This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Fair Labor Standards Act
Wage and Hour

Jose Ramirez, Luis Gomez, Marck Mena Ortega v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., Ghilotti Brothers Construction Inc.

Published: Oct. 26, 2013 | Result Date: Oct. 4, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:12-cv-04590-CRB Settlement –  $950,000

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gay C. Grunfeld
(Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP)

Robert B. Thompson

Wendy E. Musell
(Wendy Musell PC)

Jenny S. Yelin
(Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP)

Kathryn G. Mantoan
(Orrick, Herrington & Sucliffe LLP)

Elisa J. Stewart
(Stewart & Musell LLP)


Defendant

Michael J. Hassen
(Reallaw, APC)

An Nguyen Ruda
(Bartko LLP)


Facts

Defendant Ghilotti Bros. Inc. (GBI) is a construction firm based in San Rafael. Laborers Jose Ramirez, Luis Gomez, and Marck Mena Ortega, on behalf of a putative class, filed a class action against GBI alleging wage and hour violations under California state law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Charles R. Breyer conditionally certified a class for federal claims on April 25, 2013, struck all of GBI's affirmative defenses, and denied GBI's motion to dismiss.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that GBI has a policy and practice of failing to pay laborers for all hours worked. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that GBI did not afford all workers statutory rest and meal periods, did not pay all required overtime wages, and required some laborers to report to GBI's yard before the official shift start time to obtain equipment, verify its readiness, load it into a truck and transport it to the job site. After the official shift end time, these laborers were required to return the equipment from the job site to the yard, see to its maintenance as needed, and store it.

Plaintiffs alleged that laborers with these loading and transport duties were not paid for work performed before and after the official shift times.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendant failed to provide meal and rest breaks within the time frames required by Industrial Welfare Commission order 16-2001.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed that all wages due are paid to laborers and corrections are promptly made when laborers identify discrepancies in their wages.

Result

Defendant agreed to pay $950,000 to settle the matter and to injunctive relief including setting up a procedure to allow laborers to make a record of the time they start or end work. The settlement is to be paid in three installments.

Other Information

The settlement was signed on Aug. 8, 2013. The court entered a preliminary approval order on Oct. 4, 2013. FILING DATE: June 27, 2012 (State Court); removed by defendant in August 2012. MEDIATOR: Hon. William Cahill, retired, JAMS.


#118602

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390