Overtime Lawsuits Against the Big 4

Q: What's better for your health than sitting in a cubicle hunched over laptop staring at glaring white spreadsheets in dim light for 8 hours every day for years on end?


A: Sitting in a cubicle hunched over laptop staring at glaring white spreadsheets in dim light for 18 hours every day for years on end -- and not getting paid for it!

Before:



After:

There are currently a number of class action lawsuits pending against the Big 4 relating to the firms' practice of not paying overtime wages to junior-level accountants. For example, several lawsuits pending against E&Y in California allege that E&Y is inviolation of California overtime wage and break period laws. The cases have been consolidated before Judge Jeremey Fogel in the Northern District of California. (If you have a Pacer login, see Case No. 05-04867-JF.) Here are excerpts from the operative complaint in one of the actions:


During all times relevant herein, the class members supported the business of Defendant by working under the direction of their superiors, the managers and partners of the defendant. Such work involved the class members assisting their superiors in the production of the products and services provided by the defendant’s business to its customers. The great majority of such work by the class members included, but was not limited to, secretarial, clerical, and data entry support work, including filing papers, organizing and assembling documents, taking notes of meetings, entering spreadsheet data and formatting spreadsheets, and similar tasks requiring very little or no exercise of independent judgment or discretion or any advanced professional degree or license or the prior completion of any extended course of academic or technical studies in any art or science.

Defendant compensated the named plaintiffs and the class members on a “salary only” basis whereby the named plaintiffs and the class members were paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during each week.

At all relevant times, the named plaintiffs and theplaintiff class members were required to work in excess of eight hours during the workday and in excess of 40 hours during the workweek and/or worked more than six consecutive days in a workweek.

During all relevant times the Wage Order No. 4 of the California Industrial Welfare Commission provided that “...nonexempt employees must be paid an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of eight during the workday and in excess of 40 during the workweek, as well as for work performed on the seventh workday in a work week....”

Although the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class members worked overtime as that term was defined in the relevant wage orders, Defendant failed and refused to pay the legally required state overtime premiums.

Throughout the above-described period Defendant repeatedly misrepresented to the members of the plaintiff class and the general public that the plaintiffs were “professional” or other sorts of employees exempt from the overtime laws of the State of California, the defendant also failing to require or have the class members take specified paid and/or unpaid meal and rest breaks as required by California law and did not pay the class members an hour of additional wages per day for such unreceived break time, as required by California law.

This misrepresentation and omission by the defendant gave defendant a competitive advantage over other employers who legitimately paid their workers the proper overtime wages and other wages required by California law and who also gave the employees the meal and rest breaks required by California law or the additional wages required by California law in lieu thereof.

Although the plaintiffs and the class members regularlyworked for amounts of time each day that would entitle them to the paid and unpaid rest and meal breaks provided for under California Labor Code Section 226.7 they often did not receive such daily rest and meal breaks and they did not receive one hour of additional pay on the days they did not receive such breaks.

For more information, you can contact the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in these actions:

Mark R. Thierman
Thierman Law Firm P.C.
7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511
775/284-1500 Fax: 775-703-5029
Email: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

Arthur William Lazear
Hoffman & Lazear
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550 Oakland, CA 94612
510 763-5700
Email: awl@hoffmanandlazear.com

Max Folkenflik
Folkenflik & McGerity
1500 Broadway 21st Floor New York, NY 10036 212-757-0400
Fax: 212-757-2010
Email: max@fmlaw.net

Ross L. Libenson , Esq.
Law Offices Ross L. Libenson
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550 Oakland, CA 94612
510-763-5700 Fax: 510-835-1311
Email: rll@hoffmanandlazear.com