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