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.

Did Merrill Lynch Issue Inaccurate Pay Stubs to Their Employees?

A California employee has filed a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch, alleging the company violated state labor laws by issuing inaccurate or incomplete wage statements.

Case: Nancy Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

Court: os Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2024-01400634-CU-OE-CXC

Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch: The Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff Nancy Jauregui filed the lawsuit on May 20, 2024, in Orange County Superior Court, asserting claims related to labor law violations. While specific employment details have not been publicly disclosed, Jauregui is bringing the claim as an individual, alleging that she and possibly other employees received improper wage statements during her tenure with the company.

The Allegations Listed in the Labor Law Complaint:

The complaint, filed as a labor dispute categorized under "Other Labor," centers on alleged violations of California Labor Code Section 226, which governs the accuracy of wage statements and pay stubs. While the filing does not currently include detailed public allegations, the title and nature of the case suggest concerns about missing, incomplete, or incorrect information on employee pay stubs, such as pay period dates, hours worked, or applicable wage rates.

Learn More About the Defendant:

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is a well-known financial services and wealth management firm operating throughout the United States, including California. The company employs numerous staff members in various roles, including support, administrative, and advisory positions. In this case, Merrill Lynch is accused of violating California's strict labor code regarding employee pay documentation.

Key Legal Question: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

The core legal question is whether Merrill Lynch failed to provide wage statements that meet California's strict itemization requirements and whether such violations entitle the plaintiff (and potentially others) to statutory penalties.

Legal Implications: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

Even without evidence of wage underpayment, California law provides penalties for technical violations of wage statement requirements. If Jauregui proves that Merrill Lynch failed to issue pay stubs containing required elements—such as hours worked, hourly rates, or pay period dates—the company could face statutory penalties of up to $4,000 per employee, in addition to attorney's fees and costs. The case also reinforces employer obligations regarding payroll transparency, even in high-salaried industries such as finance.

Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch: The Employer's Position

As of now, Merrill Lynch has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and no defense filings have been made available. In similar cases, companies often assert that any wage statement deficiencies were minor, unintentional, or quickly corrected. The company may also seek to challenge the scope of the claims or prevent the case from proceeding on a broader representative basis.

Why This Case Matters: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

This case serves as a reminder that California's labor protections apply to all employers, regardless of industry. Even in professional settings, administrative oversights in payroll can trigger lawsuits and penalties. For employees, this case underscores their right to receive clear and complete wage statements as mandated by law.

What Comes Next for Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

Filed on May 20, 2024, in Orange County Superior Court's Civil Complex Center, the case is in its earliest stages. Merrill Lynch will likely respond within the court-mandated timeline. If the case proceeds, it could involve discovery, pre-trial motions, and potential efforts to settle or dismiss the complaint. As of now, no class or representative claims have been indicated, and the case remains listed as "Not Classified by Court."

FAQ: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

Q: What does California law require on a pay stub?

A: Labor Code § 226 mandates that wage statements include the pay period dates, total hours worked, hourly rates, gross and net wages, and other specific line items.

Q: What are the penalties for inaccurate wage statements?

A: Employees can recover up to $50 for the first pay period violation and $100 for each subsequent pay period, up to a maximum of $4,000, plus court costs and attorney's fees.

Q: Is this a class action?

A: No. As of now, the case is filed by a single plaintiff and has not been certified or proposed as a class action.

Q: What should employees do if they suspect their pay stubs are incorrect?

A: Employees should document the discrepancies, request clarification from their employer, and consider consulting a labor attorney to determine if their rights have been violated.

Do you have questions about filing a California labor law complaint? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did Verizon Fail to Provide Employees with Wage Statements and Accurate Pay?

Thousands of California Verizon employees claimed that the company issued defective wage statements over multiple years—now a $15 million class-action settlement has been approved in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Case Name: James Hernandez v. Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc.

Court: LA Superior Court

Case Number: 24STCV20608

The Plaintiff: James Hernandez v. Verizon

James Hernandez, a former Verizon field technician, originally filed this lawsuit in April 2010 after receiving wage statements that allegedly failed to meet the requirements of California labor law. Hernandez brought the case not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of thousands of similarly situated, non-exempt Verizon employees across California. His role as lead plaintiff in the class action has been instrumental in securing a $15 million settlement, which now awaits disbursement.

More About the Defendant: James Hernandez v. Verizon

The defendant, Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the United States. The company employs thousands of workers across California in various fields and technical roles. The lawsuit specifically focused on Verizon's payroll practices, particularly the accuracy and completeness of the itemized wage statements issued to bi-weekly employees over a two-year period.

The Allegations in the Wage and Hour Case: James Hernandez v. Verizon:

The complaint alleged that Verizon violated California Labor Code provisions by failing to include essential details on employees' wage statements. The plaintiffs claimed that their pay stubs omitted the pay period start date, applicable hourly rates, and the number of hours worked at each rate. According to the complaint, these omissions made it difficult or impossible for employees to verify that they had been paid correctly, raising concerns about underpayment or miscalculation.

Key Legal Question: James Hernandez v. Verizon

The central issue in the case was whether Verizon's wage statements failed to comply with the strict disclosure requirements of California Labor Code § 226 and if those failures caused actual harm to employees. The case also raised questions about the intentionality of the violations, which is relevant under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) when determining whether penalties should be applied.

Legal Implications: James Hernandez v. Verizon

This case reinforces the seriousness with which California courts treat wage statement compliance. Under California law, even technical omissions on pay stubs can trigger substantial penalties, particularly if the violations are found to be knowing and willful. The case also highlights the power of PAGA to enable employees to seek penalties not just for themselves but on behalf of the state. Employers throughout California should take note: detailed and accurate wage statements aren't just best practice—they're a legal necessity.

James Hernandez v. Verizon: The Employer's Position

Verizon initially sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the wage statement deficiencies were not material or injurious to employees. However, the court denied Verizon's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. Verizon ultimately agreed to a $15 million class-action settlement, without admitting wrongdoing, to resolve the claims and avoid prolonged litigation. The company has not issued a public statement regarding the terms of the settlement.

Why This Case Matters: James Hernandez v. Verizon

For California employees, especially those in large corporations with complex payroll systems, this case serves as a reminder that pay transparency and accuracy are protected by law. The ruling affirms workers' rights to receive complete and understandable wage statements, paving the way for similar claims against employers who fail to meet these statutory obligations. For employers, it signals the importance of regularly auditing payroll systems and ensuring compliance with wage statement requirements.

What Comes Next for James Hernandez v. Verizon

With the $15 million settlement approved, the next steps involve notifying class members, distributing funds, and finalizing any outstanding administrative details under court supervision. The settlement is expected to affect as many as 6,800 California Verizon employees, covering approximately 223,000 wage statements issued between April 2009 and May 2011. The case also sets a precedent for future litigation related to wage statement accuracy in California.

FAQ: James Hernandez v. Verizon

Q: Who qualified for the Verizon wage statement settlement?

A: Any non-exempt California employee who received itemized wage statements from Verizon between April 1, 2009, and May 2011 may be eligible for compensation under the class action settlement.

Q: What was wrong with Verizon's wage statements?

A: Plaintiffs alleged that the statements failed to include key information such as the pay period start date, hourly pay rates, and the total number of hours worked at each rate—violating California Labor Code § 226.

Q: What does California law say about wage statement penalties?

A: If violations are found to be intentional and harmful, California law permits penalties of $100 per inaccurate wage statement, in addition to other forms of relief like restitution and attorney's fees.

Q: Did Verizon admit to any wrongdoing?

A: No. Verizon settled the case for $15 million but did not admit liability or legal wrongdoing in connection with the wage statement claims.

Q: What role does PAGA play in cases like this?

A: Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), employees can bring claims for civil penalties on behalf of the state of California, significantly increasing potential liability for employers who violate labor laws.

Do you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Employee Questions Whether California Employer Complied with California Overtime and Break Laws

When Olga Pyanova decided to file an employment law complaint against her California employer, she included other current and former employees who were similarly affected by alleged labor law violations at the company. Pyanova's California class action cited multiple violations of California labor laws.

Case Name: Olga Pyanova v. 250 4th Development LP

Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Case No.: CGC-24-617951

Olga Pyanova v. 250 4th Development LP: The Plaintiff's Allegations

The plaintiff, Olga Pyanova, filed a California employment law class action on September 10, 2024, in San Francisco County Superior Court against 250 Fourth Development, L.P., SFCanopy, LLC, Paradigm Hotels Group LLC (and unnamed Doe defendants). Pyanova alleged that while the defendants jointly employed her and other class members at their California hotels, the company engaged in unlawful wage and hour practices.

The Defendant: Olga Pyanova v. 250 4th Development LP

The defendants in the case, 250 4th Development LP and Paradigm Hotels Group, run California hotels where they jointly employed the plaintiff. The companies are accused of functioning as a single employer or joint employers, with shared control over staffing, payroll, timekeeping, and policy enforcement across the hospitality locations involved. The plaintiff claims these companies collectively established employment practices that violated California's labor laws.

The Allegations: Olga Pyanova v. 250 4th Development LP

Plaintiff Olga Pyanova accuses the defendants of multiple labor law violations, including failing to pay minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked, forcing off-the-clock labor such as pre-shift COVID-19 screenings, and using unlawful rounding practices that underpaid employees. The complaint also alleges that workers were denied proper meal and rest breaks, that break times were overly restricted, and that break premiums were calculated incorrectly due to the omission of incentive pay from the regular rate of pay. Additional claims include inaccurate wage statements, improper sick pay calculations, unreimbursed business expenses (such as required cell phone use), and failure to pay all wages upon termination, including accrued vacation and holiday time.

Key Legal Question: Pyanova v. 250 4th Development

At the heart of the case is the question: The core legal issue, in this case, is whether the defendants—acting jointly as employers—engaged in systemic violations of California's wage and hour laws across multiple areas of employment, including timekeeping, break policies, pay calculation methods, and final compensation practices. The case also challenges whether the defendant's failure to reimburse necessary business expenses and to issue accurate wage statements constitutes actionable conduct under California's Labor Code.

Legal Implications: Pyanova v. 250 4th Development

If successful, this class action could establish employer accountability for improper wage practices in the hospitality industry, particularly where multiple entities jointly control working conditions. The lawsuit raises important legal questions about how businesses share liability when co-managing employees and about employer obligations regarding expense reimbursement, off-the-clock work, and incentive-based compensation. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff could set a precedent for similar wage claims filed against hotel operators across California.

Pyanova v. 250 4th Development: The Employer's Position

As of now, the defendants have not publicly filed a formal response denying the allegations or outlining their defense. However, given the complexity and scope of the claims, they are expected to challenge class certification and dispute the existence of joint employer liability. In cases like this, employers often argue that their timekeeping systems and pay practices were lawful, compliant, and consistent with the terms of employee agreements.

Why This Case Matters: Pyanova v. 250 4th Development

This lawsuit highlights the vulnerability of non-exempt workers in industries such as hospitality, where multiple employers may exert control over day-to-day work without clear accountability. It also highlights growing legal scrutiny over rounding practices, break enforcement, and the use of incentive pay in wage calculations. For California workers, the case underscores the importance of maintaining detailed wage records, adhering to proper final pay practices, and having clear policies regarding rest periods and off-the-clock tasks.

What Comes Next for Pyanova v. 250 4th Development

The plaintiff is seeking class certification, which, if granted, would enable the case to proceed on behalf of a broader group of hotel workers affected by the same alleged violations. The defendants will likely file a demurrer or answer, challenging the claims and opposing certification. If the case proceeds, it may involve discovery, motions for summary judgment, and potentially settlement talks or a trial. The plaintiff has demanded a jury trial and is seeking both monetary compensation and injunctive relief.

FAQ: Pyanova v. 250 4th Development

Q: What laws were allegedly violated?

A: California Labor Code provisions related to overtime, wage statements, expense reimbursement, and break periods.

Q: Could this result in a settlement?

A: Many wage and hour cases do settle before trial, but that will depend on the evidence and negotiations between the parties.

Do you have questions about filing a California employment law complaint? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did Swissport Cargo Services Violate California Wage Laws?

Swissport Cargo Services faced allegations of widespread violations of California labor laws, including unpaid off-the-clock work, missed breaks, and inaccurate wage statements.

Case: Hayes v. Swissport Cargo Services

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 24STCV31 31-0

Hayes v. Swissport Cargo Services: The Plaintiff's Allegations

William Hayes, Jr., a non-exempt, hourly employee at Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., who worked there from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024. Hayes filed a labor law complaint alleging that Swissport engaged in numerous labor law violations:

• Off-the-clock work during meal/rest breaks and before clock-in (e.g., COVID‑19 screenings)

• Wage rounding policies that underpaid employees

• Failure to pay minimum wage and overtime

• Inaccurate or missing itemized wage statements under California Labor Code § 226

• Missing meal and rest breaks under Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512

• Failure to reimburse business expenses (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802)

• Late or missing final pay and sick pay in violation of §§ 201, 202, 203, 233, 246

• Unfair competition under the Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

The Defendant in the Case: Los Angeles, California Employer

Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., is a provider of airport cargo and ground services in Los Angeles, California. The company has not publicly issued a direct denial of the allegations in Hayes v. Swissport Cargo Services, and there is no official statement or court filing indicating that the company has formally responded to the complaint. However, the lack of public response likely indicates that the case is still in its early stages, and Swissport hasn't yet presented its formal position in court.

Key Legal Question: Hayes v. Swissport Cargo Services

At the heart of the case is the question of whether Swissport's timekeeping and compensation practices systematically violated California wage-and-hour laws—encompassing accurate pay for all time worked, legally required breaks, wage statement accuracy, expense reimbursement, and compliance with final wage and sick pay rules. The case is a class action seeking both injunctive relief and financial penalties.

Legal Implications: Hayes v. Swissport Cargo Services

Class action procedures and recovery scope: If certified, workers may claim back wages, penalties (including for missed breaks and wage-statement errors), and reimbursement of expenses.

PAGA exposure: Inaccurate wage statements and missed breaks could trigger additional civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.

Unfair competition liability: The unfair business practices section (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) allows for broader remedies.

Recordkeeping accountability: The complaint challenges common (and longstanding) industry practices, such as employee hour tracking systems that automatically record time down and off-the-clock for mandatory screenings, while highlighting California employers' duty to comply with the state's labor regulations.

FAQ: Hayes v. Swissport Cargo Services

Q: Can workers file a class action over how employers round time entries?

A: Yes. California law does not permit rounding time entries downward if it results in unpaid employee time. Systematic round-down systems can support class-wide claims for unpaid wages and penalties.

Q: Does off-the-clock COVID-19 screening violate wage laws?

A: Potentially. If employees are required to undergo screenings before clocking in and aren't compensated, employers may be liable for unrecorded hours, potentially violating minimum wage, overtime, and breaking laws.

Q: What is the significance of wage-statement violations?

A: Under Cal. Lab. Code § 226, inaccurate wage statements entitle employees to statutory penalties (per pay period) separate from unpaid wages—providing another source of damages.

Q: How does PAGA factor into this case?

A: PAGA allows employees to act as private attorneys general and seek penalties on behalf of the state of California. Violations related to wage statements or missed breaks can trigger additional state penalties.

Q: What remedies are available if the class is certified?

A: Employees could recover back pay, penalties for wage/statement violations, restitution under unfair competition law, expense reimbursements, and comprehensive injunctive relief to correct recordkeeping and payroll practices.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Luxury Retailer Hermès Faces California Class Action for Wage and Hour Violations

Luxury fashion powerhouse Hermès of Paris, Inc. faced serious allegations after a former employee filed a California class action lawsuit claiming that the brand systematically violated labor laws. Justin Lewis filed the original complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court, and the class action could impact a significant number of Hermès employees throughout California.

Case: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris, Inc.

Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Case No.: CGC-24-618955

Case Background: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

In Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris, Inc. (Case No. CGC-24-618955), plaintiff Justin Lewis accuses Hermès of failing to uphold key provisions of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint outlines a pattern of misconduct by Hermès, including:

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Inaccurate or incomplete timekeeping records

• Noncompliant meal and rest break practices

• Potential violations of wage statement requirements

These claims reflect recurring concerns in California's retail and luxury goods sector, where employees often work long shifts under strict supervision, with little room to advocate for basic labor rights.

Plaintiff Details: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

Justin Lewis, the lead plaintiff, alleges that Hermès engaged in a systemic denial of legally protected breaks, as well as underpayment for hours worked beyond the standard 8-hour day or 40-hour week. The suit also argues that the company failed to maintain accurate time records, which is a legal requirement under the California Labor Code. Lewis brings the action as a proposed class representative, seeking to represent other current and former hourly employees who worked for Hermès (who qualify according to the class definitions approved by the court).

Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris: The Defendant, Hermès' Position

As of now, Hermès has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and no formal answer has been filed in court. However, it's expected that the company will deny the allegations and possibly seek to compel arbitration or oppose class certification—a common strategy in wage and hour defense. Luxury retailers like Hermès often maintain detailed internal policies and strict scheduling systems, but California law requires more than precision—it mandates compliance with employee protections designed to prevent exploitation.

What's at Stake for California Workers?

Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris highlights the importance of enforcing California's labor protections, particularly in high-pressure industries like luxury retail. If the class members are successful, the lawsuit could result in:

• Back pay and penalties for unpaid overtime

• Premium pay for missed breaks

• Corrective action regarding timekeeping systems

• Civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

For California workers, this case highlights that even elite employers must adhere to the same standards when it comes to fair labor practices.

FAQ: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

Q: What is this case about?

A: A former Hermès employee filed a class action alleging the company failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, and maintain proper time records in violation of California labor laws.

Q: Who is included in the class?

A: The proposed class includes all hourly, non-exempt Hermès employees in California who may have experienced similar wage and hour violations during the applicable period.

Q: What could Hermès be required to pay?

A: If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, Hermès could owe back wages, penalties, premium pay for missed breaks, and potentially significant civil penalties under PAGA.

Q: Has Hermès responded yet?

A: As of now, Hermès has not filed a formal response in court. The case is in its early stages, and a defense strategy has not been made public yet.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Are California Employees Protected from 24/7 On-Call Requirements?

Dusty Coupwood, a former senior social media analyst and content creator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), filed a lawsuit alleging illegal employment practices related to continuous on-call requirements in alleged violation of California Labor Laws.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 25STCV12374

The Plaintiff: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Dusty Coupwood began his employment with PETA in March 2020, fulfilling a role demanding substantial responsibility as a senior social media analyst and content creator. According to Coupwood, he was expected to comply with PETA's rigorous 24/7 on-call policy that mandated constant availability and frequent engagement with work tasks beyond standard work hours. According to the plaintiff, the policy resulted in Coupwood putting in from 55-60 hours per week. Despite the excessive hours, Coupwood claims that he was only compensated for time actively spent on tasks, which resulted in significant unpaid wages (regular and overtime).

The Defendant: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The defendant, commonly called PETA, is known globally for its animal rights advocacy. However, in this instance, the group finds themselves accused of bad behavior, or more specifically, violating various California labor laws. Allegations brought forward by Coupwood detail that PETA's employment policies required constant employee availability and participation in work tasks without adequate compensation, neglected meal and rest breaks, and engaged in retaliatory behaviors against employees who challenged these practices or sought unionization.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

Filed on April 28, 2025, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, this lawsuit highlights critical issues regarding employer obligations under California labor laws. Coupwood's claims include unpaid wages and overtime, denial of meal and rest periods, inadequate expense reimbursement, and retaliation resulting in wrongful termination. Other employees also filed wage and hour complaints against PETA. After the series of complaints were filed, PETA allegedly terminated several employees involved, creating what the plaintiff describes as a hostile work environment that forced him to resign in July 2024. PETA denies the allegations, asserting that Coupwood's claims lack merit and vowing to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

Can Employers in California Require Employees to be “On Call” 24/7?

Employers in California may require employees to be on-call; however, specific conditions must be met:

• Employees must receive compensation for on-call time if restrictions significantly limit their personal activities.

• An employer is required to pay employees overtime wages for any hours they work over 40 in one work week.

• Employers must ensure compliance with mandated meal and rest breaks, even during on-call periods.

Violating labor law can lead to significant legal consequences, as demonstrated by Coupwood's claims against PETA.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.