$5,000,000 Settlement – PPG Industries, Inc. – Overtime Misclassification Class Action

The Court granted final approval of a $5 million settlement in Talamantes, et al. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04062-WHO, on behalf of Business Development Representatives who serviced Home Depot stores across the country.

BDRs were the people keeping PPG’s paint business running inside Home Depot — selling on the floor, managing merchandise, driving between stores, and squeezing in administrative work after hours. They were expected to stay reachable by cell phone through evenings, weekends, and vacations, and many regularly put in well over 50 hours a week. PPG classified them all as exempt and paid no overtime.

In 2013, Byron Goldstein and co-counsel sued, alleging that this misclassification violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. The case grew into two actions in one: a nationwide FLSA collective of BDRs who opted in to pursue unpaid overtime and liquidated damages, and a California class asserting the state-law claims that come with working here — missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and PAGA civil penalties. After extensive discovery into PPG’s pay practices and what BDRs actually did all day, the parties reached a settlement at a September 2015 mediation with mediator Mark Rudy.

The $5 million settlement was designed to get money to people without hurdles: no claim forms — every participating class member automatically received a payment based on their workweeks and claims, with many individual allocations ranging from roughly $5,000 to more than $67,000. PPG denied the allegations, and the settlement is not an admission of liability.

Case Documents

• First Amended Complaint (Oct. 7, 2013)
• Settlement Agreement (Oct. 2, 2015)
• Order Granting Preliminary Approval (Oct. 16, 2015)
• Notice of Proposed Settlement to Class Members
• Final Approval Order (Jan. 6, 2016)

* Descriptions and summaries of prior cases and settlements found on this website are intended only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorneys and should not be understood as a guarantee or assurance of future success in any matter. The results portrayed were dependent on a variety of facts and circumstances unique to the particular matters described, and do not reflect the entire record of the individual attorney(s) involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future results, and the outcome of your particular case or matter cannot be predicted using a lawyer’s or law firm’s past results. Every case is unique and different and should be evaluated on its own merits, without comparison to other cases that may have had different facts and circumstances.