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
Misclassification

Pablo Sanchez and Violet Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hearst Communications Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive

Published: Jun. 23, 2023 | Result Date: Dec. 19, 2022 | Filing Date: Jul. 27, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-05147-VC Settlement –  $950,000

Judge

Vince G. Chhabria

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jahan C. Sagafi
(Outten & Golden LLP)

Theanne Liu
(Outten & Golden LLP)

Finn Dusenbery
(The Ottinger Firm PC)

Robert W. Ottinger
(The Ottinger Firm PC)


Defendant

Parnian Vafaeenia
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

Paul J. Leaf
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

Richard B. Lapp
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

Camille A. Olson
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)


Facts

Pablo Sanchez and Violet Alvarez brought a class action and representative Private Attorneys General Act claim against Hearst Communications, Inc. The class included all persons who entered into only a home delivery agreement with Hearst in the State of California regarding newspapers, including, but not limited to, the San Francisco Chronicle, at any time during the class period, and who did not submit a timely and valid Opt-Out.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees; failed to pay plaintiffs for all hours worked; failed to compensate plaintiffs for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time; failed to provide plaintiffs with meal periods and rest periods; failed to provide plaintiffs with minimum wages and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate and complete records; failed to provide plaintiffs with accurate, itemized wage statements; failed to reimburse plaintiffs for business expenses; and committed unlawful business acts and practices through the aforementioned violations. Plaintiffs also sought penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions and argued they were without foundation or merit, including because the plaintiffs and putative class members freely and lawfully chose to contract with defendant as independent contractors. Defendant also contended that it fully complied with all applicable laws at issue in this matter.

Result

The case settled for $950,000.


#140963

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

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