At the hearing Judge Lipscomb approved the addition of Al Chandler, Karen Eastman and Mike Reinecke as representative plaintiffs in the case.
A second important issue that was decided was whether or not this class would be governed as an FLSA type lawsuit, where plaintiffs would have to “opt in”, or whether it would be governed as a normal class action lawsuit, where all potential plaintiffs would be in the lawsuit unless they specifically “opted out.” Based upon the fact that in the past a very small percentage of potential plaintiffs opted in to FLSA lawsuits against the State, the State was vigorously arguing that this should be treated similar to a FLSA lawsuit. Judge Lipscomb ruled that doing so would be unfair to numerous State employees. Therefore, he denied the State’s motion to require this to be an “opt in” case.
The third issue before the Court was whether or not elected officials are plaintiffs. Judge Lipscomb took this under advisement and indicated that he would rule in approximately two weeks on this issue.
Based upon the Judge’s ruling and his discussions regarding the proposed forms of notice to class members that each side had drafted, the parties are going to work together through Professor Gwartney at the University of Oregon, who is the Director of Oregon Survey Research Laboratory (OSRL), and will try to agree on a proposed notice to potential class members and a form to be filled out by them to support their overtime claims.
Lastly, Judge Lipscomb suggested that the parties attempt to conduct a “mini-survey” to see on the average of how many overtime hours a State employee would have worked, and then see if the parties could agree to a minimum amount to be paid to all plaintiffs who do not participate in the OSRL survey. It will be up to the State to indicate if it is interested in such a method.
Another part of this case involves a claim for “penalty pay” under Oregon statutes by which the plaintiffs are arguing that all former employees of the State of Oregon are entitled to 30 days additional wages, because the State did not process their final paycheck properly by including the overtime that is now due based upon this decision. That motion will be argued in front of Judge Lipscomb on Wednesday the 17th of May at 2:00 p.m. In addition, if the parties have not yet agreed to a form of the notice, or have not completed the initial discovery, which is obtaining the list of all potential plaintiffs, those disagreements will be presented to the Judge for resolution as well.
As soon as the parties agree to the form of notice and who will receive it, a mailing will go out to potential plaintiffs telling them of their right to recover overtime in the case. It is hard to predict when this will occur, but it should be by June or July at the latest.
In addition, that notice will inform any plaintiff who may object to the manner of the settlement, namely the arbitration process that has been agreed to for resolution of any individual claim, and to my requested attorney’s fees, that a hearing date will be set so they may explain their objections to the Court.
In summary, the case is moving as fast as can be expected. I am pleased with our progress to date. If anyone has questions concerning this case, don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
The Law Office of John Hoag, P.C.
JH:kp
Updated 05-13-00