LibertyMax Staffing Faces Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, California’s LibertyMax Staffing faces labor law violation allegations.

The Case: Brian Acio v. San Gabriel Temporary Staffing Services LLC dba LibertyMax Staffing

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

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2024-0001294

The Plaintiff: Acio v. LibertyMax Staffing

The plaintiff in the case, Acio, filed a representative action complaint against San Gabriel Temporary Staffing Services LLC dba LaborMax Staffing ("LaborMax Staffing") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods. Acio claims the company engaged in a pattern and practice of wage and hour labor code violations to decrease its employment-related costs.

The Defendant: Acio v. LibertyMax Staffing

The defendant in the case, LibertyMax Staffing, owns and operates a recruiting and staffing company that operates throughout California. According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, the company allegedly violated several labor laws, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wages

• Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenditures

• Failing to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to provide sick pay wages

• Failing to provide workers with their full wages when they were due

• Failing to correctly calculate the regular rate of pay

• Failing to maintain true and accurate records

• Failing to issue payment within 7 days of the close of payroll

California Employers and Labor Law Violations: Off-the-Clock Work

Off-the-clock work is one of California's most prevalent practices leading to labor law violations. This occurs when employees are asked or expected to perform job-related tasks outside of their regular working hours without receiving compensation. Off-the-clock work may come in the form of answering emails after hours, attending mandatory meetings or training without pay, completing required paperwork after clocking out, conducting “opening” or “closing” procedures and checklists before or after clocking in, etc. Such business practices violate labor laws, as employees are entitled to compensation for all hours worked, including any time spent performing job duties “before” or “after” their work shift.

The Case: Acio v. LibertyMax Staffing

The representative action lawsuit, Acio v. LibertyMax Staffing, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

Does Stater Bros. Markets Provide Workers with Required Breaks?

A lawsuit filed recently in California alleges that Stater Bros. Markets failed to provide employees with the meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

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

The Case No.: CIVSB2332884

The Plaintiff: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

The plaintiff in the case, Wafa Mowannes, filed a class action complaint against Stater Bros. Markets in March 2024 for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Mowannes filed the class action wage and hour lawsuit in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of California.

The Defendant: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

The defendant in the case, Stater Bros. Markets, faces numerous labor law violation allegations. The allegations in the class action lawsuit include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to reimburse workers for job-related necessary expenses

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to pay wages when they’re due

• provide all tips and gratuities

The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action would violate multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

Are All California Employees Eligible for Meal and Rest Breaks?

Under state labor laws, most California employees are entitled to meal and rest breaks. These breaks are mandated to ensure workers have enough time for meals and rest during their shifts. However, certain exemptions exist for specific categories of workers, such as those in executive, administrative, or professional roles, who may be exempt from these requirements. In general, California labor laws are designed to protect the well-being and rights of employees. If you are unsure if labor law provides protection for your rights in your current employment, reach out to an experienced labor law attorney to find out.

The Case: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

California labor law requires employers to pay employees on an established payday for each pay period and comply with the applicable minimum wage for all hours an employee works during a pay period. According to the lawsuit, Stater Bros. Markets allegedly required workers to complete work before and after their scheduled shifts and to continue completing job duties while on their off-duty meal breaks. The company also allegedly did not provide the required additional compensation for the time employees spent completing “off-the-clock” work or for the missed off-duty meal breaks. As a result, the company failed to pay employees for all hours worked in accordance with minimum wage requirements. The wage and hour class action lawsuit, Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets, is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former ISE Exec. Alleges Gender Basis and Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In recent news, a former Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE) executive claims racial discrimination and gender discrimination were left unchecked in the workplace.

The Case: Joyce Li v. Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE) and predecessor Relativity Sports

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

The Case No.: BC660219

The Plaintiffs: Li v. ISE

The plaintiff in the case, Joyce Li, was a seasoned professional with over a decade of experience in the sports industry. As the Director of Operations for the Basketball Division at Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE), she allegedly played a pivotal role in the agency’s basketball division, reportedly negotiating more than $400 million in NBA player contracts. Despite her instrumental contributions in the workplace, Li alleges gender discrimination based on disparities in pay and treatment in comparison to her male counterparts at work. Additionally, Li alleges the workplace exhibited a blatant lack of racial diversity. The plaintiff claims that while she performed the duties of a sports agent, she was denied participation in the standard fee splits or commissions. Additionally, her salary fell significantly below that of male colleagues who received substantial pay raises and bonuses. The allegedly discriminatory treatment combined with her termination suggests a pattern of discrimination and retaliation. Li claims her complaints were dismissed. After her termination, the company replaced female employees with male counterparts in their Basketball Division.

The Defendant: Li v. ISE

The defendant in the case, ISE (formerly Relativity Sports), faces allegations of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and wrongful termination. After exercising her right to protest discrimination in the workplace, Li claims she was subjected to workplace retaliation and wrongful termination that resulted in ongoing economic loss and mental and emotional suffering.

The Case: Li v. ISE

The defendant in the case, ISE (formerly Relativity Sports), faces allegations of gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and wrongful termination. Li seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, She seeks an injunction that would prohibit “unequal pay to women and minorities and other discriminatory and retaliatory practices in the future.” She requested a court-supervised policy protecting women and minorities from unfair pay and workplace practices that would require periodic reporting from the company to ensure compliance.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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 Ambulnz Fail to Stock Necessary Life-Saving Equipment for EMTs?

In recent news, a former employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that DocGo’s Ambulnz failed to provide essential life-saving equipment for their EMTs.

The Case: Chase v. Ambulnz

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 19STCV36675

The Plaintiff: Chase v. Ambulnz

The plaintiff in the case, Chase, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleged that DocGo’s Ambulnz did not stock necessary life-saving EMT equipment and tools, frequently failed inspections by the County, and failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses when they purchased the necessary life-saving equipment and tools using their personal funds.

The Defendant: Chase v. Ambulnz

The defendant in the case, Ambulnz, has approximately 3,500 field-based paramedics and EMTs offering patients a full suite of Mobile Health home medical services. According to the plaintiffs in the case, DocGo’s Ambulnz violated labor law; the company faces claims of wrongful termination.

What is Wrongful Termination?

Wrongful termination in California refers to the unlawful firing of an employee in violation of state or federal laws. When employees are terminated for reasons such as discrimination, retaliation, or exercising their legal rights, they can seek protection from employment law and hold California employers responsible by pursuing legal action through litigation or negotiation. If a California employer wrongfully terminates an employee, they may be liable for damages that could include back pay, compensation for emotional distress, or reinstatement.

The Case: Chase v. Ambulnz

In the case Chase v. Ambulnz, the plaintiff claims Ambulnz engaged in multiple labor law violations, including failing to pay all wages earned, minimum wage violations, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to pay full wages upon termination, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses, workplace retaliation, etc.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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.

Family of Kristen Smart Filed Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Cal Poly

In recent news, Kristin Smart's family filed a civil complaint against Cal Poly, claiming negligence and wrongful death.

The Case: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The Court: Superior Court of California, San Luis Obispo County

The Case No.: 24CV-0046

The Plaintiff: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The plaintiff in the case, the Smart Family, filed a civil complaint after the Cal Poly President publicly apologized to the family in May 2023, recognizing that things should have been handled differently and stating that he "personally wish[ed] that they had." Kristin Smart was a 19-year-old Cal Poly student who disappeared in May 1996 after attending an off-campus party. Twenty-six years later, in October of 2022, Paul Flores was found guilty of her murder.

The Defendant: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

The defendant in the case, Cal Poly, allegedly breached its legal duty by not pursuing a missing persons case promptly, failing to interview witnesses promptly, not sealing the primary suspect's dorm room (Paul Flores), and allowing the primary suspect's dorm room to be sanitized before the search that was conducted 16 days after Smart's disappearance. In addition to the university's actions following the disappearance of Smart, they allegedly failed to take appropriate action to multiple other reports about Paul Flores's threatening stalking and harassing behaviors before Smart's murder.

The Case: Smart Family v. Cal Poly

While the Smart family has exhausted the procedural processes available to receive the full investigative file from Cal Poly, they still have not received it. The Smart family alleges that the primary suspect in their daughter's disappearance and murder should not have been on campus based on prior complaints and incidents. Secondly, they claim that the university was negligent in responding to Smart's disappearance.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Google and Google Co-Founder Sued for Wrongful Death After Ferry Flight Crash

Google and its co-founder, Brin, face a wrongful death lawsuit after a ferry flight crashed on the first leg from California to Fiji.

The Case: Maria Magdalena Olarte (Estate of Lance Maclean, deceased) v. Theodore M. Neale, Sergey Brin, Bayshore Global Management LLC, Google LLC, Seafly LLC, Southern Cross Aviation Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive

The Court: California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 24CV430717

The Plaintiff: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al.

Lance Maclean was one of two pilots aboard the flight. The plaintiff in the case, Maria Magdalena Olarte, is Maclean’s widow and a personal representative of the Estate of Lance Maclean. Olarte filed suit claiming wrongful death and survival negligence.

The Defendant: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al

The defendant in the case, Brin, Google LLC, et al., faces allegations that a poorly installed modification caused the plane crash off the coast of California in May 2023. The defendants also face claims that recovery was slowed intentionally to accommodate efforts to destroy evidence of the cause of the crash.

The Case: Olarte v. Brin, Google LLC, et al

According to an updated complaint filed on February 13, 2024, Maclean and his co-pilot, Dean Rushfedlt, were hired to fly Brin’s seaplane from California to Fiji for island-hopping with friends. Brin’s seaplane is an $8M twin-engine Viking Air Twin Otter Series 400 that requires an auxiliary fuel system. According to the complaint, a mechanic did it from “memory” - not consulting a checklist or logging the work with the FAA. According to court documents, the fuel system failed during the first leg of the flight to Hawaii, and the seaplane crashed into the ocean while trying to return to California. While the Coast Guard arrived on site within 15 minutes, the seaplane was upside-down and partially submerged, and they could not retrieve either of the pilots.

Following the incident, the plaintiff claims Brin said he would assist with recovery. However, Brin’s representatives allegedly told Olarte that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was blocking the recovery of the bodies. According to the complaint, The NOAA denied the claim that they were preventing the recovery of the bodies. Olarte seeks damages and a jury trial.

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

Former Blue Origin’s Program Manager Claims Wrongful Termination

A wrongful termination lawsuit alleges Blue Origin LLC violated several labor codes, and the plaintiff demanded a jury trial.

The Case: Craig Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

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

The Case No.: 23STCV28816

The Plaintiff: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Craig Stoker, is the former program manager of Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engines and primarily worked out of the company's Woodland Hills, California location. Stoker filed a wrongful termination complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, including a detailed narrative about Stoker's efforts (over seven months) to escalate concerns about safety and a hostile work environment at Blue Origin.

The Defendant: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

The defendant in the case, Blue Origin LLC, allegedly "brushed off" multiple complaints regarding CEO Bob Smith's explosive response to employees when issues frequently led to employees violating safety protocol to meet unreasonable expectations and impossible deadlines. According to court documents, Blue Origin was working on fulfilling a contract with ULA that required communicating any issues that could impact rocket engine delivery a year in advance. While Stoker wanted to communicate information regarding a probable delay to ULA, Smith allegedly instructed him not to do so. After concluding an internal investigation, Blue Origin decided that Smith did not violate company policies or create a hostile work environment. Stoker objected. He also claims in the lawsuit that he later found out no one from the engine program was interviewed as part of the internal investigation. Stoker was terminated seven months after initially raising his safety concerns.

The Case: Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC

In the case Stoker v. Blue Origin LLC, Stoker claims he was wrongfully terminated in response to his complaints regarding the company's CEO creating a hostile work environment that caused employees to disregard safety measures to meet unreasonable deadlines on projects. While the company states their internal investigation found that Smith did not violate company policy or create a hostile work environment, Blue Origin announced Smith was stepping down from his role as CEO in September (after a tenure of close to six years). His tenure was marked by numerous successes, including growing the team from less than 1,000 people to over 12,000 and landing multiple high-profile and high-value contracts with NASA. However, his tenure was also not without serious controversy. In addition to Stoker's claims, Smith faced allegations of supporting a culture of sexism among senior executives at the company.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.