Straight-80 Paycheck for PP01

[Straight-80 Lawsuits]

Apparently a number of facilities (including SCT) received straight-80 paychecks for PP01. This appears to be yet another violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by the Agency.

Three separate lawsuits were filed against the agency over the last three years alleging violation of the FLSA. The first two lawsuits (Taddeo v. USA and Geisse v. USA) were recently favorably settled.

On 10/08/2025 a third lawsuit (Adams v. USA) was filed alleging additional violations of the FLSA by the Agency.

If you were affected by the late payment of overtime in PP01 (please note you must have worked OT during the PP in which you received a straight-80 paycheck), you can file a claim as part of the pending Adams case.

If interested, please reach out to attorney Daniel Rosenthal. He is the lead attorney for all three lawsuits. He is very familiar with the issues in these cases and he is able to litigate them swiftly and efficiently. Young, summa cum-laude graduate of Harvard Law School, ethical, hard-working attorney. Contingency fee agreement: if he wins, he'll take a 25% cut. If he loses, you will not owe any money. On top of the contingency fees, the Agency will have to reimburse the firm for their legal fees, and that's why these cases are profitable for the plaintiffs' attorneys.

I spoke with Danny just before the holidays and he communicated to me his renewed commitment to continue to sue the Agency for these repeated FLSA violations. Ironically, I joked that it was just a matter of time before the Agency would screw up yet another paycheck. My words were prophetic.

Even after Adams settles, if the Agency continues with its payroll antics you can rest assured more lawsuits will follow.

These lawsuits are not endorsed by NATCA. Years ago I complained to my facrep that NATCA wasn't doing enough to hold the Agency accountable for these repeated FLSA violations, and that I would look into seeking redress through the judicial system. His response was "You don't have a case."

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in recovery and attorney's fees, and three lawsuits later it seems like I did have a case after all.

 

[Somenewguy]

Ironically, I joked that it was just a matter of time before the Agency would screw up yet another paycheck. My words were prophetic.

Ironically, I joked that it was just a matter of time before the sun would rise again and begin a new day. My words were prophetic.

 

[32andBelow]

I got a normal one. Thiss at a holiday is almost always your local payroll being a moron

 

[DankVectorz]

I got a normal one. Thiss at a holiday is almost always your local payroll being a moron

Lots of facilities had people with straight 80. There were at least 20 at mine.

 

[32andBelow]

Lots of facilities had people with straight 80. There were at least 20 at mine.

My understanding it’s the payroll Person not submitting in time due to a holiday. Our paystubs were available Wednesday morning and were all correct. It was the biggest paycheck I ever got with 3 holidays 🙃.

 

[GroundClutter]

My understanding it’s the payroll Person not submitting in time due to a holiday. Our paystubs were available Wednesday morning and were all correct. It was the biggest paycheck I ever got with 3 holidays 🙃.

Did you even say thank you?

 

[Straight-80 Lawsuits]

My understanding it’s the payroll Person not submitting in time due to a holiday.

Your understanding is correct.

The deadline for each facility to certify and submit time cards is typically the Tuesday following the close of the PP at 2pm Central.

When there is a holiday, the deadline shifts accordingly. In case of PP01, it was Monday 12/29 at 2pm Central.

The Agency's failure to certify time cards by the deadline has been a recurrent theme in many of the incidents listed in all three lawsuits.

The reason for the Agency's failure is preventable as it often stems from timekeepers' and/or ATMs' negligence.

These payroll failures happen because facilities wait until the last minute on Tuesdays to submit time cards. If they did it on the first business day following the close of the pay period (nearly always a Monday, but it could occasionally be Tuesday if Monday is a holiday), these payroll problems would not happen for the most part.

But they don't, and their actions end up costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and compensatory double overtime.

 

[ManBearPig]

Lawyers maybe the biggest grifters on the planet.

 

[Straight-80 Lawsuits]

Lawyers maybe the biggest grifters on the planet.

When our union fails to protect our rights, lawyers are our only option to hold the Agency accountable.

 

[ManBearPig]

When our union fails to protect our rights, lawyers are our only option to hold the Agency accountable.

They make hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars, and the people who were actually harmed get a check for $36, along with a 1099 to make sure we pay taxes on that $36. Yeah fuck them. They aren't protecting anyone's rights except their ability to fleece people for money.

 

[Gauff]

They make hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars, and the people who were actually harmed get a check for $36, along with a 1099 to make sure we pay taxes on that $36. Yeah fuck them. They aren't protecting anyone's rights except their ability to fleece people for money.

You're right we should just accept that our union won't represent us and not try to hold our employer accountable to any sort of degree 👌

 

[Straight-80 Lawsuits]

They make hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars, and the people who were actually harmed get a check for $36, along with a 1099 to make sure we pay taxes on that $36. Yeah fuck them. They aren't protecting anyone's rights except their ability to fleece people for money.

While I respect your opinion, I must disagree.

In your example -assuming a 25% contigency fee- the person who received a net check for $36 had a gross claim value of $48, which indicates that they worked a very little amount of OT. What options would you say a person with such a small claim value have?

Without support from the Union, I see only two options:

a) Take it on the chin and let the Agency violate the FLSA with impunity. After all it's only $48; or

b) Join a collective action lawsuit (with no risk of losing money or having to pay upfront fees), recover at least a portion of the FLSA statutory damage while paying 25% in attorneys fees, but also play a role in deterring future violations by being part of a multi-plaintiff legal action against the Agency.

I personally led these lawsuits because I wanted fellow controllers to at least have option b) available to them without being relegated to a). My motives were truly rooted in doing what was best for the workforce, not just myself.

As a compelling proof of this, I will say that within only two months from the filing the first lawsuit attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice reached out to Danny Rosenthal wanting to settle individually with me before we filed a motion with the Court to notify all potential plaintiffs via US mail/E-mail/TEAMS/CEDAR. The DOJ probably realized that if the case was certified as a collective action, it would result in a much larger liability for the Government, therefore it would be in their best interest to settle quickly.

Danny called me to discuss our options. He said that since the DOJ seemed motivated to settle we may be able to negotiate a decent deal, possibly better than what I would ultimately recover if we continued to litigate the case. He made it clear that it was in my best interest, as an individual, to try and settle since the DOJ was willing.

Keep in mind that 25% of my individual recovery and the limited billed hours up to that point would have been negligible compared to the potential total recovery for a collection action. Danny had an incentive to continue to litigate, yet acted with the utmost integrity as he advocated for my best interest as his individual client.

I asked him if he believed in the case, whether he thought we’d be able to get the class certified, and whether his firm was prepared to go the distance through trial and any appeals. He responded that while he couldn’t guarantee a win, he thought the merits of the case were very strong and that he was fully prepared to go "all the way." I instructed him to respectfully decline opposing counsel's offer and file the motion to certify the class.

You can generalize and refer to attorneys as "grifters" all you want, but Danny Rosenthal, the other attorneys at his firm (shoutout to Olga Thall and Michael Ellement), as well as Linda Lipsett (of counsel as an FLSA expert) worked tirelessly to bring these cases to fruition. These folks deserve every penny they earned. Danny would return my emails within hours, often on weekends, while on vacation, and even while on parental leave. That level of dedication and speed is rare for an attorney on a contingency basis.

Money was never my primary motivating factor through any of this. I could have likely settled individually for a few tens of thousands of dollars at the very beginning and come out ahead, but chose not to. In case you're wondering, I ended up recovering just over $10,000. No extras, no kickbacks, no Erin Brockovich-style bonus check at the end of the cases. Just countless hours of my own time spent gathering consent forms, working alongside Danny and the other attorneys, and fighting on behalf of other fellow controllers -something that NATCA wasn't willing to do.

My Facrep at the time was dismissive, my RVP didn't bother returning my emails, and when Danny contacted attorney Nicole Vitale (Director of Labor/Management Relations at NATCA Headquarters) to discuss the possibility of including a number of pending OT grievances in the Boston area with the lawsuit, he did not get a response. I tried to involve NATCA. I asked for their help before I turned to a private law firm, but my Union was not interested in helping.

Always remember: our Union did not help. It took a random nobody like me to take on the FAA and fight for our rights.

I don’t ask for anything in return, but if you want to show appreciation for what I’ve done, nothing says “thank you” better than filing a Form SF1188 by the end of this month.

This latest incident in PP01 did not affect me personally. I don't have a dog in this fight anymore. I am done with this career and haven't talked to an airplane in almost a year. I just wanted to post one last time to share the true story behind these lawsuits, as controllers still reach out to me for advice on these payroll incidents. If you are dealing with something similar -either now or in the future- get in touch with Danny. He'll know what to do.

 

[Mike Kilo]

While I respect your opinion, I must disagree.

In your example -assuming a 25% contigency fee- the person who received a net check for $36 had a gross claim value of $48, which indicates that they worked a very little amount of OT. What options would you say a person with such a small claim value have?

Without support from the Union, I see only two options:

a) Take it on the chin and let the Agency violate the FLSA with impunity. After all it's only $48; or

b) Join a collective action lawsuit (with no risk of losing money or having to pay upfront fees), recover at least a portion of the FLSA statutory damage while paying 25% in attorneys fees, but also play a role in deterring future violations by being part of a multi-plaintiff legal action against the Agency.

I personally led these lawsuits because I wanted fellow controllers to at least have option b) available to them without being relegated to a). My motives were truly rooted in doing what was best for the workforce, not just myself.

As a compelling proof of this, I will say that within only two months from the filing the first lawsuit attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice reached out to Danny Rosenthal wanting to settle individually with me before we filed a motion with the Court to notify all potential plaintiffs via US mail/E-mail/TEAMS/CEDAR. The DOJ probably realized that if the case was certified as a collective action, it would result in a much larger liability for the Government, therefore it would be in their best interest to settle quickly.

Danny called me to discuss our options. He said that since the DOJ seemed motivated to settle we may be able to negotiate a decent deal, possibly better than what I would ultimately recover if we continued to litigate the case. He made it clear that it was in my best interest, as an individual, to try and settle since the DOJ was willing.

Keep in mind that 25% of my individual recovery and the limited billed hours up to that point would have been negligible compared to the potential total recovery for a collection action. Danny had an incentive to continue to litigate, yet acted with the utmost integrity as he advocated for my best interest as his individual client.

I asked him if he believed in the case, whether he thought we’d be able to get the class certified, and whether his firm was prepared to go the distance through trial and any appeals. He responded that while he couldn’t guarantee a win, he thought the merits of the case were very strong and that he was fully prepared to go "all the way." I instructed him to respectfully decline opposing counsel's offer and file the motion to certify the class.

You can generalize and refer to attorneys as "grifters" all you want, but Danny Rosenthal, the other attorneys at his firm (shoutout to Olga Thall and Michael Ellement), as well as Linda Lipsett (of counsel as an FLSA expert) worked tirelessly to bring these cases to fruition. These folks deserve every penny they earned. Danny would return my emails within hours, often on weekends, while on vacation, and even while on parental leave. That level of dedication and speed is rare for an attorney on a contingency basis.

Money was never my primary motivating factor through any of this. I could have likely settled individually for a few tens of thousands of dollars at the very beginning and come out ahead, but chose not to. In case you're wondering, I ended up recovering just over $10,000. No extras, no kickbacks, no Erin Brockovich-style bonus check at the end of the cases. Just countless hours of my own time spent gathering consent forms, working alongside Danny and the other attorneys, and fighting on behalf of other fellow controllers -something that NATCA wasn't willing to do.

My Facrep at the time was dismissive, my RVP didn't bother returning my emails, and when Danny contacted attorney Nicole Vitale (Director of Labor/Management Relations at NATCA Headquarters) to discuss the possibility of including a number of pending OT grievances in the Boston area with the lawsuit, he did not get a response. I tried to involve NATCA. I asked for their help before I turned to a private law firm, but my Union was not interested in helping.

Always remember: our Union did not help. It took a random nobody like me to take on the FAA and fight for our rights.

I don’t ask for anything in return, but if you want to show appreciation for what I’ve done, nothing says “thank you” better than filing a Form SF1188 by the end of this month.

This latest incident in PP01 did not affect me personally. I don't have a dog in this fight anymore. I am done with this career and haven't talked to an airplane in almost a year. I just wanted to post one last time to share the true story behind these lawsuits, as controllers still reach out to me for advice on these payroll incidents. If you are dealing with something similar -either now or in the future- get in touch with Danny. He'll know what to do.

Well said. I agree 100%. Not to mention some of the OT I have tacked on is due to in house payroll probes as opposed to national or shutdown related. I enjoy thinking that my ATM got a very unhappy phone call from a higher up asking why they were being sued because he didn’t approve time cards. Dude writes people up for sick leave abuse and not showing up for OT, then takes leave and doesn’t even pay them when they do work it.

 

[Redacted]

When our union fails to protect our rights,

This one line happens far, far more often than is acceptable.

It’s their literal job.

 

[N90-EWR]

This one line happens far, far more often than is acceptable.

It’s their literal job.

Today’s NATCA is a far cry from the NATCA I joined 35 years ago! I was a rabid pro union member my entire career and I never thought I’d be advocating against NATCA, but here we are! Unfortunately they have complete forgotten who they’re supposed to represent.

 

[Phillytroll69]

Today’s NATCA is a far cry from the NATCA I joined 35 years ago! I was a rabid pro union member my entire career and I never thought I’d be advocating against NATCA, but here we are! Unfortunately they have complete forgotten who they’re supposed to represent.

Based on your name arent you making 450k with a 90% raise over the past 10 years.

It was sarcastic that's the image painted to the public right now after the powerpoint by freeman or whoever and that sup finally spoke out. Oh BTW new hires make 150k or something after 3 years according to the head of transportation

 

[Nothanks]

Based on your name arent you making 450k with a 90% raise over the past 10 years.

It was sarcastic that's the image painted to the public right now after the powerpoint by freeman or whoever and that sup finally spoke out. Oh BTW new hires make 150k or something after 3 years according to the head of transportation

50% of new hires do have a base salary over 150k+ after 3 years and becoming a cpc

 

[Gauff]

50% of new hires do have a base salary over 150k+ after 3 years and becoming a cpc

That's only true for people that go to a center. Not even close to true for people that get terminal track.

On top of that the majority of new hires wash out either at the academy or at some point in OJT and then don't have any salary if they're terminal and if they got in the Nest at a center they will not be anywhere close to 150k base pay.

So not not 50% of new hires. 50% of new CPCs, probably

 

[Nothanks]

That's only true for people that go to a center. Not even close to true for people that get terminal track.

On top of that the majority of new hires wash out either at the academy or at some point in OJT and then don't have any salary if they're terminal and if they got in the Nest at a center they will not be anywhere close to 150k base pay.

So not not 50% of new hires. 50% of new CPCs, probably

50% of new cpc’s correct. Majority of people do certify at their first facility

 

[N90-EWR]

Based on your name arent you making 450k with a 90% raise over the past 10 years.

It was sarcastic that's the image painted to the public right now after the powerpoint by freeman or whoever and that sup finally spoke out. Oh BTW new hires make 150k or something after 3 years according to the head of transportation

I wasn’t one of the top OT guys in the area, and when I retired the federal salary cap was slightly under 200k, so I never crossed the 400k mark, but I did go over 300k my last seven years on the job. My pension is around 120k so I can’t complain. That pension is what made the whole thing worth it.