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

Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Dec. 18, 2020 | Result Date: Nov. 19, 2020 | Filing Date: Nov. 30, 2018 |

Case number: 18CV338652 Settlement –  $2,598,000

Judge

Brian C. Walsh

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robin G. Workman
(Workman Law Firm PC)

Rachel E. Davey
(Workman Law Firm PC)


Defendant

Reed E. Schaper
(Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP)


Facts

Alfred Lax was a non-exempt employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company (Roto-Rooter) who worked as a technician for the company. Lax traveled on behalf of Roto-Rooter to complete service requests and was compensated on a flat rate with potential commissions. Lax eventually initiated a class action suit against Roto-Rooter.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant failed to compensate them properly because they were not paid for overtime hours. In addition to improperly calculating plaintiffs' wages, defendant also failed to compensate them for the mandatory requirement to log in 45 minutes before the start of their shifts on the phones provided by defendant. Plaintiff also did not receive accurate wage statements or meal breaks as required by law. As a result, plaintiffs contended that defendant violated the labor code and was liable to plaintiff for damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions but agreed to settle the class claims in lieu of litigation.

Result

The court approved a $2,598,000 between the parties that included attorney fees of up to $825,000.


#136210

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

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