PITTSBURGH – A registered nurse who brought class action litigation for breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law on behalf of herself and others employed by St. Clair Health who were allegedly not properly paid for working extra shifts, has maintained her claims in spite of defense arguments to the contrary.
Tammy L. Trippe (individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) of Moon Township first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 5 versus St. Clair Health Corporation, of Pittsburgh.
“Trippe and dozens of other similarly situated nurses, CNA’s, secretaries, escorts/patient transporters and possibly other non-exempt hourly employees who performed work for St. Clair at the St. Clair Hospital in Pennsylvania, each maintained an employment contract with St. Clair while employed by St. Clair, which included representations regarding rates of pay and payment for premium shifts. During the course of her employment with St. Clair, Trippe, along with other member of the class, has been offered additional shifts to work, which are often offered as ‘double time,’ ‘triple time,’ or ‘quadruple time,” the suit said.
“However, when Trippe and other members of the class accept and work such premium shifts, they are often not actually paid double, triple, or quadruple their hourly pay rate, as stated; rather, if the employee has not yet worked 40 hours in the given week, they are only paid at one-and-a-half times their hourly rate for a ‘double time’ shift, two-and-a-half times their hourly rate for a ‘triple time’ shift and three-and-a-half times their hourly rate for a ‘quadruple time’ shift. Additionally, if an employee works a premium shift and later misses work within the same work week due to illness or some other personal reason, the employee’s additional payment for the premium shift is withheld in full.”
The suit contended that St. Clair’s failure to pay Trippe and the other members of the class the wages they reasonably believed were promised and relied upon, constitutes a breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
“St. Clair breached its contract with the class by failing to pay bargained for and earned wages which were accepted as premium shifts and for which St. Clair failed to actually pay the offered ‘double time,’ ‘triple time’ or ‘quadruple time.’ The class is entitled to special damages in the form of ‘liquidated damages’ as set forth by the PWPCL, because St. Clair did not act in good faith when it willfully violated the PWCPL. The class is also entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable legal rate. As a result of the aforesaid breach of contract and willful violations of the PWPCL, compensation has been unlawfully withheld by St. Clair from the class,” the suit stated.
On Aug. 25, an uncontested motion to assign the case to Commerce and Complex Litigation Center was mutually filed by counsel for both parties.
“The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and violations of the Pennsylvania Wage and Collection Law for alleged failure to pay Trippe and other allegedly similarly-situated nursing staff and other employees for premium shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the motion stated.
“As Trippe files her claims on behalf of herself and others who are allegedly similarly-situated, this case involves the complex legal analysis and factual issues involving the claims of the putative class members, payroll and wages for current and former St. Clair employees, the likely retention of expert witnesses and potential forensic analysis of electronically-stored information, all of which could benefit from case management by a single assigned judge.”
The case was then sent to the Commerce and Complex Litigation Center on Aug. 26, through an order from Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christine A. Ward.
In an answer filed the same day, defense counsel denied the plaintiff’s assertions, and provided accompanying new matter supporting that same denial.
“The complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The averments in the complaint may be barred by the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, by the statute of frauds, by the statute of limitations, by consent, by payment and the purported class fails to satisfy the requirements of numerosity, adequate representation, commonality and typicality for class certification,” the new matter stated, in part.
“Trippe knowingly accepted the premium wages St. Clair offered to pay her. St. Clair properly compensated Trippe and members of the purported class in accordance with the WPCL. St. Clair paid premium shift wages consistent with its Supplemental Pay Program and Guidelines. Beginning in November 2021, St. Clair, at times, overpaid Trippe and other members of the purported class. St. Clair is entitled to recoupment for such overpayments or offset against future payments. St. Clair has not offered employees premium shifts at a rate of quadruple an employee’s regular rate. St. Clair reserves the right to assert traditional defenses that may become known during the litigation of this matter.”
UPDATE
In a response to the new matter filed on Sept. 9, the plaintiff denied the defense’s counter-arguments and re-asserted the merits of her allegations.
“Plaintiff denies that she was ever overpaid for triple-time shifts. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or in formation to admit or deny the allegations of new matter with respect to other class members. As such, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way or further response, regardless of whether there were instances in which an in correct multiplier was used in calculating rates for triple-time eligible shifts, plaintiff alleges that, at times, she and members of the class were underpaid for triple-time, constituting a breach of contract and in violation of the WPCL,” the reply stated, in part.
“The allegations of the new matter are denied to the extent that it suggests that Trippe agreed that she was being paid properly for premium shifts. To the contrary, Trippe repeatedly questioned defendant’s methodology for payments which she believed to be incorrect. Plaintiff denies that she was ever overpaid and is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of the new matter with respect to other class members. As such, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way or further response, regardless of whether there were instances in which plaintiff and members of the class were overpaid, plaintiff alleges that, at times, she and members of the class were underpaid for premium shifts, constituting a breach of contract and in violation of the WPCL.”
For counts of breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the plaintiff is seeking damages according to proof at trial, pre-judgment interest at the highest level rate, from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action on all unpaid wages from the date such wages were earned and due, all other relief as this Court may deem proper and equitable; damages for the amount of unpaid wages, in addition to interest and penalties subject to proof, liquidated damages in an amount equal to 25 percent of the total amount of wages due $500, whichever is greater, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law, and all other relief as this Court may deem proper and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Larry A. Weisberg and Derrek W. Cummings of Weisberg Cummings, in Harrisburg.
The defendant is represented by Stephen A. Antonelli of Babst Calland, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-008452
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com