Employees Claim Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC Violated Employment Law

A class action lawsuit alleges Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC failed to provide their employees with required meal breaks and rest periods. Based on the missed meal breaks and rest periods, the employer also failed to provide employees with the total wages due, violating labor law.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The Court: Alameda Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22CV018596

The Plaintiff: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jileea Jordan, was employed by the defendant in California from February 18th,2022 to April 26th, 2022. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly wages, which entitled her to the legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, accurate wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The defendant in the case, Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, offers waxing services and other skin care solutions from certified wax specialists. According to the plaintiff in the case, the defendant regularly required employees to work during their off-duty meal breaks, stay available during their rest periods, and complete other “off the clock” work like mandatory drug testing, Covid-19 testing, temperature checks, etc. as a condition of employment.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiff also claims that employees were required to work over four hours without a 10-minute rest period. In addition to violating meal and rest period laws, minimum wage, and overtime pay laws, Defendant allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete, accurate, and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages earned. California Labor Code requires employers to issue each employee an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing gross wages earned, hourly rates used during the pay period, and time worked at each applicable hourly rate used to calculate the employee’s total pay. The case, Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, is currently pending in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California.

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.

Did THC-Orange County Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Meal Breaks?

In recent news, another California employer faces allegations of Labor Law violations.

The Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-597887

The Plaintiff: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Arva Anderson, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that THC - Orange County, LLC violated California Labor Code. Anderson was employed by the Defendant from July 2021 through October 2021 and the company classified Anderson as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. As such, Anderson was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Allegations: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

According to the complaint, THC-Orange County, LLC, the Defendant, failed to pay workers minimum wage, failed to provide workers with overtime pay, failed to provide legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks, failed to offer workers accurate and itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse workers for necessary expenses, and failed to pay worker’s wages when they were due.

The Defendant: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Defendant in the case, THC-Orange County, LLC, provides healthcare services (including both medical and surgical care services) in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

All the allegations represent violations of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements that show the worker’s "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." in addition to other data. The lawsuit alleges that THC-Orange County, LLC allegedly violated California Labor Law by failing to fulfill this requirement for accurate and itemized wage statements.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, 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.

Will California Successfully Force Uber and Lyft to Reclassify Drivers as Employers?

In recent news, California seeks to force Uber and Lyft to reclassify its drivers as employees – with a deadline only weeks out! Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to file court documents that could make it happen. His office plans to seek a preliminary injunction against both massive rideshare companies. If the court agrees, both would be required to grant their drivers’ employment status while the lawsuit is still pending.

Should Rideshare Companies Own Up to Their Responsibilities?

Becerra feels it is time for the two rideshare companies to own up to their responsibilities and take care of the people who make them such a success – their drivers. By misclassifying drivers or other workers as consultants or independent contractors, employers like Uber and Lyft effectively pass responsibility for certain business costs on to their workers. In this scenario, workers or taxpayers end up footing the bill for employer obligations like paying a legal wage, paying overtime, offering sick leave, unemployment insurance, etc.

Do Rideshare Companies Intentionally Misclassify Drivers as Independent Contractors?

Last month, the group sued Uber and Lyft under the state’s gig work law, AB-5 accusing them of miscategorizing drivers as independent contractors. Earlier this month, the state regulator ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are employees under California law. Regardless, both rideshare conglomerates continuously defended their position that a mandatory reclassification of drivers would negatively impact their business models, cause a price increase, and leave drivers out of work.

Rideshare Companies Insist Drivers Want to be Independent Contractors

According to Uber and Lyft, most rideshare drivers want to be independent contractors. The companies have already made significant changes to their rideshare apps to retain their current business model under California law. Matthew Wing, an Uber spokesperson, even went so far as to call out California’s elected officials for focusing on “shutting down an entire industry” instead of trying to create work for the more than 3 million Californians currently without a job.                                            

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ex-Dancer Sues Strip Club for Misclassification

The misclassification controversy is not exclusive to the gig economy. As the gig economy’s problems seem to escalate, problems are growing in other industries as well. In Daytona Beach, a former dancer at Grandview Live is suing the strip club claiming they owe her back wages because they misclassified her as an independent contractor when she was allegedly an employee.

Brittany Hall, former dancer at Grandview Live in Daytona Beach, claims that due to the club’s misclassification, she allegedly earned less than minimum wage and was not paid overtime. Hall, like the other exotic dancers at the club, was paid strictly in tips from customers. She worked at the strip club for over two years without overtime and receiving less than minimum wage, which attorneys for the plaintiff claim is fairly standard in the industry.

Hall claims Grandview Live owes her money because they violated wage and hour law by paying her less than minimum wage and failed to pay her overtime hours she was due. Hall also alleges that the club took tips from her in addition to their other employment law violations.

California legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 5 which will require companies to treat their workers as employees if they meet certain standards. The bill is set to go into effect January 1, 2020 and will have a massive impact on gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft and DoorDash. But it will also benefit workers like Brittany Hall, working in industries that have been around since before smartphones and apps were introduced.

Sometimes employers misclassify workers unintentionally. In some cases, it is an honest mistake. Other employers actively and purposefully misclassify their employees in order to maximize profits and minimize costs. Employers have major incentives to shift workers off their payrolls due to taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation premiums, etc.

If you are misclassified or if you are not being paid overtime wages for all your hours worked, please do not delay. Get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP so we can help.

California’s Expanded Definition of “Employee”

As of September 18, 2019, AB-5 codified the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex v. Superior Court decision in which the California Supreme Court adopted the “ABC” test for use when determining coverage under the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Under the new California law, the application of the ABC test is expanded to the entire California Labor Code. It takes effect in 2020.

According to the ABC test, the law assumes that any individual who is performing a service for someone else is an employee. The hiring individual or the one receiving the benefit of the service must prove that the worker is an independent contractor if they want to rebut the basic assumption of employment. To be successful, the “hiring” entity would need to meet each one of three different ABC test requirements:

1.    The “worker” must have freedom in connection to the performance of their job duties; the hirer must not maintain control/direction of the worker while they are on the job.

2.    The worker must perform work that falls outside of the hirer’s usual or typical business.

3.    The worker must be shown to be engaged in independent and established trade or business of the same nature as the work they are performing for the hirer.

Determining if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor carries great significance. If the worker is classified as an employee the employer bears responsibility for paying numerous taxes, providing worker’s compensation insurance, and complying with the various state and federal statutes governing employment issues like overtime pay, minimum wage, working conditions, etc. When an employee is misclassified on the job, the hirer can be sued for unpaid wages and overtime, etc.  

The second part of the ABC test is particularly troublesome for employers in the gig economy. It can be taken as a direct challenge to the fundamental business model on which the gig economy thrives. Companies will need to look to the court to determine what is and is not “outside” their usual course of business. Some companies may be able to persuade the judge to make a favorable distinction, but many fear the effect of the new law. Some companies are actively lobbying California legislators for statutory exemptions under AB-5. Occupational and industry exemptions will remain subject to traditional common law definitions of employment.

If you need more information about misclassification in the workplace and what it means to be denied an overtime wage, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP at one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

$90M Spent by Popular Ride Share and Food Delivery App Companies to Avoid Better Pay for Drivers

Uber, Lyft, and Doordash…all familiar names to most Americans. The three have not only become household names because of the services their companies provide, but because they seem to be constantly in the news facing lawsuits from their drivers. Most recently, Uber, Lyft and Doordash are actively fighting against legal actions seeking better pay for their drivers. In fact, they will spend an estimated $90 million just to avoid paying their drivers higher wages.

The three companies, along with other gig companies, have spent months attempting to talk the California legislature out of passing a bill that would effectively strengthen the employment protections of their “drivers.” The bill is now on the verge of final passage with a solid endorsement from the governor. And the chance to talk the legislature over their way of thinking seems to have come and gone. In response, the three powerful gig companies have contributed $30 million each to support a ballot initiative protecting them from the requirement to classify their drivers as employees.

This makes the campaign one of the most expensive in the history of California, right behind the $105 million campaign by dialysis companies last year to beat Proposition 8 because it would have placed limits on how much they charge for their services. In comparison, supporters of the measure were only able to gather $20 million.

The action taken by Uber, Lyft and Doordash creates a virtual $90 million war chest and is another example of how the “big money” is usually not aligned with the interests of the ordinary citizen. This type of big spending is usually a bargain for the donors involved. They stand to gain a lot more from defeating this type of ballot measure that goes against their interests (or supporting the passage of a bill that enriches them) than they are required to spend to make a difference. The $30 million contributions per gig company seems far less substantial when compared to the annual revenues of the companies actively supporting the campaign.

Uber collected $15.7 billion in revenue in the second quarter (that ended June 30th).

Lyft collected $867.3 million in revenue in the second quarter (that ended June 30th).

Both the companies are losing significant revenue (Uber lost $5.2 billion and Lyft loses $644 million in the most recent quarter), but their losses would have been much more significant if they were required to cover the cost of their drivers’ fuel, vehicle maintenance, maintain workers compensation coverage, pay taxes, etc. These are type of expenses that would require reimbursement if the classification of their drivers were to leave them eligible for employment protections under FLSA.

If you have questions about unpaid overtime or if you need to find out how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

California Court Grants Wells Fargo Loan Officers Class Action in Pay Dispute

California-based Wells Fargo loan officers recently filed suit alleging that they were improperly compensated (Kang v. Wells Fargo Bank). The lawsuit could now have even greater implications as the plaintiffs have been granted class certification by the California court.

The issue in the case is to determine whether state was violated when Wells Fargo allegedly conducted “clawbacks” of hourly wages, vacation and separation pay from earned sales commissions. Allegedly, Wells Fargo made a practice of compensating its mortgage sales force using advances on their commissions at a basic rate of around $12/hour, then “clawback” the hourly pay from commissions and vacation pay as they were earned.

James C. Kang, plaintiff in the case, claimed that the clawbacks were in violation of a number of state labor laws that related to employee compensation, including: overtime pay, minimum wage requirements, and vacation pay requirements because they left members of the sales force affected by the practice unpaid for tasks they were required to fulfill by the company that were unrelated to direct sales. Kang also alleged in court documents that members of the sales force who were promised vacation pay did not actually receive it due to the clawbacks.

The bank claims that the pay structure used to compensate home mortgage consultants is compliant with California wage and hour laws, including paying for all hours worked and that the compensation structure allows mortgage workers to earn a competitive, performance-based wage.

Since Well Fargo implemented a mandatory arbitration provision for its sales force on December 11, 2015, the judge ordered those hired or rehired after that date to be excluded from class certification. All other nonexempt employees of Wells Fargo as of October 27, 2013 working as home mortgage consultants or private mortgage bankers, junior HMCs or junior PMBs are part of the class. A subclass is included in the class certification for individuals who were terminated from their employment.

If you have questions about overtime or minimum wage requirements in California, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.