Facts

Plaintiffs represented a class of workers who provided tutoring and behavioral intervention services for autistic children. The employees had to travel between various clients' homes and schools throughout the workday to meet with the clients. The workers all signed on-duty meal period agreements at the beginning of their employment and the employer accordingly did not schedule breaks into the workers' daily schedules.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant failed to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses incurred in driving between clients during the workday, such as gasoline, insurance, wear and tear on their vehicle, mileage and other travel expenses, and failed to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses incurred in faxing in or otherwise turning in timesheets at the end of each month. Plaintiffs also claimed defendant failed to provide adequate time during or between tutoring sessions to allow an opportunity to take off-duty rest and meal breaks, failed to pay for time spent at the end of the work day inputting data into various databases, and failed to pay for time spent mapping routes, failed to provide class members with a paystub accompanying their paycheck (that clearly identified how class members were being paid and what class members were being paid for), and failed to fully compensate class members for all wages due and owing at the time of termination or within 72 hours of resignation. Further, plaintiffs claimed defendants restricted class members from eating while working in the homes of clients, and paid for travel time based on an estimate from Google Maps and/or Mapquest that does not account for traffic and other delays, as opposed to paying for the full amount of time it took to commute between clients.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant claimed that it at all times complied with the California Labor Code and that its pay practices were legal.

Specifically, defendant contended that reimbursement for mileage, travel, facsimile, and other out-of-pocket expenses was included in the regular hourly rates of pay of class members and was factored into the equation when determining how much to pay class members. Defendant contended that it was not legally required to itemize on class members' itemized wage statements the amounts that were being paid as wages, as opposed to the amounts that were being paid, as reimbursement for mileage, travel, facsimile, and other out-of-pocket expenses. Defendant contended that the on-duty meal period agreements were valid and enforceable, that class members were at all times able to take rest and meal breaks if they so desired, and that class members were actually over-paid for their travel time because it often takes less time to travel places than the estimates provided by Google Maps and/or Mapquest. Defendant argued that even assuming any of its pay practices were unlawful, it did not "willfully" fail to pay wages upon termination or resignation because it had a good faith belief that its pay practices were legal.

Result

The parties entered into a class action settlement for $7,595,846 and other relief after plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The settlement included monetary payment and an agreement that defendant would modify its pay practices.

Other Information

The parties engaged in protracted settlement discussions over the course of a full year. The case was mediated in November 2013, which resulted in execution of a memorandum of understanding requiring payment of a gross settlement amount of up to $6 million on a claims-made basis with a potential reversion. The memorandum of understanding also set forth terms in which the defendant agreed to change its pay practices. The parties then had difficulty negotiating the final settlement terms and attended a full day mandatory settlement conference with the Fresno County Superior Court. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, but the court rejected approval primarily because of the potential reversion. In November 2014, the parties again sought the assistance of a mediator and reached a settlement for up to $8,070,000 with a potential reversion. However, terms of this most recent agreement provided that any reversion of funds would come out of class counsel's fee award, and would not in any way impact the funds payable to class members. The court approved these terms and the ultimate judgment entered was for $7,595,846, with $5,990,000 going to the class, $10,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, $1,497,500 in attorney fees, $23,346 in costs, $35,000 to the three class representatives, and $40,000 to the claims administrator, CPT Group, for administration costs. The class totaled 3,468 class members. Only two opted out of the settlement. Not a single class member objected to the settlement. FILING DATE: Dec. 12, 2011.