Did EquipmentShare Violate Wage and Hour Law?

In recent news, EquipmentShare faces allegations that its standard policies and practices violate labor law.

The Case: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The Court: United States District Court-Central District of California

The Case No.: 37-2024-00009472-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The plaintiff, Kevin Dion Cocroft, filed a class action lawsuit citing Equipmentshare.com Inc. (EquipmentShare) was violating labor law by allegedly failing to provide employee meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The defendant in the case, EquipmentShare.com, Inc., is a California Corporation that owns and operates construction equipment rental companies throughout the state of California, including the county of San Diego, where Kevin Dion, the plaintiff, was employed. The class action lawsuit makes multiple labor law violation claims:

• violating minimum wage law

• violating overtime wage law,

• violating meal and rest break requirements

• falling to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses

• failing to provide an accurate, itemized wage statement

• falling to provide wages when due

The above allegations would be in violation of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

Rigorous work schedules and understaffing allegedly prevented employees from taking off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When the employees did take one of their breaks, they were generally not completely relieved of their job duties. In California, non-exempt employees are entitled to a 10-minute paid rest period for every four hours worked or a major fraction thereof, with the rest period ideally falling in the middle of the work period. Additionally, these employees must be provided with a 30-minute meal break if they work a shift longer than 5 hours and a second meal break if they work over 10 hours. Employers cannot require employees to work during these breaks and must relinquish control over their activities. Failure to comply with these provisions can lead to significant penalties for employers, including payment of one hour of pay for each day a rest or meal period is not provided.

The Case: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing a California 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.

TSC Staff Faces Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime in California Class Action

In recent news, The Service Companies/TSC Staff face allegations of wage and hour violations in a recent California class action lawsuit.

The Case: Oscar Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

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

The Case No.: 24STCV01889

The Plaintiffs: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The plaintiff in the case, Almanza, filed a class action complaint against The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant failed to provide workers with meal and rest breaks required by labor laws.

The Defendant: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The defendant in the case, The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff, allegedly failed to provide meal and rest breaks to employees. According to the class action lawsuit, the defendant allegedly violated numerous California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failure to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to reimburse workers for required work expenses

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide wages when due

The Case: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

Due to strenuous work schedules, the defendant’s employees were allegedly unable to take off-duty breaks, and during the off-duty breaks they did take, they were not fully relieved from their work duties. According to the class action lawsuit, workers were sometimes required to work more than four hours without a ten-minute rest period. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that due to understaffing, the staff that was scheduled tended to be overburdened, so from time to time, The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff denied employees their first rest periods of 10 minutes (minimum) for shifts from 2-4 hours, both first and second rest periods during shifts between 6-8 hours, and first, second, and third rest breaks during shifts lasting ten or more hours. When employees did not receive their rest periods, the company allegedly failed to provide them one hour of wages in place of the break as labor law requires. The case, Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with 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 Heritage Bank Violate Wage and Hour Laws?

In recent news, Heritage Bank faces a class action lawsuit. The case was filed under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nicole Demarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: RG20080970

The Plaintiffs: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The plaintiffs in the case, Demarinis and Patire, are current and former Heritage Bank of Commerce employees. The plaintiffs brought the case under PAGA (California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004), claiming the company engaged in wage and hour Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The defendant in the case, Heritage Bank, put an arbitration agreement in place with the plaintiffs in which they waived their right to bring claims against each other in any class or representative proceeding. Heritage Bank argued that the denial of arbitration was erroneous because the waiver provision was enforceable for nonindividual PAGA claims.

The Case: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

However, the court found that the provision violated public policy by requiring plaintiffs to abandon their right to bring PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the decision made by the trial court rejecting the bank’s argument to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claims based on a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the court found that the waiver provision’s nonseverablity clause and “poison pill” provision precluded severance of the unenforceable nonindividual PAGA claims waiver by stating that if the waiver provision is unenforceable, the full arbitration agreement is null and void. As a result, the court decided the unenforceability of the waiver provision rendered the entire agreement null and void, which affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour 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.

Cracker Barrel Faces Wage and Hour Violation Allegations

A wage and hour lawsuit alleges Cracker Barrel required their tipped employees to perform non-tip-producing job duties at the end of their shifts without providing them with minimum wage.

The Case: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-00813

The Plaintiff: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Catherine D. Frederick, was an hourly tipped employee at a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurant. During her time at the restaurant, Frederick claims the company expected tipped workers to complete job-related, untipped tasks before and after starting their shift while logged in as tipped workers and that workers were not compensated fairly for the untipped job duties. Frederick filed an FLSA multi-plaintiff action complaint demanding a jury trial seeking unpaid minimum wage and other damages.

The Defendant: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., compensated the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees using a tip-credit compensation plan that compensated tipped employees at a sub-minimum wage hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips received during their shifts, which combined would meet the FLSA minimum wage requirements. However, the plaintiff claims that the company’s demands that workers clock in as “tipped workers” in the timekeeping system while completing untipped job duties before and after their regular shift starts violated labor law.

The Case: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

In the case Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., workers allege the popular restaurant and store paid them using a “tipped worker” timekeeping system while requiring them to complete untipped job duties. The plaintiff claims that Cracker Barrel enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of their employees. The unpaid wage claims of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees are unified through common theories of the Defendant’s FLSA violations.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour 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.

Axlehire Faces Labor Code Violation Allegations in PAGA-Only Action

In recent news, Axlehire faces labor code violation allegations in a PAGA-only action filed in Alameda Superior Court.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, State of California

The Case No.: 23CV055896

The Plaintiff: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

California Labor Law requires California employers to provide their employees with off-duty rest periods during which they are relieved of all their work-related duties and are free from the employer’s control. Acosta and Duarte allege that they were occasionally required to work four-hour shifts without a 10-minute break (the minimum required for a 2-4 hour work shift according to labor law). The plaintiffs in the case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte claim that Axlehire, Inc. failed to provide their employees with meal and rest breaks in violation of labor law. The plaintiffs filed a PAGA-only action seeking to recover PAGA civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other current/former Axlehire employees with a similar experience.

The Defendant: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Axlehire, Inc., hires individuals to assist them in providing delivery services to clients. Axlehire, Inc. allegedly failed to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks in compliance with federal and state labor law, which resulted in an alleged loss of wages for the Axlehire employees.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

California enacted the PAGA to permit individuals to bring an action on behalf of themselves and others for PAGA penalties only, which is the nature of the action in Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc. The case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc., includes allegations that constitute violations of various California Labor Codes (§§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 226(a), 226.7, 226.8, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

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

Did Sizzler Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Breaks to Employees?

In recent news, Sizzler faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with rest periods and breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

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

The Case No.: 24STCV01215

The Plaintiffs: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Gayo, filed a class action complaint against BMW Management, Inc. and BMW Management, LLC (the two entities jointly operate Sizzler restaurants and will collectively be referred to as "Sizzler") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

The defendant in the case, BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC, faces multiple allegations that their standard business practices do not comply with labor law. California labor law requires all employers to pay their employees on an established payday for each pay period and pay no less than minimum wage for all hours an employee works in the payroll period. According to the plaintiff, Sizzler allegedly required employees to complete job-related tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Sizzler did not compensate its employees for any of the resulting off-the-clock work. This standard practice resulted in Sizzler failing to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. In full, the plaintiffs claim that Sizzler engaged in numerous labor law violations:

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime wages

• did not provide required meal and rest periods

• failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay wages when due

• did not provide accurate itemized wage statements

• did not provide workers with all tips and gratuities

What is the Definition of "Hours Worked" for a California Employee?

To interpret California labor law, "hours worked" is the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control, including all the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not "required to do so."

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

In the case, Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC (otherwise known as Sizzler), the plaintiff alleges Sizzler violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay its employees for all time worked. According to the lawsuit, Sizzler allegedly engaged in numerous labor law violations (violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.