$2.9M BAE Unpaid Wages Lawsuit Settlement Faces Class Member Objections

A BAE unpaid wages lawsuit has reached a $2.9 million settlement, but nine employees have filed an objection to the deal in California.

BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. is the defendant in a case involving a conditionally certified Class of nearly 2,000 workers who say they were both insufficiently paid and denied 30-minute unpaid lunch breaks.

The nine workers insist the amount of the settlement does not compensate them for their alleged harm suffered and that the investigation that resulted in the offered sum was not sufficiently completed.

The BAE unpaid wages lawsuit alleges the company violated California labor laws by not paying employees for the time taken to disembark from ships, wait in security lines, and return tools. In addition, employees allege they were not often able to take their 30-minute unpaid meal breaks because of the long wait times in line to leave the working area.

Among the nine workers who objected is named plaintiff Eduardo Nunez.

“The investigations and evidence demonstrate that the settlement is wholly insufficient and current class counsel has grossly undervalued this matter,” said the filed objection. “The moving parties provide no factual or evidentiary support for their positions. Instead, moving parties rely exclusively on unsupported assertions, asking the court and the objecting class members to accept their claims and valuations on faith.”

BAE Unpaid Wages Lawsuit Seeks Payment for Unpaid Work Time

The BAE unpaid wages lawsuit was removed to federal court from California state court in August 2016. The suit included many allegations, including that BAE insisted on employees arriving 15 minutes prior to their start time and that it took them an additional 15 minutes to walk to their work site each day. Those time periods allegedly went uncompensated.

Other allegations of failing to pay for straight time and overtime, failing to provide accurate wage statements and failing to reimburse employees for business-related expenses were among the other items addressed in the case. Employees also said they were required to buy clothes and shoes from BAE.

BAE denied the allegations in an October 2016 filing, and had asked to have the case dismissed with prejudice. Soon after, though, the parties sought preliminary approval of the settlement in a joint motion filed with the court.

Class counsel Alexander I. Dychter told Law360, “The court set forth specific requirements in order to pursue an objection to the settlement, and it appears that the majority of the people who now seek to object, if not all of them, have not satisfied those requirements. Unfortunately, attorneys without much experience in this field seem to be trying to block a resolution that almost 2,000 people are expecting to result in them receiving money this year in order to further their own agenda.”

Attorney Efaon Cobb represents the nine objecting members, and he expressed that the nine who are opposing the settlement are truly looking out for the best interests of all of the class members because the objectors feel the settlement amount is simply not enough.

A spokesman for BAE Systems issued his own statement regarding the BAE unpaid wages lawsuit settlement.

BAE’s Karl Johnsons said to Law360, “BAE Systems strives to treat its employees fairly and we are pleased that we were able to resolve this matter amicably. As this matter remains in litigation, I will not be able to comment further.”

The BAE Unpaid Wages Lawsuit is Nunez v. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02162 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Join a Free California Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay within the past 3 years in California, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now