Google, LLC
Case No.: 3:21-cv-09942 (N.D. Cal.)
On December 22, 2021, a former Google, LLC account manager initiated a lawsuit alleging that the company failed to include all legally required compensation when calculating its hourly employees’ overtime rate of pay.
According to Complaint, Google, LLC paid Plaintiff and others similarly situated on an hourly basis and provided them with other compensation in the form of commissions and restricted stock units (a/k/a Google Stock Units). The problem, the Complaint alleges, is that Google, LLC failed to include the value of commissions and Google Stock Units when calculating the employees’ overtime rate paid for overtime hours they worked. The Complaint asserts that this omission gave Google, LLC the benefit of paying its hourly employees at a lower overtime rate of pay than the law requires.
The Complaint also alleges that Google, LLC breached its individual contract with Plaintiff when it capped his earned commissions under a so-called windfall provision, that Plaintiff alleges was not in the commission agreement he entered with the company.
The lawsuit is filed as a putative collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under California state laws. The action seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated (double) damages for the workers impacted by Google, LLC’s alleged miscalculation of the overtime rate of pay.
Plaintiff is represented by Michele R. Fisher from Nichols Kaster, PLLP in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Daniel S. Brome from Nichols Kaster, LLP in San Francisco, California, and Charles L. Scalise from Ross Scalise Law Group in Austin, Texas.
To join the case, click the button below.
Type of Case
Unpaid Overtime
Share
Am I eligible?
You may be eligible to make a claim in this case if you worked for Google, LLC as an hourly employee anywhere in the country within the past three years, worked overtime hours (hours over 40 in a workweek), and were paid in commissions and/or restricted stock units that were not included in the overtime rate of pay Google, LLC used in calculating your overtime pay.
Additional Information
Is This a Class Action? What Does that Mean?
This case is both a potential collective action under federal law and a potential class action under California state law. This means that, depending on the type of claim you have, there may be a slightly different process for joining and participating in this suit. See below for more details on this process.
Though the process and terminology may differ slightly, the idea behind both a class and collective action is the same: it allows one or more people to sue on behalf of themselves and other people who have similar claims. To proceed as a group, though, the Court must certify the class and collective. Because we are in the early stages of the case, this has not happened yet, but we intend to seek the company’s agreement or file the motions at the appropriate time asking the Court to grant these certifications.
Which Locations Are Included?
This case seeks to include all hourly employees who received commissions and/or restricted stock units who work or have worked for Google, LLC anywhere in the country within the past three years. It also seeks to include people who worked for the company in California within the past four years.
What Time Frame Does This Case Cover?
There is a federal time limit, called a statute of limitations, that allows workers to recover unpaid wages within two years of the worker signing up to join the lawsuit by completing and returning the consent form referenced above. If we can prove that the company willfully violated the law, the statute of limitations may be extended to three years. California employees have a four-year statute of limitations.
Do I Have to Pay Anything?
You do not have to pay anything if you make a claim in this case. We are handling the case on a contingency basis. This means we will only be paid if the lawsuit is successful in obtaining relief either through a settlement, award, or a final judgment, and that payment will only come out of that settlement, award, or final judgment.
How Do I Prove the Overtime Hours I Worked?
We will seek records from Google, LLC of your hours worked and overtime paid. Companies have a legal obligation to keep that information.
What About Retaliation?
It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against a person for joining a lawsuit to reclaim unpaid wages.
How Long Will This Case Take?
The length of this kind of lawsuit varies from case to case, but they typically last one to three years.
Is There Money Available Now?
No. This is a pending lawsuit. There is no money currently available and there is no guarantee that you will receive money for joining the lawsuit.
How Can I Help?
If you know anyone interested in making a claim for miscalculated overtime pay, they should contact the case clerk, Ignasi Dorca, at (612) 256-3224 or idorca@nka.com. You can also direct them here to sign up electronically. There is strength in numbers.
How Do I Learn More?
To learn more about this case, feel free to contact the case clerk, contact the case clerk, Ignasi Dorca, at (612) 256-3224 or idorca@nka.com.
Case Updates
-
March 14, 2023
Court Approves $8.369 Million Overtime Settlement Reached for Google, LLC Hourly Employees
On March 13, 2023, the district court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of $8.369 million reached between over 6,500 hourly employees from across the country and Google, LLC (“Google”). The lawsuit alleges that Google neglected to include the value of vested restricted stock units and sign-on bonuses it paid employees, when calculating the overtime rate paid for overtime hours worked. The omission, the workers assert, gave Google the benefit of paying hourly workers at a lower overtime rate of pay than the law allows.
The settlement provides allocations to all non-exempt employees who worked for the company from December 22, 2018 through June 5, 2022 who were awarded restricted stock units that vested at any time during that period and/or who received a sign-on bonus during that period, and extends to December 22, 2017 for those in California. While the California class members will automatically be included in the settlement, those outside of California will receive a Notice by mail and email giving them the opportunity to join the settlement by submitting a Consent to Join form to the settlement administrator by June 5, 2023. The district court will hold a final approval hearing to further assess the reasonableness of the settlement on July 27, 2023.
Class Counsel, Michele R. Fisher of Nichols Kaster, PLLP stated, “we are pleased with the settlement we were able to reach with Google and look forward to getting these workers their settlement checks. This case is a good reminder to employers to check to see if they are including all appropriate forms of compensation in the overtime rate of pay.”
The case is entitled, Cody Bowlay-Williams et. al v. Google, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-09942 (N.D. Cal.). The workers are represented by Class Counsel Michele Fisher and Daniel Brome of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and Charles Scalise of Ross Scalise Law Group, P.C. Google, LLC is represented by Paul Hastings LLP. More information about the case can be obtained by contacting Class Counsel at (877) 448-0492 or visiting their website at googleovertimecase.com.
-
September 6, 2022
Google, LLC Case Update
As a result of this lawsuit, earlier this year Google paid 70 employees for whom Google allegedly made an error in late 2020 and 2021 by not incorporating sales bonuses into the overtime rate of pay. While Google has not yet agreed to pay overtime back wages for not including the value of the restricted stock units when it calculated the overtime rate of pay, it has agreed to mediate on October 3, 2022 to see if we can reach a settlement.
-
December 23, 2021
Google, LLC Employee Lodges Putative Class and Collective Action for Deflated Overtime Rate of Pay
On December 22, 2021, a former Google, LLC account manager initiated a lawsuit alleging that the company failed to include all legally required compensation when calculating its hourly employees’ overtime rate of pay.
According to Complaint, Google, LLC paid Plaintiff and others similarly situated on an hourly basis, and provided them with other compensation in the form of commissions and restricted stock units (a/k/a Google Stock Units). The problem, the Complaint alleges, is that Google, LLC failed to include the value of commissions and Google Stock Units when calculating the employees’ overtime rate paid for overtime hours they worked. The Complaint asserts that this omission gave Google, LLC the benefit of paying its hourly employees at a lower overtime rate of pay than the law requires.
The Complaint also alleges that Google, LLC breached its individual contract with Plaintiff when it capped his earned commissions under a so-called windfall provision, that Plaintiff alleges was not in the commission agreement he entered with the company.
The lawsuit is filed as a putative collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and class action under California state laws. The action seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated (double) damages for the workers impacted by Google, LLC’s alleged miscalculation of the overtime rate of pay.
Plaintiff’s attorney, Michele R. Fisher of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, explained, “the law generally requires that employers include all forms of renumeration when calculating the overtime rate of pay for their workers. While there are some exceptions, it is our position that Google, LLC’s failure to include the value of commissions and restricted stock units in the overtime rate of pay is a violation of federal and state law. We believe this problem may impact many hourly employees across the country who worked overtime hours, and who, in addition to their hourly rate of pay, received commissions and/or restricted stock units.
Google, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc., an American multinational technology conglomerate holding company. Google, LLC specializes in internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware.
Plaintiff is represented by Michele R. Fisher from Nichols Kaster, PLLP in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Daniel S. Brome from Nichols Kaster, LLP in San Francisco, California, and Charles L. Scalise from Ross Scalise Law Group in Austin, Texas. The case is Bowlay-Williams v. Google, LLC, Case No.: 3:21-cv-09942 (N.D. Cal.).
Additional information about how to make a claim in the case may be found at www.nka.com or by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP at (612) 256-3200.
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.