California Construction Company Faced Labor Law Violation Allegations

A former employee has filed a class action lawsuit against California-based construction firm OHLA USA, Inc., alleging multiple violations of state and federal labor laws tied to unpaid wages, missed breaks, and improper employment practices.

Case: Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court, California Southern District

Case No.: 3:2024cv00871

Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.: The Plaintiff's Allegations

The plaintiff filed an employment law complaint on May 16, 2024, alleging that OHLA USA, Inc. violated labor law during his employment.

The Defendant: Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, OHLA USA, is a construction company. The company is known for building vertical buildings and civil infrastructure. Their projects range from freeway expansions to bridge replacements. OHLA USA is the U.S. division of the worldwide construction company headquartered in Spain. The company had a strong presence in California during the period referenced in the case Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

History of the Case: Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

According to court documents, the defendants in the case were listed as OHLA USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 50. OHLA filed a motion to dismiss the case less than a month after Gilchrist originally filed. The original complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. A few days later, Gilchrist filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Both parties opposed the other party's motion. Both parties demanded a jury trial.

Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.: The Presiding Judge

The presiding judge in the case was Michael S Berg. Judge Berg joined the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on November 5, 2018. University of San Diego (USD) School of Law alumnus, before being appointed a U.S. District Court judge, Berg was a criminal defense attorney for 36 years. During his time as a California attorney, Berg successfully represented multiple high-profile cases in San Diego, including the first-ever death penalty case filed in California's U.S. District Court for the Southern District.

Legal Implications Under Federal Class Action Law

Because this case was filed in U.S. District Court, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)—a federal statute that broadens the reach of federal courts in class action matters. CAFA permits class action lawsuits to proceed in federal court when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and there is minimal diversity, meaning at least one member of the class is from a state different from the defendant's.

This expanded jurisdiction gives corporate defendants, such as OHLA USA, Inc., more flexibility to remove wage and hour class actions from California state courts to federal venues, which are often viewed as more favorable to employers. Additionally, CAFA gives federal appellate courts the discretion to review decisions that either grant or deny motions to return these cases to state court—a process known as remand. The process adds a procedural layer that can influence how quickly and in what forum employee claims are resolved.

Finally, if the lawsuit results in a class action settlement, CAFA imposes special oversight requirements. These include mandatory government notifications and judicial scrutiny of certain settlement types, especially those involving "coupon settlements" or incentive awards. For employees, this means added transparency and oversight, but also potentially longer timelines.

FAQ: Lewis v. Hermès

Q: Why was the Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc. case filed in federal court instead of California state court?

A: The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1453 Class Action Fairness Act or CAFA), which allows class action lawsuits to be brought in federal court if certain conditions are met, such as minimal diversity between parties and a total amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The conditions give defendants broader options to avoid state court proceedings.

Q: How does CAFA impact workers involved in California wage and hour class actions?

A: CAFA can lead to longer case timelines and more complex procedures, but it also requires stricter judicial oversight of class action settlements, including greater transparency and official review—protections that can ultimately benefit employees.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Former Morgue Attendant Wins Wrongful Termination Suit: He's Nowhere to Be Found

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court jury awarded a plaintiff who claimed wrongful termination $2.4 million. There was only one problem: no one knew where to find the plaintiff.

Case: Daniel Ridge v. Alameda Health System/Highland Hospital

Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Case No.: RG17847260

Daniel Ridge v. Alameda Health System/Highland Hospital: The Plaintiff's Allegations

Daniel Ridge worked as a morgue attendant for a hospital in Oakland from June 2006 to 2013. For years, Ridge received positive feedback in his evaluations, but near the end of 2013, Ridge took a leave of absence to address PTSD that had been left untreated for decades. After taking leave, Ridge was dismissed from his position. Ridge filed a lawsuit against Alameda Health System, claiming wrongful termination. In essence, he launched a legal battle against his former employer while simultaneously fighting his own mental health demons.

Key Legal Question: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

At the heart of the case is the question: Did the Alameda Health System unlawfully terminate Daniel Ridge's employment in violation of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), particularly in light of his mental health condition and ongoing protected medical leave? Additionally, Ridge's complaint included allegations regarding wages and hour law.

Does this Case Carry Any Significant Legal Implications?

The legal implications of Ridge v. Alameda Health System are significant, particularly for California employers navigating medical leave, mental health accommodations, and alleged wrongful termination. This case reinforces that:

• Medical leave rights are not optional;

• Mental health accommodations are legally protected;

• Retaliation or termination during protected leave can lead to costly judgments and

• Employers must handle all medical leave matters with transparency, documentation, and compliance.

Ridge v. Alameda Health System: The Employer's Position

Alameda Health System, the defendant, operates five hospitals and four wellness centers, offering 800 beds and employing approximately 1,000 physicians. Ridge claims his former employer, Alameda Health Systems, dismissed him from his job at a county morgue because he took leave (in compliance with labor law).

Why This Case Matters: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

This case underscores the critical protections California law provides to employees facing mental health challenges, particularly regarding medical leave and workplace safety. It sends a clear message that terminating an employee during a protected leave—especially after they've raised health or safety concerns—can result in significant legal and financial consequences.

What Comes Next for Ridge v. Alameda Health System

Eight years after the initial wrongful termination filing, the judge awarded 49-year-old Ridge $2.4 million; however, Ridge was not in court when the judge announced the verdict in his favor. Ridge's attorneys are unable to locate him. While Ridge managed to file suit to protect his rights after his employer dismissed him from his job at the county morgue, the case dragged on as his mental health deteriorated. Ridge's struggle to maintain his mental health became so difficult that he was unfit to testify in court and eventually fell into homelessness. Estranged from his family (including his 10-year-old son), Ridge is assumed to be somewhere amongst the homeless population in the Oakland area. His attorneys are not optimistic that they'll be able to locate him among the thousands of homeless people in the area.

FAQ: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

Q: Can an employer terminate an employee who is out on medical leave for mental health reasons?

A: No. Both the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protect employees who take medical leave for conditions like PTSD or depression. As long as the employee follows reasonable procedures (e.g., providing documentation), termination during this time can be considered a form of discrimination or workplace retaliation.

Q: What happens if an employer fires a worker before their leave paperwork is processed?

A: Such an action is a high-risk move for employers. In Ridge's case, the hospital allegedly fired him immediately after he returned with his FMLA paperwork. Employers should be aware that the courts view terminations that coincide with leave requests or active medical leave as suspicious, and such actions can easily lead to wrongful termination claims.

Q: Does California labor law consider mental health conditions the same as physical disabilities?

A: Yes. FEHA considers conditions like PTSD and depression disabilities, so employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations, such as time off or adjustments to the workplace.

Q: What happens if an employee raises workplace safety concerns before being terminated?

A: If an employee reports unsafe or unsanitary working conditions—especially involving health hazards—and is then terminated, this may be considered illegal retaliation under California Labor Code Section 1102.5. In Ridge's case, his concerns about toxic chemicals and morgue conditions added weight to his claims.

Q: Can a jury award damages even if the employee claiming wrongful termination isn't present in court to testify?

A: Yes, if a plaintiff in a wrongful termination lawsuit is not present in court and cannot testify, the court can still find in their favor. Ridge's attorneys presented compelling evidence of employer wrongdoing, which resulted in a substantial jury award even though Ridge was not present.

Do you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Rivisn'te, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Luxury Retailer Hermès Faces California Class Action for Wage and Hour Violations

Luxury fashion powerhouse Hermès of Paris, Inc. faced serious allegations after a former employee filed a California class action lawsuit claiming that the brand systematically violated labor laws. Justin Lewis filed the original complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court, and the class action could impact a significant number of Hermès employees throughout California.

Case: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris, Inc.

Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Case No.: CGC-24-618955

Case Background: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

In Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris, Inc. (Case No. CGC-24-618955), plaintiff Justin Lewis accuses Hermès of failing to uphold key provisions of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint outlines a pattern of misconduct by Hermès, including:

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Inaccurate or incomplete timekeeping records

• Noncompliant meal and rest break practices

• Potential violations of wage statement requirements

These claims reflect recurring concerns in California's retail and luxury goods sector, where employees often work long shifts under strict supervision, with little room to advocate for basic labor rights.

Plaintiff Details: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

Justin Lewis, the lead plaintiff, alleges that Hermès engaged in a systemic denial of legally protected breaks, as well as underpayment for hours worked beyond the standard 8-hour day or 40-hour week. The suit also argues that the company failed to maintain accurate time records, which is a legal requirement under the California Labor Code. Lewis brings the action as a proposed class representative, seeking to represent other current and former hourly employees who worked for Hermès (who qualify according to the class definitions approved by the court).

Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris: The Defendant, Hermès' Position

As of now, Hermès has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and no formal answer has been filed in court. However, it's expected that the company will deny the allegations and possibly seek to compel arbitration or oppose class certification—a common strategy in wage and hour defense. Luxury retailers like Hermès often maintain detailed internal policies and strict scheduling systems, but California law requires more than precision—it mandates compliance with employee protections designed to prevent exploitation.

What's at Stake for California Workers?

Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris highlights the importance of enforcing California's labor protections, particularly in high-pressure industries like luxury retail. If the class members are successful, the lawsuit could result in:

• Back pay and penalties for unpaid overtime

• Premium pay for missed breaks

• Corrective action regarding timekeeping systems

• Civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

For California workers, this case highlights that even elite employers must adhere to the same standards when it comes to fair labor practices.

FAQ: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

Q: What is this case about?

A: A former Hermès employee filed a class action alleging the company failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, and maintain proper time records in violation of California labor laws.

Q: Who is included in the class?

A: The proposed class includes all hourly, non-exempt Hermès employees in California who may have experienced similar wage and hour violations during the applicable period.

Q: What could Hermès be required to pay?

A: If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, Hermès could owe back wages, penalties, premium pay for missed breaks, and potentially significant civil penalties under PAGA.

Q: Has Hermès responded yet?

A: As of now, Hermès has not filed a formal response in court. The case is in its early stages, and a defense strategy has not been made public yet.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

RTX Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement Approved for $19.9M

Employees in California have secured preliminary approval of a substantial $19.9 million settlement with subsidiaries of aerospace and defense giant RTX Corp., resolving allegations regarding wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-00574

The Plaintiff: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

Nathaniel Morgan, a former employee of Rohr Inc., initiated this class-action lawsuit, later joined by plaintiffs Michael Bevan and Antonee Harris. Morgan alleged the company consistently violated labor laws associated with meal periods/rest breaks, overtime compensation, minimum wages, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The plaintiffs represented a broader class of approximately 1,755 non-exempt union employees.

The Defendant: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The defendants in this case include Rohr Inc., Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (or Collins Aerospace), and their parent company RTX Corp., formerly United Technologies Corp. before its merger with Raytheon. Rohr Inc., responsible for the entire settlement payout, faced allegations of systematically breaching California labor laws by inadequately compensating employees and neglecting mandated employment standards.

The Case: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The case was filed in March 2019 in California state court but was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit underwent extensive litigation (multiple rounds of discovery, document production, and depositions, including more than 30 witnesses). The case also required significant employment data analysis. Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval for a $19.9 million settlement after deeming it fair and reasonable (especially considering the risks of ongoing litigation). Initially, a trial was scheduled for June 2024. However, the parties resolved the complaint in settlement discussions before the case could go to trial. Under the settlement, $500,000 will address claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and $100,000 is specifically allocated to collective claims under FLSA.

The Implications of the California Class Action Case:

California workers and employers alike should heed the implications of this case, emphasizing diligent adherence to labor laws to avoid costly disputes and settlements.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Are California Employees Protected from 24/7 On-Call Requirements?

Dusty Coupwood, a former senior social media analyst and content creator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), filed a lawsuit alleging illegal employment practices related to continuous on-call requirements in alleged violation of California Labor Laws.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 25STCV12374

The Plaintiff: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Dusty Coupwood began his employment with PETA in March 2020, fulfilling a role demanding substantial responsibility as a senior social media analyst and content creator. According to Coupwood, he was expected to comply with PETA's rigorous 24/7 on-call policy that mandated constant availability and frequent engagement with work tasks beyond standard work hours. According to the plaintiff, the policy resulted in Coupwood putting in from 55-60 hours per week. Despite the excessive hours, Coupwood claims that he was only compensated for time actively spent on tasks, which resulted in significant unpaid wages (regular and overtime).

The Defendant: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The defendant, commonly called PETA, is known globally for its animal rights advocacy. However, in this instance, the group finds themselves accused of bad behavior, or more specifically, violating various California labor laws. Allegations brought forward by Coupwood detail that PETA's employment policies required constant employee availability and participation in work tasks without adequate compensation, neglected meal and rest breaks, and engaged in retaliatory behaviors against employees who challenged these practices or sought unionization.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

Filed on April 28, 2025, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, this lawsuit highlights critical issues regarding employer obligations under California labor laws. Coupwood's claims include unpaid wages and overtime, denial of meal and rest periods, inadequate expense reimbursement, and retaliation resulting in wrongful termination. Other employees also filed wage and hour complaints against PETA. After the series of complaints were filed, PETA allegedly terminated several employees involved, creating what the plaintiff describes as a hostile work environment that forced him to resign in July 2024. PETA denies the allegations, asserting that Coupwood's claims lack merit and vowing to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

Can Employers in California Require Employees to be “On Call” 24/7?

Employers in California may require employees to be on-call; however, specific conditions must be met:

• Employees must receive compensation for on-call time if restrictions significantly limit their personal activities.

• An employer is required to pay employees overtime wages for any hours they work over 40 in one work week.

• Employers must ensure compliance with mandated meal and rest breaks, even during on-call periods.

Violating labor law can lead to significant legal consequences, as demonstrated by Coupwood's claims against PETA.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Overtime Pay Violations Allegations: Rocket Mortgage's $3.5 Million Settlement

When facing improper overtime payment practice allegations, Rocket Mortgage resolved the class-action lawsuit with a settlement agreement. Mortgage bankers claimed the company miscalculated their regular pay rates, leading to inadequate overtime compensation. The $3.5 million agreement underlines the critical importance of precise compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and wage calculation accuracy.

The Case: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court of Arizona

The Case No.: 2:23-cv-00010-CDB

The Plaintiff: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

Current and former mortgage bankers allege that the defendant, Rocket Mortgage, failed to pay accurate overtime wages. According to the plaintiffs, the employer systematically failed to provide accurate overtime compensation and incorrectly calculated their regular rate of pay by excluding incentives and bonuses that should be factored into the equation. As a result, mortgage bankers were allegedly underpaid significantly.

The Defendant: Gilburd v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The defendant, Rocket Mortgage, LLC, is a leading mortgage lending company. The company faced numerous labor law violation allegations when a group of current and former mortgage bankers filed an employment law complaint. According to the plaintiffs, the company had improper overtime pay practices and inaccurate methods of calculating regular pay rates (for use in overtime pay rate calculations). Despite agreeing to settle for $3.5 million, Rocket Mortgage denied all allegations of wrongdoing and maintained that the settlement implied no admission of liability.

The Case: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The plaintiff filed the original complaint against Rocket Mortgage LLC in 2023. The plaintiffs alleged that the company's practice of excluding alternate forms of payment from the regular pay rate calculations resulted in improperly low overtime pay rates. Both parties entered a mediated settlement agreement in April 2024 to resolve the dispute.

How Essential are Accurate Pay Rate Calculations?

Accurate pay rate calculations and overtime pay rate calculations are essential. Miscalculations can lead to costly lawsuits or settlements, and regulatory compliance is increasingly scrutinized. Employers who create standard payroll practices and systems that accurately reflect labor law and comply with regulations experience a healthier workforce with improved morale. Companies that actively review and update their standard payroll practices can remain compliant despite regulatory changes.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Staples Settles $38 Million Class Action Over Assistant Manager Overtime Pay

In a significant resolution to longstanding labor disputes, Staples Inc. agreed to a $38 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging the misclassification of assistant managers as exempt from overtime pay. The case, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Orange, underscores the importance of proper employee classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Case: Williams v. Staples Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange

The Case No.: 816121

The Plaintiff: Williams v. Staples Inc.

The plaintiffs, led by Williams, comprised a group of current and former assistant managers employed by Staples in California. They alleged that Staples misclassified them as exempt employees, denying them overtime wages, meal and rest breaks, and other protections afforded to non-exempt workers under California labor laws.

The Defendant: Williams v. Staples Inc.

Staples is a popular, and well-known big box store. When Williams filed his complaint, the prominent office supply retailer faced allegations that their classification practices violated state labor laws. Williams accused the company of implementing a standard practice and policy that misclassified Staples store assistant managers with the purpose of avoiding payment of overtime wages and providing benefits that would be required for non-exempt employees.

The Case: Williams v. Staples

Williams' claims were centered around the allegation that assistant managers working for the big box office supply retailer were systematically misclassified, which resulted in the loss of overtime pay, and the denial of of duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by labor law. The plaintiffs filed suit seeking compensation for the alleged violation, and the case was eventually resolved with a $38 million settlement agreement. The agreement was designed to compensate affected employees and rectify the issues created by Staples' worker classification practices.

What Constitutes Employee Misclassification in California?

If an employer identifies an employee as an exempt employee or an independent contractor when they are actually a non-exempt employee, it's considered misclassification. An exempt or independent contractor classification excludes workers from wage and hour protections. Misclassified employees may be entitled to recover unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour lawsuit, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.