City of Seattle "Temporary" Employees
|
October 27, 2006 - Checks mailed to eligible class members. If you do not receive your check by November 3, 2006, or if you have other questions about the claims process, contact the Glaser Claims Processing Office by email at GlaserSettlement@rustconsulting.com or by telephone at 1-800-681-4944. If you have changed your address and have not received your check, inform the Glaser Claims Processing Office immediately or you may not receive your check. October 17, 2006 - The Court approved the final distribution list of qualified claimants. No further claims will be allowed. March 6, 2006 - The Court held a hearing on March 6, 2006 and ruled that the Settlement Agreement was fair, reasonable and adequate. Three hundred class members affirmatively supported the Agreement. The City will end using long-term "temps" without benefits and will pay $11.5 million for lost benefits. To read the press release, click here. To read the Findings of Fact and Order Approving Settlement Agreement, click here. The City will be posting information about the claim process on its website. Continue to monitor the City's website for more information @ www.seattle.gov/personnel/resources/glaser.asp or click www.seattle.gov. Settlement Agreement (pdf format) Seattle Post Intelligencer: City settles suit over "temps" 03/07/2006 Seattle Times: "Permatemps" to get millions 12/20/2005 If you would like to contact the law firm directly, send an email to seattletemps@bs-s.com. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENTThis is the second time that the City has been sued for its “temporary” employee practices. An earlier class action case, Scannell v. City of Seattle, was brought by the same law firm and settled in 1989. The Glaser case settlement covers the period from October 1996 to May 2005. The Glaser settlement establishes new processes to ensure that ongoing City employees working more-than-half-time will receive benefits, including health insurance. Key provisions include:
Bendich, Stobaugh and Strong, P.C., attorneys for plaintiffs, and the City of Seattle agree that “the Settlement Agreement thus achieves the central goal of the litigation, an end to the practice of having long-term more-than-half-time employees who do not receive employee benefits.” In 1989 the City entered into the Scannell settlement agreement with a class of temporary employees and agreed to pay temporary employees up to 25% premium in lieu of benefits for the future and $5 million for lost benefits. That Agreement eliminated the hourly restriction on temporary employment, but work done by temporary employees was supposed to be reviewed to assure they were not doing ongoing work, and new positions were to be created if they did. The new Settlement Agreement reinstates one year and 1040 hour restrictions and provides better procedures for correcting misclassification of workers, including employee rights, which were not part of the earlier settlement. The Glaser settlement includes $11.5 million to compensate about 2,000 employees who did not receive benefits (particularly health insurance), from October 1, 1996 through May 31, 2005. This amount does not include the value of new regular positions created for previously “temporary” employees, and other non-cash benefits. The fund will be prorated and distributed according to a formula based on the amount of time class members worked for the City during the period October 1996 to May 2005. The Glaser case was brought to enforce the 1989 settlement agreement in the Scannell v. City of Seattle class action lawsuit, which allowed the City to use temporary employees for temporary work only, not for ongoing full-time work. In addition, the case was brought under a recent state law that makes it an unfair practice to misclassify any long-term public employee as a “temporary” to deny such employees employment-based benefits. The plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit in October 2002. The named plaintiffs are Larry Glaser, Scott Roberts, Kenneth Williams, and John Taylor. When the case was filed, Larry Glaser and Scott Roberts had worked full-time for over four years as “temps” at various City-owned golf courses. Kenneth Williams worked full-time for eight years as a “temporary” employee — at the Mayor’s Office of Senior Citizens and at Seattle Public Utilities at the time the case was filed, and John Taylor worked for over two years as a “temp” job counselor for the City. The tentative agreement defines class members as “City of Seattle employees who worked over one year (26 consecutive two-week pay periods) at least half time (916 hours) or more, and did not receive some or all of the compensation, benefits and/or status received by the City’s regular employees.” PRIOR CASE HISTORYJune 13, 2005 - The Superior Court ruled that plaintiffs Larry Glaser and Scott Roberts and other Golf Course Technicians were misclassified as "temporary" employees. The Court held they were not "temporary" "because they were not filling a temporary, emergency or short-term need." The plaintiffs and other class members who worked for more than one year "were regular employees and their classifications are hereby corrected." The Court also ruled that the City violated its own ordinance, SMC ¶4.04.145B, which prohibits the City from using "temporary" employees to supplant regular positions. The Court also rejected the City's contention that supposedly different hiring procedures for "temporary" and "regular" employees justify the distinction between them because "the law requires that classifications be based on the employee's actual work circumstances, not on pre-hiring procedures." May 3, 2005 - The Superior Court ruled that the City of Seattle must reinstate and give full civil service status to John Taylor, a former “temporary” Job Counselor in the Parks Department who was fired without cause in September 2004, after having worked full-time for over two years. The Court ruled that even though the City labeled John Taylor as a “temporary” employee, objectively he was a regular employee and he worked full-time for more than one year. “Thus, one year after hire, Taylor was a member of the civil service and had full civil service protection in his job.” The Court rejected the City’s position that as a “temporary” employee, Taylor was not covered by civil service and had no remedies no matter how long he worked for the City. The decision said, “Taylor was not a temporary worker [under Seattle ordinances] because he was not employed to fill a temporary, emergency or short-term need. Indeed, he was initially appointed for an indefinite term and he worked for two years. He was appointed to a regular civil service position, Job Counselor, and served satisfactorily for more than a year.” January 5, 2005 - The Court ordered that the City cannot obtain the identities of class members who contact or communicate with Class Counsel, nor can it obtain the contact forms submitted by class members to Class Counsel. October 29, 2004 - A Court of Appeals Commissioner denied the City's motion for immediate discretionary review of the June 14, 2004 trial court decision denying the City's motion to decertify the class. October 11, 2004 - The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for modification of the class definition (as previously amended on July 30, 2004) to include employees who work or worked in "vacant" budgeted regular positions six calendar months or more. The class is now defined as follows: All City of Seattle employees who did not receive some or all of the compensation, benefits and/or status the City provided to its recognized regular employees and (1) who work or worked for the City for over one year from their dates of hire and who worked in an ongoing body of work that was not time limited an average of at least half-time (for purposes of this definition, at least 916 hours per year) and/or (2) who work or worked in vacant budgeted regular positions six calendar months or more. The City may call these employees “temporary,” “intermittent,” “backfill,” “on-call,” “seasonal,” or some other non-permanent or non-regular designation. The term “benefits” includes, but is not limited to, membership in and the benefits of civil service, City-paid insurance benefits, and paid time off (such as holidays, vacation, and sick leave). The term "vacant" means that the regular employee who previously worked in the regular position left the position permanently (for example, due to retirement, termination, or permanent transfer to another job). September 14, 2004 - At Class Counsel's request, a Court of Appeals panel overturned the Commissioner's June 3rd decision to grant discretionary review. The City's mitigation/acquiescense defense will not be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. June 14, 2004 - The Court denied the City’s motion to decertify the class. The City sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeals. June 3, 2004 - A Court of Appeals Commissioner granted discretionary appellate review of the August 27th order rejecting the City’s mitigation/acquiescence defense. March 3, 2004 - The Court denied the City’s motion to reconsider the Court’s August 27, 2003 ruling that employees’ damages are limited if they did not seek other jobs. February 17, 2004 (clarified March 16, 2004) - The Court ruled that (1) Seattle Municipal Code 4.13.020 on its face does not violate the Seattle City Charter, and (2) plaintiffs’ claim under paragraph 5.1 of the first amended complaint that the City violated the Seattle City Charter is not dismissed. August 27, 2003 - The Court granted plaintiffs' motion to reject the City's argument that employees' damages are limited if they did not seek other jobs (the City's "mitigation/acquiescence" defense). July 16, 2003 - The Court barred City attorneys from interfering with class counsel's investigation of this case. Class counsel wanted to speak to a former City employee who has knowledge of relevant facts. The City’s attorneys refused to provide contact information on that former City employee and advised the employee not to talk to class counsel. Class counsel asked the Court to prohibit this behavior because it is contrary to the rules and contrary to the basic proposition that facts are not property of one party. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, saying that class counsel have a right to communicate with current and former City of Seattle employees without the presence of City attorneys and without the City’s consent. Accordingly, the Court ordered: “The City shall not interfere with and/or try to restrict” communications by class counsel “with fact witnesses who are or were City employees and who have no authority to bind the City in this litigation.” September 20, 2002 - Larry Glaser, Scott Roberts and Kenneth Williams brought a lawsuit against the City of Seattle on behalf of a class of persons presently and/or formerly called "temporary" employees, who are long-term employees and worked more than half-time on an ongoing basis, who have not received the compensation and benefits (including civil service rights) provided to "regular" or "permanent" employees. Media InformationSeattle Times: "Permatemps" to get millions 12/20/2005 Seattle P-I: Seattle will pay $11.5 million to settle 'permatemp' case 12/19/2005 Komo News: Seattle Settles 'Permatemp' Case for $11.5 Million 12/19/2005 Billingsgazette.com: 'Permatemps' to get millions in settlement 12/22/2005 Seattle P-I: Longtime Temp Workers Sue City 10/11/2002 |
