Events

We periodically update this page with recent events from some of our cases. For more information, please contact us.

On May 7, 2008, the Northern District court granted final approval to a $1.7 million settlement in a federal and state class action lawsuit against EMD Serono, Inc. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, filed Engel v. EMD Serono, Inc., in U.S. District Court for the Northern District in January 2007. The $1.7 million settlement compensates approximately 50 EMD Serono Pharmacuetical Representatives for their unpaid overtime and related claims.
On March 20, 2008 in Chau v. Starbucks, Judge Patricia Yim Cowett of the San Diego County Superior Court awarded class members approximately $105 million in restitution and interest. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, represented a class consisting of over 120,000 current and former Starbucks Baristas who were required to pool their tips with their supervisors in violation of the California Labor Code.
Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff appeared as co-counsel in several federal class action lawsuits charging that certain pharmaceutical companies have a common practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its pharmaceutical representatives in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and certain state wage and hour laws. The proposed classes consist of thousands of current and former pharmaceutical representatives employed by Amgen, Boehringer, and EMD Serono across America. The plaintiffs, employees who promoted pharmaceutical products to medical professionals, allege that the pharmaceutical companies unlawfully characterize their employees as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay.
On July 12, 2007, the Northern District court granted final approval to a $65 million settlement in a federal class action lawsuit against International Business Machines Corp. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, filed Rosenburg v. IBM, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District in January 2006 on behalf of approximately 32,000 IBM Technical Services Professionals and Information Technology Specialists who were forced to work more than 40 hours per week and on weekends without overtime compensation. The $65 million settlement compensates the plaintiffs for their unpaid overtime and related claims.
On June 1, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a $3 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against NorthPoint Communications, Inc. In Gan v. Schoenmann (In Re: NorthPoint Communications, Inc.), the plaintiffs alleged that NorthPoint Communications Inc. violated the Workers Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act ("WARN Act") by failing to give 60-day notice before a mass layoff in March 2001. The $3 million payment from the bankruptcy estate compensates the plaintiffs for the missed 60-day notice.
On February 27, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California gave preliminary approval to a $3 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against NorthPoint Communications, Inc. In Gan v. Schoenmann (In Re: NorthPoint Communications, Inc.), the plaintiffs allege that NorthPoint Communications Inc. violated the Workers Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act ("WARN Act") by failing to give 60-day notice before a mass layoff in March 2001. The $3 million payment from the bankruptcy estate will compensate the plaintiffs for the missed 60-day notice.
On January 19, 2007, the Northern California District Court gave final approval to a $12.8 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought against Wells Fargo & Co. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, brought Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co. alleging that Wells Fargo unlawfully characterized its Business Systems Consultants and Business Systems Analysts as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay. The $12.8 million will compensate the plaintiffs for unpaid overtime and related claims. In addition, defendants will also pay the employer portion of payroll taxes due on wage payments to the plaintiffs.
On December 19, 2006, Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff filed a Complaint on behalf of current and former canvassers against Fund for Public Interest Research, Inc. alleging it failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of federal and state labor laws. The Complaint in Prentice v. Fund for Public Interest Research, Inc. charges that Fund illegally treats its employees --- who go door-to-door soliciting funds for and providing information about third-party advocacy groups --- as "exempt" under federal and state labor laws so it does not have to pay them overtime. The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to order Fund to pay canvassing employees for the overtime they have worked in the past, and to start paying overtime to employees who are eligible for it.
The Northern District court granted preliminary approval to $65 million settlement in a federal class action lawsuit against International Business Machines Corp. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, filed Rosenburg v. IBM, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District in January 2006 on behalf of approximately 32,000 IBM Technical Services Professionals and Information Technology Specialists who were forced to work more than 40 hours per week and on weekends without overtime compensation. The $65 million settlement, if finally approved by the Court, will compensate the plaintiffs for their unpaid overtime and related claims.
On February 14, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our clients’ motion to transfer an Illinois district court action to Colorado District Court for consolidated pretrial proceedings with Baldozier v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company. (Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, filed the Baldozier class action in October 2004 alleging that American Family Mutual Insurance Company unlawfully characterizes its auto property damage claims adjusters as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay). Like Baldozier, the Illinois District Court action seeks to recover unpaid overtime for American Family Mutual Insurance Company’s auto property damage claims adjusters.
On January 25, 2006 plaintiffs represented by Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff won their appeal in Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange regarding calculation of prejudgment interest. The California Court of Appeal has affirmed in full the Superior Court's order denying Farmers' request to reduce the prejudgment interest applied to pre-2001 overtime claims from 10% to 7%. Accordingly, on June 23, 2006, a third and final distribution of the approximately $10 million set aside pending the outcome of this appeal was mailed to those members of the Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange class of Personal Lines Claims Representatives who worked for Farmers in class positions in California at some time between October 1, 1993 and the date of trial in this case (June 26, 2001) and submitted approved claims.
On January 13, 2006, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval to a class action settlement in Dudley v. SBC Communications. The settlement provided for more than $6.2 million in monetary damages for current and former SBC Communications employees who plaintiffs allege were subject to illegal leave policies. The settlement also provided for paid days off for certain current employees and required SBC Communications to take corrective action with regards to its California Family Rights Act and Family Medical Leave Act policies.
On December 16, 2005, Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff filed a Complaint on behalf of current and former Homegain.Com and Classified Ventures sales employees against Homegain.Com and Classified Ventures alleging that they failed to pay overtime wages and failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California labor laws. The Rodriguez v. Homegain, Inc. Complaint charges that, until recently, Homegain.Com and Classified Ventures illegally treated its sales employees as "exempt" under state labor laws so they could avoid paying them overtime. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Homegain.Com and Classified Ventures to pay their sales employees for the overtime they have worked in the past, and for their missed meal and rest periods.
On August 5, 2005, the Colorado District Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action in Baldozier v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, and granted plaintiffs’ motion to send notice of the pending Collective Action to American Family Mutual Insurance Company’s auto property damage claims adjusters.Plaintiffs in Baldozier v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company allege that American Family Mutual Insurance Company unlawfully characterizes its auto property damage claims adjusters as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay.
On August 4 and 5, 2005, in Astor v. Rent-a-Center, a Sacramento jury awarded Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff’s client, Marc Astor, $1,619,204 in damages on his retaliation and harassment claims. The award included $1 million in punitive damages.
On July 15, 2005, the Central District of California granted final approval to a class action settlement in Giannetto v. Computer Sciences Corporation. The settlement provided for $24 million in monetary damages for current and former Computer Sciences Corporation technical employees who plaintiffs allege were unlawfully classified as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay.
On June 30, 2005, an additional approximately $10 million was mailed to those members of the Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange class of Personal Lines Claims Representatives who worked for Farmers in class positions in California at some time between October 1, 1993 and the date of trial in this case (June 26, 2001) and submitted approved claims. This $10 million represents the second distribution from the damages award; the first distribution on March 28, 2005 totaling approximately $114.2 million.
On June 6, 2005, approximately $27.5 million was mailed to those members of the Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange settlement class of Personal Lines Claims Representatives to settle all claims for post-June 26, 2001 (i.e., post-trial) overtime – as well as potential claims for additional wage and hour law violations from September, 2000 to August 31, 2004.
On May 6, 2005, the Northern District of California ruled in plaintiffs’ favor and reversed an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the case, Gan v. Schoenmann (In Re: NorthPoint Communications, Inc.). The Gan plaintiffs allege that NorthPoint Communications Inc. violated the Workers Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (“WARN Act”) by failing to give notice before a mass layoff in March 2001. Plaintiffs are seeking sixty days of back-pay from the bankruptcy estate.
On March 28, 2005, after more than eight years of hard-fought litigation, approximately $114.2 million in back pay and interest checks were mailed to those members of the Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange class of Personal Lines Claims Representatives who worked for Farmers in class positions in California at some time between October 1, 1993 and the date of trial in this case (June 26, 2001) and submitted approved claims.
On February 9, 2005, Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, filed a Complaint on behalf of thousands of current and former Wells Fargo employees with the title of Business Systems Consultants and Business Systems Analysts. In Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co., plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo unlawfully characterizes those employees as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay.
On October 20, 2004, Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, along with co-counsel, filed a class and collective action lawsuit filed in federal court, against American Family Mutual Insurance Company. Plaintiffs in Baldozier v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company allege that American Family Mutual Insurance Company unlawfully characterizes its auto property damage claims adjusters as exempt in order to deprive them of overtime pay.
On September 3, 2004, an Alameda Superior Court approved a plan for the final resolution of the largest overtime pay class action ever tried in the United States. The lawsuit, Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, was brought by Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff on October 1, 1996 on behalf of 2,402 claims adjusters who worked for Farmers Insurance Exchange in California. The jury entered a damages verdict on July 10, 2001 for about $90 million, which the Court of Appeal affirmed on February 9, 2004. Farmers agreed to pay the entire Judgment, including attorneys’ fees and accumulated interest. In addition, Farmers agreed to begin paying overtime to all California class members, and to pay up to $40 million more for overtime pay that was not included in the original Judgment, mostly for overtime hours worked after the 2001 trial.