Sun Trust Overtime Pay Litigation

This overtime pay case is brought on behalf of current and former Client Technical Support employees who were paid on a salary basis without receiving time and one half premium pay by defendant for work hours over forty in a work week, and who worked in positions that defendant reclassified as “non-exempt.” There are currently forty-seven individuals bringing this case, which is brought as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) "collective action." SunTrust initially paid the CTS employees on a salary basis without paying overtime premium pay. In October 2006, the company recognized its violation of the law and paid employees a partial payment of the back pay owed. SunTrust paid only for 2 years backpay using the 1/2 time method and then paid only for time recorded in the Primavera System, not for all hours actually worked. The plaintiffs in this case seek full back pay for all overtime hours worked in the last 3 years using the time and one-half method, as well as an equal amount in liquidated damages. Plaintiffs believe that SunTrust will owe the plaintiff classmembers more than 9 times as much as SunTrust paid in backpay using the half-time method, without liquidated damages for only two years (though individual claims may vary). The suit claims that SunTrust will be obligated to pay attorneys' fees and costs for the plaintiffs' counsel as well. The case is now pending in the Northern District of Georgia. Individuals who wish to join the suit because they fit the class definition, are currently prohibited from joining the action, but should contact one of the plaintiffs' counsel concerning filing a separate case. The plaintiffs in this case are being represented by Dan Getman of Getman Law Office, Alan Garber of the Garber Law Firm, P.C. in Marietta, Georgia, Ryan Barack of Kwall, Showers, Coleman & Barack, P.A. in Clearwater, Florida, and Jason L. Gunter of Jason L. Gunter P A in Fort Myers, Florida.

Information Request

Dan Getman of Getman Law Office, New Paltz, New York

Jason L. Gunter of Jason L. Gunter, P.A. of Ft. Myers, Florida

Ryan Barack of Kwall, Showers, Coleman & Barack, P.A. of Clearwater, Florida

Alan Garber of the Garber Law Firm, P.C. of Marietta, Georgia

Status Reports

Posted on Wednesday, December 20 2006 at 8:42am: The document which starts a lawsuit is called the Complaint. Click here to review a copy of the Complaint (complaint.PDF 318KB).
Posted on Tuesday, December 26 2006 at 12:33pm: This case will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by the Honorable Richard W. Story.
Posted on Monday, January 29 2007 at 5:17pm: There has been a flurry of activity in this litigation. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. Click here to see the Answer (Answer.pdf 76KB).

last edited on Wednesday, January 31 2007 at 5:08pm
Posted on Wednesday, January 31 2007 at 5:08pm: Plaintiffs' counsel have obtained the Department of Labor Investigation file concerning SunTrust Bank through the Freedom of Information Act. The file shows that SunTrust had misclassified a number of jobs as exempt, not just the CTS employees. Click here to review a copy of the DOL Investigation documents (DOLSTB.PDF 934KB).
Posted on Wednesday, January 31 2007 at 5:09pm: Following the defendant's answer, plaintiffs moved the Court to direct mailing a notice about this case to all CTS employees who were reclassified, so that they can determine whether to assert their rights to full backpay and liquidated damages. Click here for the Motion (Motion to certify class.pdf 14KB). Defendant SunTrust has also moved to have the case transferred to be joined to another pending overtime pay action in Florida, Palmer v. SunTrust. However, since that motion, the plaintiff in Palmer has now filed a consent to sue in this case in Georgia, indicating his intent to litigate his case collectively with the plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs in both cases now jointly believe that the case should proceed here in the Northern District of Georgia. In light of the fact that all plaintiffs believe Georgia is the proper jurisdiction and SunTrust is itself headquartered in the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs believe that the Court should direct that the action proceed here.

last edited on Wednesday, January 31 2007 at 5:10pm
Posted on Friday, February 2 2007 at 4:54pm: The U.S. Department of Labor found that SunTrust Bank misclassified numerous categories of employees and thus unlawfully failed to pay them overtime. Individuals holding the following job titles may be eligible for unpaid overtime at rates exceeding any calculation used by SunTrust. Such job categories include:
> Technical Call Analyst:
> Financial Analyst 1-2:
> Business Project Manager 2:
> Forms Specialist 2-3:
> Security Specialist 2:
> Information Service Support Specialist 1-2:
> Client Experience Analyst 1:
> Fraud Investigator 3-4:
> Senior Contracts Specialist:
> Operations Analyst 2-3:
> Systems/Procedures Analyst 1-3:
> Compliance Analyst 2:
> Information Service Analyst 2-3:
> Client Technology Specialist 2-3:
> Voice Communications Analyst
Any individuals in these job categories should contact plaintiffs attorneys for a free consultation to determine if additional back pay and liquidated damages are available.
Posted on Wednesday, February 14 2007 at 4:44pm: A very significant and positive development occurred on February 13, 2007 following a conference between Judge Story and all the lawyers in the case. Defendant SunTrust had moved Judge Story to transfer this case to Florida, to be joined with another pending action against it there (Palmer v. SunTrust). Defendant had been refusing to respond to the collective action application until Judge Story resolved the question of where the case would be heard. Immediately following the conference, Judge Story issued an order that the case should remain in Georgia and ordered that defendant very quickly respond to the collective action motion.

This ruling is very significant for two reasons. First, it is important because individual claims against SunTrust may be being lost as time passes under the "Statute of Limitation." The statute of limitation for overtime pay claims is 2 years prior to the filing of an individual's "Consent to Sue" form in the case (or 3 years if the Court ultimately finds that the defendant "wilfully" violated the law). Thus overtime claims can generally only go back 2 or 3 years from the date each individual files the "Consent to Sue" form. Mailing notice of the case to all class members to learn about the suit and will thus enable them to join the case quickly, before the statute of limitations bars any more of their claims. It is important to note that individual class members do not need to wait to receive the Notice, but may fill out the "Consent to Sue" form on this website and return it by fax to plaintiffs' counsel.

The ruling is significant for a second reason. The Northern District of Georgia has already ruled in another similar case that an employer that pays employees a salary without overtime premium must pay back wages due at the time and a half rate, rather than just the half-time rate.

last edited on Wednesday, December 5 2007 at 5:52pm
Posted on Monday, March 5 2007 at 11:23pm: The Honorable Richard W. Story today ruled that a notice advising members of the class of their right to join this action should be mailed to each CTS employee in the class. The Court denied defendant SunTrust's arguments that the notice should not be mailed. Click here to review Judge Story's Decision (Collective Action Decision.pdf 45KB).
Posted on Friday, March 9 2007 at 5:40pm: Click here to review the Notice (Court Authorized Notice to Class.PDF 196KB) approved by Judge Story to be mailed to the class. The mailing of the class notice occurred on March 14, 2007. Individuals who wish to be part of the case must have their Consents to Sue to the Getman Law Office no later than Monday, May 14, 2007.

last edited on Tuesday, April 10 2007 at 11:44am
Posted on Wednesday, May 30 2007 at 11:12am: There are currently 47 CTS employees who have filed their claims as part of this litigation. Individuals who did not file a Consent still have live claims against SunTrust Bank. However, these claims continue to be diminished through the running of the statute of limitation. Any CTS or other reclassified SunTrust employee who wishes to bring their claims against SunTrust Bank should contact Getman Law Office immediately.
Posted on Thursday, November 29 2007 at 10:04am: During this past summer Plaintiffs filed three additional opt-ins after the 60 day opt-in period ended. However, SunTrust objected and filed a motion with the Court requesting that these additional opt-ins be dismissed from the case. Judge Story ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and denied SunTrust’s motion.

Over the past few months the parties have exchanged discovery. Currently, the discovery deadline is December 11, 2007. However we expect that the deadline will be extended so that the parties can focus on a few narrow issues which may go a long way to resolving this case. Most importantly we expect to file a summary judgment motion asking the Court to determine which back pay formula should apply to this case. That is, we will ask the Court to determine whether the Time and One-Half or Fluctuating Work Week Method should apply to overtime hours worked by reclassified CTS employees prior to October 2006.

last edited on Wednesday, December 5 2007 at 5:54pm
Posted on Thursday, November 29 2007 at 2:49pm: Defendant SunTrust issued individual offers of judgment to each the plaintiffs in this case. An offer of judgment is a procedural device whereby a defendant offers to have a judgment entered against it in a set amount. In this case, nine of the plaintiffs accepted the offers of judgment (for a total of 86,175 dollars) within the period for acceptance.
Posted on Thursday, February 21 2008 at 12:31am: On February 19th, plaintiffs moved the Court to rule that SunTrust is obligated to pay plaintiffs back pay at the rate of time and one half for overtime back pay, plus award plaintiffs an equal amount in liquidated damages. The plaintiffs also seek a ruling that SunTrust acted wilfully and thereby owes backpay for a full 3 years from the date individuals opted in to this case. Click here to review the plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Brief (112 Plaintiffs Brief in Support of SJ.pdf 172KB). SunTrust has also moved the Court to rule that it was permitted to use the half-time, fluctuating work week method of calculating the backpay due to CTS employees it reclassified. Each party will respond to the others' motion within 23 days of the motion.
Posted on Friday, April 25 2008 at 10:40am: SunTrust has begun its lay-off process for all its CTS employees. In its severance agreement, SunTrust is demanding that people who have joined this case agree to withdraw your claims. For CTS employees who joined this case, it is important that you not sign the agreement at the present time, but instead contact one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Jason Gunter, at 239-334-7017 to discuss your situation. The plaintiffs' lawyers are preparing a motion to the Court to stop SunTrust's effort to condition guaranteed severance payments on withdrawal of your claims. We are demanding that SunTrust make the severance available without this condition.

For people who did not join this case, it is important to realize that a "private waivers" -- that is waivers not supervised by the Court of U.S. Department of Labor, such as the one contained in the severance agreement is considered by the Courts to be completely invalid and ineffective.

last edited on Friday, April 25 2008 at 10:43am
Posted on Monday, April 28 2008 at 5:20pm: Plaintiffs have made a motion to the Court for a "temporary restraining order" or TRO. The plaintiffs request that the Court bar SunTrust from conditioning the severance payments it guarantees to employees on withdrawal from the claims in this case. Click here to review the Brief (131 Pl. TRO Brief.pdf 149KB) in support of the TRO application.
Posted on Tuesday, April 29 2008 at 12:02pm: Judge Story held a hearing this morning on plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order preventing SunTrust from demanding that CTS plaintiffs in this case agree to withdraw their claims as a condition of receiving severance. Judge Story asked extensive questions and indicated that he would reach a decision quickly because of the short time deadlines under the severance plan.
Posted on Wednesday, April 30 2008 at 3:57pm: THE COURT HAS PROHIBITED SUNTRUST FROM CONDITIONING SEVERANCE PAYMENTS ON WITHDRAWING FROM THIS ACTION. For those plaintiffs who were fearful that they would either have to give up their severance or give up their lawsuit, this is a major victory! Click here to read the TRO ORDER (133 ORDER GRANTING Motion for TRO.pdf 38KB). SunTrust is also ordered to send plaintiffs a corrective notice. Plaintiffs who already received their proposed severance agreement should await a corrective notice before signing the agreement, if they wish to sign. Please contact Jason Gunter (phone 239-334-7017) to discuss your situation and for further details.

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. We will also provide you on request with additional information on any other statements contained in this web site.

Name:	(required)
Email:	(required)
Phone:	(required)