In this website we have provided information about several cases we have handled. The results obtained in any case depend upon the specifics of that case. Every case is different. Past results are not a guarantee that you will have a similar result in your case. The cases described here illustrate the types of cases we have handled.
Cases are listed in reverse order (most recent on top). Click the links at right to skip
directly to the case that interests you.
Storti v. University of Washington, No. 04-2-10973-9 SEA (King Co. Superior Court)
This lawsuit was filed to obtain overdue 2% merit pay raises on behalf of University faculty
members who worked in the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years, and who were not found unmeritorious
in their service in the 2001-02 academic year. The University's contract with faculty members
in the University Handbook required the University to provide a 2% merit-based raise at the
beginning of the 2002-03 academic year. The University breached the contract by not paying
the 2% raise in 2002-03. In October 2005, Superior Court Judge Mary Yu granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that the UW had a mandatory duty to provide the faculty
a 2% minimum annual raise. A copy of the Order is here.
News articles re Storti case:
Glaser v. City of Seattle, et al., No. 02-29165-1 SEA (King County Superior Court).
Second action (see Scannell below) 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:
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 instructors’ work situations, not the form of their contracts. After
remand on May 14, 2004, the Court approved settlement of more than $11 million to compensate
instructors for past summers when they should have received health insurance.
News article on Mader v. Health Care Authority:
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).
Plaintiffs Arlene Roberts and Abu Sanusi brought a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and an
alleged class of non-represented employees (both FLSA-exempt and nonexempt). The County argued
the "equal pay for equal work" ordinance merely states an "aspiration" and
thus was not enforceable by affected employees. The Superior Court dismissed the case. The
Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, reinstating the action in August 2001. The County
asked the Supreme Court of Washington to review the case. Plaintiffs opposed review and the
Supreme Court declined review in January, 2002. After extensive discovery and negotiations,
King County settled the case.
The County agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle the Roberts class action with the Duncan class action involving delayed pay classification.
News Articles re Roberts/Duncan v King County
Mader v. State of Washington, et al., No. 98-2-30850-8 SEA (King County Superior Court
Class action on behalf of part-time community college instructors who worked half-time or more,
but who were denied retirement benefits because their work hours were mischaracterized to
give the appearance of working below half-time. Settled in 2002 for $12 million.
News articles re Mader v. State:
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).
In 1992 Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong filed a lawsuit on behalf of several common-law Microsoft
employees who were mislabeled as "independent contractors," "freelancers" (another
name for independent contractor), and/or employees of "staffing" firms. The case
was certified as a class action in 1993. The district court dismissed the case in 1994. In
1996 and again in 1997 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the class is entitled to participate
in Microsoft's employee stock purchase plan. On remand, in 1998, the district court reduced
the class to a tiny sliver of its original size. On May 12, 1999, the Ninth Circuit restored
the original class by granting a writ of mandamus. See Vizcaino v. Microsoft, 173 F.3d 713
rehearing denied and opinion amended, 184 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
1105 (2000). The parties announced a $97 million settlement on December 12, 2000. In addition,
as part of the settlement Microsoft hired roughly 3,000 class members as regular employees
with full employee benefits, which the Court valued at an additional $101 million. The Settlement
Agreement was approved by the Court in orders dated March 21, 2001 (overall settlement) and
April 16, 2001 (class counsel's fees). See 142 F.Supp.2d 1299 (W.D. Wash. 2001), affirmed,
290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1018 (2002).
News Articles re Microsoft Case:
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:
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 regarding Jordan case:
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 regarding Logan case
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.
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.)