LAWSUITS NEWS & LEGAL INFORMATION
Preliminary $11M Settlement Reached in AlliedBarton Employment Class Action Lawsuit
This is a settlement for the Employment lawsuit.
Santa Clara, CA: A preliminary $11 million settlement has been reached between AlliedBarton and a class of workers who filed an employment lawsuit against the security services company alleging it failed to provide meal and rest breaks, to pay adequate wages and did provide inaccurate wage statements, in violation of California labor law.
According to the terms of the settlement, each of the three named plaintiffs would receive $30,000 in service payments. The approximately 43,893 non-exempt hourly employees who worked for AlliedBarton in California from April 2004 through January 2015 would share the net settlement amount on a prorated basis, based on the number of weeks they worked, according to the proposed deal.
The lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff Gregory Dynabursky in 2012 on behalf of thousands of security officers, alleging that AlliedBarton violated California labor and business laws by requiring guards to perform work duties during meal breaks. He also asserts that the workers had to sign a related on-duty meal period agreement.
The case is Gregory Dynabursky et al. v. AlliedBarton Security Services LP et al., case number 8:12-cv-02210, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Published on Dec-15-15
According to the terms of the settlement, each of the three named plaintiffs would receive $30,000 in service payments. The approximately 43,893 non-exempt hourly employees who worked for AlliedBarton in California from April 2004 through January 2015 would share the net settlement amount on a prorated basis, based on the number of weeks they worked, according to the proposed deal.
The lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff Gregory Dynabursky in 2012 on behalf of thousands of security officers, alleging that AlliedBarton violated California labor and business laws by requiring guards to perform work duties during meal breaks. He also asserts that the workers had to sign a related on-duty meal period agreement.
The case is Gregory Dynabursky et al. v. AlliedBarton Security Services LP et al., case number 8:12-cv-02210, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Legal Help
If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in our form.Published on Dec-15-15
READER COMMENTS
Reginald Hill
on
Madeleine Bruley
on
George
on
Jackson Manivanh
on
Rene
on
Kathy Morgan
on
John Doe
on
Tamanika Lewis
on
Deantuane Giles
on
Shoop dee woop
on
Jane
on
PB
on
CARLOS A PEELER
on
Donna
on
Guillermo
on
Al Barton
on
Looking over all this and doing the calculations, the settlement is a pittance compared to the years of lost meal breaks. Part of the settlement protects AUS from further lawsuits as part of the deal. I'll be making some phone calls and emails tomorrow to see if outside lawyers find this case interesting, along with possible state authorities (OSHA/Labor Board)
Misss B
on
Justin mcgay
on
Shani McElroy
on
Sherri Cruz
on
ELopez
on
Takisha Johnson
on
Thank you very much in advance,
shirley scott
on
Jane Doe
on
crystal sheffield
on
MICHAEL TUCKER
on