Star image FarmersOvertime.com

Home The MDL Trial The MDL Judgment The MDL Appellate Process The Balliet Lawsuit Attorney Profiles Contact Us Privacy Policy

ACTION ALERTS:

Report pressure from Farmers not to report overtime.

Welcome to the FarmersOvertime.com web site!

August 5, 2009: IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' APPLICATION FOR FEES AND EXPENSES WITH RESPECT TO THE OREGON CLASS.

March 26, 2009: On January 12, 2009, Judge Jones issued a ruling on (our) plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment. As noted below, Plaintiffs had asked that the court amend the judgment to reflect that the court has jurisdiction to decide the state law issues under the state laws of Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Illinois, and that he enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs in those states. The Court denied plaintiffs' request. However, the Court agreed that the damages awarded to Oregon APD adjusters needed to be recalculated to account for, among other things, interest owed on those amounts. The Court ruled that Oregon Multi-Line, Foremost, Liability, and Property Adjusters were not entitled to overtime under Oregon law and also ruled that no Washington adjusters were entitled to overtime under Washington law. To read the Court's Order, click here.

On March 5, 2009, the Court signed a Final Judgment awarding damages to Oregon APD adjusters and otherwise terminating the proceedings in MDL 1439A ("MDL A") as described below. To see that judgment and the calculation of damages for Oregon APD adjusters, click here.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee believes that the court's order finding that he did not have jurisdiction over the claims under the laws of Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Illinois is legally incorrect, and we plan to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that aspect of the court's order. For a variety of reasons, however, we have decided not to file new lawsuits challenging FIE's failure to pay overtime to its claims representatives who have worked in Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, and/or Illinois. If you wish to bring another or separate lawsuit under any of those states' laws, rather than awaiting the outcome of the appeal in this case, you should promptly consult with attorneys familiar with those state laws. If you want to file such a lawsuit, but do not do it promptly, you could lose the right to do so.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee believes that the court's ruling that Multi-Line and Foremost Claims Representatives working in Oregon is wrong and we have also decided to appeal that ruling. However, the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee does not intend to appeal the trial court's ruling denying Washington adjusters overtime under Washington law and denying Oregon property and liability adjusters (who are not multi-line or Foremost adjusters) overtime under Oregon law.

Regarding Off-the-Clock Claims for Unpaid Overtime:

In recent weeks, several current claims representatives have complained that Farmers has continued to require them to carry a workload and structure their workday such that there is a recurring need to work overtime at Farmers. However, even though those claims representatives are now classified by Farmers as "nonexempt" employees, entitled to be paid overtime for all reported overtime worked, they are not being compensated for all overtime worked. To be clear, so-called "off-the-clock" claims are not within the scope of the representation in the Farmers MDL-B class action. That case seeks to recover unpaid overtime worked while the claims representative was misclassified as exempt from the overtime laws. However, if you believe you have "off-the-clock" claims --- that is, if you believe that you have worked uncompensated overtime since the date when you were reclassified by Farmers as a "nonexempt" employee, entitled to be paid overtime for all reported overtime worked --- then we encourage you to either report those claims to the Department of Labor, or contact an attorney within your state to discuss those potential "off-the-clock" claims. Again, if you intend to pursue such a claim, you should so do promptly or you may lose the right to do so.

The person at the Department of Labor to whom you should report your "off-the-clock" claims to is Brian Taverner at 213 - 894 - 6375 x 310. If, following an investigation into an "off-the-clock" complaint, the Department of Labor determines that uncompensated overtime is owed the complainant, the Department of Labor can pursue the "off-the-clock" claim on behalf of the complainant. "Off-the-clock" claims are separate and distinct from the claims at issue in this case, Farmers MDL-B, and your pursuit of "off-the-clock" claims with the Department of Labor will not impact the misclassification claims at issue in Farmers MDL-B.

November 24, 2008: On October 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the trial judge amend the judgment to reflect that the court has jurisdiction to decide the state law issues under the states of Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Illinois, and that he enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs in those states. Plaintiffs also asked that the court amend the judgment to recalculate the amount of damages previously awarded to the Oregon APD adjusters. To read that motion, click here.

November 3, 2008: As noted in the last posting, on March 30, 2007 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the trial court the class claims brought under the laws of Illinois, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado. The trial court was instructed to consider whether, in contrast to federal law, the laws of those states require class members to be paid overtime. In February 2008, the trial court held a hearing on those issues. On October 28, 2008, the trial court issued an opinion finding that:

  1. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims under Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Illinois law;
  2. Under Washington law, all CRs are exempt from overtime requirements; and
  3. Under Oregon law, only APD CRs are non-exempt and, therefore, entitled to damages.

Based on those findings, the court entered a judgment:

  1. Dismissing the claims under Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Illinois law for lack of jurisdiction;
  2. In favor of FIE and against all Washington class members on their Washington state law claims;
  3. In favor of FIE and against all Oregon Liability and Property class members on their Oregon state law claims; and
  4. In favor of the Oregon APD class members.

We are currently evaluating our litigation options and prospects regarding this decision. If you would like to read the court's opinion, click this link.

January 28, 2008: Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's October 26, 2006 decision remanding to the lower court for further proceedings the claims brought pursuant to the laws of Illinois, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado (the MDL-A states), the lower court has requested the parties to submit briefs on whether Farmers has satisfied the requirements for the exemption to the overtime laws of those states. The Court also asked for briefing on the state law issues as applicable to the "Balliet" action (MDL B). Briefing on the MDL A and MDL B state law issues was completed on December 17, 2007, and we are now awaiting the Court's ruling.

Click here to read Plaintiff's' Opening Brief (MDL A)
Click here to read Plaintiffs' Opening Brief (MDL B)
Click here to read Defendants' Opening Brief (MDL A and MDL B)

Click here to read Plaintiffs' Response Brief (MDL A)
Click here to read Plaintiffs' Response Brief (MDL B)
Click here to read Defendants' Response Brief (MDL A and MDL B)

MARCH 30, 2007: REVISED NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OPINION ISSUED

On October 26, 2006 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, in significant respects, the $52.5 million judgment awarded to Farmers claims representatives in the Farmers MDL-A lawsuit. Click here to read the Court's October 26, 2006 Opinion. The Court of Appeals' decision reversed the lower court with regard to claims brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and the laws of Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, and Washington. The Court of Appeals did not reverse the lower court with regard to claims brought pursuant to the laws of Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado. Instead, the Court indicated that it could not determine whether or not Farmers had satisfied the requirements for the exemption to the overtime laws of those states, and remanded those claims back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Following the Ninth Circuit's October 26, 2006 decision, we petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing before the three-judge panel that issued the first decision and for rehearing before a larger group of judges. On March 30, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued a revised decision which is significant in one regard. Rather than entering judgment for Farmers on the claims brought pursuant to the laws of Illinois, New Mexico, and Washington (as it had done in the October 26, 2006 decision), the Court remanded those claims back to the lower court for further proceedings. The claims under these three states' laws will join the claims brought pursuant to the laws of Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado, which were sent back to the lower court by the appeals court's October 26, 2006 decision. Click here to read the Court's March 30, 2007 Revised Opinion.

We remain disappointed with the Court of Appeal's decision, under which Plaintiffs in the Farmers MDL-A lawsuit would not recover pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The only recourse from the Court of Appeal's decision with regard to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims is to successfully petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The U.S. Supreme Court takes only a small fraction of the cases where review is requested. However, we are currently evaluating this option.

The Court of Appeal's decision also means Plaintiffs will not recover under the wage and hour laws of Michigan for unpaid overtime during the years covered by the lawsuit. The case is over with regard to the Michigan claims.

The Court of Appeal's decision has left open the issue of Farmers' liability for overtime with respect to claims brought under the state laws of Illinois, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado. We are currently evaluating our litigation options and prospects for success with regard to the claims brought under the laws of these six states. We cannot predict at this time when, or how, these claims will be resolved.

This site is designed to provide general information and updates to members of the plaintiffs' classes in two overtime lawsuits filed against Farmers Insurance Exchange ("FIE" or "Farmers") on behalf of current and former Personal Lines Claims Representatives. Those two lawsuits are:

1. Balliet v. Farmers Insurance Exchange: The Balliet case is a new nationwide class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Personal Lines Claims Representatives against Farmers for unpaid overtime under federal and state law.
Click here to read about the Balliet lawsuit, as well as the impact on the Balliet lawsuit of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in the Farmers MDL-A lawsuit.

2. The Farmers MDL: The Farmers MDL was litigated in federal district court in Portland, Oregon beginning in 2001. The plaintiffs in the MDL brought federal and state overtime claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Personal Lines Claims Representatives.
Click here to read about the MDL Trial
Click here to read about plaintiffs' $52.5 Million Judgment.
Click here to read about the MDL Appellate Process

By clicking on the links above, you can learn more about the various lawsuits, read important legal documents, and find out about the law firms representing the plaintiffs in these actions.

We encourage you to contact class counsel with any questions or comments at info@farmersovertime.com or (866) 854-8550.

RETALIATION IS ILLEGAL!

It is illegal for your managers to threaten or retaliate against you for getting information regarding your employment rights and/or for participating in an investigation or lawsuit.