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
Compensations, Benefits
Wage and Hour

David McClendon, et al. v. Auto Club of Southern California

Published: Jul. 28, 2012 | Result Date: Apr. 26, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 05CC00227 Settlement –  $550,000

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Aashish Y. Desai
(Desai Law Firm PC)

David Borgen
(Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho)


Defendant

Michael A. Hood
(Jackson Lewis PC)


Facts

Plaintiffs sued the Auto Club for violation of the unfair competition law and violations of the Labor Code. These employees alleged they were misclassified as exempt and should be receiving overtime wages.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that Auto Club misclassified these worked as exempt employees, and therefore these employees were entitled to breaks, overtime, and other relief.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Auto Club claimed that it did not misclassify these workers, and class certification was not warranted in any event.

Result

The parties settled for $550,000.

Other Information

Plaintiffs sought certification of three subclasses comprising all IT personnel at the Auto Club (programmers, business analysts, and telephone support personnel), claiming that all of the more than 640 potential class members had been misclassified as exempt from overtime pay requirements. The trial court denied class certification of all three subclasses. The court of appeal affirmed the denial of the certification as to two subclasses (programmers and business analysts), but reversed as to the subclass of telephone support personnel who had been reclassified as non-exempt one year before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The parties settled as to this subclass. FILING DATE: Oct. 13, 2005.


#96273

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

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