Wildcat Discovery Technologies Faces Overtime Wage Pay Allegations

In recent news, a California company has been accused of violating California labor laws due to standard business practices that allegedly left employees without their minimum wages and accurate overtime wage payments.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2023-00055145-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The plaintiff in the case, Albert Ajero, was employed by the defendant from November 2022 through May 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee protected by labor law. Ajero filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Wildcat Discovery Technologies, Inc. (from now on, "Wildcat Discovery Technologies") failed to provide meal and rest breaks (as required by labor law).

The Defendant: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The defendant in the case, Wildcat Discovery Technologies, is a Deleware company that operates a substantial amount of business in California, providing technology services. According to allegations in the class action lawsuit, Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Violations included the failure to:

pay minimum wages

pay overtime wages

provide required meal and rest periods

reimburse for required business expenses

provide accurate itemized wage statements

provide wages when due

What is a Class Action, and Why Would a Plaintiff File a Class Action Complaint?

A class action lawsuit is a legal proceeding where a group of people facing similar grievances against an employer collectively bring a claim to court. This approach allows individuals, often employees or former employees, to pool their resources, streamline legal processes, and share the costs and benefits of the litigation. It's an effective legal tool for addressing widespread issues within a workplace, ensuring that justice is accessible even when individual claims might be too small to pursue independently.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The lawsuit, Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies, alleges Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated the California Labor Law by failing to pay employees for all their time worked. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

University Healthcare Alliance Faces Allegations of Overtime Law Violations in Class Action

University Healthcare faces allegations that they failed to pay overtime in compliance with federal and state labor laws.

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.: 23-CIV-05931

The Plaintiff: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda Nunez, worked for University Healthcare Alliance in California from February 2023 to October 2023 as a nonexempt hourly employee. According to the plaintiff, she and other employees in similar positions with the company were not provided with mandatory breaks and off-duty meal periods that California employers are required to provide their employees under labor law. The plaintiff claims that the company’s standard practices left employees without rest periods/meal breaks, completing off-the-clock work, being interrupted to fulfill job duties when receiving an off-duty meal break, etc. The plaintiff alleges that employees were not provided with minimum or accurate overtime wages due to these and other standard business practices at University Healthcare Alliance.

The Defendant: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The defendant in the case, University Healthcare Alliance, is a corporation that provides healthcare services in California. According to the class action lawsuit, University Healthcare Alliance allegedly failed to provide proper rest periods and off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the company allegedly failed to accurately record their employees time worked, utilizing a “rounding” method to track employee time worked as a standard business practice that plaintiffs claim resulted in the inaccurate payment of minimum and overtime wages paid to their employees.

• failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

• failure to provide mandated meal and rest periods

• failure to deliver wages when due

• failure to issue accurate wage statements

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the California overtime class action lawsuit, from time to time, University Healthcare Alliance employees were allegedly required to work five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. According to the complaint, the company allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including the time University Healthcare required them to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before being allowed to clock in to work for their shifts. The time spent completing the mandatory screenings resulted in off-the-clock work not qualifying for overtime premium payment calculations.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Should Delta Pay OT Wages to Employees Who Swap Shifts?

In recent news, Delta faces a class action questioning whether their standard business practices regarding overtime payment to employees who swap shifts violate labor law.

The Case: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-05712-TWT

The Plaintiffs: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

Delta allows employees to swap their work shifts with co-workers trained to complete the same job duties, but according to the lawsuit, Delta does not pay overtime when employees who have swapped shifts then work extra time during a work period. The Delta employees included in the class are customer service employees at airports across the United States, reservation and sales representatives who may perform customer service duties from call center locations across the United States, and tower coordinators working at any of Delta’s eight hubs nationwide. The proposed class would potentially include tens of thousands of Delta workers denied overtime due to Delta’s standard business practices.

The Defendant: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

The defendant in the case, Delta Air Lines Inc., faces a class action lawsuit regarding failure to pay overtime to employees who have “swapped shifts.” When employees swap shifts, the shift is still worked, and the company receives the employee labor. Under Delta’s employee contract, swaps do not count toward overtime, and even if Delta employees work more because of a swapped shift, it does not result in overtime pay. Delta’s practice is built on the argument that if overtime is defined as work performed more than the standard “full time” scheduled hours, then swapped shifts, by definition, are not overtime, as they weren’t technically scheduled hours. Instead, they could technically consider the swapped shift a reallocated scheduled shift. However, the lawsuit argues that when an employee swaps a shift and ultimately works extra hours during that period, but does not receive overtime pay. When this occurs, Delta treats the swapped shift as unpaid time.

The Case: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

In the case, Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc, the class argues that the Overtime Contract’s passive language indicates that when calculating overtime eligibility for Delta employees, the significant point is whether an employee’s scheduled hours in a specified work period were worked, not whether that employee was the one that worked them.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Publix Facss Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, Publix faces allegations of overtime violations, with more current and former employees coming forward with similar complaints after the suit was initially filed.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The Court: U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-C

The Plaintiff: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, Hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case are Christopher Roberts, Caitlin Throckmorton, Brandy Moore, Carter Hubbs, and Jessica Schafer. At the last check, approx. 20 past and current Publix managers (at varying management levels) were listed as plaintiffs in the potential overtime class action. The potential class action lawsuit was originally filed in October and included allegations that Publix did not pay their hourly employees for hundreds of overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, workers routinely worked before and after their shifts and on unpaid meal breaks. The class action applies to Publix store workers in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.

The Defendant: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The defendant in the case, Publix Supermarkets, Inc., operates over 1,300 stores in seven states, employing over 250,000 employees. Publix is headquartered in Lakeland. According to the allegations, Publix managers and assistant managers were paid hourly rates. Still, they worked before and after clocking out to complete mandatory job duties. Some of these mandatory job duties managers were allegedly expected to perform off the clock included:

• walking departments with supervisors

• organizing

• cleaning

• restocking

• assisting customers

According to the class action allegations, managers were also routinely interrupted while they were on unpaid breaks so they could handle work matters. They were also allegedly expected to handle work matters when they were not at work - they were simply contacted by call or text. They were not provided any compensation when they were expected to complete these tasks off the clock and while completely off duty.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case estimate that they worked an average of at least five unpaid overtime hours weekly without being provided with any means of recording their hours or receiving payment for the job duties they completed while outside the store or off the clock.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Will Superior Court Judge Give Final Approval to $36M Equinox Settlement?

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court judge gave Equinox a nod indicating they can expect to receive final approval on the $36 million global settlement to resolve California state and federal labor law allegations claiming Equinox pushed more than 15,000 employees to complete off-the-clock work and skip meal periods, and rest breaks.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The Court: U.S. District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 19-cv-05072-WHO

The Plaintiff: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The plaintiffs in the case are group fitness instructors and personal trainers employed in a nonexempt status. The plaintiffs claim they regularly worked over 40 hours in one workweek and more than 8 hours in one workday. According to the complaint, nonexempt workers were paid hourly for the time they were clocked in and at a piece rate for finishing specific tasks. Equinox allegedly let plaintiffs and qualifying class members complete numerous tasks off-the-clock without pay, such as:

• Interacting with clients outside of classes or training sessions

• Organizing and creating calendars for scheduling

• Scheduling work meetings

• Engaging with supervisors

• Contacting prospective clients

• Prepping client programs for sessions.

In addition to not receiving pay for the hours required to complete the off-the-clock tasks, the hours spent were also not considered for overtime calculations.

The Defendant: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The defendant in the case, Equinox, owns and operates luxury health clubs in California. According to allegations in the labor law complaint, Equinox's published policies discouraged/prohibited workers from submitting all the hours they worked. For instance, personal trainers were limited to two to three hours weekly for session-related activities. They were required to reach out to management if they felt they needed to spend more time than that on their fitness programming outside of training sessions. According to the plaintiffs, performing all the tasks associated with programming required by Equinox within the time allotted was not realistic. As a result, plaintiffs claim that Equinox's standard policy resulted in inaccurate wages, overtime wages, and wage statements.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

In the case, Fodera v. Equinox Holdings, the $36 million wage and hour settlement approved by the court represents the resolution of claims from numerous California State and Federal Court cases. The hefty settlement covers a class of more than 15,000 hourly nonexempt current and former Equinox workers employed from April 2015 to December 2022. The class includes a PAGA group of nonexempt personal trainers and fitness instructors. Equinox allegedly failed to pay for pre-short work and post-shift work. Additionally, the plaintiffs pointed out that Equinox's company policy regarding meal periods, rest breaks, wage statements, and other wage and hour practices are not in line with labor law requirements. Superior Court Judge Herbert issued final settlement approval on September 21, 2023.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Elite Bohemian Grove Club Faces Class Action Alleging Employment Law Violations

In recent news, an elite secret club called Bohemian Grove faces labor law violation allegations, including failing to pay overtime and not giving workers breaks.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:2023cv02760

The Plaintiff: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Anthony Gregg, Wallid Saad, Shawn Claiborne, filed the proposed class action on June 25, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, demanding a jury trial. The plaintiffs are former Bohemian Grove valets who worked at the club’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California, for several years. They allege unfair labor practices, including 16-hour workdays with no breaks and failing to pay overtime and minimum wages.

The Defendant: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The defendant in the case, Bohemian Grove, one of the most elite and secretive clubs in the U.S. (with Reagan and Nixon listed among its elite membership), faces multiple labor law allegations:

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

2. Collective Action - Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.)

3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods

4. Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks

5. Failure to Pay All Wages at Termination (Labor Code Section 201-203)

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

7. Unfair Business Practices; 8. Violation of Labor Code Section 2699 (PAGA)

Bohemian Grove attracts some of the world’s most powerful people to mysterious gatherings in the woods outside of San Francisco, California, and has long been the focus of conspiracy theorists and general fascination. The plaintiffs worked for several years at Bohemian Grove’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California (a secretive 2,700-acre camp near the Russian River that’s been in operation every summer for 150 years). The club lists 2,600 active members and a significant wait list.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Club is comprised of 100 camps, each with one or more captains who consistently violate numerous labor laws yearly. The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Grove treasurer, B. Dawson, personally directed valets to falsify payroll records and perform work off the clock. According to complaints in the lawsuit, throughout the 14-day summer camp each year, workers were consistently paid for eight hours when working 16-plus hour workdays without breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. If certified, the class action status would affect 300 employees. The plaintiffs seek up to $1.5 million in damages from the all-male Bohemian Grove club.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did SpaceX Violate Numerous California Labor Laws?

In recent news, a SpaceX employee alleges the company violated numerous California labor laws.

The Case: Juan Padilla v. Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. DBA SpaceX

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 23STCV17559

The Plaintiff: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Padilla, a former SpaceX employee, filed a class action accusing the company of a slew of California labor law violations, including failing to pay hourly workers proper minimum wages, straight-time wages, and overtime wages. Labor Law entitles hourly employees to a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period every five hours. According to the complaint, SpaceX often required employees to work more than five consecutive hours without providing them with their legally compliant meal breaks. Similarly, the complaint alleges that SpaceX required hourly workers to work over four consecutive hours without providing a legally required 10-minute rest break. The plaintiff also claims that the missed breaks were not compensated with an additional hour of pay as labor law requires.

The Defendant: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The defendant in the case, SpaceX, is a spacecraft engineering and manufacturing company co-founded by Elon Musk in 2002. In addition to the missed meal break and rest period claims and alleged minimum wage, wage and hour, and overtime pay violations, the defendant also faces allegations of failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses (like parking and cell phone use), and timely payment of final wages (California law stipulates that all unpaid wages are due immediately upon discharge or within 72 hours of a former employee’s departure).

The Case: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case is a former SpaceX employee and California resident. Padilla was employed at SpaceX from January 2022 through September 2022. Padilla seeks to represent anyone who worked for SpaceX in California as a non-exempt hourly employee at any time during the four years and 178 days preceding the initial complaint filing and ending when the notice to the class is distributed.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.