We understand that MetLife ceased all loan operations, and laid off all Mortgage Consultants and assistants on January 10, 2012. Any witnesses who would like to discuss their experiences with MetLife in the residential or retail loan division should contact our office at 949.458.9675 or via email at metlife@quintlaw.com.
SPACE
Due to the efforts of Quintilone & Associates and co-counsel, this California Labor Code and FLSA putative class action case is scheduled for a second prospective mediation in early February 2012 with the Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.), a well renowned jurist with significant class action experience.
SPACE
Please keep posted at this site or www.quintlaw.com for additional information on this case.
Metlife Class Action Page
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Mediation for MetLife Set 1.31.12
We understand that MetLife ceased all loan operations, and laid off all Mortgage Consultants and assistants on January 10, 2012. Any witnesses who would like to discuss their experiences with MetLife in the residential or retail loan division should contact our office at 949.458.9675 or via email at metlife@quintlaw.com.
Due to the efforts of Quintilone & Associates and co-counsel, this California Labor Code and FLSA putative class action case is scheduled for a prospective mediation in late January 2012 with the Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.), a well renowned jurist with significant class action experience.
Please keep posted at this site or www.quintlaw.com for additional information on this case.
Monday, August 8, 2011
About the Case
On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff Robert Cerami filed a lawsuit against the Defendants METLIFE, INC., METLIFE BANK, N.A., and METLIFE HOME LOANS, INC. in the United States. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the FLSA and/or California laws by failing to pay overtime compensation to METLIFE “Mortgage Loan Officers” who worked in excess of 40 hours per week despite clear instructions from the Department of Labor to cease this practice.
Mr. Cerami brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as the “Class Members,” the “Plaintiff Classes” and/or, more specifically, the “FLSA Class” and/or the “California Class”) who are, or have been, employed by the Defendants to sell and/or assist in selling and/or to market and/or assist in marketing home loans and other related financial products to the public on their behalf within the applicable statutory periods. The financial services industry assigns a variety of job titles to employees who perform the typical job duties of a mortgage loan officer though Plaintiff title was “Relationship Manager.” Those job titles include mortgage loan representative, mortgage loan consultant, and mortgage loan originator. For purposes of this Complaint the job title of mortgage loan officer will be used. However, as the regulations make clear, a job title does not determine whether an employee is exempt. The employee’s actual job duties and compensation determine whether the employee is exempt or nonexempt. 29 C.F.R. § 541.2.
The “California Class” period is designated as the time from February 25, 2007 through the trial date, based upon the allegation that the violations of California’s wage and hour laws, as described more fully below, have been ongoing since that time. The “FLSA Class” period is designated as the time from February 25, 2008 through the trial date, based upon the allegation that the violations of the FLSA, as described more fully below, have been ongoing since at least this date.
During the Class Periods, METLIFE INC., METLIFE BANK, N.A., METLIFE HOME LOANS, INC. (hereinafter “MetLife” and/or “Defendants”) have had a consistent policy of (1) permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring their allegedly-overtime exempt “Relationship Managers” aka “Mortgage Loan Officers,” including Representative Plaintiff and members of both Classes, to work in excess of eight (8) hours per day and in excess of forty (40) hours per week without paying them overtime compensation as required by the FLSA and California’s wage and hour laws; (2) making deductions from the Representative Plaintiff’s and California Class Members’ earned and paid commissions and requiring cash contributions be made back to Defendants for commissions previously paid and for claimed customer losses by Defendants’ customers; (3) requiring Representative Plaintiff and California Class Members to pay other agents/employees of Defendants for their services to the clients in processing orders, assisting in sales, or otherwise handling business matters of the employer; (4) unlawfully denying the Representative Plaintiff and the California Class Members statutorily mandated meal and rest periods; (5) willfully failing to pay compensation (including unpaid overtime) in a prompt and timely manner to Representative Plaintiff and/or the California Class Members whose employment with Defendants terminated; and (6) willfully failing to provide Representative Plaintiff and the California Class Members with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements of the total number of hours each of them worked, the applicable deductions and the applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period causing the Class Members damages.
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, §§ 201 et seq., (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” or the “FLSA”) provides for minimum standards for both wages and overtime entitlement, and details administrative procedures by which covered work time must be compensated. The enactment of the provisions of the FLSA provide the Federal Courts with substantial authority to stamp out abuses of child labor, equal pay, portal-to-portal activities as well as the overtime pay provisions at issue in this Case.
According to Congressional findings, the existence of Labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living engenders unfair commercial competition, labor disputes, barriers to commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce, and interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods.
On March 24, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) – issued an Administrator’s Interpretative Opinion No. 2010-1. The Department of Labor issued the Opinion based on the WHD’s “significant enforcement experience in the application of the administrative exemption, a careful analysis of the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions and a thorough review of the case law that has continued to develop on the exemption, the Administrator is issuing this interpretation to provide needed guidance on this important and frequently litigated area of the law. Based on the following analysis it is the Administrator’s interpretation that employees who perform the typical job duties of a mortgage loan officer, as described below, do not qualify as bona fide administrative employees exempt under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).” The WHD went on to describe the duties the Class provides(ed) to Defendants.
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
California’s Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders provide even more expansive protection to hourly workers, including, but not necessarily limited to, entitlements to overtime pay and work performed beyond eight hours per day and substantial penalties for the denial of rest and meal periods of at least two (2) hours of premium wages per day for either a meal break violation or rest break violation or combination thereof.
Both Federal and California studies have linked long work hours to increased rates of accident and injury and a loss of family cohesion when either or both parents are kept away from home for extended periods of time, on either a daily or weekly basis.
Defendants have sold home loans and related financial products to the public. Representative Plaintiff is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that, within the Class Periods, Defendants have operated numerous facilities throughout the United States and California. In so doing, Defendants have employed hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in recent years alone in allegedly-exempt “Mortgage Loan Officers” positions, employment positions which have not, and currently do not, meet any test for exemption from the payment of overtime wages.
Despite actual knowledge of these facts and legal mandates, including the DOL WHD’s Interpretive Opinion, Defendants have enjoyed an advantage over their competition and have disadvantaged their workers by electing not to pay premium (overtime) and/or “penalty” (a.k.a. “waiting time”) wages as well as expense reimbursement to particular “Mortgage Loan Officers,” among other employment positions.
Mr. Cerami is informed and believes and, based thereon, alleges that officers of MetLife knew of these facts and legal mandates, yet, nonetheless, repeatedly authorized and/or ratified the violation of the overtime laws referred to in the operative Complaint.
Despite MetLife’s knowledge of the Plaintiff Classes’ entitlement to premium(overtime) pay, expense reimbursement, and meal and/or rest periods for all applicable work periods, MetLife failed to provide the same to members of the Plaintiff Classes in violation of the FLSA and California state statutes, Industrial Welfare Commission Orders and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. This action is brought to redress and end this long-time pattern of unlawful conduct.
This blog is for informational purposes about the class action lawsuit and how you can participate if interested.
We are looking for other employees who experienced similar mistreatment or former employees or former managers who have information regarding this conduct. If you would like a copy of the Complaint or have any questions regarding this case please contact:
Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
Quintilone & Associates
22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
Telephone: 949.458.9675
Facsimile: 949.458.9679
Becca Jacoby
Legal Assistant
Roger R. Carter, Esq
Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq
THE CARTER LAW FIRM
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, California 92614
Telephone: (949) 260-4737
Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT METLIFE AND ALL CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED FROM RETALIATING AGAINST EMPLOYEES FOR PARTICIPATING IN OUR INVESTIGATION. If you feel that you or other workers have been subjected to retaliation or intimidation, please contact us or the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement immediately. See http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/
Please contact us at the phone number or email address above so we may continue our investigation of the allegations in this case.
Please contact us at the phone number or email address above so we may continue our investigation of the allegations in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)