This was a Private Attorney General action against an auction company regarding Auctioneers the company treated as independent contractors. The Auctioneers claimed that they should have been treated as employees and that the company avoided paying workers compensation premiums and other benefits by improperly treating them as independent contractors. On December 13, 2018, the court approved a total settlement amount of $2.75 million.
In this case, The Graves Firm represented a class of just 68 auctioneers whom ADESA treated as independent contractors. Plaintiff contended that the Auctioneers were entitled to pay and benefits as employees. On June 1, 2020, the court approved a settlement for $1,155,000 dollars.
These separate class and Private Attorney General actions dealt with workers at TaskRabbit. In the class action case, The Graves Firm represented a class of approximately 10,000 workers. The company treated these workers as independent contractors, but the Plaintiff alleged that these “Taskers” were improperly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. On August 17, 2020, the court approved a settlement in the total amount of $1.75 million dollars.
This is another case in which we addressed an employer that treated workers as independent contractors, who we believe were required to be treated as employees under California law. This case dealt with Lyft Drivers and sought relief under the Private Attorney General Act for misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to reimburse business expenses. On January 2, 2020, the court approved a settlement of $15,000,000. Despite the large settlement amount, there was an objection to the settlement and an attempt to intervene in the case by two other Lyft drivers who had brought separate, overlapping Private Attorney General cases. The trial court denied the motion to intervene and approved the settlement. The Graves Firm successfully defendant the ensuing appeals both at the Court of Appeal, and before the California Supreme Court. Ultimately, on August 1, 2024, the California Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, in Turrieta v. Lyft, 16 Cal. 5th 664 (2024), and held that the State’s interest in a PAGA claim does not provide a PAGA plaintiff with the right to intervene, object to, or move to vacate a judgment in a separate overlapping matter.
This is another case regarding an employer that we believe failed to reimburse employees for business use of personal cell phones. The case involves Sales Managers at Macy’s stores in California. The claim in this case is that Sales Managers reasonably used their personal cell phones and tablets for work and Macy’s did not reimburse any of the costs associated with that use. The case has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. On January 11, 2024, the court approved a settlement that resolved all issues in the case for total settlement of $2,800,000.