Investors Launch Compliance Lawsuit against AMD et al in California

San Francisco, CA: The rights of employees and consumers alike to have unfettered use of firewall-protected computers without the threat of unwanted infiltration by hackers is now in focus with the filing of a class action compliance lawsuit against Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), one of the premiere manufacturers of microprocessors that power computers in homes and workplaces.

The lawsuit was brought by investors who claim losses due to an alleged failure on the part of AMD principles to reveal the security flaw, and misrepresented the value of its stock.

Compliance lawsuit asserts defendants were not forthcoming to investors

"Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies," the lawsuit states. "Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) a fundamental security flaw in AMD's processor chips renders them susceptible to hacking; and (ii) as a result, AMD's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times."

Two security flaws or 'exploits' in particular are at the heart of the compliance lawsuit, plaintiffs say. "Meltdown" allows access to passwords and other information by splicing in between an operating system and an application, whereas "Spectre" causes applications to leak information between programs that are usually isolated from one another.

That allows for data to be more easily hijacked.

The stakes are high. Both identified exploits are believed to be accessible in every AMD chip made (as well as those of Intel), and carries the potential to put private data at risk. It has been estimated by experts that almost every Central Processing Unit (CPU) manufactured in the last 10 to 20 years, could be affected, according to the lawsuit.

Patches, and fixes devised by various companies to safeguard their data and injected into their systems as automatic updates have been variously described as slowing down CPUs anywhere from five, to 30 percent and thereby negatively impacting productivity and increasing levels of stress - especially in a busy work environment where many tasks are deadline-oriented.

Does reduced productivity and increased stress violate employee rights?

Employee rights come into play with regard to the provision of workplace computers that serve to hamstring their productivity, due to the slowness of CPUs to respond. This can impact job performance.

The complaint names AMD as well as Lisa T. Su, the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices and Devinder Kumar, the chief financial officer (CFO), senior vice president and treasurer for the company.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in mid-January and seeks to represent anyone who purchased or acquired AMD shares between February 21 of 2017 and January 11, 2018. It presents claims of violations against guidelines and requirements mandated by the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs assert that defendants dropped the ball when it came to compliance requirements related to disclosure, resulting in false and misleading statements that may have impacted and falsely inflated the value of AMD stock, leading to losses.

The lawsuit is Does, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Lisa T. Su and Devinder Kumar, filed January 16, 2018 in US District Court for the Northern District of California. Named plaintiff(s), and the specific case number was not available at press time.

Ninth Circuit Revives California Lawsuit Over Unwanted Hugs

County of Yolo, CA: The recent rash of assault allegations and actual charges against the Hollywood elite, actors, media personalities and even members of US Congress have succeeded in raising the bar when it comes to proper office and workplace decorum and behavior. The issue has become so sensitive and emotionally-charged that an unwanted hug can be interpreted – many say, correctly – as a form of sexual assault. One well-known Hollywood studio head has recently taken a leave of absence voluntarily in order to reflect on his habit of providing warm hugs at the office. For the employer in California, employees rights and compliance to labor laws speaking to sexual and physical harassment are of paramount importance.

Back in February Reuters reported on the revival of a 2012 lawsuit over unwanted hugs in the workplace. The lawsuit, revived by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was resurrected long before the current spate of assault allegations aimed at the entertainment industry and the halls of government, was nonetheless prophetic of what is now an almost daily revelation in the headlines. The issue behooves the employer in California to not only be fully conversant with laws governing workplace conduct on a physical level, but to also ensure their employees are too. Further, any allegation of unwanted touching or physical interference regardless of how seemingly innocent – such as a hug – must be treated with the utmost seriousness and respect.

It was on February 23 of this year that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit revived a sexual harassment case against Yolo County in California and county Sheriff Edward Prieto. The suit claims that Prieto created a sexually hostile work environment by greeting claimant Victoria Zetwick, a correctional officer, with “unwelcome hugs” over 100 times during the 12-year period she worked in the Sheriff’s Office.

Zetwick also asserted in her employees’ rights and compliance lawsuit that she witnessed the accused hugging, and planting kisses on numerous other female employees, but never once witnessed similar behavior towards a male employee in the office.

The accused responded by saying he did, indeed also show affection to male employees at the office; however the plaintiff was never around to witness that. The co-accused’s legal team also defended their client’s behavior by observing that provided Prieto did, indeed hug women more than men; it was due to “genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and the opposite sex.”

The accused claims that his various hugs to the plaintiff lasted only for a few seconds at a time, was always conducted in front of other people and did not involve comments of a sexual nature or other unwanted touching.

The plaintiff countered that “chest to breast” hugs had “sexual overtones.”

Co-defendant Yolo County moved to have the lawsuit dismissed based on the County’s assertion that the conduct of its Sheriff was within the scope of “ordinary workplace socializing.” The District Court agreed and granted the defendant’s petition for summary judgement in 2014.

Zetwick however, who was so stressed over the workplace conduct of her supervisor that she was reduced to taking medication in order to get to sleep at night, appealed the ruling to The Ninth Circuit. This past February, the appellate court agreed to hear the case and revived the lawsuit.

“We reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remand for a trial on the merits of Zetwick’s federal and state sexual harassment claims and her state claim of failing to prevent sexual harassment,” the decision said.

In sum, the recent revelations involving alleged assaults and unwanted touching have created an environment where the lines have been blurred between heinous and serious assaults and unwanted touching through abuses of influence and power, and seemingly innocent demonstrations of warmth in the workplace.

Beyond brushing up on what state laws have to say about sexual harassment and unwanted physical interference in the workplace, employers would be wise to consult with legal counsel for guidance and advice with regard to rapidly shifting parameters of what is acceptable, and what is not…

The lawsuit is Victoria Zetwick v. County of Yolo; Edward G. Prieto, Sheriff of Yolo County, Case No. 14-17341 DC No. 2:12-cv-02486-TLN-AC, in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

California Labor Compliance Lawsuit Expected to Settle for $2.75 Million

San Francisco, CA: Communications giant AT&T has been battling a compliance lawsuit for some time, defending itself against plaintiffs in a nationwide FLSA collective alleging AT&T misclassified them as independent contractors and thus, stiffed them out of overtime.

The slight is deemed a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA). The employees’ rights lawsuit is Wendell Walton et al. v. AT&T Services Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03653, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Walton is one of two lead plaintiffs in the compliance lawsuit brought as a class action by corporate training managers whose primary responsibility is instructing AT&T employees on corporate policies and related policies associated with vendors. Co-plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, identified as Michael Mantonya, joined Walton in accusing AT&T of incorrectly and unjustly classifying them as independent contractors.

Plaintiffs allege they are proper employees of AT&T and thus, should receive all employee rights and benefits under FLSA and California labor law, including the payment of overtime for all hours worked beyond an eight-hour day, and/or a 40-hour week.

The independent contractor sector has become a popular resource for firms attempting to hold the line on their employee pool, and to save on overtime costs and other liabilities related to employee benefits. However, there are marked differences in the conduct and environment when comparing independent contractors against bone fide employees.

The major difference, beyond the obvious absence of overtime pay, perks and other benefits normally the jurisdiction of the employee, is the service that an independent contractor provides to the client according to an agreed set of parameters. Beyond that, provided the independent contractor meets contractual objectives, the contractor provides service independently without direct and ongoing supervision from the client.

Many a compliance lawsuit has gone to the plaintiffs amidst evidence that employees miscast as independent contractors are routinely supervised and work within an environment and a structure that carry all the hallmarks or an employer-employee relationship, rather than the arms-length backdrop when working with – rather than directly employing – and independent contractor.

The plaintiffs in the case reached a settlement with AT&T and have formally requested the settlement valued at $2.75 million receive judicial approval. AT&T is also recommending the settlement be approved, while admitting to no wrongdoing.

A spokesperson representing AT&T said in an emailed statement to Law360 (09/29/17) that “we’re committed to full compliance with all federal and state laws, including the wage and hour laws, and have received numerous awards for being an employer of choice,” said Marty Richter. “Rather than engage in drawn-out litigation we have entered this settlement, which we believe reflects a fair resolution.”

The plaintiffs also feel the settlement is fair and has merit. According to Court documents, “settlement now saves class members significant risk of no recovery, the cost of individual litigation, and the delay inherent in further litigation and possible appeals,” the plaintiffs said through their employees’ rights lawyer. “The litigation is highly complex, both procedurally and substantively,” the complaint said. “Further litigation could easily last several more years and investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars more in costs, and a million dollars or more of attorney time.”

It was in September of last year that US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria granted conditional certification to a nationwide FLSA collective.

All Eyes on Google over Allegations of Compliance, Discrimination

Mountain View, CA: An administrative compliance lawsuit brought against Google Inc. by the US Department of Labor’s Office of the Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has fostered interest in a potential employee’s rights lawsuit on behalf of some 70 current and former employees of the search engine juggernaut alleging wage discrimination. The employees, all of whom are women, are reportedly pursuing a potential class action lawsuit.

According to court documents, the potential class action plaintiffs allege that Google paid them less than men for doing similar work. The employee rights lawyer, to whom the women have been talking, indicates that the facts thus far support bringing an employee’s rights lawsuit against Google.

The trouble began when Google was targeted by the OFCCP for an equal opportunity compliance audit. Such audits are mandatory when corporations supply services to the US Government. Google is such a supplier.

The OFCCP has been embroiled in a bitter administrative battle with Google over the submission of compliance data. Google submitted some data, which the OFCCP found inadequate. When the OFCCP requested additional employee compensation data and Google dragged its heels, the regulator launched an administrative compliance lawsuit against Google in an attempt at forcing Google to hand over the required documentation.

Google countered that it would be too costly to break out additional data, and that data already obtained by the OFCCP and other data that was a matter of public record was more than sufficient for the purposes of the mandatory audit.

The employee rights lawyer with whom the 70 women are talking is James Finberg of Altshuler Berzon LLP, a law firm based in San Francisco. “We saw the DOL was investigating. I got the transcripts from the hearings in that case, which are fascinating,” Finberg said, in a statement to Law 360. “I mean, the DOL did statistical analysis of Google’s Mountain View, [California] headquarters and found statistically significant disparities adverse to women across the board, so we said, ‘Wow, that’s a bad thing.’”

Meanwhile, The New York Times (08/07/17) reported last month that a Google employee, who authored a scathing and divisive internal memo with regard to Google’s efforts at compliance and diversity, had been fired. James Damore had claimed that women who worked at Google were less likely to succeed in technical positions due to biological differences, rather than gender discrimination. His memo, entitled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,’ angered many in Silicon Valley, The New York Times reported, because the memo relied on certain gender stereotypes to rationalize the gender gap in the tech sector.

Damore, employed at Google as a software engineer since 2013, was fired over the memo. Damore told The New York Times that he had written the document with the hope towards having an “honest discussion” about how Google harbored intolerance for ideologies that don’t fit into what Damore believed were its left-leaning biases.

The Chief Executive for Google, Sundar Pichai, said in a blog post that he supports the right for employees to express themselves but that Damore’s internal memo went too far. Damore was relieved of his duties a month ago.

“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” Damore told The New York Times.

Danore has since retained a California-based law firm and is seeking other would-be plaintiffs for a potential lawsuit accusing Google of discrimination against workers because of their political views.

According to Law 360 Damore filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board against Google parent Alphabet Inc. purportedly just before he was fired. In his complaint, Damore charges that Google interfered with, and restrained his right to engage in “protected, concerted activity” under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening him with unspecified reprisals.

An investigation is now underway by the Dhillon Law Group Inc., the firm retained by Damore. Google spokesman Ty Sheppard responded last month to the Dhillon Law Firm’s investigation by saying the company has “strong policies against retaliation, harassment and discrimination in the workplace” and “also strongly support[s] the right of Googlers [sic] to express themselves,” Sheppard said in a statement.

“An important part of our culture is lively debate,” Sheppard continued, in comments appearing in Law 360. “But like any workplace that doesn’t mean that anything goes.”

Whether it is the Damore case, or the case of 70 women alleging wage discrimination – or the compliance issues asserted against Google by the OFCCP, all eyes will be on Google in the coming months.

Trucking Firms Found to be In Violation of California Compliance

Los Angeles, CA: A settlement reached between the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various trucking companies which operate in the Los Angeles Basin will result in the payment of just over $201,000 in penalties for failure to comply with California state regulations governing the need to protect air quality in an area of the state that already has some of the worst air quality in the country. While it is not known if the settlement stemmed from a compliance lawsuit per se, the fact remains a handful of companies were found to have dropped the ball when it comes to air quality and compliance with state laws.

“Diesel trucks are heavily used in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles Basin, which suffer from some of the worst air quality in the nation,” said Alexis Strauss, EPA’s acting regional administrator for the Pacific Southwest, in comments published in the El Paso Times (05/04/17). The exhaust from diesel trucks accounts for the largest source of what is officially deemed as fine particle pollution – more commonly known as soot. Newer trucks are generally equipped with fine particulate filters attached to exhaust systems that mitigate emissions of fine particulate into the air.

Older models however do not generally feature fine particulate filters as standard equipment and must be retrofitted. The statute applies to any truck or bus that operates within the state of California, regardless of where they are originally registered. The El Paso Times reports that some 625,000 trucks and busses that are registered outside of the state of California regularly travel to, or through the state and thus are beholden to the state statue.

The EPA identified California compliance issues with a handful of operators of older-model vehicles that were identified as lacking the necessary fine particulate filters.

According to EPA, C.R. England operated 34 heavy-duty diesel trucks in California from 2013 to 2014 without the required diesel particulate filters. The company, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is currently in compliance but is required to pay a $64,000 penalty for prior non-compliance issues.

Knight Transportation is reported to have failed to verify that the carriers it hired to
transport goods in California from 2012 to 2014 complied with the Truck and Bus
emissions statute. Knight was dinged $72,000 and agreed to register all of its hired contractors on the state database, as well as to provide verification of state compliance. Knight calls Phoenix, Arizona home.

Meanwhile, Werner Enterprises is reported to have operated five heavy-duty diesel trucks in California from 2012 to 2014 without the required diesel particulate filters. Werner also, akin to Knight, failed to verify that the carriers it hired to transport goods in California complied with the Truck and Bus guideline. The operator, based out of Omaha, Nebraska, is required to pay a $65,000 penalty.

It is not known if drivers of the trucks at issue were cited in any way, for potentially knowing about the lack of particulate filters.

It should be noted that dirty air affects everyone in the state, from residents to workers alike, and often governs a worker’s capacity to perform tasks required of their employment – especially if they work out of doors and in the thick of polluted air. Compliance control of vehicles potentially adding to the pollution problem in the state, and in the Los Angeles Basin in particular, benefits everyone and can contribute to employee rights overall.

Employees required to work long hours out of doors – especially agricultural workers – are especially vulnerable to excessive heat and poor air quality.

Google Characterizes DOL Compliance Request as Beyond Its Mandate

Mountain View, CA: Metaphors flew late last month during a California administrative compliance lawsuit hearing over an alleged refusal on the part of tech giant Google Inc. (Google) to comply with a mandated requirement by the US Department of Labor (DOL) to hand over documents and data with regard to a pay equity spot check.

The DOL regularly conducts reviews for compliance targeting corporations and entities that supply goods and services to the US Government. The DOL, during its investigation, found the potential for pay inequities between genders (favoring men) and had ordered Google to comply with a requirement mandated under the law to turn over various documents and data that would speak to Google’s record and practices surrounding pay equity.

At the hearing on May 26, attorney Ian Eliasoph who represented the DOL suggested the defendant had incorrectly characterized the DOL request for information as being too costly, when in reality the tech giant – a multi-billion dollar corporation – could handle the associated costs as easily as a dry sponge absorbing a drop of water.

The DOL had requested full documentation, and Google is reported to have complied by releasing some documentation, but lacking the breadth and depth of documents and data the DOL sought. Having extended to Google a deadline for compliance – and having that deadline expire by several months without compliance with the DOL’s request – an instant lawsuit was launched this past January in an effort to force Google to comply.

The DOL seeks additional employment records for the year ending December 31, 2014 together with the names and contact information of some 21,000 employees registered with the Google organization.

An April, 2017 hearing heard that the DOL had found, in their initial investigations, what was described at the hearing by DOL Pacific Regional Director Janette Wipper as systematic compensation disparities against women.

That was in April. At the hearing conducted May 26, 2017 legal counsel for Google implored presiding Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Berlin to reject Wipper’s earlier testimony. Google argued further that the financial health and capabilities of the tech giant were not at issue, and that the DOL request, in the defendant’s view was overly broad and burdensome and would chew up an unreasonable period of time required to collect and, where necessary redact protected data and documentation located across multiple databases and platforms.

Google characterizes the DOL’s request for documents in pursuit of compliance as an abuse of its discretion and mandate.

Labor compliance is a broad term that speaks to the importance of employers adhering to state and federal statutes, and guidance designed to uphold and ensure fairness for employees and their employee rights. Workers who feel they have been disadvantaged at the hand of employers will often pursue a response with an employees rights lawyer.

The instant compliance lawsuit the DOL has launched against Google is not over allegations of pay inequities, but rather an effort to force Google to release all requested documents and data in order to facilitate and complete its investigation with regard to suspected pay inequities towards women.

The case is In the Matter of Office Federal Contract Compliance Programs, US Department of Labor v. Google Inc., Case No. 2017-OFC-0004, before the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Supplier to US Government Settles Compliance Lawsuit for $1.65 Million

Palo Alto, CA: A software company located in Silicon Valley that is also a sub-contractor to the federal government has agreed to terms of a settlement that puts an end to a compliance lawsuit brought by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) alleging the defendant, Palantir Technologies Inc. discriminated against job applicants of Asian descent.

While the state of California maintains its own guidelines with regard to discrimination and employees rights, the federal government through the US Department of Labor maintains strict compliance guidelines for any enterprise conducting business on behalf of, or supplying goods and services to, the US government.

The settlement is valued at $1.65 million, and provides back wages and other monetary relief for class members of Asian descent who were applicants to three positions advertised by Palantir between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.

The complaint stemmed from three positions that were advertised, presumably for which Asian applicants were appropriately qualified but from which they were systematically shut out, or so it was alleged. The OFCCP conducted an investigation and mandated conciliation between the two parties. After conciliation failed, the OFCCP launched a formal compliance lawsuit against Palantir, which is based in Palo Alto and specializes in data analysis.

Palantir has gone on record as denying the allegations, and is reported to have provided to the US Department of Labor documentation and alternate statistical data that demonstrated, according to Palantir, that the process used in the hiring protocols for the three positions in question carried no adverse impact of any kind toward Asian candidates.

However, in an effort to avoid continuing litigation and costs, Palantir agreed to settle, according to a settlement decree released earlier this week.

“In the interests of avoiding the costs, risks and uncertainties of continued litigation of the above-captioned matter, OFCCP and Palantir hereby agree to the terms of this consent decree,” both parties said in the decree.

The three jobs in question were: front-end quality assurance engineer, software engineer and quality assurance engineer intern. The settlement decree requires Palantir to extend job offers to at least eight class members who meet requirements of the support engineer and software engineer jobs as positions become available. Those offers are to be extended until four class members are hired into each position, or until the list of class members interested in employment opportunities at the company are depleted.

“We appreciate Palantir working with us to resolve these issues,” OFCCP acting Director Thomas Dowd said in a statement issued April 25 following the release of settlement details resolving the compliance lawsuit. “Together, we will ensure that the company complies with equal employment opportunity laws in its recruitment, hiring and other employment practices.”

The compliance lawsuit is Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs v. Palantir Technologies Inc., Case No. 16-ofc-00009, before the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Google Faces California Employee Lawsuit

San Francisco, CA: A Google employee has filed a California labor lawsuit alleging the company violates compliance laws by requiring employees to maintain illegal standards of confidentiality. Although companies are allowed to maintain confidential trade secrets, the employee alleges Google takes the secrecy too far and violates California labor laws in the process.

According to The Wall Street Journal (12/21/16), a Google product manager filed the lawsuit, alleging Google prohibits employees from telling potential employers how much money they earn, sharing what experience they had while working for Google, or disclosing their skills obtained while at Google. Furthermore, according to the lawsuit employees are prevented from speaking with each other about potentially illegal conduct or dangerous product defects.

The plaintiff, who is listed only as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleges the California labor lawsuit was filed after an email from Google's director of global security told approximately 65,000 Google employees that the plaintiff had leaked confidential information to the press though the plaintiff maintains he did not do so. Although Doe's name was not given in Katz's email, Doe says employees had no difficulty figuring out the person mentioned in the email was him, and he argues the email damaged his reputation among his colleagues and could further damage it within the industry.

Doe alleges that as many as 65,000 current employees and thousands more former Google employees are affected by the Confidentiality Agreement and policies.

According to the lawsuit, Google's Confidentiality Agreement violates California labor law because it restricts employees' abilities to find new work. The lawsuit also alleges Google violates employees' freedom of speech and freedom to work by limiting their ability to talk freely during non-work hours. Doe further alleges that Google's Confidentiality Agreement does not advise employees that they are able to report illegal activities without fear of retaliation.

Doe says he was hired by Google in July 2014 and signed the Confidentiality Agreement. That Confidentiality Agreement reportedly defined "confidential information" as "without limitation, any information in any form that relates to Google or Google's business that is not generally known." This allegedly includes "employee data."

Failure to abide by the Confidentiality Agreement can allegedly result in disciplinary action including termination and/or legal action.

A representative for Google said the company puts a high priority on transparency and its confidentiality policies are only to protect proprietary information. But the lawsuit alleges Google defines "essentially everything" as "confidential information."

"Google's motto is 'don't be evil'," the lawsuit states. "Google's illegal confidentiality agreements, policies, and practices fail this test."

Both Sides Hint at Appeal in Dispute Between Wal-Mart and Truckers

Los Angeles, CA: Even though the losing defendant in a California employee’s rights and compliance lawsuit felt they had scored a win nonetheless, attorneys for Wal-Mart have signaled their likely intention to appeal the $54-plus million verdict. The plaintiffs, who were asking for more and received less than anticipated in the jury award for the plaintiff’s side, indicated they would appeal as well.

The employee’s rights lawsuit pitted Wal-Mart Stores Inc. against a class comprised of 839 truckers who accused their employer of failing to comply with state and federal laws, as well as the employer’s own policies, or so it was alleged.

The plaintiffs claimed unpaid wages for various duties required of them by their employer in the course of their duties, for which they allege to have not received wages, or sufficient wages. The plaintiffs also allege they were not paid minimum wage for federally-mandated layover breaks lasting ten hours. Plaintiffs, who claimed they were required to stay with their trucks during the layover periods, were paid a total of $42 for the 10-hour time frame.

Drivers claimed they should have been paid minimum wage for the class period, which would have earned them between $67 and $90 instead.

In the end the California jury awarded the plaintiffs $44.7 million intended to make up the difference between what the plaintiffs were paid, and what plaintiffs claimed they should have been paid during the layover time.

In the end, plaintiffs were awarded damages for pre, and post-trip inspections together with the required rest breaks as mandated under California law (allegedly not provided), in order to remain in compliance with the laws of the state.

The jury, however, did not award damages for other alleged compliance violations asserted by the plaintiffs, including washing trucks, fueling, weighing the trucks’ load, waiting at vendor and store locations, performing adjustments, complying with US Department of Transportation inspections, or meeting with driver coordinators.

The plaintiffs had sought an award totaling $72.5 million, with a total payout combining liquidated damages and an estimated $25 million in statutory penalties for not remaining in compliance for payment of minimum wages, at $170 million overall.

In the end, the truckers were awarded $54 million-plus in damages. Attorneys for Wal-Mart characterized the outcome as a win for their side, given that plaintiffs were asking for more. Attorneys for the plaintiffs noted that in their view, the facts of the case and the law were “overwhelmingly” on the side of the plaintiffs.

The trial rolled through the fall and concluded November 23rd. Both sides plan to appeal.

The case is Ridgeway et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al., Case No 3:08-cv-05221, in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

McDonald’s Settles California Compliance Lawsuit for $3.75 Million

San Francisco, CA: McDonald’s has settled a California compliance lawsuit alleging the company violated state labor laws by failing to properly pay overtime. As part of the settlement, the company will work with the owner of the franchise that faced the lawsuit to ensure it remains compliant with California labor laws.

The lawsuit was filed in 2014 by employees who alleged that McDonalds and the franchise owner—Smith Family, LP—violated California labor law by not properly paying for overtime. Specifically, employees alleged the company’s computer software failed to pay for overtime when overtime shifts ran over two calendar days. McDonald’s had argued that because the locations in question were franchise restaurants, it was not responsible for failure to pay overtime or any other labor law violations.

According to Reuters (11/1/16), Smith Family settled its lawsuit for around $700,000. If approved by a federal judge, the McDonald’s lawsuit will see the company pay $1.75 million in back pay and an additional $2 million in legal fees. Despite agreeing to the settlement, McDonald’s has said it is not a joint employer, although that matter is before other regulators. A spokesperson for the company said it was settling the lawsuit to avoid the costs and disruption associated with litigation.

When a judge was considering whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action, the judge noted that McDonald’s franchise employees all wore McDonald’s uniforms, received their schedules on papers with the McDonald’s logo, and often applied for work through the McDonald’s website. As a result, the judge found that McDonald’s employees may have been reasonable in their belief that they were employed by the company, regardless of how accurate that belief was.

Other allegations made in the lawsuit include failure to accurate pay records and failure to reimburse workers for time spent cleaning work uniforms. In addition to the financial aspects of the settlement, McDonald’s will train Smith Family in the use of corporate software, to ensure the franchise remains complaint with California labor laws. Around 800 employees could be affected by the settlement.

Employers in California are required to meet California labor laws. Failure to do so can result in a lawsuit filed by their employees. In such lawsuits, employees may be able to recover lost wages, benefits, and other damages as deemed reasonable by the courts.