Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado


File Size: 97.3 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 371 Words, 2,048 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/20788/367-2.pdf

Download Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado ( 97.3 kB)


Preview Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 367-2

Filed 03/07/2006

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT S

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 367-2

Filed 03/07/2006

Page 2 of 3

Page i
1

2 3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
DUANE McCLAIN and
ALES IA MILES,

5
6

Plaintiffs,
vs.
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:05-CV-0416-TWT

7
8

HEARTLAND HOME FINANCE,

INC. ,
9

Defendant.

10 11 12

1 3 R u 1 e 3 0 (b) (6) De p 0 sit ion 0 f THOMA S E.

14 BECK, taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, pursuant to
15 the stipulations contained herein, before Lori Roy, 16 RPR, CCR No. B-2278, at Suite 1100, 1180 West 17 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia, on Wednesday,

1 8 Au g us t 1 7, 2 0 0 5 , co mm en c i n g at the h 0 u r 0 f 11: 2 0 19 a.m.
20 21 22

23 Shugart & Bishop

24 Suite 300, Building 27

Certified Court Reporters
1640 Powers Ferry Road

25 Marietta, Georgia 30067

Case 1:03-cv-02485-MSK-PAC

Document 367-2

Filed 03/07/2006

Page 3 of 3

1

Q Was it your understanding that since
there were minimum wage violations at the Dayton,

~~8

2 3
4

Ohio, office that there could be violations at
other offices that Heartland had across the country, that they were paid the same way as the
Dayton, Ohio, loan officers, right?

5
6 7
8

A Yes.
Q Are you aware of the company doing
any investigation on a nationwide scale or an
audi t, for example, to determine whether or not

9

10 11
12

other employees were paid minimum wage besides the

Dayton, Ohio, folks?

13
14

A Yes, we did do some investigation
because at that time there were two other DOL cases
that had arose -- arisen during this period in

15

16
17 18

time.

Q Wha t did the company do? A Well, what we did was we determined
that irrespective of the issue of whether loan
officers were exempt or nonexempt, we thought it

19 20 21
22

was a prudent policy to adopt a $500 draw, and we did so in July of 2002 effective for all of our

23
24

offices.
We also at that time instituted a

25

time sheet policy which we had not had prior to