Alleged Failure to Offer Employee Breaks: Did Starbucks Violate Labor Law?

A California worker filed a PAGA-only action alleging that Starbucks engaged in labor code violations.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.:25CV121089

The Plaintiff: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The plaintiff, Sarah Verduzco, was employed at a California Starbucks location from 2014 to December of 2024. Verduzco claims that due to standard operating procedures in place at the coffee shop, employees worked off the clock and were not paid full wages. According to the applicable California Wage Order, employers are required to provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The plaintiff filed a PAGA-only suit seeking penalties for the alleged violations; doing so allows the State of California to enforce state labor laws through the employee. By filing under PAGA, the employee acts as a proxy for the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. Seeking civil penalties under PAGA is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect the public rather than benefit private parties. Instead of seeking to recover damages or restitution, parties filing a PAGA-only action seek to act as a “deputized” private attorney general and enforce the labor code.

The Defendant: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, is the owner/operator of coffee shops throughout California (and the rest of the world). According to the California wage and hour lawsuit, Starbucks allegedly failed to provide its eligible, non-exempt, hourly employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Allegations: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

According to the plaintiff, Starbucks engaged in several day-to-day operating practices that violated labor law and negatively affected their employees, such as:

Off the Clock Work: The plaintiff claims that employees were (from time to time) required to work while they were clocked out on their off-duty meal break.

Shorting Employee Pay: The plaintiff claims that Starbucks’ established company policy and procedure of rounding employees’ actual time worked meant employees received less pay than if the company paid them for the actual hours they worked.

Unpaid Mandatory Covid-19 Checks: As a result of requiring employees to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screenings before clocking in to their work shift, the plaintiff claims employees were subjected to additional off-the-clock hours.

As a result of these combined policies and procedures, the plaintiff alleges that Starbucks violated multiple labor laws protecting minimum wage, overtime pay, employee meal breaks and rest periods, as well as wage and hour standards.

Should Incentive Pay Be Included in the Base Rate of Pay for Overtime Calculations?

In the complaint, the plaintiff also specifically questioned Starbucks’ treatment of employees’ incentive pay when calculating overtime pay. According to Verduzco, Starbucks had a non-discretionary incentive program in place that provided incentive wages to employees based on their performance. All hourly employees were eligible to participate in the incentive program. During the hiring process, management described the incentive program to potential new hires as part of the compensation package. However, when Starbucks determines the regular rate of pay to use in calculations to pinpoint overtime pay rates, and meal/rest break premiums (for missed breaks), the defendant failed to include the incentive wages. According to Verduzco’s complaint, failing to include the incentive wages as part of the “regular rate of pay” is a labor law violation.

FAQ: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

Q: What exactly is a “PAGA-only” lawsuit, and how does it help employees?

A: A PAGA-only action lets a worker act on behalf of California's labor department and sue an employer for civil penalties on the state’s behalf. Unlike a class action (which seeks back wages for each employee and other damages if applicable), a PAGA case seeks penalties meant to deter future labor law violations and protect the public. If the claim succeeds, 75% of the penalties will go to the State of California, while 25% is distributed among the affected employees, still putting money in workers’ pockets while holding the employer publicly accountable.

Q: Do California meal and rest break laws really require that I be completely off the clock?

A: Yes, California law is clear on this issue. Rest periods must be “off-duty,” which means workers are relieved of all work duties and employer control. If your employer calls you back to the register, asks you to prepare drinks, or keeps you “on stand-by” during a break, the time does not count as a lawful rest period, and you are owed premium pay.

Q: My paycheck includes a performance bonus. Should that raise my overtime rate?

A: Yes, it should. When a bonus or incentive is non-discretionary (promised in advance and tied to measurable goals), it must be built into the employee’s “regular rate of pay.” The higher rate then becomes the basis for calculating overtime and missed-break premiums. Excluding incentive pay, as alleged in this case, artificially lowers overtime wages and violates California labor law.

Q: I went through mandatory health screenings before clocking in during COVID-19. Can I claim unpaid wages for that time?

A: Possibly. If the mandatory health screenings were required and you weren’t allowed to clock in first, that waiting time is considered “hours worked.” California law requires you to be paid for all hours your employer controls your activities, including brief pre-shift tasks such as health checks or temperature screenings. You may be entitled to back pay, penalties, and interest for any off-the-clock time.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action, please get in touch with 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.

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.

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.

California Wage and Labor Law Violation Claim: Exela Enterprise & Novitex Accused of Denying Meal Breaks

In a class action lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, employees allege that Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and Novitex Government Solutions violated California labor law when they failed to provide workers with their legally mandated meal breaks, which allegedly resulted in unpaid wages.

The Case: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

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

The Case No.: 24STCV31304

The Plaintiff: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

The plaintiff, Merclyn Brown, filed a claim on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, alleging that the company systematically failed to offer appropriate meal breaks. This allegedly caused workers to lose compensation for the time they worked without receiving their required off-duty breaks and rest periods. According to the complaint, failing to comply with meal and rest break requirements deprived the employer's workers of needed rest and led to significant wage discrepancies and California labor law violations.

The Defendant: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and Novitex Government Solutions are accused of failing to fulfill their statutory obligations under California employment law by not providing the required meal breaks. The companies argue that any lapses in break administration were isolated incidents; however, the plaintiff maintains that such oversights were part of an ongoing, systemic issue that directly impacted the employees' earnings.

The Case: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Brown claims that employees were not given their mandated meal breaks due to inadequate scheduling practices and insufficient staffing, which led to alleged wage violations due to the uncompensated hours. The California wage and hour lawsuit seeks to enforce the workers' statutory rights and ensure all employees are adequately compensated for their hours (in compliance with California labor law).

What Should You Do If Your Employer Does Not Provide Your Legally Required Meal Breaks?

If you believe your California employer isn't providing you with your legally mandated meal breaks, start by meticulously documenting your work hours and any breaks you miss. Next, review your wage statements to find any discrepancies and report any to the company's human resources department. If the matter remains unresolved after you report the issue to HR, consider consulting an employment law attorney to discuss possible legal actions that could help.

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.

Did Core Analytics Radiology Violate Wage and Hour Law?

After a recent California lawsuit filing, Core Analytics Radiology faces wage and hour violation allegations.

Case Details: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

The plaintiff, Lere Garrett, started working at Core Analytics Radiology in July 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to the protections of labor law. During his employment, Garrett alleges Core Analytics Radiology exhibited several California Labor Code violations, including failing to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods.

Core Analytics Radiology, a California Employer:

The defendant, Core Analytics Radiology, owns and operates a clinical laboratory and mobile X-ray.

The Allegations: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to the plaintiff's allegations, the California employer allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wage (California Labor Code Sections §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1)

• Failing to pay overtime (California Labor Code Sections §§ 510, et seq)

• Failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods (California Labor Code Sections §§ 226.7 & 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order)

• Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements (California Labor Code Sections §§ 226)

• Failing to pay wages when due (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202 AND 203)

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses (California Labor Code Sections §§ 2802).

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to court documents, the company's rigorous work schedules allegedly prevented its employees from taking off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the employees were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were regularly interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks so they could complete work tasks for the company. The California class action is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Hogan Truck Leasing Class Action Looks at Meal Break Violations Affecting Wages

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint allegint that Hogan Truck Leasing's standard operating practices failed to provide workers with the required off duty meal periods and rest breaks.

The Case: Luther Hill v. Hogan Truck Leasing

The Court: California's County of San Bernardino Superior Court

The Case No.:CIVSB2500366

California Labor Law Mandates Meal Breaks and Rest Periods for Eligible Employees

The plaintiff in the case, Luther Hill, filed a class action complaint against Hogan Truck Leasing. Hill alleged the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks during his time at the company. According to Hill, the Hogan Truck Leasing employees' rigorous work schedules prevented workers from taking off-duty meal breaks and kept them from being fully relieved of their job duties for rest periods. In addition, when an employee missed their off-duty breaks, they were allegedly not provided with one hour of wages in lieu of the break (as required by labor law).

Did Hogan Truck Leasing Fail to Pay Workers for All Time Worked?

According to the plaintiff, Hogan Truck Leasing's standard practices failed to provide workers with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. As a result of this standard practice, the plaintiff alleges that Hogan Truck Leasing failed to pay its employees for all their hours.

Allegations Stemming from Alleged Meal Break and Rest Period Practices

According to the Hill's allegations, Hogan Truck Leasing violated numerous California labor laws governing:

• Minimum wage requirements

• Overtime pay requirements

• Meal break/rest period requirements

• Timely payment of wages

• Accurate itemized wage statements

• Reimbursement of necessary business expenses

The Case: Luther Hill v. Hogan Truck Leasing

Luther Hill filed the California class action lawsuit in California's San Bernardino County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California meal break lawsuit, let Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP help. 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.

Evergreen Environmental Services Class Action: California Employer Allegedly Failed to Pay All Wages

Antonio Melgarejo recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Evergreen Environmental Services violated labor code. According to the California class action, the California employer failed to provide employees with required off duty meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in additional alleged violations.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV34126

Why Did Melgarejo File the California Class Action?

The plaintiff, Antonio Melgarejo, filed the class action complaint on behalf of himself and other workers in similar positions at the company. Melgarejo claims that Evergreen failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods; which are both required by labor law.

The Defendant: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The defendant, Evergreen Environmental Services, allegedly required their workers to complete job tasks before and after their scheduled shift. Additionally, workers were required to fulfill job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Evergreen Environmental Services did not compensate the employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods or for mandatory "off the clock" work. As a result, the California employer faces allegations of numerous labor law violations.

What Happens When California Employers Don't Comply with Labor Laws?

When California employers fail to comply with labor laws, they can face legal consequences. In this class action, the plaintiff included numerous labor law violation allegations, including those pertaining to minimum wage, overtime wages, timely payment of wages, meal breaks/rest periods, accurate itemized wages statements, and reimbursement of required business expenses. The plaintiff claims that the California employer's actions potentially violated multiple California Labor Codes.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The plaintiff filed the California class action, Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services, in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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.