In Copyright Since September 11, 2000 This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente Permission is granted to mirror this web site - Please acknowledge where the material was obtained.  |  ABOUT US |  CONTACT  |  MCRC  |  kaiserpapers.com/legalstuff/

Court Filing here: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/27/KaiserCA.pdfLaw Firm Contact Information: Walter Haines (SBN 71075)UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP65 Pine Avenue #312Long Beach, CA 90802Telephone (877) 696-8378Facsimilie (562) 256-1006

For historical purposes this article has been stored here from: http://thejobmouse.com/2012/02/28/kaiser-sued-for-failing-to-pay-case-managers-for-overtime/

Kaiser Sued for Failing to Pay Case Managers for Overtime

A class action has been brought against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., on behalf of all persons employed as “Senior Case Managers” in the State of California during the period that commences four years prior to the filing date of the complaint.

More specifically, the class includes “senior case managers” (Class A), “case managers” (Class B) and “Case Coordinators” (Class C) who are and were required to work without com­pen­sa­tion, and to work over eight hours per day and/or forty hours per week without straight or overtime com­pen­sa­tion, and to work without taking meal and/or rest break periods as required by law.

Plaintiffs Darryl Hold, Corissa Tittle-Bartolero and Ruby Haney brought this action on behalf all three which consists of current and former employees of Kaiser in the State of California who hold or held non-exempt positions as “Senior Case Managers”, “Case Managers” or “Case Coordinators” within four years prior to the filing of this complaint.

As stated in the complaint, Kaiser failed to pay the plaintiffs and the other members of Class A, Class B, and Class C one and a half times their regular rate of pay, or any other additional com­pen­sa­tion at all, for the hours they have worked in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law, as required by the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, reported by Courthouse News, the plaintiffs logged into and out of Kaiser’s timekeeping system each workday. However, they were instructed and/or encouraged by Kaiser to log in only for their scheduled hours each day, even if they had to spend more hours each day under Kaiser’s control in order to complete their work. They were also forced to work more than their scheduled number of hours, because they were delayed in completing their work pending approvals from upper level man­age­ment.

Due to the work load and mandatory delays, plaintiffs regularly begun work before they logged in and/or regularly continued working after they had logged out. They also regularly had their time adjusted down by Kaiser. Thus, they were required to work “off the clock” to complete their job duties. The Plaintiffs were not and have not been compensated for this time at all, even though, as non-exempt employees, they were entitled to com­pen­sa­tion for all the hours they worked and for overtime com­pen­sa­tion for the hours worked beyond eight hours a day and/or forty hours a week.

Plaintiff Darryl Holt’s schedule was such that meal and/or rest breaks were regularly taken late, cut short or not taken at all. Mr. Holt often logged out during his meal and rest breaks but continued to work to complete his job duties. He was not paid for this time, even though as a non-exempt employee he was entitled to meal and rest periods and to com­pen­sa­tion for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Ruby Haney’s schedule was such that meal and/or rest breaks were regularly taken late, cut short or not taken at all. She often logged out during her meal and rest breaks but continued to work to complete her job duties. Ms. Haney was not paid for this time, even though as a non-exempt employee she was entitled to meal and rest periods and to com­pen­sa­tion for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Corissa Tittle-Bartolero’s schedule was such that meal and/or rest breaks were regularly taken late, cut short or not taken at all. She often logged out during her meal and rest breaks but continued to work to complete her job duties. Ms. Tittle-Bartolero was not paid for this time, even though as a non-exempt employee she was entitled to meal and rest periods and to com­pen­sa­tion for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs seek recovery of overtime com­pen­sa­tion, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code, as well as any statutory penalties Kaiser may owe under the Cal. Lab. Code and/or other statutes.

kaiserpapers.com

kaiserpapers.com/legalstuff/