San Francisco, CAA California labor lawsuit that reached right across the nation is poised for a fair and reasonable outcome after plaintiffs urged the presiding judge to approve a settlement worth $2.5 million. The California labor lawsuit, which involves former and current security guards employed by Securitas, alleged various violations to California and federal statutes.
The California and labor law settlement could affect more than 24,000 opt-in class members if approved.
The action, originally filed in October 2013 by plaintiff Michael Deatrick, alleged various violations to California labor and employment law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) concerning the issuance of vacation pay - or lack thereof, according to the lawsuit. Deatrick, a former security guard once employed by the defendant, alleged that Securitas violated state and federal statutes by not providing employees with vacation pay, as required under California state labor laws.
Guards were given sums of money, however, in the form of lump-sum payments once per year as compensation for vacation time.
In his California labor code lawsuit, Deatrick asserts that the payment provided by Securitas was, in effect, a nondiscretionary retention bonus based on the number of hours worked, yet not dependent on vacation time taken. Not only was the lump sum payment denied to guards having left the employ of Securitas prior to their employment anniversary, or so it was alleged, but Deatrick claimed the lump sum payment was not included in overtime calculations, as required under the FLSA.
Securitas responded to the lawsuit by moving for summary judgment, but its petition was denied in June of last year, with the court ruling that the annual payments did indeed need to be properly included as part of the regular rate for overtime pay calculation.
The California labor employment lawsuit was certified as a class action some five months later, in November 2014.
In sum, the lawsuit held that the Securitas vacation pay scheme is just a bonus program dressed up to appear as vacation pay, when it really isn’t. After a settlement was hammered out between the two parties, plaintiffs urged US District Judge Jon S. Tigar to give initial approval to the settlement, calling it “fair, adequate and reasonable.
“The payments to the class are appropriate in light of the risks and delays attendant to further litigation, and are reasonable in light of likely potential recovery at trial,” the plaintiffs’ motion said.
The case is Michael Deatrick v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., case number 13-cv-05016, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
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.