May 24, 2012

Jury: Quicken Loans Doesn’t Owe Overtime Pay to Former Employees

A federal jury said today (3/17/11) that online mortgage giant Quicken Loans doesn’t owe overtime pay to hundreds of former loan officers.

A Center for Public Integrity investigation published last month about the trial in U.S. District Court in Detroit and other lawsuits examined how Quicken’s day-to-day tactics are at odds with its squeaky clean image and ranking as one of America’s best places to work. It detailed claims from borrowers and ex-employees who accuse the company of taking advantage of vulnerable homeowners and using falsified information to push through bad deals.

Jurors came back with a verdict today in Quicken’s favor after just over two days of deliberations in the five-week-long trial.

Attorneys for more than 300 former employees who worked as a “loan consultants” for the company from 2002 to 2006 had argued that they were salespeople who were entitled to overtime compensation. The company countered that the workers were exempt from overtime rules because they were administrative workers who provide advice to borrowers, in much the way that stockbrokers provide advice to investors.

As much as $10 million in back pay was at stake in the case, according to Crain’s Detroit Business.

After the verdict was announced, Quicken founder and chairman Dan Gilbert told the Detroit Free Press that the case was “never about money for us. It was always about right and wrong. . . . People, including juries, are willing to stand up to extortionist law firms.”

As big as the victory is for the Detroit-based Quicken, it doesn’t bring an end to its legal battles. Attorneys for the ex-employees plan to appeal the case, and they said they would press forward with three other overtime cases against Quicken involving more than 1,000 workers.

Quicken, meanwhile, has promised to appeal a $2.7 million verdict against the company by a West Virginia judge who ruled that the lender had had defrauded a borrower by misleading her about her loan and using an inflated property appraisal. Gilbert has called last month’s judgment in Ohio County (W.Va.) Circuit Court “irrational and incomprehensible.”

Quicken strongly denies the allegations that accuse the company of high-pressure salesmanship targeting vulnerable homeowners and of misleading borrowers about their loans. “We always try to do the right thing,” Gilbert told the Center last month. “If we truly make an honest mistake, it usually doesn’t even get to court—if we discover it, we make things right.”

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Michael Hudson covers business and finance for the Center. 

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.