When Can the ABC Test be Applied?

In a recent California employment law case, the question is asked, “When can the ABC test be applied? Do workers need to establish they were hired before the ABC test applies?”

The Case: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The Court: Calif. App. 5th

The Case No.: C087709 Super. Ct. No. 34201600190824 COEDS

The Plaintiff: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., are unlicensed flooring installers. The plaintiffs worked for Roussos Construction installing floors. According to court documents, there were three people who worked “between” the plaintiffs and the company, Roussos. The plaintiffs refer to these three individuals as “supervisors.” Roussos referred to these three individuals as “subcontractors.”

The Defendant: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

Roussos Construction is a general contractor. At trial, Roussos maintained that they use independent contractors (the three referred to by plaintiffs as supervisors and by the company as subcontractors) licensed to perform work outside of Roussos Construction’s contractor’s license, and that the subcontractors hired the plaintiffs, paid the plaintiffs, and are responsible for complying with applicable labor laws in regards to the plaintiffs.

The Case: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The parties involved in the case, Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., disagreed about appropriate jury instruction with Roussos arguing that the ABC Test used to determine employee vs. independent contractor status can only be applied after it is established that the workers were hired by Roussos or by Roussos’ agent. The plaintiffs in the case argued that case law does not establish a “hiring test” alongside the ABC Test articulated in the Dynamex Ops. W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court opinion that led to the adoption of the ABC Test in California. In the end, the trial court agreed with the defendant, instructing the jury to make a predicate finding of whether or not Roussos Construction was the hiring entity. After receiving this instruction, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts.

Do Workers Need to Establish They Were Hired Before the ABC Test Applies?

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the wage and hour counts involving the ABC Test holding that there was no “threshold hiring entity test” created or intended by the Dynamex court. In conclusion, the Court of Appeals found that workers do not need to establish they were hired before the ABC Test can be applied.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Wage and Hour Lawsuit: CAFA Amount in Controversy Requirement

In recent news, Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that defendant, Roadrunner, failed to meet the burden to establish the required $5 million minimum for the CAFA amount in controversy requirement and remanded to district court for further proceedings.

The Case: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 22-55058

The Plaintiff: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Griselda Jauregui, filed a putative class action against Roadrunner Transportation Services on behalf of all Roadrunner and former California hourly workers. The plaintiff alleged violations of California labor law, primarily wage and hour violations.

The Defendant: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

When the Defendant, Roadrunner, removed the case to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under CAFA, the plaintiff responded with a motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The district court found that Roadrunner failed to meet its burden to establish the requisite $5 million minimum for the amount in controversy, and remanded the matter to state court.

The Case Continues: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

Roadrunner relied heavily on their senior payroll lead’s conclusion that company payroll data and the plaintiff’s allegations held the amount in controversy to be in excess of $14.7 million. Before granting the motion to remand, the district court independently evaluated Roadrunner’s calculations for each of the seven claims/alleged violations. The district court found that Roadrunner sufficiently demonstrated the claimed amount for 2 of the seven claims, but the district court disagreed with the defendant’s calculations for the other 5 claims, and assigned each of these 5 claims with a value of $0. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court’s decision to remand based on what they identified as two primary errors: putting a “thumb on the scale” against removal, and assigning a $0 value to claims because they disagreed with one or more assumptions involved in the defendant’s estimates. The Ninth Circuit also held that nothing in CAFA or case law compels this type of drastic response when a district court disagrees with a single assumption underlying a claim valuation. According to the panel, Roadrunner met the CAFA amount in controversy requirements. If the lowest hourly wage rate identified by the district court is used the minimum wage claim is reasonably valued at $4.5 million. The two other claims accepted by the district court were valued at $2.1 million. These two claims’ values combined is more than enough to establish jurisdiction under CAFA without even considering the valuation of the additional claims that the district court valued at $0. Based on this, the panel remanded the matter to district court for additional proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss wage and hour violations, 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.

California Resident Seeking to Challenge Non-Compete

Michael Jed Sewell, a California resident, responded to a breach of employment agreement claim with his own breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and California wage and hour claims.

The Case: LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court

The Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District

The Case No.: 20 ECG 01508

The Breach of Employment Agreement Claim:

A Utah limited liability company formed in Delaware and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, LGCY, filed suit against Michael Jed Sewell, a California resident, and six other LGCY executives and managers after they left the company and started a competing company. Sewell was a former sales representative and eventually a sales manager for LGCY. In 2015, Sewell signed a “Solar Representative Agreement,” which included language about noncompetition, non solicitation and confidentiality as well as Utah choice of law and forum provisions. Four years later, in 2019, Sewell and several others at the company left to form a competing solar sales company. LGCY filed suit in Utah State Court against all seven former executives and managers citing breach of their employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, etc. Four of the defendants (not including Sewell) filed a joint cross-complaint against LGCY in the Utah court proceeding unsuccessfully seeking to dismiss LGCY’s action.

Filing a Cross-Complaint in California to Defend Against Claims:

Sewell did not join the cross complaint filed by four of his co-defendants in Utah court. Instead, Sewell filed a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court. Sewell’s complaint alleges almost identical claims as those filed by his co defendants in Utah.

Can Sewell File a Cross Complaint in California?

According to the Court of Appeal, California Labor Code Section 925 allows for an exception to California’s compulsory cross-complaint statute (Code Civ. Proc., Section 426.30) enabling an employee who comes within Section 925’s purview to file a California complaint based on allegations related to causes of action an employer filed against them in a pending action in a sister state. Additionally, the clause does not require California to extend credit or apply the sister state’s compulsory cross-complaint statute. LGCY petitioned for a writ of mandate, but their attempt to get Sewell’s California action dismissed was unsuccessful. The court found that the company did not demonstrate that the Fresno County Superior Court erred in overruling its demurrer.

The Findings of the Court:

The Court of Appeal denied LGCY’s writ petition based on Cal. Lab. Code Section 925 being an exception to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 426.30(a), the compulsory cross-complaint rule that LGCY argued required Sewell to file cross claims in the Utah action. The court found that Sewell satisfied the requirement of Section 925 requesting the trial court void the contract under the statute (voiding the contract required a judicial determination). The court also noted that the changes in Sewell’s work responsibilities, title, and compensation since Section 925 went into effect sufficiently qualified the contract for the application of the statute. The California court also rejected LGCY’s claim that the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution required them to recognize Utah’s compulsory cross-complaint statute.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Former Credit One Bank HR Generalist’s Disability Suit Proceeds After Ninth Circuit Reversal

Due to District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey’s reversal, a former HR Generalist’s disability claim against Credit One Bank will proceed.

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-15647

The Plaintiff: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff in the case, Karen Shields, was an HR Generalist for Credit One Bank. After she took a medical leave of absence (citing an accommodation under the ADA), Shields claims her position was eliminated. According to Shields, her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Instead of allowing or providing appropriate accommodations after Shields underwent a bone biopsy surgery on her right shoulder and arm, the plaintiff claims that her employer terminated her from her human resources job.

The Defendant: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The defendant in the case, Credit One Bank, argued that Shields failed to plead a disability because she didn’t adequately support a claim showing a physical or mental impairment that would “substantially limit one or more major life activities.” The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the argument that Shields failed to adequately establish she had an “impairment” or “permanent or long term effects from an impairment.”

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit noted that the broadened ADA and applicable EEOC regulations protect effects of “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months (29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix)). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit court held that Shields, the plaintiff in the case, adequately alleged a disability under the ADA standards.

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

Former Diversity Recruiter Sues Google for Discrimination

April Curley, former diversity recruiter for Google, filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit. The class-action joins a long list of legal action from former employees ranging from sexual harassment to gender discrimination, many resulting in significant settlements.

The Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division

The Case No.: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR

The Plaintiff: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, April Curley, is a former Diversity Recruiter for Google, LLC. Curley was hired to work for Google in 2014. She claims that during her six years with the tech giant she helped them hire 500 students from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In March, Curley filed a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court alleging that Black employees at Google were told they didn’t get the corporate “culture,” they weren’t “googly” enough, and were often pigeon-holed into jobs with no chance for advancement, less visibility, deficient pay, etc. Curley also claims that black employees often received harsher job reviews, were given tougher interview questions, and were always asked to show their badge or other proof of employment. In response to the inconsistencies between her work as a Diversity Recruiter and actual business practices she alleges she saw in force at Google, Curley was very clear with her leadership about what needed to be changed. Instead of rewarding her for being proactive, Curley claims the company retaliated against her by subjecting her to policies and behaviors that she alleges were blatantly racist and biased. Curley claims they were both degrading and emotionally damaging. In 2020, Curley was terminated. Now she’s suing the company for systemic discrimination.

The Defendant: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Defendant in the case, Google, LLC, is a tech giant that has faced a long string of legal battles with discrimination claims ranging from age discrimination to pregnancy discrimination. In April Curley v. Google, LLC, the company faces accusations of racial discrimination from one of their former Diversity Recruiters, April Curley.

Details of the Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

Curley claims that during her time at the company, her white managers told her the way she speaks is a disability that should be disclosed to partners internally and externally before she conducts any meetings. She also claims that leadership at Google told her she was intimidating and unwelcoming so she was never considered for leadership positions. (The same woman who advised Curley of this also advised her that Google couldn’t afford her promotion). The Curley v. Google, LLC lawsuit seeks a court injunction to change policy and obtain back pay for Curley and other black employees allegedly denied promotion opportunities. Parties in the case are scheduled to be back in court on July 11th, 2022 for a Cas Management Conference.

If you have questions about California employment law or 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.

Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. Face Allegations of Failing to Pay All Wages

In recent news, Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. face a class action alleging a failure to pay all wages.

The Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

According to the plaintiff in the case, Chamberlain, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failed to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees, failed to provide wages when due, and failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses (see California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 for more info).

The Defendant: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The defendant in the case is Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. The company operates and conducts business in the state of California, Yolo County. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc were joint employers of Chamberlan according to contracts signed by parties involved. As such, the parties are jointly responsible for any allegations.

More Details of the Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

Due to rigorous work schedules, Classic VMS and Collision Pro's employees allegedly couldn’t take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty during their “off duty” meal periods. The Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. lawsuit alleges employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks and required to complete tasks for their employer. Allegations indicate that employees were required to work over 5 hours without an off-duty meal break (as is required by law). Additionally, allegations indicate that when employees worked ten hours of work their employer did not provide them with the second off-duty meal period required by law. The Defendants’ policy allegedly kept employees on-call and on-duty during their off-duty breaks. The policy resulted in employees regularly forfeiting meal breaks without receiving compensation as required by law. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ strict corporate policy and practice caused them to regularly forfeit meal breaks with no additional compensation. The class-action lawsuit, Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc., is currently pending in the Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Metro Air Service Inc. Allegedly Failed to Pay Sick Pay Wages

A recent lawsuit alleges that Metro Air Service Inc. failed to pay sick pay wages.

The Case: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22STCV14964

The Plaintiff: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Metro Airservice Inc. in California from April 15, 2021 to May 13, 2021. At all times during his employment, the plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due time employees worked.

The Defendant: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The defendant in the case, Metro Airservice Inc., faces allegations of labor law violations. Metro Airservice Inc. is a corporation that conducts substantial business in the state of California as an air services provider.

Case Details: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc. case alleges that Metro Service Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime pay, failed to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide employees with wages when due, and failed to pay employees sick page wages (under applicable Labor Code sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802 and the applicable Wage Order(s)). The allegations give rise to civil penalties. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Metro Airservice Inc. underpaid sick pay wages.

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