Judge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
The plaintiffs claimed they spent approximately 15 to 30 minutes per day rebooting and loading their computers, logging in to their computers, and opening and loading various software applications and web browsers, without being compensated.
November 14, 2024 at 04:04 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Pennsylvania approved a $667,000 settlement agreement against Independence Blue Cross over claims it failed to properly compensate its customer service representatives for computer work conducted prior to clocking in.
In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a $667,000 settlement agreement and $222,333.33 in attorney fees against Independence Blue Cross over allegations that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201; the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (PMWA), 43 P.S. Section 260.1; and Pennsylvania common law. The plaintiffs, Jodda Moore and Terrell Aiken, claimed their employer failed to pay them and other class members all wages earned.
In Moore v. Independence Blue Cross, the plaintiffs, who worked as customer service representatives (CSRs) in the member health team department, claimed that Independence Blue Cross regularly required CSRs to perform work prior to the start of their shift and without compensation. This allegedly included rebooting and loading their computers, logging in, and opening and loading software applications and web browsers. The plaintiffs claimed the failure to pay overtime constituted overtime wage violations, overtime gap time violations, and unjust enrichment.
The court approved the agreement on behalf of a class of 1,356 individuals, concluding it was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and the factors established in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's 1975 ruling in Girsh v. Jepson.
"The class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class. The settlement agreement was negotiated at arm's length and with the assistance of the Honorable Thomas J. Rueter. The relief provided to the class is adequate, considering all factors in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(c). The settlement agreement treats class members equitably relative to each other under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(d)," Scott said.
The net settlement amount totaled $375,601.26, which, according to the court, includes the subtraction of $222,333.33 in attorney fees, $7,065.41 in attorney expenses, $32,000 in administration expenses, $10,000 in service rewards to class representatives, and $20,000 that will be distributed by the administrator to class members entitled to a distribution of the proceeds. The court approved the request that 33% of the settlement amount by awarded to the plaintiffs' attorneys, after applying the percentage-of-recovery and lodestar methods.
"Using the lodestar method as a cross-check on the reasonableness of the requested fees, class counsel's lodestar is $138,972.50 for 263.4 hours worked, which excludes anticipated time spent preparing for, traveling to, and attending the November 12, 2024 hearing. Class counsel's requested award for attorneys' fees of $222,333.33 results in a multiplier of 1.60. Given the nature of the services provided, class counsel's experience in class action cases and the rates of other lawyers in the community with similar skills and experience, class counsel's hourly rate is reasonable," Scott said. "The number of hours expended by class counsel was not excessive or redundant. Class counsel has applied for a $5,000.00 service award for each class representative, $10,000.00 in total."
The plaintiffs were represented by Alex A. Pisarevsky, of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf, in Saddle Brook, New Jersey.
According to the plaintiffs' initial complaint, they claimed they spent approximately 15 to 30 minutes per day, prior to the beginning of each shift, rebooting and loading their computers, logging in to their computers, and opening and loading various software applications and web browsers, without being compensated.
"Excluding the time spent performing uncompensated computer prep work, CSRs, including plaintiffs, regularly work or worked at least thirty-seven and one-half (37.5) hours per workweek. However, during the member health team department’s 'busy season,' which begins every October 1, and ends the following April 1, defendant mandates that all CSRs work an additional two (2) to (6) hours, or more, per workweek. Therefore, including time spent performing computer prep work, CSRs, including plaintiffs, regularly work more than forty (40) hours per week during the busy season, and also sometimes work more than forty (40) hours per week during other times of the year," the complaint said, maintaining the plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to be paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.
Independence Blue Cross's was represented by Joe H. Tucker, Jr., of Tucker Law Group, in Philadelphia.
The parties' counsel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Trending Stories
- 1Relaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
- 2Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 3With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 4Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 5Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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