who was the lawyer in the securitas security lawsuit deatricks attorney

What is the case number for Michael Deatrick V Securitas security services?

The case is Michael Deatrick v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., case number 13-cv-05016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in our form.

Who is Securitas security services USA?

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. Huff worked for Securitas, which hires employees to work as security guards, and contracts with clients to provide guards for a particular location. Securitas typically provides long-term placements.

Did the court make an error in favour of Securitas?

The court found that it made an error in law when it entered judgment in favor of Securitas based on Huff’s inability to prove a violation of the section 201.3, subdivision (b) (1) weekly pay requirement.

What was the settlement in the Securitas case?

Santa Clara, CA: A $2.5 million settlement agreement has been reached in an unpaid vacation pay class action lawsuit filed by former and current security guards who allege Securitas Security Services USA Inc, violated federal and California labor law regarding its vacation pay policy.

Legal Help

If you have a similar problem and would like to be contacted by a lawyer at no cost or obligation, please fill in our form.

READER COMMENTS

I signed up for that class action suit, my co-workers got their settlement checks, I moved so I did not get my settlement check. How can I get my check?

What company did Huff work for?

Huff worked for Securitas, which hires employees to work as security guards, and contracts with clients to provide guards for a particular location. Securitas typically provides long-term placements. After Huff resigned, he sued Securitas, alleging a representative cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA, Lab. Code, 2698) and citing Labor Code sections 201 [requiring immediate payment of wages upon termination of employment]; 201.3 (b) [requiring temporary services employers to pay wages weekly]; 202 [requiring payment of wages within 72 hours of resignation]; and 204 [failure to pay all wages due for work performed in a pay period]. The trial court held that Huff was not a temporary services employee under section 201.3 (b) (1), and, therefore, could not show he was affected by a violation and had no standing to pursue penalties under PAGA on behalf of others. The court of appeal affirmed the subsequent grant of a new trial. Under PAGA an “aggrieved employee” can pursue penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of others; the statute defines an aggrieved employee as having suffered “one or more of the alleged violations” of the Labor Code for which penalties are sought. Since Huff’s complaint alleged that another violation of the Labor Code (separate from the weekly pay requirement) affected him personally, the failure to establish a violation of the weekly pay requirement did not preclude his entire PAGA claim.

How long does a security guard contract last?

(A standard contract duration, though terminable on 30 days’ notice, is three years.)

What is qui tam in California?

As the California Supreme Court recognized in Iskanian, PAGA created a type of qui tam action, authorizing a private party to bring an action to recover a penalty on behalf of the government and receive part of the recovery as compensation. (Id. at p. 382).

Can an aggrieved employee pursue a penalty?

Under PAGA an “aggrieved employee” can pursue penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of others ; the statut e defines an aggrieved employee as having suffered “one or more of the alleged violations” of the Labor Code for which penalties are sought.

Is PAGA a law enforcement action?

Since PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action, a plaintiff must first allow the appropriate state authorities to investigate the alleged Labor Code violations, by providing the Labor and Workforce Development Agency with written 4 notice of the violations. (Montano v.