$162,992 Verdict In Suit Seeking Unpaid Overtime
Case name: Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Service
Inc.Case number: 03-04336
Court: C.D. Calif.
Judge: Dean D. Pearson
Verdict / Settlement (breakdown): $162,992.85
plaintiff verdict ($130,502.58 in unpaid overtime;
$32,490.27 in unpaid premium meal and rest period
wages)
Plaintiff(s): Michael Marlo
Defendant(s): United Parcel Service Inc.
Date: May 20, 2009
Background: Michael Marlo said that while he
worked for United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS), the
employer intentionally misclassified him and others as
exempt employees under California labor law.
Marlo filed a proposed class action against UPS in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The putative class consisted of all full-time preload
supervisors, full-time package center supervisors and
full-time hub operations supervisors in California
from May 6, 1999, to the present. The plaintiff
sought damages for violation of California Labor
Code Section 1198, failure to pay overtime, violation
of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, failure to provide required meal, rest and
break periods and declaratory relief.
Claim: Violation of California Labor Code Section
1198, failure to pay overtime, violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, failure
to provide required meal, rest and break periods and
declaratory relief.
Defense: Marlo is not entitled to overtime because he
qualifies as an exempt employee.
Other: Originally, Judge Dean D. Pearson certified
the case as a class action.
However, on the basis of executive exemption, the
court granted summary judgment to UPS. The Ninth
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Subsequently, the trial court decertified the case,
certified the issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed
the case pending appeal. The appeals court declined
to hear the interlocutory appeal.
Eventually, the case went to trial on Marlo’s individual
claims. The trial lasted eight days, and the jury deliberated
three days.
The issues presented at trial included: whether Marlo
served as a hub supervisor from May 6, 2000, to
Sept. 30, 2000, whether Marlo was exempt from the
requirements of California Wage Order No. 9 in each
position under the executive or administrative exemptions,
whether UPS made meal periods available
to Marlo, whether Marlo authorized and permitted
Marlo to take rest breaks and whether Marlow is owed
unpaid wages.
After the trial, the judge on July 1, 2009, denied
UPS’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and
motion for new trial. However, the judge granted the
plaintiffs’ motion for restitution and interest.
UPS appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit on Aug.
3, 2009.
Inc.Case number: 03-04336
Court: C.D. Calif.
Judge: Dean D. Pearson
Verdict / Settlement (breakdown): $162,992.85
plaintiff verdict ($130,502.58 in unpaid overtime;
$32,490.27 in unpaid premium meal and rest period
wages)
Plaintiff(s): Michael Marlo
Defendant(s): United Parcel Service Inc.
Date: May 20, 2009
Background: Michael Marlo said that while he
worked for United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS), the
employer intentionally misclassified him and others as
exempt employees under California labor law.
Marlo filed a proposed class action against UPS in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The putative class consisted of all full-time preload
supervisors, full-time package center supervisors and
full-time hub operations supervisors in California
from May 6, 1999, to the present. The plaintiff
sought damages for violation of California Labor
Code Section 1198, failure to pay overtime, violation
of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, failure to provide required meal, rest and
break periods and declaratory relief.
Claim: Violation of California Labor Code Section
1198, failure to pay overtime, violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, failure
to provide required meal, rest and break periods and
declaratory relief.
Defense: Marlo is not entitled to overtime because he
qualifies as an exempt employee.
Other: Originally, Judge Dean D. Pearson certified
the case as a class action.
However, on the basis of executive exemption, the
court granted summary judgment to UPS. The Ninth
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Subsequently, the trial court decertified the case,
certified the issue for interlocutory appeal and stayed
the case pending appeal. The appeals court declined
to hear the interlocutory appeal.
Eventually, the case went to trial on Marlo’s individual
claims. The trial lasted eight days, and the jury deliberated
three days.
The issues presented at trial included: whether Marlo
served as a hub supervisor from May 6, 2000, to
Sept. 30, 2000, whether Marlo was exempt from the
requirements of California Wage Order No. 9 in each
position under the executive or administrative exemptions,
whether UPS made meal periods available
to Marlo, whether Marlo authorized and permitted
Marlo to take rest breaks and whether Marlow is owed
unpaid wages.
After the trial, the judge on July 1, 2009, denied
UPS’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and
motion for new trial. However, the judge granted the
plaintiffs’ motion for restitution and interest.
UPS appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit on Aug.
3, 2009.