EXAMPLES OF CASES SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED/SETTLED
BY GARY G. GOYETTE
California Correctional Employees Wage and Hour Cases:
With the backing of the California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO), filed and litigated two class actions (Shaw et. al. v. state of California et. al. and Kuhn et. al. v. state of California et. al.) and later worked with attorneys Gregg Adam and David Godwin and their staff at two other law firms (Messing Adam and Jasmine and Squire Patton Boggs) with their two other coordinated class actions to obtain a historic $155 million dollar settlement against the state of California for overtime pay for pre and post shift time spent by correctional Sergeants (Sgts) and Lieutenants (Lts) performing required tasks outside their paid eight-hour shifts. The litigation of these class actions took over 15 years to complete, and required going all the way to the California Supreme Court on appeal to determine legal questions.
The class actions involved complex issues stemming from the ‘contract right’ to pay for time incurred performing required, compensable work tasks – – and in turn these contractual rights flowed from provisions in the California Constitution, together with the CalHR overtime policy and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policies governing the work by Sgts and Lts at over 30 adult institutions throughout the state. The claims were difficult to assert and litigate since for the most part California wage law does not apply to public employees, and the lawsuits could not be based on the federal wage law (the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)) due to the state having 11th Amendment Immunity- – meaning the state can’t be sued under federal law by its own employees. Further, California correctional Sgts and Lts, while hourly employees, do not have collective bargaining rights and therefore no claims existed under a collective bargaining agreement. Ultimately the California Supreme Court ruled that the state may be responsible for paying the Sgts and Lts for all ‘Duty-Integrated Walk Time’ or DIWT for required Pre and Post shift Work Activities (PPWA). With this ruling, and under a specific CDCR policy, the Sgts and Lts had to be treated as being ‘on pay’ status from the time they started their first required pre-shift duty-integrated work task until they finished their last required post-shift duty-integrated task.
So after the Supreme Court ruling, aggressive litigation, including additional written discovery, depositions, and detailed fact-gathering occurred for three more years, during which ‘example’ adult institutions were micro-analyzed to determine how, when and where the Sgts and Lts at all the various assigned ‘posts’ at the institutions performed required work tasks either before and/or after the designated start and end times of their paid 8.0 hour shifts. Such tasks typically included picking up and dropping off keys and tools (handcuffs, batons, pepper spray, etc.), signing in and out on time sheets, engaging in debriefing with Sgts and Lts ending the prior shift, and managing staff accountability for the upcoming shift.
After detailed summaries of the facts gathered, along with overtime pay and interest damages estimates done by an expert were provided to the attorneys for the state, the two sides reached the tentative $155 million settlement after a third day of mediation in July of 2022. Then, even the detailed settlement process for the four coordinated class actions took almost two years, since both preliminary and final approval of the settlement had to be obtained from the Court, all class members had to be notified of the settlement, and over 10,000 class members had to be provided the checks for their shares of the settlement – – including the beneficiaries of deceased class members.
After 15 years the litigation of these class actions successfully provided covered Sgts and Lts significant back damages. Further, while not part of the settlement agreement approved by the Court, the litigation ultimately led the state to start paying the correctional Sgts and Lts an extra 30 minutes of pay per day to cover the time spent on their required pre and post shift work tasks, making the historic settlement even more valuable.
Investment Banking Salaried/Exempt Misclassification Class Action:
Successfully litigated and settled a class action lawsuit against an investment banking firm and parent company involving statutory overtime pay owed for over one hundred employees misclassified as ‘salaried/exempt’ by the employer. After initial litigation, successfully settled the class action for over $1.7 million. Claims required gathering, assessing and presenting specific work rules and practices to show class members should have been treated as non-exempt, hourly employees.
County of Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant Class Action:
Successfully litigated and settled a class action lawsuit against the County of Sacramento seeking contract-based overtime pay for pre-shift and post-shift time incurred by wastewater treatment plant employees performing required yet unpaid tasks, including donning (dressing in) and doffing (taking off) protective clothing/gear and traveling to assigned work sites without being paid for the time. Over four years of litigation involved defending a demurrer, defeating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtaining Class certification, and eventually successfully settling the lawsuit for over $750,000 for the 75+ class members.
CalTrans/Tugboat Companies Class Action:
Successfully litigated and settled a prevailing wage class action lawsuit against CalTrans and multiple tugboat company employers. The lawsuit involved complex facts associated with tugboat work as part of the Bay Area bridge retrofits/repairs necessitated in part by the 1989 earthquake, and specifically whether such work by the tugboat Captains and Deckhands had to be paid (straight time and overtime pay) at prevailing wage rates. CalTrans was alleged as partially liable for not bidding the projects to include tugboat work at prevailing wage rates. Ultimately settled the class action for $5.2 million for hundreds of class members
Fresno County Fire Protection District Wage and Retaliation Lawsuit:
Investigated blatant retaliation by the District’s Fire Chief, then successfully litigated and settled a federal Court lawsuit for eight firefighters who were misclassified as ‘volunteers’, and then were terminated in retaliation for refusing to sign a written statement declaring they were ‘volunteers’, as demanded by the Fire Chief. The blatant and illegal retaliation, together with the failure by the District to understand how ‘volunteering’ is and is not allowed under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), resulted in the efficient litigation and settlement of the claims, and the District being required to return the individuals to their work for the District. The litigation also resulted in the District making broad changes in their approach such that over 100 alleged ‘volunteer’ firefighters were properly reclassified to ‘employees.’ [NOTE: similar to and stemming from this lawsuit Gary Goyette has represented firefighters in dozens of cases, including CA Labor Commissioner claims, in which local Districts, and even Cities, have violated the rules regarding ‘volunteer’ work by firefighters.]
Restaurant Chain Class Action for wage theft:
Successfully litigated and settled a class action against a Sacramento restaurant chain for over 100 bartenders and servers. At issue was the ‘practice’ by managers to remove small amounts of work time from the clock-in/clock-out electronic time records prior to each pay day; since bartenders and servers work primarily for their tips, the managers figured no employees would notice the subtracted time. Obtaining print outs of clock-in/out times and comparing to the hours shown on paycheck stubs, however, exposed the theft and led to settlement to recover lost pay for the class members.
Wage Claims for Refinery Workers:
Represented three safety workers at a major refinery, seeking overtime pay and related damages through wage claims filed with the California Labor Commissioner. The claims were based on the employer misclassifying the employees as ‘salaried/exempt’ when they should have been treated as hourly, non-exempt employees, eligible for overtime pay, meal periods, and other benefits. Presenting detailed testimony and documents at a multi-day hearing resulted in the Labor Commissioner awarding over a half million dollar award. True to stereotype, the ‘Big Oil’ employer did not accept the decision, appealed the claims to CA state Court, then removed two out of three to federal Court, and pushed the state Court case all the way through trial. After a one-week bench trial the Judge ruled in favor of the employee, after which the employer appealed the matter to the CA Court of Appeal. Finally, on the eve of the appeal hearing the employer agreed to settle all three claims/lawsuits to provide the majority of the monetary damages sought to the employees, while properly reclassifying them as non-exempt, hourly employees.
Gender-Based Pay Inequity Lawsuit:
Represented three female City of Modesto Employees on their gender-based pay inequity claims against the City. Despite the fact that the City’s own internal investigator concluded that gender-based pay inequities existed, in violation of applicable law, the City refused to resolve the claims and forced the filing and litigation of a civil action for the three employees. After all typical parts of litigation were completed, the case went all the way through a jury trial, at which Gary obtained a verdict in favor of the three employees. The City, however, made a motion for a new trial, which the Judge granted, based on allegations that facts related to three different female City employees also subject to gender-based pay inequities were impermissibly addressed in front of the jury. Ultimately the claims successfully settled via ordered mediation before the second trial occurred to provide the three employees with considerable monetary recovery. In the end the City spent over $600,000 on their attorneys to drag the case through the jury trial, only to pay out on the claims to the female employees.
Defense of Sexual Harassment Lawsuit:
Defended a lawsuit involving claims of sexual harassment against higher up managers of a large employer, including defending and taking key depositions, leading to successful settlement of the claims.
Multi-Plaintiff Vacation Pay Lawsuit for County Attorneys:
Represented union member County Attorneys to file and litigate a breach of contract lawsuit for over 40 attorneys, seeking improperly denied vacation pay. The claims were based on the vacation pay provisions in the collective bargaining agreement (the contract) between the attorneys’ union and the County, and more specifically on the fact that the County disregarding the agreed upon equation for the annual accrual of vacation hours, to provide less vacation than the amount owed to the attorneys. After the County denied the grievance procedure applicable to collective bargaining disputes, Gary aggressively litigated the civil action in Superior Court to ultimately recover the majority of the vacation hours sought in a successful settlement.
Defense of Employer against Meal Period Class Action:
Successfully defended in litigation and then resolved in mediation a class action lawsuit (with associated PAGA penalty claims) seeking pay for allegedly missed meal and rest periods. Successful presentation of detailed facts to an experienced mediator effectively rebutted the grossly inflated damages sought by the Plaintiff class, resulting in a fair settlement which minimized the liability against the employer.
These are just examples of some of the varied lawsuits Gary Goyette has successfully litigated for employees/Plaintiffs and has successfully defended for companies/employers. Gary remains litigating, defending and negotiating various pending lawsuits involving typical yet complex claims, including overtime pay for correctional supervisors, meal and rest periods for security guards, racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation against City employees, and various other claims.