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
Overtime Compensation
Retaliation

Donald MacLeod v. Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Retail Services Inc., Todd Zimmerman, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Apr. 18, 2015 | Result Date: Nov. 21, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:11-cv-00159-FMO-PLA Verdict –  $159,406

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joseph C. Markowitz


Defendant

David F. Faustman
(Fox Rothschild LLP)

Alan C. Chen
(Rimon Law)


Facts

Donald MacLeod sued his employer Emerson Retail Services Inc. relating to his overtime compensation.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Donald MacLeod alleged that he began working at Emerson on April 12, 2001. He worked as a Field-Refrigeration Specialist for about two years until he was transferred to Working Field Supervisor. During his time as Field-Refrigeration Specialist, he claimed that he worked approximately 11 hours a day, five days a week. He also claimed that he did not manage subordinate employees during this time. Emerson further alleged that as Working Field Supervisor, he also worked approximately 11 hours a day, five days a week. He claimed that his supervisorial duties during this time occupied no more than 10 percent of his time. He alleged that he was not an "exempt employee" under California law. On January 25, 2010, Emerson terminated MacLeod's employment. MacLeod asserted five causes of action including failure to pay overtime, retaliation, breach of implied-in-fact contract of employment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Emerson denied MacLeod's allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses. It asserted a counterclaim against MacLeod for patent infringement.

Result

The jury returned a verdict in MacLeod's favor, awarding him $101,565.52 in unpaid overtime compensation. He was also awarded $8,750 in waiting time penalties, and prejudgment interest of $49,090. His total award was $159,405.52. The jury also found against Emerson on its infringement claim.

Other Information

Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees is currently pending. FILING DATE: Jan. 25, 2011.


#118932

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

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