DNC Escapes Overtime Suit Over 2016 Campaign
The ruling allows some claims to move forward against the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
September 30, 2019 at 04:52 PM
4 minute read
The Democratic National Committee has dodged a lawsuit alleging it failed to properly pay workers overtime during the year leading up to the 2016 presidential election.
U.S. District Judge Darnell Jones of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 27 granted the motion to dismiss DNC Services Corp., doing business as the Democratic National Committee, from the case Katz v. DNC Services.
Although the ruling allowed some claims to move forward against the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, Jones determined that plaintiff Bethany Katz failed to prove that the DNC was her employer.
"The alleged sharing of funds and provision of 'critical staff salaries,' does not permit the court to reasonably infer that the redistribution of money—a fungible commodity that could be applied to salaries as easily as it could be applied to the purchase of stationary—evidences the authority to hire and fire," Jones said. "Additionally, posting job applications for field organizers and then participating in the training of those hired, does not plausibly allege that defendant DNC could have hired those individuals or that it had the authority to fire them if they failed to fulfill their job duties."
The relationship between the DNC and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party was complex, as indicated by court records.
According to Jones, Katz and similar organizers were directly employed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, but some of their duties related to the "Pennsylvania Coordinated Campaign," which performed campaign efforts under the brand of "Hillary for Pennsylvania." Although Hillary for President oversaw the coordinated campaign efforts, the DNC also coordinated and directed strategic initiatives directly with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, Jones said. He added that the DNC directed the state party to hire and retain organizers, and when the party hired organizers, it did so with money provided by the DNC.
According to Jones, the job duties included making numerous phone calls each week as part of the get-out-the-vote effort, posting on social media, and collecting survey data from registered voters. Katz and other organizers would also input survey answers into Votebuilder, a database jointly operated by the DNC and the state party, which aggregated and synthesized voter information into one location so it could then be sold and licensed to other campaigns and third-party organizations, Jones said.
Jones said Katz and other organizers worked more than 40 hours each week, but were allegedly never paid overtime or any other extra compensation. Ultimately, Katz sued the DNC and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party in a proposed class action, alleging violations of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Much of Katz's arguments seeking to hold the DNC liable focused on that organization's ties with the state party and Hillary for President, which was a nonparty. Jones, however, rejected efforts to "collapse two independent legal entities into one," and said he would only consider allegations regarding the DNC's independent conduct.
However, Jones determined that Katz only proved the DNC's "involvement" in her employment, rather than "actual authority."
"The coordination and strategic involvement of separate legal entities with a common goal does not equal joint employer relationship in and of itself," Jones said. "If it did, defendant DNC inherently would be joint employers with each of its state affiliates."
Katz was represented by Justin Swidler and Joshua Boyette of Swartz Swidler in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. A message left at the firm seeking comment was not returned. Both Elisabeth Frost of Perkins Coie, who represented the DNC, and Ashley Baxter, of Fox Rothschild, who represented the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDisjunctive 'Severe or Pervasive' Standard Applies to Discrimination Claims Against University, Judge Rules
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Volunteers Unreimbursed Expenses — Tax Incentives For Itemizers
- 2Carter Mario Achieves $225,000 Settlement in Motor Vehicle Case
- 3Legal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
- 4'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
- 5SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250