Proposed $8.369M Settlement in Google Overtime Class Action

/

In recent news, The Northern District of California district court offered preliminary approval of an $8.369 million settlement in an overtime lawsuit alleging Google neglected to include sign-on bonuses and vested restricted stock units in overtime calculations.

The Case: Cody Bowlay-Williams et al. v. Google, LLC

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-09942

The Plaintiff: Cody Bowlay-Williams et al. v. Google, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Cody Bowlay-Williams, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 6,500 Google employees nationwide. The lawsuit alleged Google omitted sign-on bonuses and vested restricted stock units from overtime pay calculations. In doing so, Google allegedly failed to comply with the overtime pay rate mandated by labor law. The workers claim the omission was made to benefit the company while shorting hourly workers full pay for overtime hours worked.

The Defendant: Cody Bowlay-Williams et al. v. Google, LLC

The defendant in the case, Google, is most well-known as a popular internet search engine. However, the multinational technology company has many focuses, including artificial intelligence, online advertising, and search engine technology. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of hourly Google employees in the U.S. employed between December 22, 2018, and June 5, 2022, who were awarded restricted stock units that vested during that period or received a sign-on bonus during that same time. (The period extends to December 22, 2017, for Google employees in California).

The Case: Cody Bowlay-Williams et al. v. Google, LLC

A proposed settlement of $8.369 million was given preliminary approval by the District Court of Northern California on March 13, 2023. The settlement allocations go to over 6,500 non-exempt hourly Google employees in the class. California class members were included automatically, and qualifying class members outside of California were sent a Notice (by mail and email) offering them the opportunity to submit a Consent to Join form to join the settlement. The Consent to Join form was due June 5, 2023. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for July 27, 2023. The case is a reminder for California employers to double-check that all forms of eligible compensation are included in overtime rate of pay calculations.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action, 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.

California Class Action Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

/

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

The Allegations: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

  • Meal and Rest Period Violations

  • Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

  • Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

  • Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

  • Unreimbursed Business Expenses

  • Wage Statement Violations

  • Failure to Pay Wages on Time

  • Unlawful Deductions

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action 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.

Class Action Accuses VNA Hospice of Overtime Pay Violations

/

In the Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice class action, VNA Hospice is accused of violating overtime pay requirements governed by labor law.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice and Palliative Care of Southern California

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

The Case No.: CIVDS1909598

The Plaintiff: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against VNA Hospice, claiming the company failed to compensate hourly employees with accurate overtime wages. According to Carter, the company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt workers non-discretionary incentive wages calculated based on their performance on the job. The plaintiff argues that the bonuses should have been included in the employee’s regular pay rate for overtime wage calculation. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The defendant in the case, VNA Hospice, allegedly committed various California Labor Code violations by failing to pay its employees the proper overtime wages.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The case, Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice, includes claims that the company’s overtime calculations were not based on an accurate regular pay rate – leading to the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of VNA Hospice being underpaid in overtime wages. The class action complaint seeks penalties for missed rest periods and meal breaks based on the company’s lack of standard policy and practices providing employees with legally mandated breaks, minimum wage, and accurate overtime pay.

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 assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Bluecrew Violated Labor Law

/

In a California class action lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the company failed to provide employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in inaccurate wages and overtime wages.  

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The Court: San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-602240

The Plaintiff: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Dela Cruz, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that as a result of rigorous work schedules, he and other employees who qualify as California class members were sometimes unable to take their thirty-minute meal breaks and that at other times they were not fully relieved of work duties during the meal breaks they did take. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that their employer sometimes failed to provide workers with their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours in one shift. 

When Do California Workers Get a Second Meal Break in One Work Shift? 

In California, workers are generally entitled to a second meal break if they work a certain number of hours in a single work shift. The specific rules for meal breaks in California are as follows: one meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work over 5 hours in one workday, and a second meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work more than 10 hours in one workday with the second meal break provided no later than the end of the worker’s tenth hour or work. There are certain exceptions for specific industries, and employees can waive their second meal break if their total hours in the day do not exceed 12 hours (as long as they did not already waive their first meal break). When an employer does not provide an employee with the required meal break, the employee is typically required to pay the employee an additional hour at the regular pay rate for each day a meal break was not provided. 

The Defendant: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The defendant in the case, Bluecrew, LLC, faced allegations of California labor law violations when an employee filed a class action complaint alleging that Bluecrew (and Bluecrew Staffing) allegedly:

  1. Failed to pay minimum wage.

  2. Failed to pay overtime wages.

  3. Failed to provide legally mandated rest periods and meal breaks.

  4. Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

  5. Failed to reimburse their employees for necessary work expenses.

  6. Failed to pay sick pay wages.

  7. Failed to pay wages when due. 

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

Did Bluecrew violate California labor law? In the case Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC, California’s San Fransisco Superior Court had to consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the company’s standard practices violated California labor laws.

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 assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Verizon Faces Another Overtime Lawsuit

/

There is no shortage of overtime lawsuits when it comes to Verizon.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Santillan, and more than 500 employees, claimed they were denied overtime, meal and rest breaks, and expense reimbursements. The plaintiffs claim that the company’s standard practices violated California labor law and federal labor laws.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case is Verizon Connect Inc. et al. Verizon Communications Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications giant. Antonio Hiram Santillan originally filed the complaint in May 2021, alleging that Verizon Connect (a Verizon subsidiary) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations and failed to either provide or compensate workers for mandatory meal breaks. Santillan worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan’s San Diego putative class action alleged that Verizon:

  • failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate

  • failure to provide all meal periods

  • failure to pay all wages

  • failure to reimburse business expenses

  • failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements

  • unfair business practices

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The parties attended mediation on January 30, 2023, and reached a settlement agreement between Verizon and hundreds of current and former employees. In June 2023, U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff granted preliminary approval of the $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit. The judge ruled that the settlement represented an acceptable resolution for the case. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the class would receive about half their expected damages with expectations that class members would see $1,800 payouts.

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

$1.6M Settlement in Verizon Overtime Lawsuit Receives Preliminary Approval

/

In recent news, the two parties in a Verizon overtime lawsuit received preliminary approval for a $1.6 million settlement to resolve California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit claims.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Antonio Hiram Santillan, filed a putative class action in May 2021 in San Diego County Superior Court alleging that Verizon Connect (a subsidiary of Verizon) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations for employees and failed to provide (or compensate workers for) mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. Santillan was a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020.

He worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al. is not the first overtime lawsuit Version has faced (and it’s not the only one currently). The class action lawsuit has a class of more than 500 employees, all claiming they were denied proper overtime pay, as well as meal and rest breaks and reimbursements for expenses.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Verizon Connect Inc., faces allegations of failing to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate, failing to provide employees with meal periods, failing to pay all the wages due their employees, failing to reimburse workers for business expenses, failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements (on time), and unfair business practices.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

In Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al., the defendant faces allegations of multiple California and federal labor law violations. In July 2023, the parties received preliminary approval of a $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California wage and hour class action claims.

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 assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

AT&T’s $575K California Class Action Settlement

/

After facing allegations of labor law violations, AT&T agreed to resolve the California class action with a $575K settlement.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiff in the case, Razo, filed suit claiming that AT&T violated labor law. California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. California businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal actions and potential consequences under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that allows California workers to seek penalties on behalf of the state’s labor regulator.

The Defendant: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T Mobility, is a phone company providing cell service to California residents, as well as internet service and TV plans. According to a class action lawsuit against AT&T, the company wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt. As a result, these employees were allegedly denied benefits such as minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. AT&T agreed to pay the $575,000 as part of a settlement to resolve the California class action claims alleging they failed to pay California workers minimum wage and overtime wages for all their hours worked in in violation of labor laws.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The case, Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility, is settled. The settlement goes to eligible class members who worked for AT&T Mobility in the state of California as non-exempt employees from November 2nd, 2021 through September 21st, 2022. AT&T agreed to the $575,000 class action settlement, but the company did not admit any wrongdoing. However, the settlement does resolve the allegations. The $575,000 settlement includes a $7,500 payment to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA.

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 assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.