Wage-and-Hour

Orrick’s Wage-and-Hour Expertise

Orrick’s Employment Law Department has successfully defended numerous wage-and-hour class, collective and representative actions across a wide spectrum of industries. Our attorneys have extensive experience in handling state, regional and national class actions. We have also consulted or acted as coordinating counsel in local and regional matters throughout the country.

Orrick’s expertise in the wage-and-hour arena includes representing clients in all phases of class litigation, from class certification and subsequent litigation through settlement and claims proceedings. Orrick employs well-developed strategies that have proven effective in addressing the myriad of challenging issues that arise during class and collective litigation. Utilizing these strategies, Orrick’s lawyers have successfully defeated class certification on numerous occasions. Additionally, Orrick’s lawyers have defeated class actions altogether based upon res judicata and collateral estoppel theories.

Where appropriate, Orrick attorneys also work with their clients to resolve wage-and-hour class actions in a cost-efficient and economical manner. From the outset, we explore with clients the challenges, risks, costs and opportunities presented by the litigation.

We achieve positive outcomes for our clients – whether through success at a motion to dismiss, class certification, trial, appeal or settlement. The results we have achieved reflect an overall strategy that makes the best use of client resources and the creation of a plan for orchestrating the pace and direction of the litigation in concert with our clients’ evolving business needs. The quality of our representation, as evidenced by our results, is unmatched by any other defense firm.

Wage-and-Hour, Collective, and Representative Actions Handled by Orrick

The following represents a sampling of court-filed federal and state wage-and-hour class, collective and representative actions handled by Orrick lawyers in our offices across the United States:

• ABC Carpet & Home. Orrick represents ABC Carpet & Home in Byfield v. ABC Carpet & Home, a putative wage and hour class action involving independent contractor issues, which is currently pending in the Southern District of New York.
• Albertson’s. Orrick represented Albertson’s in multiple class and collective actions in multiple jurisdictions around the country. For example, in, Gloege v. Albertson’s, a national FLSA class and collective action brought by 3,500 department managers alleging off-the-clock work, we helped to consolidate the various actions in Idaho.
• Banana Republic. Orrick defended Banana Republic in Sullenger v. Banana Republic, a California wage-and-hour class action with FLSA claims challenging the executive exemption of approximately 300 associate managers.
• Blockbuster Video.
  • Orrick represented Blockbuster Video in Adams v. Blockbuster Video, a wage-and-hour class action in which 2,000 plaintiffs alleged that they were improperly classified as exempt employees. The case included three causes of action: violation of California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 (unfair competition), and Conversion.
  • Orrick represented Blockbuster Video in Blakely v. Blockbuster Video, a wage-and-hour class action brought by over 800 store managers.
• Bombay Company. Orrick represented Bombay Company in Soto v. Bombay Company, an overtime class action alleging improper classification of managers.
• Burlington Coat Factory.
  • Orrick represented Burlington Coat Factory in Valverde v. Burlington Coat Factory, involving off-the-clock work and the exempt status of certain department managers.
  • Orrick represented Burlington Coat Factory in Webb v. Burlington Coat Factory, a class action brought by over 500 department managers, alleging class claims based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code and Conversion, as well as representative claims under California Business and Professions Code section 17200.
• Cingular Wireless. Orrick currently represents Cingular Wireless in Bartelli v. Cingular Wireless Employee Services, a class action alleging unlawful chargebacks under commission plans.
• Cintas Corporation. Orrick represented Cintas in Vaca v. Cintas Corporation, a California wage-and-hour class action brought by 1,000 sales and delivery employees challenging their status as exempt employees.
• City of Petaluma. Orrick defended the City of Petaluma in Kahl v. City of Petaluma, a collective action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, involving claims of the improper calculation of compensatory time payments.
• Countrywide Mortgage. Orrick currently represents Countywide Mortgage in two class actions in which the exempt status of Account Executives is being challenged under California and federal law.
  • Butler, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al. (L.A. Superior Court), the plaintiff alleges a class of California-based employees
  • Walker, et al. v. Countrywide Credit Industries Inc., et al., (U.S. DC for the Northern District of Texas, where the plaintiff’s action purports to apply California law to a nationwide class. Orrick successfully transferred the action from the Northern District of California to the Northern District of Texas, where a similar class action was pending. The Court has found that employees who have signed arbitration agreements must arbitrate their wage and hour issues against Countrywide, which has severely limited the potential for a class action. That issue is currently on appeal.
• Danone International Brands, Inc. Orrick represented Danone International Brands in Calvo & Ware v. Danone International Brands, Inc., a wage-and-hour class action challenging the exempt status of 800 bottled water deliverers who were classified as exempt under the outside sales exemption. The case also included off-the-clock allegations.
• Dey, L.P. Orrick represents Dey, L.P. in Michael McBride, et al. v. Dey, L.P., wherein plaintiffs’ are challenging Dey’s alternative work schedule policy and donning and docking claims.
• The Equitable.
  • Orrick represented The Equitable in Siefe, Golden, et al. v. The Equitable, a class action seeking recovery of unpaid sales commissions.
  • Orrick represented The Equitable in Fischel et al. v. The Equitable, a class action brought by 1,000 potential class members seeking recovery of unpaid insurance commissions and establishment of right to lifetime health insurance benefits.
• Gap, Inc.
  • Orrick defended the case Nelson Rupp v. Gap, Inc., a California wage-and-hour class action challenging the exempt status of second-level managers at Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy stores.
  • Orrick represented Gap in Malcolm v. Gap, Inc., a collective action under the FLSA involving claims that IT employees were improperly classified as exempt.
  • Orrick currently represents Gap in a class action involving alleged uniform violations under the California Labor Code.
• GCU Trucking, Inc. Orrick currently represents GCU Trucking in a wage-and-hour collective, class and representative action involving approximately 100 putative class members. The lawsuit involves issues concerning overtime, hours worked and minimum wage.
• Haas Publishing Co. Orrick represented Haas in Bennett v. Haas Publishing Co., an equal pay class action brought under state law in California.
• The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Orrick defended The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in Courtney et al. v. Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, et al., a class action in which plaintiffs alleged they were not given meal and rest periods as required under California law.
• Infinity Insurance Co. Orrick defended Infinity Insurance in Marks v. Infinity Insurance Co. and related cases brought by 250 insurance adjusters.
• Investors Bank & Trust. Orrick currently represents Investors Bank & Trust in Campbell v. Investors Bank & Trust, a class and representative action in which plaintiffs allege misclassification of accountants and failure to provide meal and rest periods.
• Longs Drug Stores.
  • Orrick defended Longs Drug Stores in DOL v. Longs Drug Stores, an action brought by the Department of Labor testing the exempt status of pharmacists.
  • Orrick counseled Longs Drug Stores in Kazarooni v. Longs Drug Stores, a salary basis class action concerning pharmacists and another action challenging the exempt status of department managers.
  • Orrick represented Longs Drug Stores in Safaian v. Longs Drug Stores, a class action brought by all employees covered under the company’s vacation policy.

• McKesson HBOC, Inc. Orrick represented McKesson in Calvo & Ware v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., a California wage-and-hour class action challenging the exempt status of 800 bottled water deliverers classified as exempt under the outside sales exemption. The case also included off-the-clock allegations.

• NBC Studios.

  • Orrick represented NBC Studios in a class action regarding allegations of late payment of employees at the time of separation.
  • Orrick represented NBC in a class action alleging violations of Labor Code Section 226.
• Old Navy. Orrick defended Old Navy in Dixon v. Old Navy, a wage-and-hour class action brought by a class of current and former Merchandise Managers, Operations Managers, and Associate Managers in California. Allegations included violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code section 17200.
• Orchard Supply Hardware Corporation. Orrick currently represents Orchard Supply Hardware Corporation in a California wage-and-hour class action challenging the exempt status of store "retail managers."
• The Picture People, Inc. Orrick defended The Picture People, a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards, in Lajoie v. The Picture People, Inc., a California wage-and-hour class action brought by approximately 200 individuals challenging the exempt status of Senior Assistant Managers and Store Managers classified as exempt under the executive exemption.
• Primedia.
  • Orrick currently represents Primedia in Harrell v. Primedia, a putative class action brought by employees of the publishing company's Internet subsidiaries for, inter alia, failure to pay bonuses in violation of state wage-hour laws.
  • Orrick currently represents Primedia in Levinson v. Primedia, a putative class action in the Southern District of New York under the FLSA and New York Labor Law by “Guides” for About.com alleging, inter alia, that they were misclassified as independent contractors.
• Providian Financial Corp. Orrick represented Providian in Shoars v. Providian Financial Corp., a wage-and-hour/ERISA class action brought by over 1,000 former employees who alleged failure to pay accrued vacation at time of termination.
• Sears Roebuck and Co.
  • Orrick currently represents Sears in Fitts v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., an overtime class action alleging improper classification of all retail managers.
  • Orrick currently represents Sears in Halulyan v. Sears Roebuck and Co., an overtime class action alleging improper classification of managers.
  • Orrick currently represents Sears in De Soto v. Sears Roebuck and Co., a matter alleging violations of the California Labor Code related to commute time issues and de minimis work activities.
  • Orrick currently represents Sears in Draeger v. Sears Roebuck and Co., a matter alleging violations of the California Labor Code related to the administration of commission plans.
• Sutter Health. Orrick represented Sutter Health in Acorn v. Sutter Health, a FLSA collective action in which hospital employees sought compensation for unpaid meal periods during which the employees were required to carry beepers and respond to pages.
• Waterhouse Securities. Orrick represented Waterhouse in Gerke et al. v. Waterhouse Securities, a class action brought by over 1000 class members seeking recovery of wages for work performed during break periods.
• Wilbur-Ellis. Orrick represented Wilbur-Ellis in a representative action brought on behalf of all salaried employees in California. The lawsuit alleges that the employees were misclassified and entitled to overtime.
• Zinfandel Grille. Orrick represents Zinfandel Grille in Teresa R. Muniaerts v. Zinfandel Grille, et al. alleging missed meal and rest periods.