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.

California Construction Company Faced Labor Law Violation Allegations

A former employee has filed a class action lawsuit against California-based construction firm OHLA USA, Inc., alleging multiple violations of state and federal labor laws tied to unpaid wages, missed breaks, and improper employment practices.

Case: Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court, California Southern District

Case No.: 3:2024cv00871

Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.: The Plaintiff's Allegations

The plaintiff filed an employment law complaint on May 16, 2024, alleging that OHLA USA, Inc. violated labor law during his employment.

The Defendant: Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, OHLA USA, is a construction company. The company is known for building vertical buildings and civil infrastructure. Their projects range from freeway expansions to bridge replacements. OHLA USA is the U.S. division of the worldwide construction company headquartered in Spain. The company had a strong presence in California during the period referenced in the case Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

History of the Case: Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.

According to court documents, the defendants in the case were listed as OHLA USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 50. OHLA filed a motion to dismiss the case less than a month after Gilchrist originally filed. The original complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. A few days later, Gilchrist filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Both parties opposed the other party's motion. Both parties demanded a jury trial.

Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc.: The Presiding Judge

The presiding judge in the case was Michael S Berg. Judge Berg joined the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on November 5, 2018. University of San Diego (USD) School of Law alumnus, before being appointed a U.S. District Court judge, Berg was a criminal defense attorney for 36 years. During his time as a California attorney, Berg successfully represented multiple high-profile cases in San Diego, including the first-ever death penalty case filed in California's U.S. District Court for the Southern District.

Legal Implications Under Federal Class Action Law

Because this case was filed in U.S. District Court, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)—a federal statute that broadens the reach of federal courts in class action matters. CAFA permits class action lawsuits to proceed in federal court when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and there is minimal diversity, meaning at least one member of the class is from a state different from the defendant's.

This expanded jurisdiction gives corporate defendants, such as OHLA USA, Inc., more flexibility to remove wage and hour class actions from California state courts to federal venues, which are often viewed as more favorable to employers. Additionally, CAFA gives federal appellate courts the discretion to review decisions that either grant or deny motions to return these cases to state court—a process known as remand. The process adds a procedural layer that can influence how quickly and in what forum employee claims are resolved.

Finally, if the lawsuit results in a class action settlement, CAFA imposes special oversight requirements. These include mandatory government notifications and judicial scrutiny of certain settlement types, especially those involving "coupon settlements" or incentive awards. For employees, this means added transparency and oversight, but also potentially longer timelines.

FAQ: Lewis v. Hermès

Q: Why was the Gilchrist v. OHLA USA, Inc. case filed in federal court instead of California state court?

A: The case was filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1453 Class Action Fairness Act or CAFA), which allows class action lawsuits to be brought in federal court if certain conditions are met, such as minimal diversity between parties and a total amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The conditions give defendants broader options to avoid state court proceedings.

Q: How does CAFA impact workers involved in California wage and hour class actions?

A: CAFA can lead to longer case timelines and more complex procedures, but it also requires stricter judicial oversight of class action settlements, including greater transparency and official review—protections that can ultimately benefit employees.

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.

Former Morgue Attendant Wins Wrongful Termination Suit: He's Nowhere to Be Found

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court jury awarded a plaintiff who claimed wrongful termination $2.4 million. There was only one problem: no one knew where to find the plaintiff.

Case: Daniel Ridge v. Alameda Health System/Highland Hospital

Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Case No.: RG17847260

Daniel Ridge v. Alameda Health System/Highland Hospital: The Plaintiff's Allegations

Daniel Ridge worked as a morgue attendant for a hospital in Oakland from June 2006 to 2013. For years, Ridge received positive feedback in his evaluations, but near the end of 2013, Ridge took a leave of absence to address PTSD that had been left untreated for decades. After taking leave, Ridge was dismissed from his position. Ridge filed a lawsuit against Alameda Health System, claiming wrongful termination. In essence, he launched a legal battle against his former employer while simultaneously fighting his own mental health demons.

Key Legal Question: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

At the heart of the case is the question: Did the Alameda Health System unlawfully terminate Daniel Ridge's employment in violation of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), particularly in light of his mental health condition and ongoing protected medical leave? Additionally, Ridge's complaint included allegations regarding wages and hour law.

Does this Case Carry Any Significant Legal Implications?

The legal implications of Ridge v. Alameda Health System are significant, particularly for California employers navigating medical leave, mental health accommodations, and alleged wrongful termination. This case reinforces that:

• Medical leave rights are not optional;

• Mental health accommodations are legally protected;

• Retaliation or termination during protected leave can lead to costly judgments and

• Employers must handle all medical leave matters with transparency, documentation, and compliance.

Ridge v. Alameda Health System: The Employer's Position

Alameda Health System, the defendant, operates five hospitals and four wellness centers, offering 800 beds and employing approximately 1,000 physicians. Ridge claims his former employer, Alameda Health Systems, dismissed him from his job at a county morgue because he took leave (in compliance with labor law).

Why This Case Matters: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

This case underscores the critical protections California law provides to employees facing mental health challenges, particularly regarding medical leave and workplace safety. It sends a clear message that terminating an employee during a protected leave—especially after they've raised health or safety concerns—can result in significant legal and financial consequences.

What Comes Next for Ridge v. Alameda Health System

Eight years after the initial wrongful termination filing, the judge awarded 49-year-old Ridge $2.4 million; however, Ridge was not in court when the judge announced the verdict in his favor. Ridge's attorneys are unable to locate him. While Ridge managed to file suit to protect his rights after his employer dismissed him from his job at the county morgue, the case dragged on as his mental health deteriorated. Ridge's struggle to maintain his mental health became so difficult that he was unfit to testify in court and eventually fell into homelessness. Estranged from his family (including his 10-year-old son), Ridge is assumed to be somewhere amongst the homeless population in the Oakland area. His attorneys are not optimistic that they'll be able to locate him among the thousands of homeless people in the area.

FAQ: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

Q: Can an employer terminate an employee who is out on medical leave for mental health reasons?

A: No. Both the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protect employees who take medical leave for conditions like PTSD or depression. As long as the employee follows reasonable procedures (e.g., providing documentation), termination during this time can be considered a form of discrimination or workplace retaliation.

Q: What happens if an employer fires a worker before their leave paperwork is processed?

A: Such an action is a high-risk move for employers. In Ridge's case, the hospital allegedly fired him immediately after he returned with his FMLA paperwork. Employers should be aware that the courts view terminations that coincide with leave requests or active medical leave as suspicious, and such actions can easily lead to wrongful termination claims.

Q: Does California labor law consider mental health conditions the same as physical disabilities?

A: Yes. FEHA considers conditions like PTSD and depression disabilities, so employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations, such as time off or adjustments to the workplace.

Q: What happens if an employee raises workplace safety concerns before being terminated?

A: If an employee reports unsafe or unsanitary working conditions—especially involving health hazards—and is then terminated, this may be considered illegal retaliation under California Labor Code Section 1102.5. In Ridge's case, his concerns about toxic chemicals and morgue conditions added weight to his claims.

Q: Can a jury award damages even if the employee claiming wrongful termination isn't present in court to testify?

A: Yes, if a plaintiff in a wrongful termination lawsuit is not present in court and cannot testify, the court can still find in their favor. Ridge's attorneys presented compelling evidence of employer wrongdoing, which resulted in a substantial jury award even though Ridge was not present.

Do you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Rivisn'te, 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.

RTX Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement Approved for $19.9M

Employees in California have secured preliminary approval of a substantial $19.9 million settlement with subsidiaries of aerospace and defense giant RTX Corp., resolving allegations regarding wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-00574

The Plaintiff: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

Nathaniel Morgan, a former employee of Rohr Inc., initiated this class-action lawsuit, later joined by plaintiffs Michael Bevan and Antonee Harris. Morgan alleged the company consistently violated labor laws associated with meal periods/rest breaks, overtime compensation, minimum wages, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The plaintiffs represented a broader class of approximately 1,755 non-exempt union employees.

The Defendant: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The defendants in this case include Rohr Inc., Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (or Collins Aerospace), and their parent company RTX Corp., formerly United Technologies Corp. before its merger with Raytheon. Rohr Inc., responsible for the entire settlement payout, faced allegations of systematically breaching California labor laws by inadequately compensating employees and neglecting mandated employment standards.

The Case: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The case was filed in March 2019 in California state court but was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit underwent extensive litigation (multiple rounds of discovery, document production, and depositions, including more than 30 witnesses). The case also required significant employment data analysis. Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval for a $19.9 million settlement after deeming it fair and reasonable (especially considering the risks of ongoing litigation). Initially, a trial was scheduled for June 2024. However, the parties resolved the complaint in settlement discussions before the case could go to trial. Under the settlement, $500,000 will address claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and $100,000 is specifically allocated to collective claims under FLSA.

The Implications of the California Class Action Case:

California workers and employers alike should heed the implications of this case, emphasizing diligent adherence to labor laws to avoid costly disputes and settlements.

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.