Golden State Phone and Wireless Faces Wage Allegations and Class Action

Israel Padron, a San Luis Obispo local, recently filed a class-action wage and hour suit against Golden State Phone and Wireless, his former employer. He alleges that he was not provided with appropriate overtime compensation. The complaint was filed July 20, 2016 on behalf of other employees in similar situations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Israel Padron claims that Golden State Phone & Wireless’s practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff’s complaint included allegations that he worked over 40 hours per workweek between October 2012 and September 2015 and did not receive overtime pay as deemed appropriate by law. He claims that the company miscalculated the overtime rate of pay as they failed to include the value assigned for bonuses and/or commissions applicable to his position with the company.

Employers that either require or allow employees to work overtime are required to provide pay as dictated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay anytime they work in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. The overtime pay is required to be at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The FLSA (with some specific exceptions) requires employers to include bonus payments as a part of the employee’s regular rate of pay when they are calculating their overtime pay in accordance with minimum rates of overtime pay set down by FLSA.

Padron requests that he receive a trial by jury in order to resolve the lawsuit and seeks compensatory, consequential, general and special damages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest on due and/or unpaid wages, legal fees, and other relief that the court may deem justified.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if you have been denied overtime pay by your employer, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Minor League Strikes Out on Wage Claims: Judge Decertifies Collective and Class Actions

Former minor league players who filed a lawsuit claiming Major League Baseball engaged in minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act may feel as if they struck out at the end of a very big game as a federal Magistrate judge in San Francisco sided with the MLB recently when players attempted to have their lawsuits certified as a collective action and class action, respectively.

Previously the judge conditionally certified the proposed collection action under the FLSA (as of October 2015). Yet in the latest ruling, the judge granted the MLB’s motion to decertify. The judge also denied the players (Plaintiffs) request to certify their state law wage and hour claims as a class action. Most see the decertification and denial as a major win for the MLB.

What Are Collective Actions and Class Actions? They both involve groups of plaintiffs joining together in a lawsuit, but they aren’t exactly the same. The most important difference between the two is that plaintiffs who want to be involved in a collective action may simply opt in to the group. Comparatively, those who would not like to be included in a class action must “opt out” or find themselves bound by the resulting judgment on the case.

Plaintiffs in this case allege that the MLB and its clubs were in violation of the FLSA and other, similar, state wage and hour laws. They claim they were paid a total of $3,000-$7,000 over the course of a season lasting five months even though they were working anywhere from 50-70 hours each week throughout the season. The former players also claim that they were paid less than minimum wage, they were denied overtime pay, and they were required to “train” during the off season without compensation.

The July 21, 2016 Order from the Magistrate Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion that state wage and hour claims be certified as a class action. He stated that the plaintiffs’ failed to meet specified legal requirements. He stated that there would be no simple method of identifying who would be a member of the class in various states. He stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the “typicality” requirement was met as the court was unable to determine if representatives for different states presented claims collectively that were typical of the class as a whole. He also stated that the common questions raised by law were not predominant in the face of individual concerns. Conclusively, even though the Judge found the “numerosity” requirement to be met, and the “commonality” requirement to be met, and that the class representatives could protect the interests of the class, he refused to certify.

If you have questions or concerns regarding class certification or if you need to discuss your eligibility to act as representative in a proposed class action, please get in touch with an experienced employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Investigates Ralph’s/Kroger and Stanford University Data Breach

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are currently investigating recent reports of data breaches involving Ralph’s/Kroger and Stanford University. The breach occurred at the big-three credit bureau Equifax, Inc. (NYSE:EFX) and affects both current and former employees of grocery retailer The Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR) and Stanford University.

Kroger Co. is a grocery retailer that does business through a chain of popular grocery stores including QFC, Fred Meyer and Ralphs. Kroger Co. notified employees about the data breach in a letter sent out May 5, 2016 that advised them of the situation. It noted that there was an apparent data breach perpetrated by unknown individuals. These unknown individuals apparently accessed the company’s [Equifax’s] W-2 Express website through the use of default log-in information that was based on a combination of Social Security numbers (SSN) and birth dates.

The W-2Express service is a service provided by Equifax to larger employers like Kroger Co. in order to provide electronic access to employee W-2 forms through the Equifax website. The site database currently has more than 431,000 current and former Kroger employees registered. Data accessed on the site included W2 forms (listing SSNs, addressed, and salaries).

As pointed out by Dailey, the spokesman for Kroger, the popular grocery store chain conglomerate is not the only company to rely on Equifax for electronic access to employee W2 information; nor are they the only company to rely on a combination of SSN and birth date to access the data. Dailey even surmised that it could be the standard setup Equifax relies on for the system.

One month previous to the Kroger/Equifax data breach, Stanford University notified 3,500 of their current and former employees of a similar problem when their data was accessed for purposes of identity theft through the W-2Express database run by Equifax. Northwestern University had a similar issue with 300 employees’ salary and tax data files being accessed through Equifax’s W-2Express portal as well. W-2 data is particularly valuable to thieves interested in identity theft because it contains a large portion of the information they need to request fraudulent tax refunds.

If you have concerns regarding a potential breach of your personal information and you need to discuss your rights with an experienced attorney, please contact us at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We are a leader in our field, experienced and knowledgeable in the representation of employees and consumers who have become victims of data breaches and other labor code violations. Visit our site or contact us directly for more information about how we obtained over $1.3 billion in awards through the course of our long and successful track record in the industry.

Dick’s Sporting Goods Facing Class Action for Texting Program

A proposed class action against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. has been filed in California federal court. Accusations that the sporting goods retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allege that the company sent text messages to consumers after they had opted out of the subscription based alert advertising program. Plaintiff, Phillip Ngiehm, states that he originally agreed to participate in the marketing program, but that he opted out in December 2015 by texting the word “stop” as instructed. According to the terms of the program, this would result in a halt of messages from the program to the subscriber – effectively removing him from the subscriber list.

Dick’s acknowledged that they received the termination of his consent to receive automated text ads, but the advertising messages continued. In fact, Ngiehm received an immediate response when he texted “stop” in order to halt his involvement in the program:

“You have been unsubscribed and will no longer receive messages from us. Reply ‘help’ for help.”

After receiving this acknowledgement, he received eight text messages. This led to the filing of the lawsuit that Dick’s Sporting Goods is currently facing. Plaintiff’s attorney states that all the SMS texts that were received by the plaintiff after he opted out as instructed, were sent without his consent and were thus unauthorized. This leaves the messages in violation of the TCPA. He seeks certification of a national class of people who were in receipt of messages from Dick’s Sporting Goods that were unauthorized. He estimates that the number of eligible class members could be in the thousands. The suit will seek statutory and treble damages as well as an injunction to prohibit Dick’s Sporting Goods from distributing unwanted advertisements by text. The suit will also seek attorneys’ fees and associated costs.

If you have questions regarding class action status and what it means to be eligible for class action membership status, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We can assist you in determining how California labor law applies to your situation. 

CVS $7.5M Wage Deal to Cover One Thousand Pharmacists

Final approval has been granted for the $7.4 million settlement between CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and the class of over 1,000 pharmacists. Pharmacists lodged allegations of unlawful denial of overtime pay when working over six days consecutively. The final approval hearing was held in Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge Elihu M. Berle granting the final approval for the proposed settlement.

Pharmacists included in the class action work or previously worked in three different CVS California regions. They filed a claim that they worked the “seven-day week,” but were not paid overtime. The judge noted that the plaintiffs believed they had viable claims, but that they were also aware that CVS did not believe their practices were in violation of wage and hour laws. The judge felt the settlement was fair and reasonable and that the plaintiffs were appropriately weighing the benefits of prevailing against risks posed by trial and potential delays of appeals, etc.

No class members objected to the settlement. Only seven class members opted out. Claims were filed for 85% of workweeks at issue in approving the settlement/deal. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees of $2.49 million was also approved by the judge.

The three suits were filed in October 2013 alleging violations of California labor code on the part of CVS pharmacy due to requirement of pharmacists working over six days in a row without payment of overtime (time and a half for any hours worked on the seventh day of consecutive work). Preliminary approval was granted by Judge Berle in July after parties used the help of a mediator to come to a tentative agreement.

The agreement will result in each class member receiving approximately $2,846. The actual amount will depend upon the number of workweeks the pharmacist worked during the time period designated by the class action.

If you have questions regarding the class action process or any other southern California employment law issue, please get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We can answer your questions and provide you with the legal counsel you need. 

Quest Diagnostics Faces Allegations of Failure to Pay Overtime

The calculation of overtime requires that employers include any “extra” pay such as commissions or bonuses. When employers fail to do so, they are in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This is the issue that Quest Diagnostics faces in the class action overtime suit they are currently up against.

Lead plaintiff in the class action (Avila v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc. et al.) claims that the Company did not provide proper pay to hundreds of hourly employees. They failed to include automatic incentive payments when they completed overtime rate calculations. The named plaintiff was a referral assistant and testing assistant in the West Hills, California location. She claimed her typical work week was over 40 hours. She also alleges that when she was paid overtime, her non-discretionary bonuses (called “Recognition Quest” and “Goal Sharing Bonus” at Quest Diagnostics) were not included when they calculated her regular rate of pay. This is in violation of state employment law as well as federal law (Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA). She states that her employer miscalculated overtime in this way as a matter of policy. She also claims that over 500 workers can be included in the class that are or were affected by policies and practices addressed by the suit. The lawsuit alleges violations of both FLSA and California Labor Law. It also alleges violations through failure to provide timely wage payment when employment is discontinued and additional violations of California Unfair Competition Law.

Employers should remember that sums employees derive from employment (whether “promised” to them or stated in employment policy, i.e. commissions, earned bonuses, etc.) have to be included when completing calculations of the regular rate (or base rate of pay) in relation to overtime pay. When this is not handled correctly, employers can expect to eventually face a FLSA collective action like the one Quest Diagnostics is currently handling.

If you have questions regarding overtime pay calculations or class action status, please get in touch with the southern California employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Target’s $39M Settlement to Card Issuers’ Regarding Data Breach Claims

A class of banks that sued Target Corp. over the huge 2013 data breach has agreed on a settlement amount of $39 million. The settlement will resolve the long-running dispute. It also goes down in history as the first ever class-wide data breach pact reached on behalf of financial institutions. In the 2013 data breach, over 40 million payment cards that were used to make purchases at Target over the course of a specific three week period were compromised. This occurred during the 2013 holiday season.

The terms of the settlement obtained preliminary approval within two hours of the deal being disclosed. According to the terms of the settlement, Target will pay up to $20.25 million directly to class members. The additional $19.1 million will be paid to fund MasterCard’s Account Data Compromise Program in connection to the breach.

The settlement is applicable to all U.S. financial institutions that issued payment cards that have been identified as “at risk” due to the breach so long as they did not already release their claims against the retailer by signing onto deals with other card brands.

Attorneys for the plaintiff indicated that they felt the agreement was an important result not only because it provided compensation well beyond what the card brand networks offered, but because it will set a precedent that the financial institution behind the method of payment is not always the one to be held responsible for extensive costs in connection to merchant data breaches.

The consolidated class action complaint that resulted in the settlement was filed in August 2014 by Umpqua Bank, Mutual Bank, Village Bank, CSE Federal Credit Union, and First Federal Savings of Lorain. The complaint made allegations that Target was negligent in their responsibilities to protect financial institution data on behalf of their customers and that they violated the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act.

If you have questions regarding the class action process or any other southern California employment law issue, please get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We can answer your questions and provide you with the legal counsel you need.