Case 3:13-cv HU Document 40 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID#: 523

Transcription

1 Case 3:13-cv HU Document 40 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 5 Page ID#: 523 CAROL J. BERNICK, OSB # caro1bernick@dwt.com CHRISTOPHER F. MCCRACKEN, OSB #89400 chrismccracken@dwt.com Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) DANIELL. NASH (admitted pro hac vice) dnash@akingump.com PATRICIA A. MILLETT (admitted pro hac vice) 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC Telephone: (202) Facsimile: (202) GREGORY W. KNOPP (admitted pro hac vice) gknopp@akingump.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California Telephone: (31 0) Facsimile: (31 0) Attorneys for Defendant Starbucks Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON AT PORTLAND HANNAH FREDRICKSON, ASHLEY KRENING AND MAURIALEE BRACKE, Case No. 3:13-cv HU v. Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF ADRIENNE GEMPERLE STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant. Page 1 - DECLARATION OF ADRIENNE GEMPERLE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND DWT lvl (503) main (503) fax

2 Case 3:13-cv HU Document 40 Filed 04/19/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID#: 524 I, Adrienne Gemperle, certify and declare as follows: 1. I am currently employed by Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks") as a partner resources vice president for the division encompassing Oregon. I am familiar with and have personal knowledge of the employment records maintained regarding Star bucks employees. I submit this declaration in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand. 2. In the regular course of business, Starbucks maintains electronic human resources and payroll databases containing information regarding the employment status, job positions, termination dates, and wages of its current and former employees, including employees in Oregon. I am familiar with these databases and regularly rely on the data they maintain in connection with my job responsibilities. 3. On December 16, 2012, Star bucks conducted queries of these databases to support its Notice of Removal in the above titled action. Queries of these databases revealed the following: 4. Between December 10, 2009 and the date ofthe queries, Starbucks employed approximately 6,028 individuals as baristas or shift supervisors in Oregon. 5. For 3,335 of the individuals identified in paragraph 4, above, the employment with Starbucks ended after December 10, On average, the 3,335 individuals identified in paragraph 5, above, earned an hourly wage of approximately $9.77 at the time their employment ended. 7. On February 3, 2013, Starbucks again queried its human resources and payroll databases, in response to demands by plaintiffs' counsel in this matter for data relevant to Starbucks Notice of Removal. Using these queries, Starbucks compiled a spreadsheet titled "Oregon Partners With Imputed Tips: December 10,2009- December 21, 2012." (Starbucks refers to its employees as "partners.") The spreadsheet identified each partner in the list by his or Page 2 - DECLARATION OF ADRIENNE GEMPERLE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND DWT vi (503) main (503) fax

3 Case 3:13-cv HU Document 40 Filed 04/19/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID#: 525 her unique partner number, and listed the separation date and hourly rate of pay for each partner who separated from employment on or before December 21, Like the December 16 queries, the February 3 queries identified 6,028 partners who worked as baristas or shift supervisors in Oregon stores between December 10, 2012 and December 21, 2012, but they also revealed that 107 of these individuals never received imputed tips during that time period. These 107 individuals were excluded from the spreadsheet, leaving 5,921 individuals in the spreadsheet. 9. The spreadsheet identifies 3,258 former partners, 77 fewer than stated in Starbucks Notice of Removal. This discrepancy is explained by the exclusion of partners who received no imputed tips during the relevant time period, and by the fact that the queries that created the spreadsheet were conducted almost two months after the queries that were used to support the Notice of Removal. 10. The February 3 queries identified 3,353 baristas and shift supervisors who separated from employment between December 10,2009 and December 21, more than identified by the December 16 queries. This difference is explained primarily by the fact that 19 ofthese separations were entered into Starbucks databases after December 16, Additionally, one separation which was captured in the December 16 queries was excluded by the February 3 queries, because the effective date of that separation was December 25, 2012, and the February 3 queries only included separations that were effective as of December 21, Of the 3,353 separated partners identified by the February 3 queries, 96 never received imputed tips. Therefore, these partners were excluded from the spreadsheet, as described above in paragraph 8, leaving 3,258 separated partners in the spreadsheet. 12. The spreadsheet lists 30 partners with final rates of pay below the prevailing Oregon minimum wage as of the date of their separation. This apparent discrepancy is also easily explained. Page 3 -DECLARATION OF ADRIENNE GEMPERLE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND DWT vi

4 Case 3:13-cv HU Document 40 Filed 04/19/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID#: Twenty-eight of the partners indentified in paragraph 12 worked as baristas or shift supervisors in Oregon during the relevant time period, but were working for Starbucks in a different state when they separated from employment. Thus, the spreadsheet lists their pay rate upon the termination of their employment in a state other than Oregon. 14. One partner identified in paragraph 12 separated from employment effective January 1, 2011, but last worked hours for Starbucks on December 30,2010. This partner's hourly rate was $8.40 in 2010, which was also Oregon's minimum wage that year. 15. One partner identified in paragraph 12 is listed in the spreadsheet with an hourly rate of$7.75. This partner was hired in Utah on June 16, 2010 at that hourly rate. The partner transferred to Oregon on September 27,2010, but separated from employment six days later. 16. Starbucks records reflect that Hannah Fredrickson, Ashley Krening and Maurialee Bracke are no longer employed by Starbucks. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 2- <I' day of March, 2013, in Seattle, Washington. ~t:p7 "'- ~v ~ ADRIENNE GEMP RL Page 4 -DECLARATION OF ADRIENNE GEMPERLE ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND DWT v

5 Case 3:13-cv HU Document 40 Filed 04/19/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID#: 527 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF ADRIENNE GEMPERLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL on: JonM. Egan Jon M. Egan, PC 240 Sixth Street Lake Oswego, OR Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (866) info@eganlegalteam.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hannah Fredrickson, Ashley Krening and Maurialee Bracke by mailing a copy thereof in a sealed, first-class postage prepaid envelope, addressed to said attorney's last-known address and deposited in the U.S. mail at Portland, Oregon on the date set forth below; and via USDC's CM/ECF system. Dated this day of March, By Carol J. Bernick, OSB # carolbernick@dwt.com Derek D. Green, OSB # derekgreen@dwt.com Gregory W. Knopp (pro hac vice pending) gknopp@akingump.com Jonathan P. Slowik (pro hac vice pending) jpslowik@akingump.com Of Attorneys for Defendant Starbucks Corporation Page 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DWT lvl