Chair Denied, $11 M Verdict: Roque v. Octapharma

A San Diego County jury awarded more than $11 million to a 74-year-old medical screener who claimed that Octapharma Plasma, Inc. refused a simple accommodation (a chair for her back pain) and then fired her due to her age.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00020936-CU-WT-CTL

The Plaintiff: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Raquel Roque (age 74) worked as a medical screener at an Octapharma plasma-donation center. She suffered chronic back pain and repeatedly asked to sit while conducting screenings.

The Defendant: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc. operates plasma-collection centers nationwide and sets the on-site procedures and working conditions for staff who conduct donor eligibility screenings.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Claims: failure to accommodate a disability, disability discrimination, age discrimination, and wrongful termination under California’s FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act).

Key Allegations: There were 2 key allegations in the case, 1) Octapharma denied Roque's request for a chair forcing her to stand for extended shifts, and 2) When Roque persisted, she was terminated (the company cited performance, but she alleged it was age bias)

The Main Question in the Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Did Octapharma Plasma unlawfully refuse a reasonable accommodation (a chair) and terminate Roque because of her age, warranting compensatory and punitive damages under FEHA?

FAQ: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Q: Is providing a chair considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: Yes. Under FEHA (and the ADA), an employer must offer adjustments, such as seating, that enable an employee with a medical condition to perform essential job functions, unless the change causes undue hardship.

Q: Does the absence of economic loss usually limit verdicts?

A: Not in California. Juries can—and frequently do—assign substantial noneconomic and punitive damages even when wage loss is minimal or nonexistent.

Q: What takeaway does this verdict offer employers?

A: Swiftly evaluate and, if feasible, grant minor accommodations; document the process; and ensure performance issues are legitimate and well-supported before terminating protected workers.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Injury, Leave & Demotion: Miller v. CDCR Disability Case

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, has affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Miller v. CDCR (Case No. E081230), holding that the agency lawfully placed an injured correctional officer on unpaid leave after she could no longer perform the essential duties of her job.

The Case: Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

The Court: California Fourth Appellate District Division Two

The Case No.: E081230 (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2000221)

The Plaintiff: Miller v. CDCR

Maria Miller, a correctional officer injured in a 2016 slip-and-fall, exhausted workers' comp benefits by 2018. Facing permanent medical restrictions (that were later compounded by a disclosed mental-health condition), she declined CDCR's offer of a "medical demotion" to a lighter-duty position and remained on unpaid leave. In 2020, she filed a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Defendant: Miller v. CDCR

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Miller's employer, is responsible for ensuring correctional-facility security while accommodating employees' disabilities in compliance with FEHA.

The Case: Miller v. CDCR

Claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.

Trial Court (Riverside County): Granted summary judgment for CDCR, finding Miller could not perform essential correctional-officer functions and that CDCR offered reasonable accommodations she refused.

Court of Appeal Ruling: Affirmed.

Key points: An employer may take adverse action when an employee's disability renders it impossible to perform essential duties.

CDCR met its burden by offering a medical demotion; disability retirement is not a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. Even if the interactive process was imperfect, liability requires proof that a feasible accommodation existed and was withheld.

The Main Questions in the Case: Miller v. CDCR

When an employee's permanent medical restrictions prevent them from performing essential job functions, can an employer satisfy the FEHA by offering alternative positions, and by doing so, can they avoid liability? Does it change the situation if the employee refuses the alternate position and alleges flaws in the interactive process? After considering these essential questions, the appellate court ruled in favor of CDCR.

FAQ: Miller v. CDCR

Q: Why wasn't disability retirement considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: FEHA defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace adjustment enabling the employee to perform the job, whereas disability retirement removes the employee from the workforce altogether, contrary to FEHA's goal of keeping employees working when possible.

Q: Does an employer's imperfect interactive process automatically create liability?

A: No. An employee must demonstrate a specific, objectively available accommodation that the employer failed to provide; absent that, procedural flaws alone are insufficient.

Q: What is a "medical demotion," and is it legal?

A: A medical demotion reassigns an employee to a lower-level role compatible with medical restrictions, often with reinstatement rights if health improves. Courts view it as a legitimate accommodation when higher-level duties can't be performed.

Q: Can failure to accommodate double as disability discrimination?

A: Not necessarily. An employer may be liable for failing to accommodate without being liable for discrimination if no adverse employment action stems from bias.

Q: What lessons does this case offer California employers?

A: Document essential job functions, explore all viable accommodations—including reassignment—and remember that FEHA liability hinges on whether a workable accommodation existed, not on perfection in the dialogue.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Lively v. Wayfarer: Harassment & Defamation Showdown

Actor Blake Lively has sued Wayfarer Studios, its co-founder Justin Baldoni, and associated PR firms in the Southern District of New York, alleging workplace sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign that damaged her reputation and business interests (Case No. 1:24-cv-10049).

The Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

The Court: Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y)

The Case No.: 1:24-cv-10049

The Plaintiff: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Blake Lively, star and producer of the film It Ends With Us, asserts that during production, Baldoni engaged in un-rehearsed physical contact, sought to add intimate scenes without an intimacy coordinator, and later orchestrated a media strategy to discredit her after she complained, causing sales of her hair-care brand to drop sharply.

The Defendant: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, and affiliated crisis-PR consultants are named as defendants. Lively contends that they hired public relations professionals to suppress her allegations and “bury” her public image. At the same time, the defendants deny any misconduct and claim they acted to protect their reputations.

The Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Lively’s claims (Dec 2024 filing): sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and business losses tied to an alleged smear campaign.

Procedural status:

An emotional-distress count was dismissed on June 3, 2025, but core harassment and retaliation claims remain.

Defendants countersued in January 2025 for defamation and civil extortion, seeking $400 million. Most of that countersuit was dismissed on June 9, 2025, leaving only potential contract-interference allegations for possible refiling.

Lively has subpoenaed internal text messages and phone records; defendants have sought third-party communications they say support their defense.

Related litigation: A crisis-PR consultant and a former Wayfarer PR firm have filed separate actions over the dispute, alleging defamation and breach of contract. None of these suits directly involves Lively’s wage-and-hour or labor claims, but they could impact discovery and public perception.

The Main Question in the Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Did Wayfarer Studios and Justin Baldoni engage in unlawful workplace harassment and retaliatory reputation-damage tactics against Blake Lively, and, if so, are they liable for the resulting economic and emotional harm? Conversely, did Lively’s public statements cross the line into actionable defamation against the defendants?

FAQ: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al

Q: What behavior does Lively allege constituted sexual harassment?

A: She says Baldoni improvised intimate physical contact and tried to add nudity and graphic scenes without prior discussion or an intimacy coordinator, creating an unsafe work environment.

Q: What is meant by a “retaliatory smear campaign”?

A: Lively claims the defendants hired PR professionals to release or amplify negative stories, monitor social-media chatter, and otherwise undermine her credibility after she complained about on-set conduct.

Q: Why was the emotional-distress claim dismissed?

A: The court ruled that, as pleaded, it did not meet the legal standard for a separate tort; however, the underlying harassment and retaliation counts were allowed to proceed.

Q: What remains of the defendants’ $400 million countersuit?

A: The court threw out the defamation and civil-extortion counts but allowed defendants an opportunity to replead limited claims of interference with contractual relationships.

Q: Could third-party subpoenas affect the outcome?

A: Yes. Phone records, text messages, and PR-firm documents may provide key evidence of either a coordinated smear effort (supporting Lively) or benign reputation management (supporting the defendants), which could influence liability and damages.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

On-Call Meal Breaks Disputed: Garrett v. Core Analytics

In Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 24CV103976), hourly imaging-services employees claim they were kept on duty during meal and rest breaks—allegedly violating a wide swath of California wage-and-hour statutes.

Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Lere Garrett has worked for Core Analytics Radiology since July 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee at the company’s clinical-laboratory and mobile X-ray operations in Alameda County. On behalf of a putative California class, Garrett seeks back wages, penalties, and expense reimbursements for uncompensated break time and other alleged payroll shortfalls.

The Defendant: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Core Analytics Radiology, Inc. operates diagnostic imaging services, including mobile X-ray units, throughout California. As an employer, it must comply with Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 351, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, as well as the applicable Wage Order governing meal and rest periods, minimum wages, overtime premiums, wage statements, and expense reimbursement.

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Forum & Status: Pending class action in Alameda County Superior Court.

Core Allegations:

• Employees were required to stay on duty or be on call and face interruptions during off-duty meal breaks.

• Second meal periods were not provided on shifts exceeding ten hours.

• Overtime, minimum wage, and business-expense reimbursements were allegedly shorted.

• Pay stubs allegedly omitted required details (hours, rates, periods) in violation of § 226.

Statutory Hooks: Labor Code §§ 201–203 (waiting-time penalties), 226 (wage statements), 226.7 & 512 (meal/rest), 2802 (expenses), plus minimum- and overtime-wage provisions.

Relief Sought: Unpaid wages, premium pay for missed breaks, statutory and civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and complete reimbursement of class members’ losses.

The Main Question: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Did Core Analytics Radiology’s on-call scheduling and payroll practices—especially its failure to provide uninterrupted, off-duty meal and rest periods—violate California Labor Code requirements, thereby entitling Garrett and similarly situated employees to wages and statutory penalties?

FAQ: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Q: What constitutes an “off-duty” meal break under California law?

A: The employee must be relieved of all work duties and employer control for at least 30 uninterrupted minutes. Being required to stay on call—or getting pulled back mid-break—invalidates the meal period and triggers premium pay.

Q: How much is the meal-break premium if my employer violates the rule?

A: For each workday an employer fails to provide a compliant meal or rest break, they owe the worker an extra hour of pay at the employee's regular pay rate (Labor Code § 226.7).

Q: Can missed meal breaks also affect overtime calculations?

A: Yes. If on-duty meal periods extend the total hours worked beyond eight in a day or 40 in a week, those extra minutes count toward overtime, which must be paid at 1.5 times or 2 times the regular rate, as applicable.

Q: What details must appear on a compliant California wage statement?

A: Pay stubs must list total hours worked, all hourly rates, gross and net wages, pay-period dates, employer name and address, and accrued paid-sick-leave balances. Missing or inaccurate data can result in penalties on a per-pay-period basis under § 226.

Q: Are business-expense reimbursements part of this lawsuit?

A: Yes. Garrett alleges that Core Analytics failed to reimburse employees for required expenses (e.g., mobile service mileage, equipment, or phone use), a violation of Labor Code § 2802, which can result in repayment plus interest and attorneys’ fees.

If you have questions about filing a wage and hour complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Carr v. 2nd Street USA: Wage-Statement Class Action

In Sterling Carr v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al., a pending class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, employees claim that the second-hand retail chain systematically violated multiple California wage-and-hour protections, most notably the requirement to provide accurate, itemized wage statements.

The Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV12806

The Plaintiff: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Sterling Carr, an hourly employee of 2nd Street USA, Inc., brings this suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers. He alleges that the company’s wage practices—reflected in faulty pay stubs; short-changed employees and masked other Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

2nd Street USA, Inc. operates “2nd STREET” resale boutiques throughout California. As Carr’s direct employer, the company is responsible for complying with California Labor Code §§ 201–203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802, as well as the applicable Wage Orders.

The Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

The wage and hour class action was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint included several allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

• Failure to comply with meal and rest breaks laws

• Failure to reimburse business expenses

• Failure to pay sick wages and all wages when due

• Failure to furnish accurate wage statements—pay stubs allegedly omitted hourly rates, total hours worked, and pay-period dates, violating Labor Code § 226(a)

The plaintiff filed suit seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff also seeks civil penalties under PAGA.

The Main Question in the Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Did 2nd Street USA’s pay-stub format—and the underlying payroll practices it concealed—violate Labor Code § 226 and related provisions, thereby entitling Sterling Carr and other employees to statutory penalties and back wages?

FAQ: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Q: What information must appear on a California wage statement?

A: According to Labor Code § 226, California wage statements must include: total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates, gross and net wages earned, payroll dates, and employer identification details. Missing any of these can trigger statutory penalties.

Q: Can an inaccurate wage statement alone support a lawsuit?

A: Yes. Even if all wages were paid, employees may sue for penalties if the employer fails to provide accurate, itemized statements, because transparency is a right protected by California law.

Q: How does a class action benefit workers in wage-statement cases?

A: A class action lets employees pool smaller individual claims (often just a few hundred dollars each) into one lawsuit, increasing leverage and reducing legal costs while ensuring uniform relief for all affected workers.

Q: What penalties could 2nd Street USA face if Carr prevails?

A: The company could owe per-pay-period penalties under § 226(e), waiting-time penalties for any late final wages, reimbursement for unpaid expenses, and additional civil penalties under PAGA—plus attorneys’ fees and interest.

Q: Do employees have to show they were underpaid to win wage-statement penalties?

A: Not necessarily. California courts hold that the mere failure to provide required information—causing difficulty in verifying pay—can constitute “injury,” making the employer liable for statutory damages even when wage amounts are otherwise correct.

If you have questions about filing a wage and hour complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Tiny-Font Arbitration Upheld: Fuentes v. Empire Nissan

In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (California Supreme Court, 2024), the justices confronted whether an otherwise fair employment arbitration agreement printed in tiny, nearly unreadable font—and presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis—can be invalidated as unconscionable. Their answer clarifies how California courts must balance procedural versus substantive unfairness when employees challenge arbitration pacts.

The Case: Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

The Court: California Second Appellate District Division Eight/L.A. County Superior Court

The Case No.: Appellate Case No.: B314490 / Superior Court Case No.: 20STCV35350

The History of the Case: Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

Employment & Dispute: Plaintiff Maribel Fuentes worked for Empire Nissan. After her termination, she sued, alleging wage-and-hour and other statutory violations.

Trial Court (L.A. Superior): Nissan moved to compel arbitration. The Court found the one-page arbitration agreement unconscionable—largely because of its microscopic, blurred print—and denied the motion.

Court of Appeal (2d Dist.): Reversed. While the agreement showed procedural unconscionability (tiny font, adhesion contract), it contained no substantively unfair terms, so arbitration had to proceed.

California Supreme Court (2024): Granted review to resolve how far procedural flaws alone can go in invalidating an arbitration clause and ultimately affirmed the appellate ruling, reinforcing the two-part unconscionability test.

The Arbitration Agreement: Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

To make a determination in the case, the Court considered various details in the arbitration agreement Nissan presented to Fuentes. Consider a summary of the details they considered below:

• Format: Single one-page form, extremely small and blurry type, provided to all dealership hires on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

• Key Clauses: Key clauses appeared fair; deemed no substantive unconscionability.

• Mutuality: Bound both the employee and the employer.

• Scope & Governing Law: Covered statutory claims; incorporated California Arbitration Act procedures.

• No Hidden Waivers: Did not waive EEOC/DFEH (now CRD) charges.

• Employer Signature: Absence of Nissan’s signature went to contract formation; not substantive fairness.

• Initiation Instructions: Reference to state arbitration rules was sufficient.

The procedural concerns identified included: 1) tiny, unreadable font, 2) presented as a condition of employment (adhesion), and 3) dense legalese.

The Main Issue: Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

Does an employment arbitration agreement that is procedurally unconscionable—because of unreadable, tiny print and adhesive presentation—become unenforceable when its substantive terms are otherwise even-handed?

The Court said no. California’s “sliding-scale” test still demands some showing of substantive unconscionability; procedural flaws alone cannot be “double-counted” to tip the scale.

What Makes Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. a Landmark Case?

Fuentes cements the bright-line rule that both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present to void an arbitration clause. Courts may not inflate procedural defects (e.g., illegible font, adhesion) into substantive ones simply to strike down agreements. In an era of rapidly evolving employment-arbitration law, Fuentes preserves a predictable framework, signaling that California workplaces must scrutinize not only how arbitration agreements are presented but also what they say; because only truly one-sided terms, combined with process flaws, will render them unenforceable.

FAQ: Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

Q: What is the difference between procedural and substantive unconscionability?

A: Procedural unconscionability looks at how the contract was formed—e.g., tiny unreadable font or “take-it-or-leave-it” pressure. Substantive unconscionability examines what the contract says; checking if the content is unfairly skewed in favor of the employer. California requires both types to be present before a court can strike down an arbitration agreement.

Q: Does unreadable fine print, by itself, make an arbitration clause unenforceable?

A: No. Fuentes confirms that illegible or microscopic text is a procedural flaw only. Unless the agreement also contains substantively unfair terms—such as one-sided fee rules or damage caps—courts will still enforce it.

Q: My boss handed me a “sign-or-don’t-work” arbitration form. Is that automatically invalid?

A: Adhesion contracts (take-it-or-leave-it agreements) create procedural unconscionability, but California law still demands some substantive unfairness before voiding the clause. Review the substance for red flags (e.g., waiver of statutory rights) and consider seeking legal advice before refusing to sign.

Q: Does an arbitration agreement need the employer’s signature to bind both parties?

A: Not necessarily. Fuentes held that lack of an employer signature raises a formation question—whether a contract exists at all—but it is not evidence of substantive unconscionability. If both sides intended to be bound, courts generally treat the agreement as valid.

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

Alleged Failure to Offer Employee Breaks: Did Starbucks Violate Labor Law?

A California worker filed a PAGA-only action alleging that Starbucks engaged in labor code violations.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.:25CV121089

The Plaintiff: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The plaintiff, Sarah Verduzco, was employed at a California Starbucks location from 2014 to December of 2024. Verduzco claims that due to standard operating procedures in place at the coffee shop, employees worked off the clock and were not paid full wages. According to the applicable California Wage Order, employers are required to provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The plaintiff filed a PAGA-only suit seeking penalties for the alleged violations; doing so allows the State of California to enforce state labor laws through the employee. By filing under PAGA, the employee acts as a proxy for the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. Seeking civil penalties under PAGA is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect the public rather than benefit private parties. Instead of seeking to recover damages or restitution, parties filing a PAGA-only action seek to act as a “deputized” private attorney general and enforce the labor code.

The Defendant: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, is the owner/operator of coffee shops throughout California (and the rest of the world). According to the California wage and hour lawsuit, Starbucks allegedly failed to provide its eligible, non-exempt, hourly employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Allegations: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

According to the plaintiff, Starbucks engaged in several day-to-day operating practices that violated labor law and negatively affected their employees, such as:

Off the Clock Work: The plaintiff claims that employees were (from time to time) required to work while they were clocked out on their off-duty meal break.

Shorting Employee Pay: The plaintiff claims that Starbucks’ established company policy and procedure of rounding employees’ actual time worked meant employees received less pay than if the company paid them for the actual hours they worked.

Unpaid Mandatory Covid-19 Checks: As a result of requiring employees to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screenings before clocking in to their work shift, the plaintiff claims employees were subjected to additional off-the-clock hours.

As a result of these combined policies and procedures, the plaintiff alleges that Starbucks violated multiple labor laws protecting minimum wage, overtime pay, employee meal breaks and rest periods, as well as wage and hour standards.

Should Incentive Pay Be Included in the Base Rate of Pay for Overtime Calculations?

In the complaint, the plaintiff also specifically questioned Starbucks’ treatment of employees’ incentive pay when calculating overtime pay. According to Verduzco, Starbucks had a non-discretionary incentive program in place that provided incentive wages to employees based on their performance. All hourly employees were eligible to participate in the incentive program. During the hiring process, management described the incentive program to potential new hires as part of the compensation package. However, when Starbucks determines the regular rate of pay to use in calculations to pinpoint overtime pay rates, and meal/rest break premiums (for missed breaks), the defendant failed to include the incentive wages. According to Verduzco’s complaint, failing to include the incentive wages as part of the “regular rate of pay” is a labor law violation.

FAQ: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

Q: What exactly is a “PAGA-only” lawsuit, and how does it help employees?

A: A PAGA-only action lets a worker act on behalf of California's labor department and sue an employer for civil penalties on the state’s behalf. Unlike a class action (which seeks back wages for each employee and other damages if applicable), a PAGA case seeks penalties meant to deter future labor law violations and protect the public. If the claim succeeds, 75% of the penalties will go to the State of California, while 25% is distributed among the affected employees, still putting money in workers’ pockets while holding the employer publicly accountable.

Q: Do California meal and rest break laws really require that I be completely off the clock?

A: Yes, California law is clear on this issue. Rest periods must be “off-duty,” which means workers are relieved of all work duties and employer control. If your employer calls you back to the register, asks you to prepare drinks, or keeps you “on stand-by” during a break, the time does not count as a lawful rest period, and you are owed premium pay.

Q: My paycheck includes a performance bonus. Should that raise my overtime rate?

A: Yes, it should. When a bonus or incentive is non-discretionary (promised in advance and tied to measurable goals), it must be built into the employee’s “regular rate of pay.” The higher rate then becomes the basis for calculating overtime and missed-break premiums. Excluding incentive pay, as alleged in this case, artificially lowers overtime wages and violates California labor law.

Q: I went through mandatory health screenings before clocking in during COVID-19. Can I claim unpaid wages for that time?

A: Possibly. If the mandatory health screenings were required and you weren’t allowed to clock in first, that waiting time is considered “hours worked.” California law requires you to be paid for all hours your employer controls your activities, including brief pre-shift tasks such as health checks or temperature screenings. You may be entitled to back pay, penalties, and interest for any off-the-clock time.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

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