Progress Report in the Young Case

The parties have come to agreements on which employees are covered by the case. I summarize these agreements below.

  1. ALMOST ALL PEOPLE WHO WERE “EXEMPT” EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF OREGON BETWEEN JUNE 6, 1995 AND AUGUST 6, 1997 ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE OVERTIME PAY FOR WORK PERFORMED IN THAT PERIOD.
  2. The parties have agreed to the time span June 6, 1995 through August 5, 1997. Most “exempt” State employees who worked all or part of that time span will be covered by this case.
  3. However, due to other laws, the parties have agreed that State employees who worked in certain State departments are either a) not covered by the lawsuit or b) covered for a very short time periods.

    b) Employees of the departments below are covered only for the dates specified:

    Again, most “exempt” State employees who worked all or part of the specified time span are, indeed, covered by this lawsuit.

  4. The parties have agreed on the organization that will process the claims, namely the Oregon Survey Research Laboratory (OSRL) at the University of Oregon. OSRL is well known for its rigorous procedures for insuring confidentiality and its ability to handle complex cases such as this. You will hear more from OSRL soon.
  5. The parties continue to disagree as to whether elected officials are covered by this lawsuit, excluding District Attorneys.
  6. The parties also continue to disagree about whether this will be an “opt-out” or “opt-in” class action lawsuit. Opt out means that all covered employees will automatically be part of the suit unless they sign a special form saying they wish to opt out and then file this form with the court clerk. Opt in means that covered employees who wish to be part of the lawsuit must sign a “consent to join” form and file it with the court clerk. We, the plaintiffs, are arguing for an opt-out procedure.
  7. Related to item 6 above, the parties need to decide both on procedures for making claims in this lawsuit and on a claim form. Making a claim will involve verifying your State employment between June 6, 1995 to August 6, 1997, tallying up your overtime hours during the period in question, and calculating how much you are owed. We, the plaintiffs, will argue for the simplest, cheapest possible procedure to settle this suit.

    We will argue for the following procedure:

    1. You will fill out a worksheet with your employment information, hours of work, and some background data,
    2. You mail the worksheet to OSRL in a postage-paid envelope,
    3. OSRL will verify your employment,
    4. OSRL will arrange a telephone interview with you to both verify your worksheet information and calculate how much you are owed,
    5. OSRL will send the calculations to the State,
    6. The State will have a chance to protest,
    7. You are mailed a check for the money due you, by state law, for the time you worked overtime.

    The timeline for when these procedures will occur depends upon two things: 1) when the Court rules on the issues that separate the parties, and 2) when the State gets the necessary information to OSRL for processing claims.

  8. The Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure require the Court to set a hearing date for any plaintiff in this case to object to either the claims resolution form or to attorney’s fees which will be requested by John Hoag as the plaintiffs’ attorney. The Oregon’s Hour and Overtime Statutes (ORS 279.340 – 279.342) do not provide for attorney’s fees to be awarded to parties who sue alleging a statutes violation. Therefore, when David Young commenced this lawsuit, he entered into a fairly standard contingency fee agreement with John Hoag. The contingency fee’s purpose is to pay for John Hoag’s expenses in the successful pursuit of this case. Specifically, he originally asked for 33% of the gross amount recovered after filing the lawsuit, 40% after trial, and 50% after appeal. John Hoag has decided to reduce his attorney’s fees request to 25% percent of the plaintiffs’ gross recovery, even though he has argued the case in the Court of Appeals and the State petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Judge Lipscomb will schedule a hearing on John Hoag’s revised petition for attorney’s fees. The parties have agreed that the attorney fees matter should be heard and ruled on upon by the Court before claims are paid, because the State desires to pay claims on an ongoing basis, rather than when the case is finally resolved.
  9. The matters discussed in items 5, 6, and 7 above will be decided by Judge Lipscomb in Marion County Circuit Court during (or after) a hearing, which is currently scheduled for April 20th, at 9:30 a.m. The hearing is open to the public.

If you have questions about this case you can contact John Hoag, 541-342-8100 or, if it is a long distance telephone call, at 1-800-964-1783.You can also contact John Hoag by E-mail at loojh@bossig.com .

Updated 04-14-00