FedEx Drivers Win Class Cert. In Overtime Suit - April 30, 2009
By Erin Fuchs
Emploment.Law360, New York (April 23, 2009)—A federal judge in California has certified five subclasses of drivers alleging FedEx Corp. bilked them of pay for missed meal periods, off-the-clock work and working split shifts. Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the five subclasses Tuesday.
He denied a motion to approve a sixth class, though, which would have consisted of drivers alleging FedEx hadn't paid them for inaccurate wage statements or paid their full wages when they left the company.
Judge Henderson also stayed further proceedings on three of the subclasses pending a California Supreme Court review of two employment cases. The high court will determine whether the word "provide" necessitates that employers certify that workers take breaks or simply requires them to offer the opportunity.
The subclasses would consist of delivery drivers or couriers employed by FedEx between April 14, 2006, and the present, all of whom are claiming FedEx denied them wages.
Read More on first comment
3 comments:
Three of the subclasses relate to meal periods. The first consists of workers not paid for meal periods lasting less than 30 minutes. The second subclass consists of workers alleging they weren't paid for missed or untimely meal periods between April 14, 2006, and March 25, 2007.
The third meal-period sub-class, meanwhile, consists of drivers alleging FedEx didn't pay them for meal breaks taken after four and a half hours of work but before five and a half hours of work between March 36, 2007, and the present.
The fourth subclass approved by the judge alleges they never received the extra hour of pay that was due to them for working a split shift.
The final approved subclass consists of workers claiming they performed approved pre- and post-work activities off the clock without pay.
The FedEx drivers' meal claims relate to a California statute currently in dispute. The law requires employers who fail to provide a meal or rest period to pay the worker for an additional hour of work at their regular rate of pay.
California's wage law also requires employers who fail to provide meal or rest breaks in accordance with certain procedures - such as giving employers a 30-minute meal period for every five hours worked - also must compensate workers.
Two California courts of appeal have ruled that "provide" only means employers must make meal breaks available and not ensure workers take them.
But the California Supreme Court has recently granted review of the two cases.
"Accordingly, the court cannot interpret the statute in this regard, except to note that it is not necessary to rule on the meaning of 'provide' to resolve the current motion," Judge Henderson said.
Common issues predominate for the first five subclasses, the judge said. But he denied the sixth subclass relating to wage statements and separation pay because FedEx lacked proper notice on the claim.
Attorneys for the defendants and the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices of Daniel Feder.
FedEx is represented by Littler Mendelson.
The case is Paul Bibo et al. v. FedEx Corp., case number C 07-2505, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Dear Rudy and Joe, it was great to see you guys on the video on the IBT conference you guys keep sticking up for your fellow Fedex workers you guys are doing a great job. I think Fedex will be organized very soon. I enjoy telling other Fedex drivers out on the street about you guys, the website, and about how Fedex tried to take my health benefits away from my family. Great Job
olso combo drivers are part of the law suit they should receive part of the of the cash let them know that they are included in the law suit becouse they worked for free for a long time without getting pay in traffic payback time now yeaaaa
Post a Comment