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
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Period

Kellie Hopstein, on behalf of herself and other class members v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Enterprise Services LLC, and Does 3 through 10, inclusive

Published: Sep. 4, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 17, 2020 | Filing Date: Oct. 2, 2018 |

Case number: 17CV305577 Settlement –  $587,500

Judge

Patricia M. Lucas

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David R. Markham
(The Markham Law Firm)

Maggie K. Realin
(The Markham Law Firm)

Walter L. Haines
(United Employees Law Group PC)


Defendant

Marlene S. Muraco
(Littler Mendelson PC)


Facts

In 2013, plaintiff Kellie Hopstein worked as a software tester for defendant HP, Inc. She later moved to a different position as a business analyst. Initially, plaintiff was classified as an exempt employee, worked about 50 hours per week and occasionally worked during her meal and rest breaks. However, plaintiff did not have managerial duties and had no authority to hire or fire employees. In 2016, plaintiff was reclassified from an exempt employee to a non-exempt hourly employee. Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against defendant on behalf of other similarly situated individuals claiming that defendant misclassified plaintiff as an exempt employee and thus failed to pay meal breaks and rest breaks, failed to properly compensate for overtime pay and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant violated California wage and hour laws for misclassifying plaintiff as an exempt employee instead of an hourly non-exempt employee. Plaintiff contended that defendant failed to properly compensate plaintiff for meal and rest breaks, overtime pay and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied plaintiff's contentions.

Result

The case settled for $587,000, including $195,833.33 in attorney's fees, $20,000 in costs, $40,000 for PAGA, $3,500 in administration costs and $7,500 to the class representative.


#135382

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

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