Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01287/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01287-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE

Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE) Page 1

McCARTHY, JOHNSON & MILLER

Law Corporation

DIANE SIDD-CHAMPION, ESQ., #78140

595 Market Street, Suite 2200

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 882-2992

Fax: (415) 882-2999

E-mail: dsidd-champion@mjmlaw.us

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Class Members

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FRANCIS KELLY, DENNIS KRUGER, ROBERT P.

ANDERSON, GEORGE O. BULLWINKEL,

STEPHEN C. CHRISTENSEN, FRED J. FEGAN,

GERALD L. GREY, THOMAS E. KAZARIAN,

FRANK M. KUNST, GARY J. LAVAYSSE,

PATRICK H. McLAUGHLIN, DANIEL M.

O’DONNELL, ROBERT G. OLLER, HENRY L.

RANEY, GEORGE J. RIPOLL, PATRICIA

CAULFIELD AND HORTENCE PUCCETTI,

Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN

FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT; EDWARD M.

HARRINGTON, in his Official Capacity as Controller

of the City and County of San Francisco; PHILIP A.

GINSBURG in his Official Capacity as Human

Resources Director of the City and County of San

Francisco; and DOES ONE though FIFTY, inclusive,

Defendants.

___________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK 

LEAVE

Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 68 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 1 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 71 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE

Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE) Page 2

NOTICE TO ALL UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO FIRE

DEPARTMENT WHO, ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 25, 2002, MAY HAVE RECEIVED A

LUMPSUMPAYMENT,UPONSEPARATIONFROMEMPLOYMENT, FOR ANYVESTED

SICK LEAVE.

THIS ISANOTICEOFYOURRIGHTS IN CONNECTION WITH A CLASS ACTION

CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY!

YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED A NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHTS IN

CONNECTION WITH A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATORY TIME (IN LIEU OF OVERTIME

COMPENSATION) AGAINST THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. THIS

NOTICE CONCERNSADIFFERENTCLAIM MADE IN THE SAME LAWSUIT AGAINST

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

I. INTRODUCTION

This notice is to inform you about a class action claim for vested sick leave. You are receiving

this notice because, according to the records of the City and County of San Francisco (“City”), you

may be a member of the plaintiff class of former uniformed members of the San Francisco Fire

Department. The class is described as: “All former uniformed employees of the San Francisco Fire

Department who were eligible for Training and Education Achievement Pay, Retention Pay and/or

Terrorism Response Training Pay and who, following separation from employment, received lump

sum payments on or after February 25, 2002 for any vested sick leave that did not include Training

and Education Achievement Pay, Retention Pay and/or Terrorism Response Training Pay.” If you are

a member of the class, you should read this notice because your rights may be affected by this suit.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT

On February 25, 2005, former uniformed members (firefighters and others) of the San

Francisco Fire Department (“SFFD”) filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco, the

San Francisco Fire Department, San Francisco Controller Edward M. Harrington, and San Francisco

Human Resources Director Philip A. Ginsburg. The named plaintiffs are Francis Kelly, Dennis

Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 68 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 2 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 71 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE

Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE) Page 3

Kruger, Robert P. Anderson, George O. Bullwinkel, Stephen C. Christensen, Fred J. Fegan, Gerald

L. Grey, Thomas E. Kazarian, Frank M. Kunst, Gary J. Lavaysse, Patrick H. McLaughlin, Daniel M.

O’Donnell, Robert G. Oller, Henry L. Raney, George J. Ripoll, Patricia Caulfield and Hortence

Puccetti. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California (San Francisco Division) and is currently in the early pretrial stage of proceedings.

The lawsuitalleges, among other things, that plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled

to recover additional monies for vested sick leave. The plaintiffs allege that the City has improperly

calculated lump sum payments for vested sick leave that were made to former uniformed members

of the SFFD upon separation from employment, by failing to include Training and Education

Achievement Pay, Retention Pay and/or Terrorism Response Training Pay in the lump sum payments.

The plaintiffs allege that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover additional monies

for vested sick leave. The plaintiffs also seek a change in City policies so that, in the future, all lump

sum payments for vested sick leave will be calculated to include Training and Education Achievement

Pay, Retention Pay and/or Terrorism Response Training Pay, as appropriate.

The City has denied that it violated the law. The City contends that it properly calculated and

paid lump sum payments to former uniformed employees of the SFFD upon separation from

employment and that such former employees are not entitled to additional pay.

III. THE OTHER NOTICE YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT THIS

LAWSUIT

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs also allege that the City improperly calculated lump sum

payments made to uniformed members of the SFFD upon separation from employment for unused

compensatory time off in lieu of overtime, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act

(“FLSA”), by failing to include Training and Education Achievement Pay, Retention Pay and/or

Terrorism Response Training Pay in the lump sum payments. You may have received a notice dated

October 26, 2005 regarding the aspect of this case related to the claim for compensatory time off in

lieu of overtime. That notice required you to “opt in,” or join the suit, by completing and returning

a “Consent to Join” form to plaintiffs’ attorneys. 

////

Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 68 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 3 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 71 Filed 01/04/06 Page 3 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE

Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE) Page 4

The procedure for participating in the vested sick leave aspect of the lawsuit is different. IF

YOU WISH TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VESTED SICK LEAVE ASPECT OF THE SUIT,

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING. This is true whether or not you signed and returned

the Consent to Join form for the FLSA aspect of the suit. 

IV. YOUR RIGHTS AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS

 If you come within the definition of the class set forth above in the Introduction, you will

automatically become a class member unless you choose to be excluded. You do not need to sign or

do anything to be included in the vested sick leave claim. As a class member, you will be represented

by the class representatives and the attorneys representing the class. As a class member, you will be

bound by any judgment or settlement of the vested sick leave claim, whether it is favorable or

unfavorable. That means that you may not bring a separate suit against any of the defendants for the

vested sick leave claim involved in this lawsuit. It also means that, upon proof of membership in the

class, you will receive a share of any money obtained by the plaintiffs as a result of a judgment or

settlement of the vested sick leave claim.

V. YOUR RIGHTS IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS

If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will not be affected by any judgment or

settlement of the vested sick leave claim, and you will not receive any monies for vested sick leave

if the plaintiffs prevail. If you choose to be excluded from the class, you will be able to obtain

additional monies for vested sick leave only if you file your own lawsuit within the time provided by

law and you prevail on your claims.

To ask to be excluded from the class, you must mail an “Exclusion Request” in the form of

a letter, stating that you want to be excluded from the class in Kelly v. City and County of San

Francisco, Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE). Be sure to include your name and address, and sign the

letter. If you wish to be excluded, you must mail your Exclusion Request to: Clerk of Court,

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, P.O. Box 36060, San

Francisco, CA 94102. Your Exclusion Request must be received by April 28, 2006. The sender bears

the responsibility for any delay in delivery or for non-delivery.

////

Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 68 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 4 of 5
 Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 71 Filed 01/04/06 Page 4 of 5
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION CLAIM FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE

Case No. C 05-1287 SI (ENE) Page 5

VI. CLASS COUNSEL

The Court has appointed the following law firm as Class Counsel: McCarthy, Johnson &

Miller Law Corporation, 595 Market Street, Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94105. By doing so, the

Court determined that this firm is qualified to represent you and all Class Members. You do not need

to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on your behalf. If you want your own

lawyer, you have the right to hire one, but you will have to pay that lawyer. 

VII. CHANGE OF ADDRESS

If you move after receiving this notice, or if it was misaddressed, you should supply your name

and correct address to Class Counsel: Diane Sidd-Champion, McCarthy, Johnson & Miller Law

Corporation, 595 Market Street, Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94105. This is important so that future

notices reach you.

VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

For further information about this notice or this lawsuit, you may telephone Diane SiddChampion at McCarthy, Johnson & Miller Law Corporation at (415) 882-2992 or (916) 443-0726.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH QUESTIONS

REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE HONORABLE SUSAN

ILLSTON, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE HAS BEEN

ASSIGNED. ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS AUTHORIZED THE SENDING OF THIS

NOTICE, THE COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION REGARDING THE MERITS OF

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OR THE CITY’S LIABILITY, IF ANY.

Dated: ___________________ By: ________________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 68 Filed 12/23/2005 Page 5 of 5

1/3/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:05-cv-01287-SI Document 71 Filed 01/04/06 Page 5 of 5