Request Legal Help Now - Free

Advertisement
LAWSUITS NEWS & LEGAL INFORMATION

Penske Admits No Wrongdoing in California Labor Code Class Action Settlement

. By

After nearly nine years of litigation, Penske Logistics agreed in January to pay $750,000 to settle a long-running class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law by not paying wages to its California truck drivers for meal and rest breaks.

According to Trucks.com (1/30/17), Penske released a statement on the settlement:
“Penske is pleased to have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs’ counsel to settle this dispute. We did not admit any wrongdoing and believe that Penske would have prevailed on the merits of the claims, but we look forward to the court approving the settlement and putting an end to this protracted litigation.”

The class action Dilts et al v. Penske Logistics LLC et al , Case No. 3:08-cv-00318, US District Court for the Southern District of California, which was scheduled to go to trial February 6, was filed in 2008 by Penske drivers who claimed that the company violated California labor law by not offering required breaks and then deducted pay for those untaken rest breaks from delivery drivers and Whirlpool appliances installers.

California Labor Code § 226.7 prohibits employers from forcing employees to work during meal and rest periods. Under California law, employers are required to provide employees with a 30-minute break during a five-hour work day and two 30-minute breaks during a 10-hour shift. If an employer works more than 10 hours, an employer must provide an additional 30-minute paid meal break.

According to court documents, the proposed settlement amount was based on "rational discounting" in light of Penske Logistic's claim that there was no class-wide policy to deny second meal periods. The company claimed that it did provide second meal periods and if those meal periods weren't taken, it's because some class member waived them or took their second meal periods combined with the first meal break.

The second-meal dispute was a key factor in reaching a settlement, according to plaintiff attorney Michael Singer in his motion for preliminary approval.

"A liability trial on the second meal period claim would have resulted in disputed testimony regarding Penske’s policies, complicated evidentiary presentations regarding expert review and analysis of voluminous records, along with efforts to have Penske’s records admitted at trial over challenge," stated Singer in the motion. "These risks supported settlement in lieu of trial."

While the proposed settlement will bring the Penske class action to an end, the trucking industry continues to urge Congress to step in and pass new legislation that would block states from enforcing their own rules on interstate truck drivers who are employees, according to Trucks.com:

"The American Trucking Association, along with other trucking trade groups, said it would continue to push back against jurisdictions that are imposing extra meal and rest break requirements on interstate drivers already limited by federal hours-of-service regulations."


READ ABOUT CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LAWSUITS

California Labor Law Legal Help

If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to an employment law lawyer who may evaluate your California Labor Law claim at no cost or obligation.

ADD YOUR COMMENT ON THIS STORY

Please read our comment guidelines before posting.


Note: Your name will be published with your comment.


Your email will only be used if a response is needed.

Are you the defendant or a subject matter expert on this topic with an opposing viewpoint? We'd love to hear your comments here as well, or if you'd like to contact us for an interview please submit your details here.


Click to learn more about LawyersandSettlements.com

Request Legal Help Now! - Free