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

Mark Ward, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seagate US LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Oct. 1, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 9, 2021 | Filing Date: Aug. 5, 2020 |

Case number: 20CV368917 Settlement –  $330,000

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Larry W. Lee
(Diversity Law Group PC)

Mai Tulyathan
(Diversity Law Group PC)

William L. Marder
(Polaris Law Group LLP)


Defendant

Thomas E. Geidt
(GBG LLP)

Jennifer P. Svanfeldt
(GBG LLP)

Aaron A. Hayes
(GBG LLP)


Facts

Mark Ward was formerly employed as an engineer for Seagate US LLC. Ward was considered a non-exempt employee, and was paid hourly. During his employment, Ward was routinely paid shift overtime wages, and various non-discretionary incentive wages, including shift premium wages. Ward, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an action against Seagate to challenge systemic and illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against employees of Seagate.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay and by failing to keep accurate records as to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants engaged in a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly denied employees the above stated rights and benefits. Specifically, defendants violated the Labor Code by failing to identify the applicable hourly rate of pay and corresponding hours worked whenever shift overtime and/or shift premium wages were paid. Instead, whenever said shift overtime and/or shift premium wages were paid to plaintiffs, defendants blatantly omitted both the applicable hourly rates of pay and hours worked used to calculate the corresponding wage statements.

DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions.

Result

The case settled for $330,000.


#137828

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

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