The complaint alleged that IntelliQuick knowingly misclassified its drivers or couriers as independent contractors, failed to track and record all hours worked accurately, failed to pay drivers statutorily required minimum wages and overtime wages, and made unlawful deductions from the drivers’ earned compensation in violation of the FLSA and Arizona wage statutes. Martin & Bonnett won partial motions for summary judgment, establishing that the plaintiffs had been misclassified, the personal liability of the company’s owner, and the company’s willful violations. Before trial on the amount of damages owed, the parties reached a $5.5 million settlement.

Martin & Bonnett, together with co-counselors Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, and Edward Tuddenham, litigated claims on behalf of a class of approximately 20,000 drivers who leased trucks from Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC (“IEL”) and signed contractor agreements to drive those trucks for Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (“Swift”). The case alleges that Swift, IEL, and two individuals named Chad Killebrew and Jerry Moyes misclassified drivers as independent contractors, failed to pay them minimum wages, violated the federal forced labor statute, and that drivers’ leases and contractor agreements were unconscionable. The parties reached a $100 million settlement, preliminarily approved by the Court in April 2019. A final settlement hearing is scheduled for January 2020.

Failure to Pay Overtime to Hospital Employees for On-Call and On-Premises Time. Martin & Bonnett successfully resolved a lawsuit challenging the failure to pay wages and overtime compensation for meal times and rest periods during which the employees were required to be on call.

Martin & Bonnett, together with co-counselor, represents some 19,000 truck drivers who were misclassified as independent contractors. The drivers were wrongly classified as contractors and, thus, are owed certain pay and benefits, including earning an average of federal minimum wage for all hours worked. On April 18, 2019, the district court granted preliminary approval of a settlement worth up to $100 million, which stands to be one of the largest misclassification settlements in U.S. history. A final hearing on the settlement is scheduled for January 22, 2020. More information on this case can be found at www.swiftmisclass.com

Martin & Bonnett represented a class of roughly 1,000 delivery drivers who were misclassified as independent contractors. The complaint alleged that IntelliQuick knowingly misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, failed to track and record all hours worked, failed to pay drivers required minimum wages and overtime wages, and made unlawful deductions from the drivers’ earned compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arizona minimum wage laws, and other federal and state statutes. Our lawyers obtained a summary judgment ruling establishing IntelliQuick’s willful violations and personal liability of the company’s owner. On May 12, 2019, the district court approved a settlement worth $5.5 million. More information on this case can be found at www.iqlawsuit.com

Martin & Bonnett successfully resolved a collective and class action brought on behalf of assistant managers for violations of the FLSA and state wage laws for failure to pay overtime to assistant managers. We obtained back pay for the group of employees who joined the lawsuit.

Martin & Bonnett, together with co-counsel, represented truck drivers who leased trucks from Central Leasing, Inc. and were treated as “owner-operators” by Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. The drivers claimed that:
1) Central Refrigerated misclassified them as “independent contractors” and then made unlawful deductions from their wages;
2) misrepresented the amount they would make as owner-operators, and
3) engaged in a scheme of “forced labor” coercing them to drive for the company even though it was unprofitable under threat they would be liable for excessive charges and be subject to a negative Drive-A-Check (“DAC”) report if they tried to leave. On April 3, 2018 the court granted final approval.

Including employer payments to deferred compensation plans in calculating retirement benefits.
In a unanimous March 2017 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that employer contributions to deferred compensation plans are compensation under the ASRS statute. As a result, current and former employees covered by the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) whose employers failed to treat employer-deferred compensation payments as ASRS compensation may be entitled to benefit increases.

Reducing Accrued Benefits through Plan Amendments and Offsets. Martin & Bonnett successfully negotiated a partial settlement of over $35 million in a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging plan amendments, benefit reductions and offsets. The parties also agreed to an additional $23 million in a court-approved final settlement.

Benefit Offsets and Suspension of Benefits for Working Past Normal Retirement Age. Martin & Bonnett settled a pension class action case for $11.3 million in a case challenging the calculation a Social Security offset to reduce pension benefits and suspension of benefits for working past normal retirement age. This case was featured in The Wall Street Journal (“Retiree Runaround: Trying to Challenge a Benefits Decision,” July 19, 2005).

Suspension of Benefits for Reemployment in the Industry. Martin & Bonnett successfully obtained a settlement of over $7 million in a class action, challenging the suspension of retirement benefits for working in non-covered employment. Martin & Bonnett has also successfully represented retirees in other cases involving suspensions of retirement benefits and failing to provide appropriate plan credit for employees who work past retirement age.

Mishandling of Employee Pension Contributions. Martin & Bonnett obtained a settlement of over $1.7 million in a class action challenging a third-party administrator’s imprudent handling of 403(b) and 457(b) plan benefits for school district employees. The settlement resulted in employees whose funds were improperly handled receiving 100% of their missing contributions and substantial interest.

Failure to Provide Vesting and Benefit Credit. Martin & Bonnett entered into a class action settlement of a case challenging how a pension plan computed service credit after participants had a “break in service.” Under the settlement, each of the settlement class members received 100% of the amount of additional benefits or additional credited service due, plus interest on all past payments.

Refusal to Pay Unreduced Early Retirement Benefits. While the class action was pending, Martin & Bonnett’s efforts resulted in ASARCO paying the plaintiffs their pension benefits in full. The class action complaint alleged that ASARCO violated ERISA by failing to pay and/or by delaying payment of the plaintiffs’ “70/80” pension benefits, which were unreduced early retirement benefits.

Lump Sum Benefits in Cash Balance Plan. Serving as co-counsel, Martin & Bonnett helped to achieve a $34 million settlement of a challenge to the eligibility for and calculation of lump sum benefits in a cash balance pension plan.

Martin & Bonnett successfully litigated and recovered $15 million on behalf of Ironworker retirees, alleging that their benefits were wrongfully suspended and that they are entitled to additional credit, both for working past the normal retirement age and for benefits earned by continuing to work.

Martin & Bonnett, together with co-counsel, settled a class action for $7.625 million on behalf of 228 former Bendix employees and Bendix retirees who participated in the Bendix pension plan and who transferred to or from other locations within the company and received lesser benefits. The lawsuit asserted that the class members were entitled to receive Bendix pension benefits at retirement, to the extent such benefits were greater than the benefits earned under other plans, and that the company had unlawfully amended the plans and reduced the employees’ retirement benefits.

Martin & Bonnett has represented several retirees
(a) against claims that their benefits were overpaid or
(b) who almost lost their pension benefits due to corporate restructuring.

In one instance, a retired mine supervisor had been receiving a pension for 18 years and was 79 years old when he received a letter from the BP Retirement Accumulation Plan that stated he would no longer receive his benefits based on an alleged error and that he had accumulated an overpayment of $18,363.44. Martin & Bonnett worked on behalf of the retiree; his benefits were reinstated, and the claim for repayment was dropped.