Free Request - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:03-cv—O1741—PGR Document 95-3 FiIed12/06/2005 Page10f3

-05 AHQQIGS IIITIGSZ Archives PBQE 1 Of 2
Allstate to Settle Overtime Claims; Insurer, which admits no wrongdoing, will pay as
much as $120 million to California adjusters.; [HOME EDITION]
Lisa Girion. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 2, 2005. pg. C.1
Full Text (810 words)
(Copyright (c) 2005 Los Angeles Times)
Allstate Corp. said Thursday that it would pay as much as $120 million to settle claims that some of its white-collar employees in
California were routinely required to work long hours without overtime pay.
The case is the latest in a series of cIass—action lawsuits putting pressure on California employers to revamp their white- collar
pay policies. Previous settlements by RadioShack Corp., Bank of America Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Rite Aid Corp. highlighted
the practice of classifying workers as managers or administrators to avoid paying overtime.
ln the Allstate case, adjusters at the nation's second-largest home and auto insurer alleged that the company refused to pay
overtime but routinely assigned them so many claims that they had to work nights and weekends to keep up.
"It's very similar to what happened in the '40s with the sweatshops," said R. Rex Parris, a Lancaster lawyer who represented the
adjusters. "The laptop had become the sewing machine of the 2001 era. Companies were sending these people home with their
laptops. They'd work long hours at work, and then they'd go home and continue to work."
Almost 3,000 California—based adjusters are eligible to receive payments that could range from $1,000 to $100,000, depending
on each employee's tenure with Allstate and amount of overtime worked, said Parris, who estimated that the typical payout
would be $50,000 or $60,000. Adjusters make about $50,000 a year, without overtime.
Allstate did not respond to a request for comment.
ln a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, the Northbrook, Ill.-based company said it "continues to
deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims raised in the lawsuit."
The proposed settlement is subject to approval by a Los Angeles County Superior Courtjudge.
The Allstate case is part of a wave of class-action litigation by white-collar workers claiming overtime exploitation in industries
such as retail, restaurants and banking. National employers have agreed to big payouts in California to avoid being pitted at trial
against thousands of managers, assistant managers, claims adjusters or tellers.
The explosion in litigation began about five years ago after California lawyers sought class-action status for alleged overtime law
violations, which historically had been handled case by case.
Under California law, employers are required to pay time and a half for more than eight hours of work a day. It also requires .
employers to pay the overtime premium to many white-collar workers - - regardless of title -- who spend more than half their time
flipping burgers, running cash registers or doing other non- managerial or non—administrative work. Such violations are more
difficult to prove under federal law, which governs most states.
Experts said the California suits have had a major effect on the way national employers pay a variety of white-collar workers in
the state. Large national employers now are more inclined to classify certain California white-collar workers -- such as store
managers -- as nonexempt, allowing them to collect overtime.
"These are problems that resulted from the employers' own policies and practices and their inconsistencies with California state
Iaw," said Joe Beachboard, a Los Angeles partner with Ogletree Deakins, a law firm that represents employers. "The big
employers now have seen the light, and I get a lot of calls from companies based [outside] California who now want to ensure
their pay practices and policies and handbooks are consistent with state law. That didn't happen much five or 10 years ago."
In the Allstate case, some plaintiffs alleged that they had to work six days or more a week to keep up with their claims loads.
Case 2:03-cv—01741—PGR Document 95-3 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 3
1ttD://Duasb.Doarchiver.com/latimes/890796831.html?MAC=986448f928cff18976adabc891173... 10/3/2005

.0S Al'lg€I€S I IITIESI AI‘Cl'IlV€S PGQG Z OT Z
“lt's just incredible the hours they were expected to put in," Parris said. "On Saturdays, some of the women were bringing their
kids in, and they played on the floor while they worked. It was not a good situation."
Similar suits are pending against other insurers, and several have settled. In January, State Farm Insurance Cos. agreed to pay
$135 million to settle an overtime lawsuit on behalf of 2,600 claims adjusters in California. Los Angeles-based Farmers
Insurance Exchange agreed last September to pay as much as $210 million to resolve the overtime claims of 2,400 adjusters
who had earlier won $90 million from an Oakland jLll'y.
l\/lost of the insurers who settled have changed the way they manage claims adjusters' workloads, schedules and pay, Parris
said. The new policies have resulted in adjusters' working fewer hours of overtime and getting paid for the overtime they work,
he said. Some ofthe insurers have limited the new policies to California-based adjusters, but others have made the changes
nationwide.
"The suits have changed thousands of lives," Parris said. "The best example was one guy was telling us he now coaches Little
League. He's now an assistant Scoutmaster. He's doing things with his kids he never was able to do before."
Credit: Times Staff Writer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Subjects: Overtime pay, Settlements & damages, Class action lawsuits, White collar workers, Insurance companies
Ilassification Codes 9190, 4330, 8220
.ocations: California
Bompanies: Allstate Corp(Ticker:ALL, NAICS: 524113, 524126 )
Jocument types: News
Section: Business; Part C; Business Desk
SSN/ISBN: 04583035
`ext Word Count 810
Jocument URL:
Case 2:03-cv—01741—PGR Document 95-3 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 3 of 3
ittp://pciasb.pqarchivencom/latimes/890796831.html?MAC=986448f928cff18976adabc891173... 10/3/2005

Case 2:03-cv-01741-PGR

Document 95-3

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01741-PGR

Document 95-3

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01741-PGR

Document 95-3

Filed 12/06/2005

Page 3 of 3