HP 2013 Annual Report Download - page 158

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
Note 17: Litigation and Contingencies (Continued)
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 filed counterclaims
against 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.
•Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in
California Superior Court alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. In
March 2010, the court stayed the matter; that stay was lifted in October 2012.
•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. On July 11, 2013, the court
denied plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification in its entirety. Only one opt-in plaintiff had
joined the named plaintiff in the lawsuit at the time that the motion was filed.
•Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on January 10, 2013 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain
technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting
computer software and/or hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP violated California law by,
among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On
September 20, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional class certification.
State of South Carolina Department of Social Services Contract Dispute. In October 2012, the State
of South Carolina Department of Social Services and related government agencies (‘‘SCDSS’’) filed a
proceeding before South Carolina’s Chief Procurement Officer (‘‘CPO’’) against Hewlett-Packard
State & Local Enterprise Services, Inc., a subsidiary of HP (‘‘HPSLES’’). The dispute arises from a
contract between SCDSS and HPSLES for the design, implementation and maintenance of a Child
Support Enforcement and a Family Court Case Management System (the ‘‘CFS System’’). SCDSS seeks
aggregate damages of approximately $275 million, a declaration that HPSLES is in material breach of
the contract and, therefore, that termination of the contract for cause by SCDSS would be appropriate,
and a declaration that HPSLES is required to perform certain additional disputed work that expands
the scope of the original contract. In November 2012, HPSLES filed responsive pleadings asserting
defenses and seeking payment of past-due invoices totaling more than $12 million. On July 10, 2013,
150