Thomas Lagos, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, and Does 1 through 100
Published: Nov. 24, 2017 | Result Date: Oct. 30, 2017 |Case number: 2015-CV-284784 Settlement – $8,400,000
Judge
Court
Santa Clara County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Peter R. Dion-Kindem
(The Dion-Kindem Law Firm)
Lonnie C. Blanchard III
(Blanchard Law Group APC)
Jeff Holmes
(Holmes Law Group APC)
Defendant
Michael T. Lucey
(Gordon & Rees LLP)
Mollie M. Burks
(Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP)
Facts
Thomas Lagos filed a wage and hour class action against the Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant allegedly violated labor laws and the applicable regulations by failing to pay workers for all wages owed, including overtime and waiting time wages. Defendant also allegedly failed to provide its workers with itemized wage statements.
Plaintiff filed this class action, alleging claims for failure to pay compensation for hours worked, meal period violations, rest period violations, waiting time wages, wage statement and record keeping violations, violations of business and professions code, wage statement violations, recovery of civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act, violation of Labor Code Section 970, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University denied the allegations and disputed any liability in the case. Stanford maintained throughout the pendency of the lawsuit that it has always complied with the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. As to plaintiff's claim that Stanford's use of "Stanford University" as its name on wage statements violated the Labor Code, even plaintiff's counsel characterized it as involving "technical violations". In its ruling approving the settlement, the court also observed that it was "far from clear" that plaintiff could have recovered "anything close to the maximum ... penalty" in this case, according to defense.
According to defense, the mandatory penalties the law imposes on California employers for inaccurate pay statements, coupled with the litigation costs, made it worth it this one time to settle the matter.
Result
The parties reached a settlement in the amount of $8.4 million, which includes a $50,000 PAGA payment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390