fbpx

BAE Systems Overtime and Breaks California Labor Law Class Action

Which employees of a company are “exempt”—that is, which do not need to be paid overtime under employment laws? This case alleges that forensic analysts working for BAE Systems, Inc. or BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. are not exempt, because of the kinds of duties they perform.

The class for this action is all persons who are or were employed by BAE and BAE TSS as forensic analysts or a similar position in California between December 11, 2016 and the resolution of this lawsuit. There is also a Paystub Subclass that is all class members employed by BAE and BAE TSS between December 11, 2017 and the resolution of this lawsuit.

The plaintiff in this case, Aimee Cordova, has worked for BAE as a forensic analyst in California since March 2011. She was classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of IWC Wage Orders and the California Labor Code. However, the complaint alleges that she was not in fact exempt because she “did not manage any employees, did not exercise discretion or independent judgement as defined by California law, and regularly performed non-exempt work in excess of 50% of the time.”

In fact, the complaint alleges, she spent “well over 75% of [her] time performing non-exempt and non-discretionary routine tasks, including reviewing requests from law enforcement agencies, running searches and reports in [the companies’] systems, and performing routine fingerprint analysis based on predetermined and rigid standards.”

The complaint claims that she “consistently” worked more than eight or twelve hours a day, forty hours in a week, and on a seventh day in a week but was not paid at overtime rates of pay (time-and-a-half or double time).

According to the complaint, she and similar employees were also not given proper meal breaks—that is, uninterrupted meal periods of thirty minutes before their fifth hour of work and, if their day extended past ten hours, a second uninterrupted thirty-minute meal period. In such circumstances, workers are to be given an extra hour’s pay for the missed meal periods, but these workers did not receive that.

Additionally, these employees were not given rest breaks of ten minutes for every four hours worked, nor were they given the extra hour of pay they were entitled to for every day they did not get their rest breaks.

Finally, because of the resulting miscalculation of their hours and wages, the complaint alleges that their wage statements were inaccurate and not itemized in accordance with California laws.

The complaint alleges that the companies were advised by lawyers and others with knowledge of California’s labor laws and that they therefore knew or should have known that they were obligated to give employees breaks and pay them in accordance with the law.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Employment

Most Recent Case Event

BAE Systems Overtime and Breaks California Labor Law Complaint

December 11, 2020

Which employees of a company are “exempt”—that is, which do not need to be paid overtime under employment laws? This case alleges that forensic analysts working for BAE Systems, Inc. or BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. are not exempt, because of the kinds of duties they perform.

BAE Systems Overtime and Breaks California Labor Law Complaint

Case Event History

BAE Systems Overtime and Breaks California Labor Law Complaint

December 11, 2020

Which employees of a company are “exempt”—that is, which do not need to be paid overtime under employment laws? This case alleges that forensic analysts working for BAE Systems, Inc. or BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Inc. are not exempt, because of the kinds of duties they perform.

BAE Systems Overtime and Breaks California Labor Law Complaint
Tags: Employment Violations, Failure to Allow for/Figure in Break Time, Unpaid Overtime