California Labor Law Class-Action Plaintiffs Pushing Hard for Final Approval

Los Angeles, CAPlaintiffs in a California labor lawsuit have been lobbying the court to approve a settlement in a class action that is without equal in an alleged violation of California labor law. The lawsuit alleged the parent company associated with Tommy Hilfiger loaded workers’ wages onto debit cards, rather than issuing them paychecks or paying via automatic deposit.

The problem, according to the lawsuit, were the various fees associated with the debit cards that effectively reduced the level of workers’ wages once the fees were paid - a violation of California labor code, or so it was alleged.

The California labor lawsuit was originally filed in March 2013 in California State Court before it was removed to federal court by defendant PVH Corp. (PVH) a month later. Lead plaintiffs in the case, Jessie Chavez and Anabel Armenta, held in their labor lawsuit that PVH had violated California and labor law by loading their wages onto debit cards.

The various usage fees associated with freeing the money from the ATM cards effectively prevented plaintiffs from accessing all the wages they were owed. What’s more, the plaintiffs asserted that PVH failed to secure the consent of class members before making the decision to load wages onto ATM cards. Plaintiffs further alleged that PVH, in so doing, failed to provide accurate wage statements that showed the start date of each pay period, together with the correct legal name of the employer - all statutes associated with California labor employment law.

The parties subsequently agreed in 2014 to a $1.85 million settlement. However, the judge in the case - US District Judge Lucy H. Koh - rejected the settlement itself, but not the amount, on two separate occasions. The initial denial centered on a deal that would see PVH retain up to 20 percent of all monies stemming from the settlement that went unclaimed by class members. That aspect of the settlements structure was revised to reflect a distribution of all settlement funds, including unclaimed funds, to class members, rather than PVH.

The settlement was then given preliminary approval, only to fail a bid for final approval in February of this year when Judge Koh raised concerns about the potential for class members to participate in other actions against PVH. The judge was duly concerned that class participants might forfeit their right to sue PVH in other areas, such as nonpayment of overtime pay.

The language was changed again, with Judge Koh granting preliminary approval of the revised deal in early August. Now, some 18 months after the settlement in its original form was granted preliminary approval - and the dollar amount set - plaintiffs are lobbying for the judge to grant final approval, so the funds can be distributed.

“Counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendants each investigated and analyzed the strengths, weaknesses and risks of their respective cases,” the motion to approve, reads. “They engaged in vigorous and substantial arm’s length negotiations. Simply put, this case is a classic example of a proper, fair and adequate settlement.”

The California labor lawsuit is Chavez et al. v. PVH Corp. et al., Case Number 5:13-cv-01797, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.