Bowers Companies Wage and Hour Cases Settlement Administrator - Distribution Mailing 10.18.16

We are posting to confirm that the Court Appointed claims administrator Rust Consulting notified our firm that 1,521 payments for the Bowers Companies Wage and Hour Cases Class Action Settlement were mailed yesterday, Tuesday, October 18, 2016. As a reminder, Rust obtained a toll-free telephone number of 1-866-686-0191 for Class Members to call the Settlement Administrator with questions regarding the Settlement. 

Rust’s Call Center Representatives are available Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time. 1-866-686-0191. 

If there are any questions about the case or any current California Labor Code claims you may have please feel free to contact class counsel at the following:

Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.

QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES

22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100

Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961

Email req@quintlaw.com 

Tel:   949.458.9675

Fax:  949.458.9679

Web: www.quintlaw.com 

Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement Being Finalized

A quick update for those reading this blog:

EMTs Win their Appeal 

In June 2013, a California appeals court ordered the certification of two classes of employees suing a pair of ambulance companies for allegedly cutting their hourly pay and overtime compensation when they worked long shifts, overturning a lower court's decision that the classes had been poorly defined.

Contrary to the trial court's opinion, the two would-be classes of employees were all subjected to a set of uniform pay policies by Bowers Cos. Inc. and Pacific Ambulance Inc. that applied "to readily ascertainable groups of employees," suiting those claims to being determined on a classwide basis, according to the appeals court.

"We remand the matter to the trial court with directions to certify the regular rate and overtime classes based on modified class definitions," Associate Justice Richard Aronson wrote for the court. The panel affirmed state Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock's decision that three other proposed subclasses, each making a different allegation — accusing Bowers and Pacific of failing to provide mandatory breaks, accurate pay stubs and payment of outstanding wages to employees who were fired or quit — should not be certified because all the workers were not bound by common issues. 

William Gonzales and Joshua Kahane, two emergency medical technicians who worked for Bowers and Pacific — which have a common management team but separate sets of nurses, EMTs and other field employees working in different countries — each filed putative class actions against the companies that were consolidated in May 2010, according to the ruling.

Their lawsuits stemmed from pay policies that the companies, which operate around the clock and provide nonemergency medical transport services, enacted after their employees voted to authorize a new four-day workweek consisting of 10-plus hour days. Under the new schedule, employees would earn their regularly hourly pay for the first 10 hours, overtime for two hours beyond that, and double pay for any hours in excess of 12, the appeals court said.

Bowers workers voted to institute those changes in 2000 while Pacific workers signed on to the new "alternative work week" in 2003, according to the ruling. But the four-day week became so popular that the ambulance companies struggled to fill their regular eight- and 10-hour shifts, and years later the medical transport companies decided to incentivize those shifts by upping the hourly rate for them, in an attempt to offset the overtime that could be earned from working longer hours. Bowers made the change in 2008 while Pacific followed in 2010. 

Gonzales and Kahane's suits made a slew of wage-and-hour violations against the companies, including accusations that the companies wrongly docked its employees' hourly pay when they worked longer shifts, failed to pay them all the straight and overtime wages they were entitled, and didn't provide them with breaks or legally compliant pay stubs.

The EMTs motioned for certification of the five classes in October 2011, but it was shot down by the trial court, which found that the putative classes were overly broad, that it was impossible to ascertain the number of members in each of them and that the EMTs had failed to show that common issues united all the class members. 

When it came to the docked-pay and overtime classes, the appeals court, citing the California Supreme Court's landmark April 2012 Brinker decision, disagreed — saying there was plenty of evidence that an allegedly unlawful uniform policy had been imposed on all the employees in question.

"Plaintiffs' theory of recovery defines a group of unnamed plaintiffs with a purported right to recover based on objective characteristics and transactional facts," the court ruled. The appellate panel also disagreed with the trial court's findings that the workers had failed to specify when the alleged wrongdoing had occurred and that their class definitions were so vague that there was no way to pin down who could be a class member. The court ruled that payroll records identified all the field employees who worked 12- to 24-hour shifts at lower hourly rates after the companies debuted their short-shift incentive programs.

But the justices found that substantial evidence backed up Judge Stock's refusals to certify the other classes, noting how common issues did not bind all the members of the putative class of workers who were allegedly not paid in a timely fashion and that the EMTs had failed to demonstrate how their wage statements were false.

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment Friday. Justices Richard Aronson, Kathleen O'Leary and David Thompson sat on the panel for the Fourth Appellate District.

At that time, Bowers Cos. Inc. and Pacific Ambulance Inc. are represented by Silverstein & Huston.

The workers are represented by the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Richard E. Quintilone II Esq. of Quintilone & Associates, the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, the Carter Law Firm and the Cooper Law Firm.

The case is Bowers Companies Wage and Hour Cases, case number G046104, in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California.

Bankruptcy

After the appeal, Rural/Metro Corporation, a parent corporation of Pacific-Bowers, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Settlement talks continued. 

Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement Being Finalized

A quick update for those reading this blog:

EMTs Win their Appeal 

In June 2013, a California appeals court ordered the certification of two classes of employees suing a pair of ambulance companies for allegedly cutting their hourly pay and overtime compensation when they worked long shifts, overturning a lower court's decision that the classes had been poorly defined.

Contrary to the trial court's opinion, the two would-be classes of employees were all subjected to a set of uniform pay policies by Bowers Cos. Inc. and Pacific Ambulance Inc. that applied "to readily ascertainable groups of employees," suiting those claims to being determined on a classwide basis, according to the appeals court.

"We remand the matter to the trial court with directions to certify the regular rate and overtime classes based on modified class definitions," Associate Justice Richard Aronson wrote for the court. The panel affirmed state Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock's decision that three other proposed subclasses, each making a different allegation — accusing Bowers and Pacific of failing to provide mandatory breaks, accurate pay stubs and payment of outstanding wages to employees who were fired or quit — should not be certified because all the workers were not bound by common issues. 

William Gonzales and Joshua Kahane, two emergency medical technicians who worked for Bowers and Pacific — which have a common management team but separate sets of nurses, EMTs and other field employees working in different countries — each filed putative class actions against the companies that were consolidated in May 2010, according to the ruling.

Their lawsuits stemmed from pay policies that the companies, which operate around the clock and provide nonemergency medical transport services, enacted after their employees voted to authorize a new four-day workweek consisting of 10-plus hour days. Under the new schedule, employees would earn their regularly hourly pay for the first 10 hours, overtime for two hours beyond that, and double pay for any hours in excess of 12, the appeals court said.

Bowers workers voted to institute those changes in 2000 while Pacific workers signed on to the new "alternative work week" in 2003, according to the ruling. But the four-day week became so popular that the ambulance companies struggled to fill their regular eight- and 10-hour shifts, and years later the medical transport companies decided to incentivize those shifts by upping the hourly rate for them, in an attempt to offset the overtime that could be earned from working longer hours. Bowers made the change in 2008 while Pacific followed in 2010. 

Gonzales and Kahane's suits made a slew of wage-and-hour violations against the companies, including accusations that the companies wrongly docked its employees' hourly pay when they worked longer shifts, failed to pay them all the straight and overtime wages they were entitled, and didn't provide them with breaks or legally compliant pay stubs.

The EMTs motioned for certification of the five classes in October 2011, but it was shot down by the trial court, which found that the putative classes were overly broad, that it was impossible to ascertain the number of members in each of them and that the EMTs had failed to show that common issues united all the class members. 

When it came to the docked-pay and overtime classes, the appeals court, citing the California Supreme Court's landmark April 2012 Brinker decision, disagreed — saying there was plenty of evidence that an allegedly unlawful uniform policy had been imposed on all the employees in question.

"Plaintiffs' theory of recovery defines a group of unnamed plaintiffs with a purported right to recover based on objective characteristics and transactional facts," the court ruled. The appellate panel also disagreed with the trial court's findings that the workers had failed to specify when the alleged wrongdoing had occurred and that their class definitions were so vague that there was no way to pin down who could be a class member. The court ruled that payroll records identified all the field employees who worked 12- to 24-hour shifts at lower hourly rates after the companies debuted their short-shift incentive programs.

But the justices found that substantial evidence backed up Judge Stock's refusals to certify the other classes, noting how common issues did not bind all the members of the putative class of workers who were allegedly not paid in a timely fashion and that the EMTs had failed to demonstrate how their wage statements were false.

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment Friday. Justices Richard Aronson, Kathleen O'Leary and David Thompson sat on the panel for the Fourth Appellate District.

At that time, Bowers Cos. Inc. and Pacific Ambulance Inc. are represented by Silverstein & Huston.

The workers are represented by the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Richard E. Quintilone II Esq. of Quintilone & Associates, the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, the Carter Law Firm and the Cooper Law Firm.

The case is Bowers Companies Wage and Hour Cases, case number G046104, in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California.

Bankruptcy

After the appeal, Rural/Metro Corporation, a parent corporation of Pacific-Bowers, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Settlement talks continued. 

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

As many are aware on August 4, 2013, (“Petition Date”), the Defendants and certain of their affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 13-11952-KJC).  Pursuant to the dictates of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), upon Petition Date, the Class Action was stayed.  Claim” refers to Claim Numbers 919, 920, and 1163 filed by the Plaintiffs, individually and/or in their capacity as Class Representatives, in the Chapter 11 Cases in connection with the Action.

In October 2013, the Class Representatives, through their counsel, led by Joseph Antonelli Esq. and Richard E. Quintilone II Esq. timely filed a proof of claim in the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases on behalf of the Class (the “Class Claim”) based upon damages to the Class for, inter alia, the Debtors’ violation of the statutes and the causes of action set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.  The Class Representatives also filed individual proof of claim based upon the same causes of action.  Shulman, Hodges & Bastian, LLP serve as bankruptcy counsel for the Class Representatives.  The Rosner Law Group LLC is local bankruptcy counsel in the District of Delaware for the Class Representatives.  

On October 15, 2013, the Class Bankruptcy counsel in the District of Delaware for the Class Representatives moved under Bankruptcy Rule 7023, in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 9014, to certify the Class for purposes of asserting and seeking allowance of the Class Claim.  This motion was granted on December 17, 2013 by Hon. Kevin T. Carey, United States Bankruptcy Judge. 

The Plaintiffs seek entry of the class certification order and to obtain preliminary approval of a non-reversionary settlement in the gross amount of $1,700,000 on behalf of approximately 1,699 current and former hourly non-exempt employees, who were employed by Bowers Ambulance, Inc. (“Bowers”), Pacific Ambulance, Inc. (“Pacific”) or its predecessors (collectively "Defendants" or “Bowers”) and who worked in California at any time during the Class Period of February 3, 2005 to August 4, 2013.  

The parties have completed the negotiations on the settlement, the terms of which are set forth in the Joint Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) which can be viewed at the Orange County Superior Court or online, which has been signed by all parties to the litigation. Additionally, two consents that impact the viability of the Settlement Agreement have now been obtained. 

The Plaintiffs, through their counsel, are in the process of drafting the preliminary approval papers to file with this Court during the week of February 15, 2016.

If there are any questions about the case, any current California Labor Code claims you may have, or the upcoming motion for preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement, please feel free to contact class counsel at the following:

Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.

QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES

22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100

Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961

Email req@quintlaw.com

Tel:   949.458.9675

Fax:  949.458.9679

Web: www.quintlaw.com 

Appeal has been filed - Granted 2013

The Motion for Class Certification has been denied, however, an appeal has been filed.

Since the California Supreme Court announced a big decision in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court. This decision has made our appeal favorable. The decision clarifies some laws as they pertain to employers and employees, and sets forth a simple three part test for meal period compliance.

More information regarding the Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court can be found: http://quintilonelaw.net/the-california-supreme-court-announces-big-brinker-decision-for-employees. 


EMTs Win their Appeal 

In June 2013, a California appeals court ordered the certification of two classes of employees suing a pair of ambulance companies for allegedly cutting their hourly pay and overtime compensation when they worked long shifts, overturning a lower court's decision that the classes had been poorly defined.

Contrary to the trial court's opinion, the two would-be classes of employees were all subjected to a set of uniform pay policies by Bowers Cos. Inc. and Pacific Ambulance Inc. that applied "to readily ascertainable groups of employees," suiting those claims to being determined on a classwide basis, according to the appeals court.

"We remand the matter to the trial court with directions to certify the regular rate and overtime classes based on modified class definitions," Associate Justice Richard Aronson wrote for the court. The panel affirmed state Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock's decision that three other proposed subclasses, each making a different allegation — accusing Bowers and Pacific of failing to provide mandatory breaks, accurate pay stubs and payment of outstanding wages to employees who were fired or quit — should not be certified because all the workers were not bound by common issues. 

William Gonzales and Joshua Kahane, two emergency medical technicians who worked for Bowers and Pacific — which have a common management team but separate sets of nurses, EMTs and other field employees working in different countries — each filed putative class actions against the companies that were consolidated in May 2010, according to the ruling.

Their lawsuits stemmed from pay policies that the companies, which operate around the clock and provide nonemergency medical transport services, enacted after their employees voted to authorize a new four-day workweek consisting of 10-plus hour days. Under the new schedule, employees would earn their regularly hourly pay for the first 10 hours, overtime for two hours beyond that, and double pay for any hours in excess of 12, the appeals court said.

Bowers workers voted to institute those changes in 2000 while Pacific workers signed on to the new "alternative work week" in 2003, according to the ruling. But the four-day week became so popular that the ambulance companies struggled to fill their regular eight- and 10-hour shifts, and years later the medical transport companies decided to incentivize those shifts by upping the hourly rate for them, in an attempt to offset the overtime that could be earned from working longer hours. Bowers made the change in 2008 while Pacific followed in 2010. 

Gonzales and Kahane's suits made a slew of wage-and-hour violations against the companies, including accusations that the companies wrongly docked its employees' hourly pay when they worked longer shifts, failed to pay them all the straight and overtime wages they were entitled, and didn't provide them with breaks or legally compliant pay stubs.

The EMTs motioned for certification of the five classes in October 2011, but it was shot down by the trial court, which found that the putative classes were overly broad, that it was impossible to ascertain the number of members in each of them and that the EMTs had failed to show that common issues united all the class members. 

When it came to the docked-pay and overtime classes, the appeals court, citing the California Supreme Court's landmark April 2012 Brinker decision, disagreed — saying there was plenty of evidence that an allegedly unlawful uniform policy had been imposed on all the employees in question.

"Plaintiffs' theory of recovery defines a group of unnamed plaintiffs with a purported right to recover based on objective characteristics and transactional facts," the court ruled. The appellate panel also disagreed with the trial court's findings that the workers had failed to specify when the alleged wrongdoing had occurred and that their class definitions were so vague that there was no way to pin down who could be a class member. The court ruled that payroll records identified all the field employees who worked 12- to 24-hour shifts at lower hourly rates after the companies debuted their short-shift incentive programs.

But the justices found that substantial evidence backed up Judge Stock's refusals to certify the other classes, noting how common issues did not bind all the members of the putative class of workers who were allegedly not paid in a timely fashion and that the EMTs had failed to demonstrate how their wage statements were false.

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment Friday. Justices Richard Aronson, Kathleen O'Leary and David Thompson sat on the panel for the Fourth Appellate District.

At that time, Bowers Cos. Inc. and Pacific Ambulance Inc. are represented by Silverstein & Huston.

The workers are represented by the Law Office of Joseph Antonelli, Richard E. Quintilone II Esq. of Quintilone & Associates, the Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, the Carter Law Firm, Phelps Law Group, and the Cooper Law Firm.

The case is Bowers Companies Wage and Hour Cases, case number G046104, in the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California.

About The Case

This blog is for informational purposes about a pending California class action lawsuit and how you can participate if interested.

Background

This is an individual and class action filed on February 3, 2009, by Plaintiff Joshua Kahane, who worked in the position of both an ambulance driver and emergency medical technician (“EMT”) in one of Defendants’ Orange County facilities and on behalf of all persons similarly situated throughout the State of California. The class and representative action allegations concerned the failure of Defendants BOWERS COMPANIES INC. d/b/a BOWERS AMBULANCE and PACIFIC AMBULANCE, INC. (“Defendants”), to pay wages including overtime compensation, to provide meal periods, to provide rest periods, to provide itemized statements, to pay wages upon termination of employment as well as unlawful competition and business practices.

On or about January 19, 2010, plaintiff William Gonzales filed his complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code §17200, et. seq., and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 226.7, 510, 1194, and 1198 for all California employees of the Defendants as well.

On or about May 27, 2010, the cases were coordinated by the Chief Justice of California and Chair of The Judicial Council and have been given the title of “Bowers Companies Wage and Hours Cases,” Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings No. 4620. (“JCCP 4620”).

In this action, Plaintiffs are seeking to certify claims for:

Class 1: “Overtime Class”
All current and former California hourly employees who work or worked for defendants from February 3, 2005 through date of judgment, who worked over eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) in a week without receiving proper overtime premium.

Class 2: “Regular Rate Class”
All non-exempt persons employed in California who work or worked more than eight (8) hours a day for defendants at any time from February 3, 2005 to the time of judgment who were not properly compensated (straight-time and overtime premium pay) because defendant(s) subjected them to a base, hourly, rate-of-pay cut when working these overtime shifts.

Class 3: “Failure to Pay All Wages”
All current and former California hourly employees of defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, who were not paid all wages due them, including but not limited to straight time, overtime, double overtime, missed meal periods and missed rest breaks.

Class 4: “Waiting Time Class”
All California persons employed as hourly, nonexempt employees by defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment who left defendants’ employ without receiving all wages due upon termination.

Class 5: “Failure to Provide Meal Periods”
All California-based hourly employees employed by defendants February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, who were not provided legally complaint meal periods.
Subclass I: All California hourly employees who worked for defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, who were required to sign on-duty meal agreements as a condition of employment when hired by defendants.
Subclass II: All California hourly employees who worked for defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, who were required to sign meal waivers as a condition of employment when hired by defendants.
Subclass III: All California-based hourly employees who worked for defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, who signed meal waivers for the second meal and worked over 12 hours in a shift.
Subclass IV: All California-based hourly employees who worked for defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, who worked 24 hour shifts and were not provided three (3) mandated meal periods of not more than one (1) hour each and a regularly scheduled uninterrupted sleeping period of not more than eight (8) hours.

Class 6: “Failure to Provide Rest Breaks”
All California-based hourly employees employed by defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment, in which defendants improperly failed to authorize and permit them their requisite rest periods.

Class 7: “Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements”
All California based hourly employees employed by defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment who were not provided pay stubs that complied with Labor Code § 226.

Class 8: “Failure to Reimburse Necessary Work Expenses”
All California based hourly employees employed by defendants from February 3, 2005 to the date of judgment who were not were not reimbursed for those lawful and necessary work related expenses or losses incurred in direct discharge of their duties during their employment pursuant to Labor Code § 2802.

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class Certification.

The primary dispute in this lawsuit - a wage and hour putative class action involving claims for overtime, meal and rest breaks and the associated penalties - is whether emergency medical technicians (“EMT”), paramedics, nurses, and other nonexempt hourly employees could effectively waive the overtime requirements of the IWC Wage Orders via the nature of their employment. There are three primary ways Defendants denied the class proper pay (1) through a dual rate scheme; (2) through improper use of the Alternative Workweek Schedule (“AWS”) and through (3) the mandatory participation in Defendant's Agreement for 24-Hour Shifts of Duty Plan (“Plan”), devised to pay them for 16 hours of work in every 24 - while allowing for an alleged five to eight hours of on-premises sleep. Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code (“B&PC”) § 17200, et. seq., and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 226.7,510,512,1194,1198, and 2699, et. seq. As such, plaintiffs seek to certify the classes of California employees listed in the notice. The common facts and common legal questions are applicable to all classes, thus class certification should be granted. The Court has not yet certified a class of California employees.

In furtherance of our investigation efforts, we are looking to interview other employees who experienced similar mistreatment or former employees or former assistant managers who have information regarding this conduct. If you have any questions regarding this case please contact:

Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
Quintilone & Associates
22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
Telephone: 949.458.9675
Facsimile: 949.458.9679
Email: Req@Quintlaw.Com
Hannah L. Thrane
Legal Assistant
Email: HLT@Quintlaw.com
Web: www.quintlaw.com

Roger R. Carter, Esq
Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq
THE CARTER LAW FIRM
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 260-4737
Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
Email: RCarter@Carterlawfirm.net
Web: www.CarterLawFirm.net

Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
Janelle Carney, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
1000 Lakes Drive, Suite 450
West Covina, CA 91790
Office (626) 917-6228
Fax (626) 917-7686
Email: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com
website www.antonellilaw.com

California employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who participate in wage and hour complaints or investigations. If you feel you have been retaliated against, please feel free to contact any of the above-listed law firms or the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for information. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileDiscriminationComplaint.htm


For additional information on the hearing dates or to examine the file in the case you can go online to http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/ and search for JCCP 4620 when requested for the Case Number.