Learn specifics about the case including updates on where the case is in the litigation process. If you have questions about where you might fit in the case or if you want to help, please visit our should you call page before contacting us.
The Carlson lawsuit was initiated by the filing of a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 2, 2002. On November 27, 2002, the Carlson lawsuit was consolidated with another lawsuit, Johnson, et al. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., asserting overtime wage claims on behalf of male branch employees. On May 20, 2003, the Court granted the Carlson and Johnson plaintiffs’ joint renewed motion to maintain the cases as “collective actions” on behalf of all branch sales, operations and support employees with respect to overtime pay claims asserted under the FLSA.
On June 6, 2003, notices were mailed to all branch sales, operations and support employees who worked for C.H. Robinson at any time after October 2, 1999. The notices informed these individuals of their right to join the case in order to assert claims for unpaid overtime wages. As of the August 15, 2003 deadline for joining the collective actions, almost 300 women joined the Carlson case and over 400 men joined the Johnson case.
Throughout most of 2003, the parties engaged in the fact discovery process. The fact discovery process involved, among other things, the production and review of more than 150,000 document pages, and the depositions of approximately 100 witnesses, including company officials and plaintiffs.
On March 22, 2004, the Carlson and Johnson plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule in their favor on defendant C.H. Robinson’s liability with respect to the overtime pay claims under the FLSA. On March 30, 2005, the Court issued its Order with respect to the summary judgment and related motions. In sum, the Court ruled that a jury trial is required in order to determine whether C.H. Robinson’s standard sales, operations and/or support jobs are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements because questions of fact preclude a summary decision by the Court.
On May 28, 2004, the Carlson plaintiffs filed a motion to maintain the Title VII gender discrimination claims, including sexual harassment claims, as a class action. On November 12, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the Carlson plaintiffs’ class motion and took the motion under advisement. On March 31, 2005, the Court issued its Order with respect to the class and related motions. In sum, the Court established separate classes for the Title VII compensation and promotion claims.
The Court declined to establish a class for the sexual harassment claims.
The trial for the compensation class and promotion class cases was scheduled to begin on April 11, 2006 in the United States District Court of Minnesota. However, the parties reached a settlement in principle, which was finally approved by the court on September 18, 2006. The claim form deadline for this case has passed and eligible class member claims have been paid.
Sprenger + Lang, together with Settlement Monitor Tommy Warren, are currently monitoring C.H. Robinson's compliance with the Consent Decree. We encourage any individual who believes that C.H. Robinson is not complying with the terms of the Consent Decree to contact us. A copy of the Consent Decree is available on the Orders page.
On September 27, 2006, Judge Ericksen entered an order de-certifying the class for purposes of the FLSA overtime pay claim. Shortly thereafter, 171 women who joined the Carlson case for purposes of asserting their overtime pay claims re-filed separate lawsuits asserting those claims. Pursuant to an order of the Multi-District Litigation Panel, all of the separate cases were transferred back to Judge Ericksen. In March 2007, the parties reached a settlement of those claims and on February 21, 2008, Judge Ericksen entered an order approving the overtime settlements.
After Judge Ericksen refused to certify a class for purposes of the Title VII sexual harassment claim, more than 50 women filed separate lawsuits asserting their sexual harassment claims. Some of those claims are still pending in various federal courts throughout the country. Various court rulings denying C.H. Robinson’s motions for summary judgment are available on the Orders page.
We will update this page to describe case developments as they occur, to the extent permitted by court order or agreement of the parties. The important court filings relating to this case can be read and downloaded from the Pleadings and Orders page.
Terms & Definitions
Copyright
Disclaimer
