Skip to main content

Lawrence Hill, Adam Wise, And Robert Miller, Res. v. Garda Cl Northwest, Inc., App.

Wash. Ct. App.March 27, 2017No. 74617-1-ICited 9 times
Plaintiff WinGarda CL Northwest, Inc.$7,355,787.76 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Trickey, Schindler, Spearman
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

Nearly 500 employees won their class action wage and hour lawsuit against Garda CL Northwest for failing to provide legally sufficient meal periods and rest breaks under Washington law. The court awarded back pay, some double damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees, though the appellate court reversed the double damages for meal period violations and prejudgment interest on rest break damages.

What This Ruling Means

**Security Company Must Pay Nearly $7.4 Million for Denying Workers Proper Breaks** Nearly 500 security guards sued their employer, Garda CL Northwest, for not providing proper meal periods and rest breaks required under Washington state law. The workers claimed the company either didn't give them breaks at all or didn't give them enough time to actually eat and rest during their shifts. The court ruled in favor of the workers and ordered Garda to pay $7.36 million in total compensation. This included back pay for the missed breaks and attorney fees. While the original court also awarded double damages as punishment, a higher court later removed some of those extra penalties. **What This Means for Workers:** This case shows that employers must follow state laws about meal and rest breaks - they can't just ignore these requirements to save money or because of business demands. If your employer regularly denies you proper break time, you may have legal rights to compensation. Workers can band together in class action lawsuits when many employees face the same violations, which can be more effective than individual complaints. The large financial penalty here sends a message that courts take break violations seriously.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.