SAN FRANCISCO — Rose Feaver, Myungshun Shim, and Artin Adamian are outpatient pharmacy managers who filed a proposed class action suit against their employer, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs alleged that Kaiser required them to work off the clock for an extended period of time even though they were non-exempt hourly employees. This case is a follow-up from earlier cases where outpatient pharmacy managers, who were originally classified as exempt employees, filed suit and, pursuant to a settlement, were reclassified as non-exempt hourly workers.
Prior Overtime Case Against Kaiser
An earlier class action suit was brought by outpatient pharmacy managers against Kaiser, alleging that they were denied overtime. Apparently after Kaiser reclassified them, it actively discouraged outpatient pharmacy managers from submitting overtime requests, despite the demands of a job that required them to work more than 40-hour weeks.
Kaiser responded that it implements a timekeeping policy that requires non-exempt employees to accurately record all of their work time, and that if they failed to comply with the policy, they are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. Kaiser also argues that it provided outpatient pharmacy managers with additional training regarding these policies and that it ceased providing these managers with certain tools used to remotely access Kaiser’s computer.
Certification of Class Action
The court found that the plaintiffs had submitted enough evidence to show that there was a prevalent practice of outpatient pharmacy managers engaging in off-the-clock work. Even though there was an alleged formal policy to the contrary, the common practice of off-the-clock work, such as sending off-the-clock emails, was enough to bind the proposed collective class together. Additionally, the court was convinced that Kaiser knew of this practice.
Under FLSA, class certification is appropriate where the plaintiffs demonstrate a common policy or practice that deprives them of overtime pay that the employer was aware of. There does not need to be a formal, written policy. Here, because the court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently showed a common policy or practice, it conditionally certified the proposed class.
Employees may be able to bring collective actions on behalf of similarly-situated employees of the same company whose wage rights were also violated if they can show that they were subjected to a common policy or practice. You should call (855) 754-2795 or complete the Free Unpaid Overtime Case Review form on the top right of this page to consult with an attorney as to whether you might be able to bring a collective action against your employer. Our top-rated team of wage lawyers will evaluate your situation to determine your best course of action. We will also determine if it is in your best interest to file a lawsuit against your employer. There are strict time limitations for filing, so it is important that you call our experienced attorneys today.