Polo Class Action

Polo Class Action

	POLO CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

	ANN OTSUKA; JANIS KEEFE; CORRINE PHIPPS; and RENEE DAVIS; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. POLO RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION; POLO RETAIL, LLC; POLO RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION doing business as POLO RETAIL CORP; FASHIONS OUTLET OF AMERICA, INC. Defendants. This website was established and is maintained by The Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin. It is designed to provide information regarding this certified class action lawsuit to members of the Class. At the bottom of this page, you will find the Court-approved Notice of Pendency of Class Action.
	ABOUT THE LAWSUIT
	On May 29, 2006, The Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin filed a class action employment lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation and its affiliated companies (“Polo”) on behalf of certain former Polo employees in California. The case is now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint may be viewed in PDF format below. third amended class action complaint.pdf
	The lawsuit alleges that Polo engaged in practices that violate California labor laws and California business laws, including the following: Plaintiffs allege Polo used fraud in its hiring process, promising wages to certain employees that are not fully paid or honored. Plaintiffs allege Polo detained all of its employees in each of its California stores after hours to conduct loss prevention searches and did not pay them for the time spent waiting. Plaintiffs allege Polo misclassified some of its employees as commissioned salespersons and failed to pay them premium overtime wages. Plaintiffs allege Polo used an illegal commission arrears program in its full price stores that took back wages that have been previously earned by certain employees. Plaintiffs allege Polo failed to permit employees to take all of their rest breaks. Plaintiffs allege Polo failed to maintain accurate wage records for its employees. Plaintiffs allege Polo breached employment contracts with its employees regarding wages to be paid. Plaintiffs allege Polo failed to timely pay all wages due to employees who resigned or who were terminated. Plaintiffs allege Polo violated California’s Unfair Competition Laws by engaging in the above-described conduct. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, including premium overtime wages, penalties and punitive damages on behalf of the entire class. Polo has denied any and all wrongdoing. A copy of the Polo’s answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint may be viewed in PDF format below. polo answer to third amended complaint.pdf
	THE COURT GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
	On July 8, 2008, the Honorable Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Judge Illston’s Order certifying Plaintiffs’ claims can be viewed in PDF format below
	order granting class certification.pdf
	THE COURT TEMPORARILY STAYED FURTHER LITIGATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MISSED REST BREAK CLAIMS
	On August 18, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to decertify Plaintiffs’ class claims relating to missed rest breaks. On November 5, 2008, the United States District Court denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to decertify Plaintiffs’ rest break claims. The District Court also ordered a stay of litigation on Plaintiffs’ rest break claims pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum)(Supreme Court case number S166350). In Brinker Restaurant Corp., the California Supreme Court granted review to evaluate an employer’s duties with respect to providing rest breaks to its employees. The District Court indicated that Defendants may re-file their motion to decertify Plaintiffs’ missed rest break claims after the California Supreme Court issues it decision in Brinker. While the Court’s stay is in effect, Plaintiffs intend to litigate all other claims asserted in the case. A copy of Judge Illston’s Decertification Order may be viewed in PDF format below. order denying decertification.pdf
	NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
	On January 30, 2009, the United States District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to provide formal notice of the certified class action to all members of the class. On March 6, 2009, Plaintiffs mailed notices of pendency of class action to 6,204 individuals Polo identified as members of the certified class. The full Notice of Pendency of Class Action also can be viewed as a PDF file below. notice of pendency of class action.pdf
	www.kitchinlegal.com
	Copyright © 2010 Patrick R. Kitchin