Source: https://www.employmentlawblog.info/2011/12/auditor-wage-hour-litigation-against-big-four-accounting-firms.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:52:08+00:00

Document:
There are suits pending against each of the Big Four firms, and in several of which Outten & Golden appears as counsel. More details about our present case against Deloitte may be found at http://www.deloitteovertimelawsuit.com/ . After the jump, you can read a survey of the current cases.
KPMG - Two collective actions (the FLSA equivalent of a "class action") are based out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Pippins v. KPMG, LLP, No. 11-cv-01622-CM (Colleen McMahon, J. and James L. Cott, Mag. J.) and Trawinski v. KPMG LLP, No. 11-cv-02978-PAC (Paul A. Crotty, J., and Henry B. Pitman, Mag. J.) (Outten & Golden is counsel in both cases).
The plaintiffs in Pippins seek to certify a class and collective action consisting of Audit Associates and Audit Associate Seconds who worked in the KPMG Audit practice group (First Amended Complaint in Pippins). A motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claim is pending. The case garnered publicity because of entry a protective order entered by the magistrate judge on October 7, 2011, requiring KPMG for the present time to preserve several thousand hard drives from laptop computers used by departed Audit Associates. That order is presently on appeal to Judge McMahon. Judge McMahon on March 21, 2011 also denied a motion to transfer this case to the consolidated case in Central District of California (see below). Trawinski likewise alleges claims on behalf of Advisory Associates under the FLS and New York law. The complaint in that case was filed May 3, 2011 (see Trawinski complaint here).
In Washington state court, There is another proceeding, Litchfield v. KPMG LLP, No. 07-2-11179-4 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., Steven Gonzalez, J.), involving Audit Associates employed in that state. On November 24, 2009, the trial judge certified a class of unlicensed (non-CPA) Audit Associates employed during or after 2007. On April 22, 2010, the same judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff class in part, holding that Audit Associates are not exempt as "professional" employees because they fall short of the requisite educational background necessary to perform audit work (Litchfield summary judgment order). There is presently pending an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals of Washington (Litchfield v. KPMG LLP, No. 65372-5-1).
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP: In Gersten v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, No.11-cv-4554-RMB-THK and James v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, No. 11-cv-02461-RMB-THK (Richard M. Berman, J., and Theodore H. Katz, Mag. J.) - now consolidated as In re Deloitte & Touche Overtime Litigation - plaintiffs brought suit under the FLS and New York state law, on behalf of current and former Audit Assistants, Audit Senior Assistants, Audit In-Charges and Audit Seniors, from April 11, 2008 (under federal law) and from April 11, 2005 (for New York employees covered by New York law). (Outten & Golden is co-lead counsel in this case.) In an order dated December 16, 2011, the judge granted conditional certification of the FLSA claim and ordered that notice be sent to prospective plaintiffs.
In the U.S. District Court for the NorThern District of California, There is Brady v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, No. C-08 00177 (SI) (Susan Illston, J.), which represents a class of "Audit line of service" (Audit Senior, Audit Manager, Audit Senior Manager and Audit Director) who were not licensed accountants in California, proceeding under California law. These workers are alleged to perform the audit plan for D&T's customers. Performing the audit plan means testing financial statements of clients by obtaining and reviewing underlying documentation, a job that requires only some training and no specialized licensing. A class of these employees was certified on March 23, 2010.
PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS - There are several cases proceeding against PriceWaterhouse Coopers ("PwC") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California before Judge Lawarence K. Karlton: Campbell v. PwC, No. Civ. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH; Kress v. PwC, No. Civ. S-08-965 LKK/GGH; and Le v. PwCP, S-08-997 LKK/EFB (Lawarence Karlton, J.).
The court granted class certification in Campbell on March 25, 2008 of individuals who worked as unlicensed associates in PwC's Attest division at any time from October 27, 2002 to the present and were classified as exempt employees. A motion to consolidate Campbell with Kress and Le (and to dismiss Kress) was denied on August 14, 2008 (see Campbell order here).
The proposed Le class is broader than the class in Campbell, because in addition to seeking certification of a class of unlicensed California associates under California law, Le also seeks certification of a nationwide class of unlicensed associates under the FLSA.
There is also pending, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Commission v. PwC, No. 11-cv-5713 (Naomi Reice Buchwald, J.) seeking class relief for Associates in the Assurance line of service under New York law. (Outten & Golden is counsel in this case.) The complaint was filed August 16, 2011 (see Commission complaint here).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.