550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
Glendale, California 91203
(818-547-5200) | (626-795-0205)

EMAIL: tom@falveylaw.com

Henderson v. Raytheon Class Action

March 16, 2010


We're glad to announce that on March 16, 2010, the Honorable Carolyn Kuhl, Judge, granted plaintiff's motion for approval of the class action settlement entered into between the parties, albeit with a reduction in part of the enhancement fee sought.

We thank you all for your efforts and assistance.

If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call.

We have attached copies of the order of the court for your review.

We wish each of you the best.

Below, you will see the history of the progression of the case. We are grateful to everyone who helped us achieve this result.

The next step in the process is the hearing before the court on the motion for final approval of the settlement of the class action. It is currently scheduled to be heard on March 16, 2010.

Thank you for your participation. We are hopeful that the settlement will be approved at that time.

If you have any questions, please call our office at (626) 795-0205, or call (310) 396-0731 and ask for either Jim DeSimone or Mike Morrison.


By this time, you should have received a notice of settlement from the claims administrator, the CPT Group, Inc., notifying you of a settlement in this case. If you did not receive the notice of settlement and claim form, please contact the CPT Group at the following number so they may send you the necessary documents: (866) 513 8701.

We realize that there may be some questions or concerns about the settlement. While we hoped to obtain more for each of you than what Raytheon previously offered, we decided that in light of the risks of future litigation, it made more sense to resolve this case than to continue the litigation.

While the dollar amount per work week indicated in the claims form may be less than you were previously offered, this is the minimum amount and, at the Final Approval Hearing, we will have an opportunity to make a showing that the dollar per week value should be increased. At the Final Approval Hearing, we will use our best efforts to make sure that each of you receive an amount at least equal to what Raytheon previously offered. It is our belief that after the Final Approval Hearing you will receive at least an equivalent sum of money. Ultimately, it is up to the Court to decide these issues.

We believe this settlement is in the best interests of the class members and we therefore recommend that you fill out the claim form and mail or fax it back to claims administrator by the due date listed on the notice and claim form. In the alternative, if you fill out the exclusion form or do not return the claim form, it would mean that in order for you to have an opportunity to receive any money for alleged unpaid overtime you would have to personally take legal action against Raytheon. However, the decision on whether or not to settle is entirely up to you.

If you have any additional questions, do not hesitate to contact Jim DeSimone or Michael Morrison at 310 396-0731. Thank you.

Preliminary Approval of the Settlement of the Class Action has been given.

Class Notices and Claim Forms were mailed out December 4, 2009!

Thus if you believe or have been told that you are a class member, and do not receive a claim form by Friday, December 11, 2009, you should take action.

Please feel free to contact the claims administrator, Julie Green, of CPT Associates, at 800.542.0900, and ask if CPT sent a claim to you, and to what address. It may be that it was misaddressed, if you are in the class and didn't get one. Or it may be that Raytheon overlooked your possible participation.

Also, please contact our office, to let us know the outcome.

On October 29, 2009, both sides appeared in court before the Honorable Carolyn Kuhl, Judge, for a hearing in the case of David Henderson v. Raytheon, etc. We were there seeking the court’s preliminary approval of a settlement recently reached between the parties.

Please also understand that there are strict time limits in regard to making a claim. We thus ask that you please pay strict attention to the instructions, if you are going to file a claim.

If you have ceased working for Raytheon, and your address has changed since that occurred, please contact Raytheon and advise it of your new address. If you are unsure whether you are a class member, and believe that to be the case, we recommend you contact Raytheon to ask about your status if you wish to pursue a claim. If you intend to do that, it may assist you to have ready the names of your fellow employees who you believe to already be part of the case when you make such a call.

We are grateful for your patience in regard to this class action. Should you have any questions, please contact us. Thanks very much.

Plaintiff's Allegations

A proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed by former employee David Henderson ("Plaintiff") against Raytheon Company ("Raytheon") on behalf of non-exempt employees in California who have worked an alternative workweek schedule ("AWS") at any time since December 6, 2003. The case is David Henderson v. Raytheon Company, et al., Case No. BC381868 (Los Angeles Superior Court).

An AWS is a type of work schedule that deviates from a standard 5-day, 8-hour per day workweek. For example, an AWS would include working 4 days per week, 10 hours each day, or 9 days every two weeks for 80 hours. In order to institute an AWS where employees are not paid daily overtime for working more than 8 hours in day, California law requires that an employer go through certain procedures. This includes a secret ballot election.

In his lawsuit, Plaintiff contends that Raytheon did not comply with the requirements under California law for implementing an AWS. For example, it is our understanding that, at most facilities, no votes were held at Raytheon prior to April of 2008.

Therefore, Plaintiff contends that non-exempt employees who worked an AWS were not paid all wages due to them. If successful, a class action allows former and current employees to receive back wages that are owed to them.

Raytheon denies the claims in their entirety and believes that it has followed California law with respect to the payment of wages to its employees. The court has not yet ruled on any of Plaintiff's allegations or determined whether the case is appropriate for class action status.

If you are or were a Raytheon employee, we would like to speak with you. Please contact us at raytheonclassaction@gmail.com.

Case Documents:



DISCLAIMER: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners.

ADDRESS: 550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500, Glendale, California 91203 | P: 818-547-5200 or 626-795-0205
EMAIL: tom@falveylaw.com