Claim Adjusters May Not Be in Good Hands with Allstate


Los Angeles, CA In a case that’s been characterized as wage theft by the plaintiff’s legal team, a California labor lawsuit has been granted favor by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after the latter determined a class-action lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) can move forward. The insurance juggernaut had attempted to quash the suit.

Under California and labor law, non-exempt employees are to be paid overtime for any work performed above 40 hours per week or beyond 5 days per week, as well as extra pay for missed meal breaks and rest periods as mandated by the California labor code, if an employee is required to work through a rest period or meal break.

However, according to the California labor lawsuit, policy and protocol observed by Allstate effectively discourages managers from paying overtime, allegedly due to incentives afforded Allstate managers to stay within mandated budgets. Such incentives, according to the lawsuit, included paid bonuses to managers who kept within budgetary parameters.

Plaintiffs claimed that such incentives for managers to stay on budget - not to mention the pursuit of a good performance review that might hinge on a manager’s capacity to stay within budgetary guidelines - dissuaded managers from recording overtime hours.

“The complaint alleges that Allstate’s managers are required to stay within an annual budget that includes overtime compensation, and that the performance evaluations and bonuses paid to managers are dependent on how closely they conform to the budget,” said attorney Alexander R. Wheeler, of the R. Rex Parris Law Firm, which represents the plaintiffs. “This would mean that a manager would have a disincentive to approve and report overtime, the class claims.”

That’s a violation of California labor employment law.

Plaintiffs allege that managers would witness workers performing tasks off the clock and outside of their normal work hours, but make no inquiry as to whether or not overtime was to be requested. The California labor lawsuit also suggests that repeated requests for overtime were seen as a performance issue, rather than incidents that suggested claims adjusters were given too much work to complete within the allotted hours.

Rather than suggest a requisition for overtime, an employee might be counseled as to alternative work methods through better training and increased efficiency in order to avoid overtime hours. However, given the incentives allegedly afforded by the defendant to stay within budget suggests Allstate managers did not have the best interests of their underlings at heart, but rather their own and those of the defendant.

“The potential recovery in this case is expected to be in the hundreds of millions for wage theft by Allstate,” said R. Rex Parris, founding partner of the R. Rex Parris Law Firm. “Casualty adjuster Jack Jimenez brought the suit in 2010 on behalf of any claims adjuster working for the insurer in the state of California since Sept. 29, 2006.”

California state labor laws are clear with regard to the requirement to pay overtime for non-exempt workers. While an employer always has the right to offer training in order to improve efficiency in an effort to avoid overtime, an employer does not have the right to deny an employee overtime pay for extra hours worked, when the overtime was unavoidable.

The case is Jack Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Company - Case No. 2:10-cv- 10-8486-JAK-FFM, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

You might also like

1 Comment

  1. Jay Carroll, paralegal-crjustice student
    November 10, 2014
    The James Hoyer law firm in Tampa also sued Allstate successfully for charging Blacks and Hispanics more than Caucasians in rates...but I doubt that anyone found out how Allstate was able to tell who is black or Hispanic in an on-line insurance application. I was the credit manager of the big ticket departments in a major chain store of the sixties and was told confidentially that the Retail Credit Bureau who changed its name to Equifax and then got a 10 million dollar grant to open Choicepoint who changed their name to LexisNexis then to First Advantage, had a code for credit reports and that is why I was often asked if the person I had seen was "Number 1" or "Number 2". Allstate and others have no right to purchase your credit report from Choicepoint, aka, aka, but Choicepoint was fined 10 Mil by the FTC for selling your credit report to criminals and are still doing it and are responsible for much of the identity theft according to my 51 years credit experience conclusions. Allstate and many companies Human Resource managers rely on Choicepoint et al reports as to whether to accept an employee, but the police do not, they only use Choicepoint for things like addresses but not credit (see also Steve Kroft 60 Minutes 40 Million Mistakes. There needs to be legislation that Allstate and HR managers are not extending credit and therefore have no right to access your credit report that is not even reliable for your rights to employment. J.P. Carroll, Paralegal and CrJustice student with a 4.0 GPA (proof on request).

Leave a Reply

Note: Your name will be published with your comment.

Your email will only be used if a response is needed.

Legal Help Form

Please complete this form to request a review of your complaint by an attorney.