A judge for the U.S. Northern District Court of California has given preliminary approval for a settlement reached in a class action suit filed against Safelite stemming from allegations related to overtime pay. In the deal, Safelite agreed to pay $1,097,000 to be distributed among class members.
“The court conditionally approves the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement,” Judge Charles R. Breyer writes in court documents.
The court extended the notice period for class members to submit their claims from 60 to 90 days.
According to court documents, the settlement class “means all persons employed in California by [Safelite] as a windshield repair specialist or replacement technician between November 14, 2007, and June 3, 2013.”
In response to this preliminary decision and extension, attorneys have submitted a deadline timetable to the court for the judge’s approval. This proposed calendar includes:
- The deadline for mailing notices to class members is August 16.
- The deadline for claim members to submit claims forms to the administrator is November 14.
- The deadline for the claims administrator to provide final claims information to the parties is November 18.
- The deadline for the defendant to revoke the settlement is November 22.
- The deadline for the filing motion for final approval from the court for the settlement is November 29.
- The final approval hearing is December 13.
The court had not yet ruled on the proposed timetable at press time.
The settlement agreement notes that Safelite “has asserted defenses to the claims alleged in the class action [suit] and expressly denies each of the claims asserted against it and any and all liability arising out of the conduct and facts alleged in the class action.”
“Defendant nevertheless desires to settle the class action,” writes counsel for Safelite. “[Safelite] has concluded that further defense of the class action would be protracted and expensive. Substantial amounts of time, energy and resources of [Safelite] have been and, unless this settlement is made, will continue to be devoted to the defense of the claims asserted in the class action.”
Demetriot Lewis, who worked as a mobile windshield repair technician from April 2010 to December 2010 in the San Francisco Bay area, filed the suit originally, alleging that he was regularly scheduled to work eight hours per day, but that the company “did not pay [him] wages for all the hours [he] worked.”
“Defendant required plaintiff to clock in for work at a specified time, but regularly suffered or permitted [him] to work prior to the specified time for clocking in,” alleged Lewis in the original case. “Tasks that defendant knowingly allowed or required plaintiff to perform prior to the specified time for clocking in included calling customers; retrieving paperwork, supplies or equipment from defendant’s warehouse; attending meetings or taking tests at defendant’s warehouse; and driving to customer locations from defendant’s warehouse.”