Skip to Main Content
employment

Provident Savings Bank

McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank; Neal v. Provident Savings Bank

On December 17, 2012, we filed a Complaint on behalf of mortgage underwriters against Provident Savings Bank (“Provident”). These underwriters seek overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California state law. On May 22, 2014, we filed a companion case in state court on behalf of mortgage underwriters seeing overtime under California’s state law.

Both of these cases are on appeal from the trial court. On July 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit issued an order finding that the mortgage underwriters are non-exempt employees entitled to overtime under federal law. This was a significant ruling in the case and on behalf of workers in general. Unless there are further appeals, the case will now go back to the trial court for a trial to determine the amount of damages.

The state court case is also on appeal from the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. That appeal is briefed but has not yet been heard.

Type of Case

Unpaid Overtime Wages

Share

Case Updates

  • April 9, 2018

    Provident Savings Bank Mortgage Underwriters – Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit - Update April 9, 2018

    On December 18, 2017, the parties mediated and reached an agreement to resolve the case, subject to Court approval. The preliminary settlement approval hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2018. Please contact the clerk on the case Adwoa Afreh at aafreh@nka.com or 612-256-3253 if you have recently had an address change or any questions.

  • July 5, 2017

    Court of Appeals Rules that Mortgage Underwriters Represented by Nichols Kaster are Entitled to Overtime

    Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a group of mortgage underwriters represented by Nichols Kaster are non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The Court determined that Provident Savings Bank, FSB, the underwriters’ employer, could not show that the underwriters fit within the administrative exemption of the FLSA, which applies to employees who assist with the running or servicing of the business. Instead, the Court held that underwriters’ duties “go to the heart of Provident’s marketplace offerings,” which makes them non-exempt.

    The Ninth Circuit’s decision reverses an earlier ruling in Provident’s favor by the trial court and sends the case back to the trial court with an order to enter judgment in the employees’ favor.  Nichols Kaster attorney Matthew C. Helland, who argued the case on appeal, said that the firm was happy with the decision. “The Court properly recognized that these mortgage underwriters are entitled to overtime pay for their long hours of work. In so doing it confirmed long-standing Ninth Circuit precedent that work must relate to a company’s management or general business operations for the administrative exemption to apply. To quote the Court, ‘the question is not whether an employee is essential to the business, but rather whether her primary duty goes to the heart of internal administration—rather than marketplace offerings.’”

    The case is McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB, Ninth Circuit Case Number 15-16758.

  • November 3, 2014

    California Superior Court Denies Provident Savings Bank Motion To Strike Plaintiffs’ Class Action Allegations

    On September 26, 2014, California Superior Court Judge Hernandez denied Provident’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ class action allegations. The Plaintiffs in the case are Provident mortgage underwriters, who allege that Provident misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay. Provident argued that because a similar case had previously been filed in federal court Plaintiffs were precluded from bringing their claims as a class action in state court. The Judge denied Provident’s motion, ruling that Plaintiffs could proceed with their class allegations.

Additional Information

How Do I Join This Case?

The deadline to join this case has passed.

Which Locations Are Included?

Past and present mortgage underwriters that worked anywhere in the United States may be included in this lawsuit.

What Time Frame Does This Case Cover?

Under federal law there is a statute of limitations that allows you to recover pay for hours worked within 2 years of signing up for the lawsuit. If we can prove the company willfully violated the law, the statute of limitations may be extended to 3 years. Under California law, the statute of limitations may be as long as four years.

Do I Have to Pay Anything?

You do not have to pay anything to our firm if you join the lawsuit. We are handling this case on a contingency basis. This means we will only be paid if the lawsuit is successful in obtaining relief either through a settlement or a final judgment and that payment will only come out of that settlement or final judgment.

How Do I Prove I Worked Overtime?

Where the employer does not keep accurate time records, most courts permit the employee to make a good faith estimate of overtime hours. You do not need to have proof of the hours you worked, and the court will generally accept a good faith estimate of your hours.

How Long Will This Case Take?

The length of an action such as this varies from case to case.  They typically last two to three years.

What About Retaliation?

The law protects you from retaliation for asserting your rights. If you currently work for Provident, and you feel you are the victim of retaliation for participating in this lawsuit, contact us immediately.

How Do I Learn More?

To learn more about this case, feel free to contact the case clerk,Sherick Francois, by email at sfrancois@nka.com or call toll free at (877) 448-0492, ext. 253.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Read full Disclaimer.