Class Action News

This Agreement Is Made To Fully And Finally Resolve And Settle Roberts V. King County

This Agreement is made to fully and finally resolve and settle Roberts v. King County, No. 97-2-07412-6 SEA (“Roberts”), and Duncan v. King County, No. 02-2-36091-2 SEA (“Duncan”).  It is subject to approval by the Metropolitan King County Council and the King County Superior Court. 
 
 The Roberts case was filed on March 21, 1997 by Arlene Roberts and Abu Sanusi.  The Roberts complaint asserted that King County violated the “equal pay for equal work” provision in the King County Code (K.C.C.) Section 3.12.170, as amended by Ordinance 11032 (1993), by paying Nonrepresented County employees working 40 hours per week a lower hourly rate than other Nonrepresented employees in the same job classification who work 35 hours per week. 

The Roberts plaintiffs, who work 40 hours per week, asserted that Nonrepresented employees in the same job classification should have the same hourly pay rate as Nonrepresented employees who work 35 hours per week, and that the approximate 14.29% difference in hourly pay violated K.C.C. 3.12.170.A.1.  The plaintiffs moved to certify a class in Roberts, and the County responded by moving for dismissal. 

The County argued that this King County Code provision was only a statement of policy, it imposed no duty and, even if there were a duty, the County’s choice of pay rates was within its discretion.  The King County Superior Court dismissed the Roberts action on November 18, 1999, having ruled that the “equal pay for equal work” provision was a mere statement of policy which did not create a mandatory duty enforceable in Court.
  
 The Roberts plaintiffs appealed.  The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the order of dismissal, holding that K.C.C. 3.12.170 established a duty to King County “to provide equal pay for equal work in some rational fashion.”  Roberts v. King County, 107 Wn.App. 806, 816, 27 P.3d 1267 (2001).  The Court ruled that this “duty is mandatory.”  Id.  The County petitioned for review, but the Washington Supreme Court denied review.  149 Wn.2d 1024 (2002). 
alleging the same claims against any of the defendants in the last three years.

Contact our Utah Class Action Lawyer Now!

	Did You Know?
	Class action lawsuits has many advantages. Class action lawsuits may offer a number of advantages because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit. First, aggregation may increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation. Second, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm -- but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff -- must compensate those individuals for their injuries. Third, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund of all its assets before other plaintiffs may be compensated. Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow.