A former employee of DST Output is alleging that DST Output failed to pay computer testers overtime. The case is, Case No. PC 20080109 filed in El Dorado Superior Court. The complaint alleges that DST failed to provide proper meal breaks, failed to provide accurate pay check stubs, and engaged in unfair business practices in that other firms have to pay their QA testers overtime and DST obtains an unfair advantage by not following the law. A copy of the complaint can be found here.

In addition to raising class action allegations, the complaint also raises Private Attorney General Act claims.

DST Output answers the complaint with a variety of defenses including that plaintiff "fail[ed] to properly assert class allegations pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382," and that requiring DST Output to pay overtime would "violate Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions." A copy of DST's Answer can be found here.

DST files a case management statement. Despite their contentions that the lawsuit has no merit, they contend that they will need until August of 2009 (almost a year-and-a-half after the lawsuit was filed) to bring a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff files a case management statement. Plaintiff contends that DST is primarily defending this lawsuit on the Administrative Exemption rather than the Computer Professional Exemption. Plaintiff contends that DST is claiming that the QA testers performed work relating to the management policies or general business operations of DST's customers. If you are a customer of DST Output and have any information relating to whether QA testers at DST Output affected your management policies or general business operations, please contact me.

MSJ Victory

Plaintiff won a major victory in that the Judge in the case has tentatively denied DST Output's motion for summary judgment. Essentially DST Output had argued that the case should be dismissed because the Plaintiff was exempt from overtime under the Administrative Exemption. The Court has tentatively ruled that DST Output did not carry their burden to prove this exemption in that material disputes of facts exist that will be required to be decided by a jury. Of interest is that Plaintiff primarily relied on the testimony of Douglas Swank, a current manager at DST Output.

DST Output will be flying their top attorney, Brian Finucane, out from Kansas City to attempt to convince the Court to change its mind prior to the decision being finalized. In addition, it appears that DST Output is trying to keep many of the documents relating to this motion confidential and filed under seal. As such, until the Court rules on whether the documents must be kept confidential, a copy of the ruling cannot be posted. Arguments take place October 22, 2009 in El Dorado Superior Court, Department 9.