Employee Class Action Lawsuits

Scannell v. City of Seattle, No. 844600 (King County Superior Court), 97 Wn.2d 701 (Wash. Supreme Ct., 1982). Class action against the City of Seattle brought by "intermittent" employees, who were denied pension, vacation and other benefits. Settled in 1989 for approximately $10 million, including vacation and pension benefits.   (The Scannell settlement agreement was the subject of another class action, which the parties settled.  See the City of Seattle "Temporary" Employee Case page.)

Hughes v. City of Seattle, No. 90-2-23160-7 (King County Superior Court). Lawsuit for "substitute" and "part-time" employees against the Seattle Public Library to obtain employee benefits, including retirement, health insurance and paid leave. Settled in 1992 for compensation and benefits valued at approximately $2 million, and changes in employment practices.

Logan v. King County, No. 93-2-20233-4 SEA (King County Superior Court). Lawsuit against King County on behalf of long-term "temporary" employees, who were denied career service protection, health insurance, vacation and other leave benefits. Court approved a settlement in December, 1997. The $24 million settlement includes back pay to approximately 2,500 past and present employees for the period 1/89 - 12/97, plus future benefits, placement of about 500 long-term "temporaries" in jobs with full benefits, and establishment of procedures to assure proper employee classification in the future. News Article re Logan case:  Seattle Times:   Some 2,500 Temps to Get $24 Million 10/18/97

Jordan v. City of Bellevue, No. 98-2-21515-1 SEA (King County Superior Court). Lawsuit against the City of Bellevue brought by long-term "temp" employees and employees paid through staffing firms. The employees were denied health insurance and paid time off. Settled in 2000 for $750,000 and changes in employment practices. News Articles re Jordan case: Seattle Times: City Settles Permatemp Suit 7/28/00 Eastside Journal: Bellevue Settles lawsuit 7/28/00 

Clark v. King County, No. 95-2-29890-7 SEA (King County Superior Court). Lawsuit brought by common-law employees who were mislabeled as "independent contractors," "contract workers" and "agency" employees. The case was settled in September, 2000, for $18.6 million, including compensation for denial of vacation, sick leave and health insurance and retroactive enrollment in the State's PERS pension plan. The agreement requires the County to review work performed by "contract workers" and requires the County to establish new positions or stop doing the work. News Articles re Clark case: Seattle P-I: King County Court Decision 11/99 Knight-Ridder: King County Court Decision 12/99 BNA Daily Labor Report & Daily Employee Relations Report 1/4/00 - Feature Report on Payrolling and King County and Los Angeles Cases (Not available on the Internet) Seattle P-I: Permatemps win $18.6 million 6/00

Vizcaino v. Microsoft, No. C93-0178D (W.D. Wash), 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996) (Vizcaino I), modified, 120 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc)(Vizcaino II), cert. den., 522 U.S. 1098 (1998), enforced by mandamus, Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 173 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1999) (Vizcaino III), amended and rehearing denied, 184 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1105 (2000). Class action lawsuit brought by Microsoft workers mislabeled as "temporary agency" employees, "freelancers," "independent contractors," and employees of staffing firms. Microsoft wrongly excluded the class from its Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Court approved a settlement for $96.885 million in April 2001. News Articles re Microsoft Case: ABC News:   Microsoft's Permatemps 3/99 Microsoft loses at Supreme Court 1/10/00 Washington Post:  Revenge of the Temps at MS 1/16/00 Seattle Times: Microsoft temps gain victory in high court 1/11/00 Microsoft exec dismissive of firm's temps and Judges Angry Judge Tells Microsoft To Redo 'temp' Contracts Seattle Post Intelligencer: Microsoft Denies Health Care Benefits 6/25/99 Supreme Court Decision 1/11/00 The Eastside Journal: Microsoft temps learn meaning of temporary 7/25/00.

Mader v. State of Washington, et al., No. 98-2-30850-8 SEA (King County Superior Court).  Lawsuit brought on behalf of part-time community college instructors for denial of certain retirement benefits.  In the past, part-time instructors who worked 50% or more full-time equivalency (FTE) for an academic year were eligible for retirement benefits, but the State never informed the part-time instructors of their eligibility.  The part-time instructors also alleged that they were improperly denied service credit in the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) because the colleges and the Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) counted only in-class hours of part-time instructors toward retirement benefits.  On October 18, 2002, the Court approved a $12 million settlement of this case.  In February 2003, class members received pro rata omitted employer contributions to their TIAA-CREF retirement accounts and average gains on those contributions.  News articles re Mader v. State:  Seattle Post-Intelligencer Story:  Agencies knew about part-time faculty inequities 11/9/99  Puget Sound Business Journal: Judge approves $12 million for part-time profs Seattle Post-Intelligencer:  Part-time instructors win on retirement benefits.

Roberts v. King County, et al., 107 Wn.App. 806 (2001), No. 97-2-07412-6 SEA (King County Superior Court) and Duncan v. King County, et al., No. 02-2-36091-2 SEA (King County Superior Court).  Actions brought under King County’s equal pay for equal work ordinance consolidated for settlement purposes.  Roberts action brought by employees who worked more than 35 hours per week but received a lower rate of pay than other employees in the same job classification.  Duncan action brought by reclassified employees who did not receive back pay at their new classification rate.  On December 4, 2003 the Court approved a $14 million settlement of these cases.

Mader v. Health Care Authority, 149 Wn.2d 458 (Wash. Supreme Ct. 2003), No. 98-2-30850-8 SEA (King County Superior Court).  Class action brought on behalf of part-time community college instructors who worked continuously for many years but were denied health care benefits in the summer even though full-time instructors, who did not work in the summer, received health care benefits.  The Supreme Court ruled that the HCA must examine the contractors’ work situations, not the form of their contracts.  After remand on May 14, 2004, the Court approved settlement of more than $7 million to compensate instructors for past summers when they should have received health insurance.  News article on Mader v. Health Care Authority:  State agrees to $11 million deal over health benefits  2/14/04

Glaser v. City of Seattle, et al., No. 02-29165-1 SEA (King County Superior Court).  Second action (see Scannell above) against the City of Seattle brought by long-term “temporary” employees who were denied civil service protection, pay step increases, health insurance, vacation, and other leave benefits.  Court approved a settlement on March 6, 2006.  The settlement includes $11.5 million for back pay, future benefits, creation of civil service jobs, and requires monitoring procedures to assure proper employee classification in the future.  News articles re Glaser case:  Seattle Post Intelligencer:   City settles suit over "temps"  03/07/2006  Seattle Times:  "Permatemps" to get millions 12/20/2005   Seattle Post-Intelligencer:  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 Post-Intelligencer:  Longtime Temp Workers Sue City 10/11/02

Storti v. University of Washington, No. 04-2-10973-9 SEA (King County Superior Court).  Action brought to recover a 2% pay raise denied to faculty in 2002-2003.  The case was settled and the settlement was approved by the Court on May 12, 2006.  The settlement includes $17.45 million for back pay and interest, requires pension contributions on the back pay, and requires that current faculty’s salary be adjusted.  News articles re Storti case:  American Association of University Professors:  Historic Victory in Duane Storti's Lawsuit  03/06  Seattle Times:  Settlement approved in UW's pay lawsuit  03/16/06  The UW Daily:  Rare misstep could prove costly  01/12/06  Seattle Times:  Judge scolds UW for e-mail on lawsuit  01/11/06  The UW Daily:   UW e-mails about salary suit barred  01/11/06  Seattle Times:  UW Profs Awarded Back Pay 10/26/05  Seattle Post-Intelligencer:  UW Owes Back Pay to Profs, Suit Alleges 10/19/2004