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co. Case No. C-05-0585-CW, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Settlement Reached in Class Action Overtime Litigation. On January 19, 2007, the Northern California District Court gave final approval to a $12.8 million settlement of this class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of a group of information workers at Wells Fargo. The settlement resolves all of the named plaintiffs’ and class members’ overtime claims against Wells Fargo in exchange for the payment by defendants of $12.8 million. Current and former employees were paid from a fund created by the settlement.

The suit was filed by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and approximately 4,500 current and former Wells Fargo employees nationwide, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), California’s Unfair Competition Law and wage and hour laws, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Along with co-counsel, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C represented the named plaintiffs and class members. For more information, please contact Todd Jackson.

back to top