This is our initial coverage of the overtime lawsuits against some of the major accounting firms doing business in California. For those of you not up to speed, these suits were filed by non-licensed associates who believe they were misclassified under California law as exempt professionals and are due overtime and other benefits due to non-exempt employees.
The suits are all in various stages but the key case that may determine how the other cases will proceed is Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Campbell is currently awaiting argument before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The primary issue before the court has to do with whether or not, under the professional exemption, an associate is required to be licensed by the state of California in order to qualify for exempt status. Counsel for Campbell essentially argues that only licensed or certified accountants can qualify for exempt status in California while PwC argues that uncertified accountants who can qualify as “learned professionals” are exempt employees and thus not eligible for overtime pay.
Find out more about the status of the case, and read PwC’s statement, after the jump
The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment on liability in favor of Plaintiff Campbell and ruled that attest associates must have a license in order to be exempt. The court further held that they may not qualify for exempt status under the “learned professional” section of the exemption. However because the trial court felt it was a close question, it certified the matter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for interlocutory appeal.
According to Bill Kershaw, of Kershaw, Cutter, Ratinoff LLP, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the ruling in this matter could have significant repercussions for other remaining wage and overtime lawsuits. Mr. Kershaw believes that if 9th Circuit does rule in the favor of the plaintiffs, then the likelihood of the case resolving itself prior to trial would substantially increase.
If the court of appeals rules that learned professionals can be defined as exempt, PwC (and likely the other defendant accounting firms) will center their argument back in the trial court on the appeals court’s ruling that unlicensed accountants are indeed “learned professionals.”
We contacted Dave Nestor, Head of Communications for PwC in the U.S. and he provided us with the Firm’s statement:
PwC believes that its attest associates are professionals who spend the majority of their time engaged in challenging work requiring the use of their intellectual abilities, judgment and discretion. Based on these and other factors, PwC’s attest associates are properly considered exempt under applicable law, and are therefore appropriately compensated.
We’ve provided a list below of all the cases against accounting firms currently in the courts in California for your information. Check the list for your firm and please remember that it is your right to participate in any of the class action lawsuits if you meet the criteria set forth in the case. Even if you are still employed by the firm being sued, they cannot retaliate against you.
Likewise, you can participate in the case on behalf of the defendants if you are approached and choose to do so. You also have the right to not participate at all if you so choose.
If you receive any correspondence from your firm regarding the overtime and wage lawsuits, please let us know using tips@goingconcern.com. We’ll always keep you anonymous.
We’ll be covering this story as it progresses and continue to check back here for periodic updates.
List of OT Accounting Cases.pdf
These people are screwing me.. now instead of extra time off I get paid overtime – seriously reducing me to an hourly employee. It used to be that if you worked extra you got extra time off.. now I work extra get bumped into a higher tax bracket and my firm makes extra dough off of me…
Oh and here’s another good one.. we only get reimbursed 40 cents per mile.. anyone else getting less than the IRS standard??
I didn’t know where to email, so I’m just posting this here. Your Above the Law link is broken.
Radio station got communication on this. However it was sent from legal office so not sure anyone can share since it may very well be privileged? Ask Lat to weigh in…
so wait…
“PwC believes that its attest associates are professionals who spend the majority of their time engaged in challenging work requiring the use of their intellectual abilities, judgment and discretion.”
+
“and are therefore appropriately compensated.”
=
You do really hard work that requires alot of brain power, thus you are paid appropriately (as in, less than you should for killing your self in the 60 hr weeks the expect you to put in during busy season).
Glad they clarified “real professionals” are high class slaves
I read the post. I also read the opinion. What interested me was the Judge’s ruling on page 43 that the plaintiffs could not get punitive damages because the plaintiff’s counsel did not address the issue in the motion.
Also, the Judge’s footnote on page 42 that “plaintiffs’ failure to address these issues is particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that the court granted plaintiffs’ permission to file a 55 page opposition to PwC’s motion” is quite striking.
This may be worthy of further investigation. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that somebody screwed up if plaintiffs’ counsel failed to address certain issues even after the judge gave them additional time.
@1:
Some accountant you are. Take the other 15 cents as an unreimbursed business expense and kwitcher bitchin.
@6:
You obviously have a poor understanding of the tax law. Unreimbursed employee expenses may only be taken as an itemized deduction subject to the 2% AGI floor – therefore it is likely that they cannot be deducted at all.
@6 – I hope nobody’s taking tax advice from you.
@7 – Thanks for explaining that to 6 before I had to.
Honestly, what business does the 9th Circuit have deciding this delicate point of CALIFORNIA law. People seem to think the feds are liberal out here– I disagree with that sentiment– but whatever happened to the policy that required the stupid feds to hang back and allow states to determine their own law? If this isn’t already a settled matter, then the 9th should ask the Cal. S. Ct. to weigh in. Until then, the feds should keep their grubby hands where they belong– on the balls of college kids caught sharing music over the internet.
‘Learned’ professionals, yeah right. Let’s call it what it is, exploited labor. I worked at GT in SF. Billed out at $125/hour and worked 3 straight months with no days off….my record was 75 BILLABLE hours in a week. I had zero control over my schedule. We would be packing up to leave at 8PM on a saturday and the in-charge would say ‘oh, I am going to need you guys to come in tomorrow too.’ I was effectively making $5, 6 an hour at one point…less than the mandated minimum wage for CA let alone San Francisco. Nothing is more profitable for public accounting firms than first and second year associates. Easy to push around, easy to exploit, easy to get rid of. I saw so much stress, drinking, drug use. Can’t wait for cash to get ripped out of the pockets of a-hole managers and partners. Hurry up 9th District court and clear the flight path for the rest of the class action suits lining up. Can’t wait for my SCREW YOU GT check in the mail!
@#10. What will most likely happen if Big 4 have to pay overtime is that they will cut the base salary down, so the total they pay will not change. Back where I was when they eliminated overime in late 1990’s, they actually increased the base salary based on average overtime or so. In a bad economy as today, though, paid overtime will likely cause many partners and managers to prohibit their associates from working overtime, which will really bring to highlight individual skills – who can do the work in 40 hours and who can’t. Also, your manager will REALLY make sure you are spending your 40 hours productively. Bottom line, I don’t think paid overtime will be any better for associates than unpaid overtime.
JZA –
Trent Reznor said it best:
You're keeping in step
In the line
Got your chin held high and you feel just fine
Because you do
What you're told
But inside your heart it is black and it's hollow and it's cold
Just how deep do you believe?
Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you chew until it bleeds?
Can you get up off your knees?
Are you brave enough to see?
Do you want to change it?
What if this whole crusade's
A charade
And behind it all there's a price to be paid
For the blood
On which we dine
Justified in the name of the holy and the divine
Just how deep do you believe?
Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you chew until it bleeds?
Can you get up off your knees?
Are you brave enough to see?
Do you want to change it?
So naive
I keep holding on to what I want to believe
I can see
But I keep holding on and on and on and on
Will you bite the hand that feeds you?
Will you stay down on your knees? [8X]