Judge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
The plaintiffs claimed they spent approximately 15 to 30 minutes per day rebooting and loading their computers, logging in to their computers, and opening and loading various software applications and web browsers, without being compensated.
November 14, 2024 at 04:04 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Pennsylvania approved a $667,000 settlement agreement against Independence Blue Cross over claims it failed to properly compensate its customer service representatives for computer work conducted prior to clocking in.
In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $667,000 settlement agreement and $222,333.33 in attorney fees against Independence Blue Cross over allegations that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201; the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (PMWA), 43 P.S. Section 260.1; and Pennsylvania common law. The plaintiffs, Jodda Moore and Terrell Aiken, claimed their employer failed to pay them and other class members all wages earned.
In Moore v. Independence Blue Cross, the plaintiffs, who worked as customer service representatives (CSRs) in the member health team department, claimed that Independence Blue Cross regularly required CSRs to perform work prior to the start of their shift and without compensation. This allegedly included rebooting and loading their computers, logging in, and opening and loading software applications and web browsers. The plaintiffs claimed the failure to pay overtime constituted overtime wage violations, overtime gap time violations, and unjust enrichment.
The court approved the agreement on behalf of a class of 1,356 individuals, concluding it was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and the factors established in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's 1975 ruling in Girsh v. Jepson.
"The class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class. The settlement agreement was negotiated at arm's length and with the assistance of the Honorable Thomas J. Rueter. The relief provided to the class is adequate, considering all factors in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(c). The settlement agreement treats class members equitably relative to each other under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(d)," Scott said.
The net settlement amount totaled $375,601.26, which, according to the court, includes the subtraction of $222,333.33 in attorney fees, $7,065.41 in attorney expenses, $32,000 in administration expenses, $10,000 in service rewards to class representatives, and $20,000 that will be distributed by the administrator to class members entitled to a distribution of the proceeds. The court approved the request that 33% of the settlement amount by awarded to the plaintiffs' attorneys, after applying the percentage-of-recovery and lodestar methods.
"Using the lodestar method as a cross-check on the reasonableness of the requested fees, class counsel's lodestar is $138,972.50 for 263.4 hours worked, which excludes anticipated time spent preparing for, traveling to, and attending the November 12, 2024 hearing. Class counsel's requested award for attorneys' fees of $222,333.33 results in a multiplier of 1.60. Given the nature of the services provided, class counsel's experience in class action cases and the rates of other lawyers in the community with similar skills and experience, class counsel's hourly rate is reasonable," Scott said. "The number of hours expended by class counsel was not excessive or redundant. Class counsel has applied for a $5,000.00 service award for each class representative, $10,000.00 in total."
The plaintiffs were represented by Alex A. Pisarevsky, of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, in Saddle Brook, New Jersey.
According to the plaintiffs' initial complaint, they claimed they spent approximately 15 to 30 minutes per day, prior to the beginning of each shift, rebooting and loading their computers, logging in to their computers, and opening and loading various software applications and web browsers, without being compensated.
"Excluding the time spent performing uncompensated computer prep work, CSRs, including plaintiffs, regularly work or worked at least thirty-seven and one-half (37.5) hours per workweek. However, during the member health team department’s 'busy season,' which begins every October 1, and ends the following April 1, defendant mandates that all CSRs work an additional two (2) to (6) hours, or more, per workweek. Therefore, including time spent performing computer prep work, CSRs, including plaintiffs, regularly work more than forty (40) hours per week during the busy season, and also sometimes work more than forty (40) hours per week during other times of the year," the complaint said, maintaining the plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.
Independence Blue Cross's was represented by Joe H. Tucker, Jr., of Tucker Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The parties' counsel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
5 minute readSpecial Section: 2024 Labor & Employment/Workers' Compensation
Trending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250