One person can make a difference. Constemecka Russell sued Illinois Bell Telephone Company for unpaid overtime and asked the Court to certify her lawsuit as a class action. Ms. Russell asked the Court to send notice to all current and former hourly employees of Illinois Bell call centers in Arlington Heights, Chicago, Rock Island, and Oak Brook who worked sales, service, and similar positions. After Ms. Russell filed her lawsuit, a number of additional call center employees signed forms consenting to be Plaintiffs. The Court applied the two step class certification process. The Court noted evidence of a company-wide policy and practice and that the putative notice recipients are similarly situated.
Illinois Bell argued that the Plaintiff’s proposed notice should be modified. Illinois Bell argued that having the district and magistrate judges name on the notice would cause potential class members to believe that these judges had endorsed the claims in the case. The Court noted that the proposed notice was done on Court letterhead, did not include judicial signatures, and should contain disclaimer that Court has taken no position about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ defenses. Thus the Court saw no reason to remove the judge’s names. Illinois Bell objected to a statement that individuals who opt-in to the action will be represented by the Plaintiff’s attorneys. The Court refused to reject this language because it was correct. The Court did allow Illinois Bell to insert language that individuals who join maybe required to take an active role in the litigation.
The Plaintiff requested an Excel spreadsheet listing the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of their social security number, and other information regarding potential plaintiffs. Illinois Bell sought to withhold telephone numbers and social security numbers. The Court found that, because the Plaintiffs may use reverse directory searches to locate new addresses for Plaintiffs, telephone numbers must be produced. The Court also found that because partial social security numbers would be used to locate updated contact information, that information must also be produced.
The case is Russell v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 4191763 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 15, 2008).
Illinois Bell argued that the Plaintiff’s proposed notice should be modified. Illinois Bell argued that having the district and magistrate judges name on the notice would cause potential class members to believe that these judges had endorsed the claims in the case. The Court noted that the proposed notice was done on Court letterhead, did not include judicial signatures, and should contain disclaimer that Court has taken no position about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ defenses. Thus the Court saw no reason to remove the judge’s names. Illinois Bell objected to a statement that individuals who opt-in to the action will be represented by the Plaintiff’s attorneys. The Court refused to reject this language because it was correct. The Court did allow Illinois Bell to insert language that individuals who join maybe required to take an active role in the litigation.
The Plaintiff requested an Excel spreadsheet listing the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of their social security number, and other information regarding potential plaintiffs. Illinois Bell sought to withhold telephone numbers and social security numbers. The Court found that, because the Plaintiffs may use reverse directory searches to locate new addresses for Plaintiffs, telephone numbers must be produced. The Court also found that because partial social security numbers would be used to locate updated contact information, that information must also be produced.
The case is Russell v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 4191763 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 15, 2008).
Leave a comment