HP 2012 Annual Report Download - page 161

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 18: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in
installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt
employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging
similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham
case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of
employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter.
Approximately 2,600 current and former EDS employees have filed consents to opt-in to the
litigation. Plaintiffs had alleged separate ‘‘opt out’’ classes based on the overtime laws of the
states of California, Washington, Massachusetts and New York, but plaintiffs have dismissed
those claims.
•Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on June 15, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that certain
information technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer
software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On August 31, 2012, HP filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint and counterclaims against
named two of the three named plaintiffs. Also on August 31, 2012, HP filed a motion to transfer
venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A hearing on HP’s
motion to transfer venue was scheduled for November 21, 2012, but was postponed by the court.
•Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006
in California Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in
California were misclassified as exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court
granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 7, 2012, the
Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for two of the named plaintiffs, but reversed
summary judgment on the third named plaintiff, remanding the case back to the trial court and
inviting the trial court to revisit its prior certification order. The defendant has moved to
decertify the class, and, in November 2012, the trial court issued a tentative order granting the
defendant’s motion. Another purported class action originally filed in California Superior Court,
Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, alleges
similar facts and is pending in San Diego County Superior Court.
•Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported nationwide collective action filed on
February 17, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming
that a class of information technology support personnel were misclassified as exempt employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
that the court conditionally certify the case as a collective action. HP has opposed plaintiffs’
motion for conditional certification, and the court has taken the motion under advisement. Only
one opt-in plaintiff had joined the named plaintiff in the lawsuit at the time that the motion was
filed.
India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the ‘‘DRI’’) issued show cause notices to Hewlett-Packard India
153