Attorneys fighting for your right to Fair Wages and Fair Treatment across California
Regretfully, the Court of Appeals upheld the decertification of this case. We certainly wish the result had been otherwise. We’re grateful to all of those who assisted us in regard to this case, and wish all of you the best.
Unfortunately, we have to inform you that after the court initially granted class certification, it reversed its decision.
As a result, on June 27, 2013, we filed a Notice of Appeal, in hopes of getting the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court's decision. We'll let you know of further developments as they arise.
If you worked for yellowpages.com during the past several years, and feel that we should know factors about your employment, or have questions about the case, please contact us. We'd be glad to hear from you.
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION GRANTED!!!
After many years, Judge Highberger of the Los Angeles Superior Court has granted our Motion for Class Certification (see order attached) in this case, involving many job titles (listed on that order).
Yellowpages.com claims that there are 171 class members. If you feel you either had one of the job titles while working in California for Yellowpages.com or Southwestern Yellow Pages, Inc. Since February, 2004, or did the exact same job as defined in the class order, you may well be a member of the class. We urge you to contact us at your earliest convenience, so that we might be able to assist you and others, if that’s the case.
And, of course, if you have any questions about this case, or your employment, we’d be glad to talk with you.
In hopes that this case can be resolved, the parties are planning on mediating the matter later this year.
THUS, If you believe you are, or know that you have been designated a member of this class, we URGE you to contact us, in order that we may gather information to assist us in this mediation.
We would be especially interested in being able to review earnings statements, paystubs, schedules, timesheets, timecards, job descriptions, and any other documents you feel might assist us in our goal.
Thanks for any help you can provide. Of course, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.
We are pleased to announce that, after more than four years of prosecuting this case, the judge granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification on May 14, 2012.
If you were employed by Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., as a Production Employee from February, 2004 to July, 2005, and/or performed work for YP.com and were designated exempt, since February 5, 2004.
Production Employees are defined as: All such employees who produced, created, generated, crafted, refined, tested, contributed to or built the electronic products in California for defendants Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. and/or YP.com from January, 2005 to the present and who were not:
If you feel you were or are a class member, based on the above definition approved by the court, we urge you to contact us at your earliest convenience.
As it develops, we will continue to provide you with additional information.
If you have any questions, comments, or information which you believed would be helpful to this case, please call us at 626.795.0205, or email us via this website.
Thanks very much.
Update - August 26, 2010:
On July 29, 2010, Judge Highberger issued a minute order regarding various issues set forth in motions filed with the court, including plaintiff’s request for class certification, along with motions to compel further discovery - get more information from defendants about the facts.
More recently, on August 25, 2010, counsel appeared in court to discuss what further action is to be taken in this case. At that time, the court set a further status conference, now scheduled to take place in November.
In a nutshell, the initial motion for class certification was denied without prejudice, and the motion to compel discovery as against yellowpages.com was granted. While such discovery was, for that motion, denied as to other named defendants, we believe that it will be expanded to include other defendants, and will be working to that end as time progresses.
As a result of that order, we will continue to prosecute this case. The original complaint was framed to include those job titles which were classified as exempt (i.e., not requiring payment of overtime by the employer) on the business side (i.e., not the Information Technologies - IT side) of various AT&T entities, including yellowpages.com, AT&T Services, Inc., etc. A copy of the complaint is attached to this website for your review. (Our firm joined the case in January of this year; thus our firm name does not appear on the face page.)
Since the filing of the complaint, discovery and investigation have taken place. Among other information, plaintiffs’ counsel is now in possession of the names of product managers, project managers, marketing managers and designers, but only those employed by AT&T since February 8, 2004 (i.e., 4 years before the date of the filing of the complaint, the period which is the subject of the case, continuing through the current day, and until this case is settled and an end date is determined, or it is concluded by the court).
Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that the class should also include those persons holding various job titles, which were included in the first motion for class certification, and which included (but was not limited to) Designers, Graphic Artists, Production Artists, Senior Editorial Managers, Editorial Managers, Product Managers, Project Managers and Marketing Managers.
As you may be aware, our firm has also filed suit on behalf of Project Managers - on the IT side of the business, in a case entitled Pierce v. AT&T. More information can be learned of that case on a separate page on this website. For this case, however, we are seeking to recoup unpaid wages, etc., on behalf of Project Managers, Products Managers, Marketing Managers, and so on, who were claimed to be exempt by AT&T, and who worked on the business side.
If you were employed by SBC Services, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., yellowpages.com, or Southwestern Bell since February 8, 2004, as a manager in marketing, production or operations, etc., whether or not you had one of those exact titles listed above, or in an exempt position in those areas, and you believe you were performing the same duties as one of those positions set forth above, we would appreciate your contacting our office. We are hopeful that our efforts will assist those employees who might fall within the class, but need assistance in doing so.
We intend to take depositions before the next hearing date, and hopefully will be able to assist even more people because of our efforts during that time, and any help which might be provided us by members of the class.
Thank you for any help you can provide.
If you were employed during the past six years in the State of California by AT&T in the "business" side of AT&T, i.e., "operations, front end, marketing, business development, customer service, front end design team, front end marketing, graphics, info space, infrastructure, products, product development, product marketing, Netopia, infrastructure, sales, QA, Site Manager, sub-infrastructure, vendor-access, web operations, website, brand marketing and business developing", you should know that a class action was filed entitled Austin Gray v. AT&T, case No. BC 384 948 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court concerning various issues regarding wages as set forth therein.
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS please contact us. We want to make sure we have your information to the extent you wish to participate in this case.
In particular, you may wish to contact our offices if you were required to work more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week, and/or if it was necessary for you to work through meal breaks, or forego meal and/or rest breaks altogether. You may be entitled to past due overtime even if you were (mis)classified as exempt.
Our office has also filed cases on behalf of other employees of AT&T, entitled Shoff v. AT&T, Doyle v. AT&T, Waters, Turner and Fajardo v. AT&T and Lindsly v. AT&T, all relating to various other job titles of employees of AT&T. We refer you to those cases and other sections of this website for further information.
We are hopeful that we will be able to assist employees of AT&T who were or are employed in this business/operations arena, just as we have been able to do for many other positions.
Should you have any information you wish to share, or if you have any questions regarding this case, please feel free to call us at 626.795.0205.
Thanks very much. We look forward to hearing from you.The Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey
DISCLAIMER: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners.
ADDRESS: 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500, Glendale, California 91203 | P: 818-547-5200 or 626-795-0205