Class of Dow employees get $3.8M to settle pay claims

A class of current and former hourly employees under Dow Agrosciences LLC and The Dow Chemical Company have been granted final approval for a $3.8 million settlement to resolve claims the company violated labor codes by failing to provide and rest or meal breaks to its workers operating on 12-hour shifts.

Dow, one of the largest chemical producers in the world, has a manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, where the 223 class members were employed.

Attorneys from Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP and Gilbert & Sackman represent the class and named plaintiffs Jason Craig and Michael Ross. They did not respond to calls or emails requesting comment.

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero oversaw the case and awarded plaintiffs' counsel $950,000 in fees and over $21,600 in costs. Each class member was awarded more than $12,000 and no class member has objected or opted out, according to Spero's order. $40,000 was also taken out of the settlement amount to resolve penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, with $30,000 of that going to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Craig et al v. Corteva, Inc. et al., 3:19-cv-07923, (N.D. Cal., filed Dec. 03, 2019).

Defendants are represented by attorneys from Jackson Lewis PC in Sacramento. They did not respond to calls or emails requesting comment.

According to plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of settlement, the Pittsburg plant runs continuously, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, making products for agricultural operations and pest control services. It processes hazardous and flammable chemicals that require constant alert supervision to maintain the safety of workers and residents in the nearby communities.

"Certain employees, principally operators, who are scheduled to work 12-hour shifts, are required to operate and/or monitor the production process at all times. 12-hour shift employees are required to monitor their units, respond to upsets and critical events, and maintain the safe and stable operation of the units," plaintiffs said. "They are constantly and continuously responsible for their units, which includes monitoring the work in their unit, responding to all work-related calls, pages, radio communications and alarms, receiving and taking on continuous work demands, assisting maintenance workers and contractors with projects, and being in communication with supervisors and other employees."

Class members include all current and former hourly workers who worked these 12-hour shifts from Dec. 3, 2015 to Aug. 4, 2021, the date preliminary approval for settlement was granted. During those shifts, plaintiffs alleged they and other operators were not relieved of their duties at any point for rest or lunch breaks.

They said in court filings, "Plaintiffs and the other operators have neither been scheduled for 10-minute rest breaks nor provided designated relief in order to take such breaks. Similarly, they have neither been scheduled for 30-minute meal breaks nor provided designated relief in order to take such breaks. Defendants do not have a policy, practice, or system for providing relief to Plaintiffs and the other class members to allow them to take off-duty rest or meal breaks."