Public Eye

Rewriting someone else's stories is one thing. Simply stealing them word for word is another. We all know that the one-man-band news site Pasadena Now doesn't have much staff, whether in Bangalore or Pasadena. That's why they can't cover the news like a professional organization. It's tough all over, but our science and health writer Elise Kleeman, a Caltech grad and extraordinary professional journalist, worked hard recently to get the long covered-up story about a huge back-pay settlement Huntington Hospital has been ordered by a court to pay its nurses.

If the blog doesn't have the staffing to do actual reporting, and yet wants to get the word out about real news as reported by a real news organization I suppose it could just link to our story, with attribution. Instead, pretending it had filed a real story of its own "From Staff Reports," it just lifted Elise's story, quotes and all, essentially in its entirety, with a few trims.

Bad form that needs to be noted -- and halted immediately -- and a sign that genuine journalism is still needed in Pasadena. Elise's story in full follows; then the illegal plagiarism from Pasadena Now.

Hospital employees win restitution for overtime
By Elise Kleeman, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/28/2008 11:06:49 PM PST

PASADENA - Huntington Hospital employees won $32.8 million in restitution Friday for five years of miscalculated overtime.

Superior Court Judge William MacLaughlin, who ruled in September that the hospital was attempting to dodge overtime laws, sided with the employees again in accepting their calculation of the underpaid wages.

Huntington lawyers had argued the restitution amount should be decreased by approximately $20 million.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by four former Huntington nurses, charged that the hospital failed to pay adequate overtime for 2,117 employees between 1999 and 2004.

"We're very pleased," said Joseph Antonelli, lawyer for the nurses. "I think it's going to be a landmark decision because there hasn't been a trial court decision on this issue before."

MacLaughlin is still considering an injunction that would bar Huntington from continuing the disputed pay practices. Antonelli expected that ruling could be issued within the next few weeks.

"We are disappointed by the court's action today, and we are evaluating whether to appeal the decision," read a statement the hospital released Monday. "Huntington Hospital has always been committed to complying with the law, and we are awaiting the court's ruling on how to proceed with our pay practice going forward.

"It is important to note that we have always paid our employees fairly and treated them fairly," the statement read. "The 12-hour schedule that is the subject of this litigation was devised and adopted at the request of our employees and with their overwhelming support."
Huntington spokesman Connie Matthews declined to answer whether the hospital's insurance would cover the settlement, or how hospital operations might be affected.

"The case is still being tried and it's premature to speculate on the ultimate impact of the court's action until we have a final resolution," she said.

The nurses' complaint stemmed from a complicated pay structure enacted after California mandated daily overtime pay in the last decade.

To ensure employees working 12-hour shifts and earning overtime would make roughly the same as employees ` eight-hour shifts over the course of each pay period, the hospital lowered the hourly pay rate for 12-hour shift employees.

But in some circumstances, 12-hour shift nurses worked shorter days than expected, losing out on valuable overtime pay. Huntington therefore instituted a correction known as the "short shift premium," an hourly bonus added to the first 10 hours the employees worked.

The nurses argued that the premium should be included in calculating their overtime salaries, without which they would make more per hour for the first 10 hours each work day than for the 11th or 12th.

"The idea that the base rate would vary depending on the number of hours worked is fundamentally inconsistent with the whole overtime structure," said Noel Ragsdale, a USC law professor. "I think the court would look at the circumstances and see that this was all designed to basically avoid paying the overtime rate."

There are ways for employers to legally establish "alternative workweeks" for employees regularly working longer shifts, Ragsdale said.

Matthews declined to comment on whether the hospital had considered adopting that pay system.

Antonelli's firm has filed two other claims against Huntington Hospital. One seeks damages for employees who quit or were fired without receiving the overtime owed them. The second claim was filed on behalf of 12-hour shift employees working at the hospital between 2004 and the present, he said.

elise.kleeman@sgvn.com

(626)578-6300, Ext. 4451

Hospital Employees Win $32.8 Million In Pay Dispute
Huntington Hospital attorneys want claim to be reduced to about $20 million

From Staff Reports
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 | 9:45 am
Huntington Hospital employees have won $32.8 million in restitution Friday for five years of miscalculated overtime and the Superior Court judge who ruled in their favor is also considering an injunction that would bar the hospital from continuing the disputed pay practices.

Superior Court Judge William MacLaughlin, who ruled in September that the hospital was attempting to dodge overtime laws, sided with the employees again in accepting their calculation of the underpaid wages.

Huntington lawyers had argued the restitution amount should be decreased by approximately $20 million.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by four former Huntington nurses, charged that the hospital failed to pay adequate overtime for 2,117 employees between 1999 and 2004.

"We're very pleased," said Joseph Antonelli, lawyer for the nurses. "I think it's going to be a landmark decision because there hasn't been a trial court decision on this issue before."

Antonelli expected that ruling could be issued within the next few weeks.

"We are disappointed by the court's action today, and we are evaluating whether to appeal the decision," read a statement the hospital released Monday. "Huntington Hospital has always been committed to complying with the law, and we are awaiting the court's ruling on how to proceed with our pay practice going forward.

"It is important to note that we have always paid our employees fairly and treated them fairly," the statement read. "The 12-hour schedule that is the subject of this litigation was devised and adopted at the request of our employees and with their overwhelming support."

Huntington spokesman Connie Matthews declined to answer whether the hospital's insurance would cover the settlement, or how hospital operations might be affected.

The nurses' complaint grew from a complicated pay structure enacted after California mandated daily overtime pay in the last decade.

To ensure employees working 12-hour shifts and earning overtime would make roughly the same as employees eight-hour shifts over the course of each pay period, the hospital lowered the hourly pay rate for 12-hour shift employees.

But in some circumstances, 12-hour shift nurses worked shorter days than expected, losing out on valuable overtime pay. Huntington therefore instituted a correction known as the "short shift premium," an hourly bonus added to the first 10 hours the employees worked.

The nurses argued that the premium should be included in calculating their overtime salaries, without which they would make more per hour for the first 10 hours each work day than for the 11th or 12th.

Antonelli's firm has filed two other claims against Huntington Hospital. One seeks damages for employees who quit or were fired without receiving the overtime owed them.

The second claim was filed on behalf of 12-hour shift employees working at the hospital between 2004 and the present, he said.

© Copyright 2008 by Pasadena Now.com