Free Status Report - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03—cv—00630-DJS Document 123 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I 2 A H I 1 an
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARIO RICHARDS, : l. li W T: it E S
on behalf of himself and : CIVIL ACTION NO.
all others similarly situated : 3:03 CV00630 (DJS) ‘
PLAINTIFFS, :
V. Z
COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION : AUGUST 31, 2006
DEFENDANT.
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT
Plaintiff Mario Richards, submits the following status report identifying
outstanding issues as this matter moves forward.
Statute of limitations
In calculating overtime wages owed to members ofthe class the parties must
resolve the limitation period. The limitation period in a wage case such as this represents
the period within which each opt-in plaintiff may claim overtime wages. Plaintiffs seek
to calculate wages for a period extending back three years from the opt-in dates of each
plaintiff Defendant seeks to limit the period of each opt-in plaintiff to two years back
from the respective opt—in dates.
Defendant should not be allowed to gain by its dilatory discovery practices in this
matter. The court, in its initial scheduling order, ordered the parties to commence
discovery immediately. The plaintiff filed interrogatories and production in May 3,
2003 and June 4, 2003. This discovery requested the most basic information in this type

Case 3:03—cv—00630-DJS Document 123 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 4
l of case; ie. the names and addresses of members of the class. The purpose of this request
was so that plaintiff could give notice to potential members of the class. The defendants
did not provide names and addresses to the plaintiff until plaintiff tiled a motion to
compel and parties engaged in a status conference with the court in March 2005. The
names and address were finally provide in April and May 2005. This yg
delay in providing names and addresses prevented plaintiff from providing notice to the
members of the class, thereby preventing members of the class from opting in as early as
they might have had they received notice many months earlier.
For these reasons, equity and faimess dictate that opt-in plaintiffs be allowed to
go back three years. Other cases have calculated settlements using lengthy limitation
periods. In Gicmetto v. Computer Sciences Corporation, CV 03 8201 (GPS) Ex (Central
Dist of CA) the parties settled similar claims going back to 200l.
Names and addresses of all customer support anagsts level I and II (CSA’s[
The defendant has still not provided the names and addresses of all CSA’s.
Recently counsel for the plaintiff has learned that a number of CSA’s located in Norwich
Connecticut were not provided to the plaintiff. Defendant claims that they are not part of
the class action since they are hourly CSA’s. The defendanfs arbitrary characterization
is mistaken as the members of the class are level I and II CSA’s, regardless of whether .
Calculation of overtime
Claims should be to the present time
Plaintiffs argue that they may claim overtime to the present time because many
are being required to work overtime without being paid. Defendant argues that since the

Case 3:03—cv—00630-DJS Document 123 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 4
CSA’s were declared non—exempt and made hourly there should be no overtime owed
after the date that they were made hourly.
CSA’s are proper members of the class and overtime worked without being paid
is owed under the law, regardless of CSC’s in~house policies.
Claims should be calculated at one and one-half the regglar hourly rate
Calculation of overtime should be one and one-half the hourly rate. 29 U.S.C. §
201. The regular hourly rate should be the weekly wage divide by a 40 hr week.
Defendant argues that the hourly rate should be reduced by the overtime hours worked.
By calculating the regular hourly rate in the manner suggested by the defendant. the
plaintiffs are unfairly prejudiced by defendant’s violation ofthe law.
Plaintiff]
Mario Richards
JJ 54
Michael J. Mell
Fed. Bar No. 17841
143 Oneco A: enue #4
P.O. Box 77l
New London, CT 06320
Tel. (860) 447-1990

Case 3:03—cv—00630-DJS Document 123 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
. . . atc. ) ow
I hereby cemfy that a copy of the forcomg was mzuled on
To:
Tasos C. Paindiris, Esq.
William Anthony, Esq.
Jackson Lewis
90 State House Sq.
Hmfmd, Ct 06103 U j
Michael J. Melly