PAGA-Only Action Filed Against Formel D USA, Inc.

In recent news, a PAGA-only action was filed against Formel D USA, Inc.

The Case: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01369309-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Oddae Alghazali, alleges that Formel D USA, Inc. violated Labor Code § 2699. Alghazali filed a PAGA-only action seeking penalties for the alleged violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Formel D USA, Inc., faces a PAGA-only action based on allegations that they failed to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks. And that by doing so, they failed to provide their workers with payment for all hours worked. According to the lawsuit filed by Alghazali, Formel D USA, Inc. failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest breaks when they (from time to time) required employees to work in more than four (4) hours without being provided a ten (10) minute rest period. According to the California Wage Order, California employers must provide their employees with off-duty rest periods.

The California Supreme Court determined that for a rest period to qualify as an “off-duty rest period,” it must fulfill two requirements: 1. the employee must be relieved of all their job duties, and 2. the employee must be free from the employer’s control.

The Case: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The case, Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc., is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court. PAGA-only actions like the one in this case allow the State of California to enforce state labor laws through individual employees who file a lawsuit as the proxy of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. PAGA-only actions are essentially law enforcement actions intended to protect the public rather than benefit private parties. Therefore, a PAGA-only action does not seek to recover damages or restitution but acts as a means of “deputizing” citizens as private attorneys general so they can step in to help the state enforce the California Labor Code.

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.

Uber Eats Background Check Violations Lead to $3.35M Class Action Settlement

In recent news, Uber Eats resolved allegations that their background checks violated labor law with a $3.35 million class action settlement.

The Case: Aguilera et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. d/b/a Uber Eats

The Court: New York State Supreme Court for Kings County

The Case No.: 509275/2023

The Plaintiff: Aguilera et al. v. Uber Eats

The plaintiff in the case, Aguilera, claimed Uber Eats ran a criminal background check process for prospective drivers in New York City between October 24, 2015, and July 28, 2021, which violated labor law. The settlement class is divided into two groups:

Group 1: Consists of class members with serious convictions more likely to be considered job-related due to the nature of the conviction and the recent date of the conviction.

Group 2: Consists of class members with convictions less likely to be considered job-related.

The Defendant: Aguilera, et al. v. Uber Eats

The defendant in the case, Uber Eats, a prominent player in the food delivery service industry, has faced legal scrutiny in New York due to allegations of denying job opportunities to prospective drivers based on what is claimed to be a flawed background check process. This lawsuit stems from accusations that Uber Eats violated the rights of individuals seeking employment as delivery drivers in New York City.

The Case: Aguilera, et al. v. Uber Eats

The case, Aguilera et al. v. Uber Eats, was resolved with a $3.35 million settlement. Primarily, the settlement benefits prospective drivers who were denied the opportunity to be Uber Eats drivers in New York City based on the results of a criminal background check. The dispute in Aguilera et al. v. Uber Eats centers around the period spanning from October 2015 through July 202, when numerous applicants argued that they were unfairly denied opportunities to work for the Uber Eats platform based on the results of these background checks.

If you have questions about how to file an employment law 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.

Catholic Charities Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (from now on, "Catholic Charities") faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (from now on, "Catholic Charities")

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

The Case No.: 23CV00371

The Plaintiff: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The plaintiff in the case, Kimberlee Keller, claims Catholic Charities violated numerous labor laws.

The Defendant: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The defendant in the case, Catholic Charities, faces allegations of violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. According to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to:

  • pay minimum and overtime wages

  • provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

  • provide employees with wages when due

  • provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements (listing applicable wage rates and hours worked)

  • reimburse employees for required business expenses

The Case: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The combination of rigorous work schedules and unlawful business practices and policies, workers for Catholic Charities were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks. When they did take their meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of job duties. Instead, they were interrupted from time to time during meal breaks to complete tasks for the company. In addition, employees were allegedly not provided with their rest periods as required by law. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California meal break and rest period 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.

Determining Duty of Care and Workers’ Comp Exclusivity for California Employers

A recent California case questioned whether or not the California Workers’ Compensation Act blocks an employee’s spouse’s negligence claim and whether California employers owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to spouses of employees.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-09355-MMC

The Plaintiff: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Kuciemba, started working for Victory Woodworks, Inc. (Victory) on May 6, 2020, at a San Francisco construction site. Two months later, a group of employees from another job site were transferred to the San Francisco site without the company’s compliance with precautions required by the county’s health order. After exposure to the new workers, Robert became infected. He carried the virus home and exposed his wife, Corby. Corby was hospitalized for several weeks and, at one point, was even kept alive on a respirator. The Kuciembas sued Victory in 2020, alleging negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and public nuisance.

The Defendant: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The defendant in the case, Victory, moved to dismiss. When the district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. On June 22, 2022, the appeals court agreed to answer the certified questions regarding workers’ compensation exclusivity and the duty of care.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

In today’s case, the Supreme Court of the State of California issued an opinion addressing two questions of California law to determine the scope of an employer’s liability when an employee’s spouse is injured by transmission of the virus1 that causes the disease known as COVID-19. First, if an employee contracts COVID-19 and brings the virus home to their spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA; Lab. Code, § 3200 et seq.) bar the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer? And second, does a California employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members? The court determined that the answer to both questions is no. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not prevent the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer. However, recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would create an intolerable burden on California employers (violating public policy). Considering this, the California Supreme Court determined that California employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Is a Personal Cell Phone a Reimburseable Work Expense for California Employees?

A recent complaint filed in Madera County Superior Court raises the question of cell phones as a reimbursable work expense. Allegedly, Paleowest, LLC failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone usage and home office usage even though both were required to complete their job duties.

The Case: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The Court: Madera County Superior Court

The Case No.: MCV088135

The Plaintiff: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Brandy Hale, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees. In the class action, Hale claims that the defendant, Paleowest, LLC, violated California Labor Code. During her employment from January 2018 through May 2022, the company allegedly failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone usage and home office usage, even though she claims both were required to complete job duties. The company classified Hale as a non-exempt hourly employee. However, Hale claims that she (and other employees) were not paid for all their hours, were required to work while clocked out, did not receive required off-duty meal breaks, were required to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screening without pay, and were also shorted pay due to the company’s policy to “round” employee hours.

The Defendant: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The defendant in the case, Paleowest, LLC, offers cultural, prehistoric, architectural, ethnographic heritage, and paleontological resource management services.

The Case: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Paleowest, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary expenses needed to complete their job duties (like their cell phone and home office) and failed to comply with multiple California Labor Codes. As a result, Hale, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that she and others similarly situated at the company were required to forfeit minimum wage, overtime pay, and off-duty meal breaks (without appropriate compensation). Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Paleowest, LLC’s practice, and policy not to provide payment to employees for all time worked can be seen in their own records. Failing to include employee incentive pay earned through the company’s rewards program as part of the “regular rate of pay” for overtime pay calculations shorted employees on overtime pay compensation. Hale argues that incentive pay would be included as part of the regular rate of pay since management and supervisors both describe the incentive program as part of the compensation package when outlining the benefits of employment for new employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law 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.

Lowe’s Succeeds in Getting PAGA Claims Dismissed Based on Viking River

When the court compels individual PAGA claim arbitration, what happens to the non-individual PAGA claims?

The Case: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

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

The Case No.: 2:2021cv00087

The Plaintiff: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

Maria Johnson’s individual PAGA claim alleged Lowe’s failure to provide paid sick leave and accurate wage statements to employees. The plaintiff, Maria Johnson, argued that the waiver was unenforceable in her situation because it was a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims. However, the court disagreed based on findings in Viking River. In Viking River (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana), the court found that PAGA actions are representative either because they are brought by employees acting as representatives (proxies of the state) or because they are predicated on code violations sustained by other employees. According to the court, Johnson’s severability provision was similar to the condition considered in Viking River and therefore warranted identical results. As in Viking River, the court enforced the agreement to send individual PAGA claims to arbitration, compelling Johnson’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration. Also, based on Viking River, the court found that once the individual PAGA claims were compelled to arbitration, her non-individual PAGA claims should be dismissed due to lack of standing.

What is a PAGA Claim:

PAGA (enacted in 2004) enables employees to bring actions against employers violating the California Labor Code to recover civil penalties. PAGA claims can be filed on behalf of the individual employee and on behalf of other allegedly victimized employees working for the same employer. Until recently, the court held that categorical waivers of PAGA standing could not be enforced, and claims could not be separated into arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims.

The Defendant: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

In the Johnson case, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley granted Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration of Johnson’s individual PAGA claim for the alleged failure to provide paid sick leave or accurate wage statements.

Relevant Provisions in the Arbitration Agreement: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

The most relevant provisions of the arbitration agreement being considered in this case included the following:

  • Controversies “arising out of [the plaintiff’s] employment … shall be settled by binding arbitration.”

  • Employees may bring claims “solely on an individual basis,”…not on a representative basis under PAGA.

  • “[I]f a court of competent jurisdiction finds the … Representative Action Waiver unenforceable for any reason, then the unenforceable waiver provision shall be severable from [the] Agreement, and any claims covered by any deemed unenforceable waiver provision may only be litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction, but the remainder of the agreement shall be binding and enforceable.”

The Case: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

On September 21, 2022, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order compelling arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and dismissing the remaining representative PAGA claims. The court’s actions can be considered a straightforward application of the Supreme Court of the United States’ June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Viking River). However, the California Supreme Court has since granted review in a case that might complicate California courts’ application of Viking River.

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

Halsey Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Multiple Employment Law Violations

A recently filed lawsuit alleges that Halsey engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Ashley D. Frangipane aka Halsey, Leaving Things Behind Touring, Halsey Music LLC (hereafter referred to as Halsey)

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

The Case No.: 22STCV18905

The Plaintiff: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The plaintiff in the case, Ashley Funches, is the former nanny for Halsey, the “Without Me” singer. Funches claims Halsey forced her to work “around the clock on consecutive days with little to no day of rest” and failed to pay overtime – and then fired her when she sought time off for medical care. According to Funches, she sent Halsey a text message informing Halsey that she might need to have a medical procedure completed that would require her to take a leave of absence from work. Allegedly, the only response Funches received to the message came days later, and instead of responding to the request for time off, Halsey fired Funches with no warning. Funches filed her complaint on June 9th, 2022 in Los Angeles court.

The Defendant: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The defendant in the case, Halsey, is the “Without Me” singer facing a new lawsuit claiming she fired her nanny after she requested time off to have a medical procedure completed. The well-known star describes the claims as “baseless.”

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The case, Ashley Funches v. Halsey, will consider various claims of California labor law violations including failure to pay overtime wages, and alleged discrimination based on disability.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.