Burma Superstar Restaurant Workers Awarded $1.3M in Class Action Suit

Burma Superstar restaurant workers alleging failure to pay overtime and failure to provide required sick leave were awarded a $1.3 million class-action settlement.

Local California Restaurant Accused of Unfair and Unpaid Wages:

Owners of local restaurant chain Burma Superstar (with locations in Oakland, Alameda, and San Francisco) face allegations including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay mandatory overtime, failure to provide sick leave, and failure to provide mandatory rest periods and meal breaks.

Current and Former California Restaurant Workers File Class Action Lawsuit:

The California class action was filed in Alameda County Superior Court. Class members include 350 current and former Burma Superstar kitchen workers. In June 2020, the California judge hearing the case issued a $1.3 million settlement in favor of the plaintiffs. The workers are proud that they stood up for themselves and hope they made some real change. One of the plaintiffs who went on record was William Navarette, a Burma Superstar dishwasher, food preparer, and cook. Navarette was employed by the local California restaurant from 2011 through 2016 and worked at all three locations in San Francisco, Oakland, and Alameda.

Workers Allege California Labor Law Violations:  

According to the lawsuit, workers were required to work full-time hours (8 hours per day and 40 hours per week), but were not classified as full-time employees by Burma Superstar restaurant. Workers also allege that the restaurant did not provide the required 30-minute meal breaks or mandatory 10 minute rest periods as outlined by labor laws. According to the court documents, workers allege they were provided a fixed salary that totaled less than 2x California’s minimum wage.

The Defendant’s Response to the Allegations:  

Burma Superstar owner, Desmond Tan, said the restaurant has always been and continues to be dedicated to the well-being of their workers. They strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and claim they settled the suit to move forward. They’re glad it’s over and can now look forward to doing what they love, providing Bay area residents with the best Burmese cuisine.

The Pandemic Caused Massive Decrease in Traffic:

Before the novel coronavirus was declared a pandemic, the Burma Superstar restaurants typically had lines out the door. Californians happily waited for a table at one of their popular locations. During these challenging times, restaurants like Burma Superstar depend heavily on community support and dedicated employees – restaurant workers are a huge part of any restaurant’s success. In addition to the $1.3 million settlement, Burma Superstar restaurants also agreed to restore tips to their kitchen staff, return back holiday and time-off benefits, and provide Burmese, Spanish, and Chinese translations of their employee handbooks. 

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

Carter’s Facing California Class Action After Alleged Employment Law Violations

Carter’s Retail, Inc. faces multiple employment law allegations. The plaintiffs filed the California class-action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, and the suit is currently pending.

Carter’s Allegedly Violated Employment Law:

Plaintiffs allege that Carter’s Retail, Inc. violated employment law by failing to provide accurate wage statements and failing to provide required meal breaks and rest periods.

Plaintiff Claims Carter’s Did Not Pay for All Hours Worked:

In the case, the plaintiff alleges that Carter’s Retail, Inc. failed to provide accurate pay for all the hours they worked or were “under the Defendant’s control.” The inaccurate calculation of wages for overtime worked is a direct violation of both federal and state employment law. Carter’s Retail, Inc. allegedly failed to conduct accurate wage calculations to unlawfully and unilaterally avoid paying employees overtime compensation they earned. According to labor law, employers must pay employees an overtime wage that is one-and-a-half times their “regular rate of pay” when they work overtime hours. Overtime hours are defined as being more than 8 in one day or more than 40 in one workweek.

Off the Clock Work Allegations Included in Overtime Class Action:

On top of allegations that the company purposefully avoided paying overtime to their employees, the plaintiffs allege that Carter’s Retails, Inc. required them to work “off the clock” or when they were clocked out. The “off the clock work” allegedly occurred during the plaintiff’s off-duty meal break. According to allegations made in the class-action lawsuit, the Defendant also occasionally failed to provide employees with their second meal period – meaning that the employees were required to work 10 hours without the accurate pay or meal breaks. The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order requires employers to pay employees for all time worked.

What is the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order?

The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) was created to monitor and regulate wages, hours, and California working conditions. California employers are required to post IWC wage orders in accessible areas frequented regularly by employees so that all employees have easy access to the information and can easily read it during their workday.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

UPS Employees Allege Employment Law Violations in Recent California Class Action

UPS employees cite various employment law violations in a recent lawsuit. Not the first, but the latest class-action lawsuit filed against UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., this suit claims employees were not paid overtime, did not meet minimum wage requirements, failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, etc. The lawsuit (Case 3:19-CV-07551-RS) is pending in Riverside County Superior Court. The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of California but was moved to the Northern District of California in November 2019.

California State Labor Law Provides Employees with Protection:

California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked, including all the time that a worker is under the “company’s control.” UPS faces allegations that they failed to compensate their workers in a California warehouse for time spent on mandatory security checks.  

Did Mandatory Security Checks Violate Employment Law?

According to claims in the class action, UPS required warehouse employees to complete security checks on their way into the premises and again on their way out. This occurred when they arrived for the shift, as well as when they came and went for lunch or rest breaks. To complete the security checks, workers had to wait in line for their turn to undergo security screenings. Time spent waiting in line, completing the security screening, and walking to and from the screening area to the time clock was not counted as hours worked, so workers were not compensated for any of the time.

Are Workers Under Employer’s Control During Security Checks?

Class members in the suit argue that the time spent going to and from and completing security checks constitute a type of control the employer held over the workers, and the time should, therefore, be compensated. Lawsuit documents argue that the UPS workers are owed minimum wage (and overtime when applicable) for any hours they spend complying with the UPS security check requirements. As the workers were also under the company’s control for part of their lunch breaks and rest periods, the class members argue that UPS did not comply with the law by relieving employees of “all duties” during their legally mandated breaks. Due to time spent completing the mandatory security checks, employees’ meal breaks were shortened to less than the legally required 30-minute meal break and 10 minute rest periods defined by state law. The lawsuit seeks an hour’s worth of pay at the employees’ regular rates of pay for each non-compliant meal break or rest period. 

Is UPS Violating Federal and State Labor Laws?

Seasonal workers on the east coast accused UPS Inc. of federal and state labor law violations in a suit filed in New York federal court. The temporary or seasonal workers, Lalynda Hedges and Zyaire Simmons, worked at New York UPS facilities during the peak season, October 2018 – January 2019. They allege UPS violated labor law by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an overtime or wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Chipotle Workers Denied Class Action Certification

California Chipotle workers were recently denied certification of a potential class action. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California explained that at the class certification stage, it isn’t enough to assert that there were company-wide policies. The plaintiffs must prove that the alleged policies exist on a “company-wide basis.”

About the Discrimination Case: Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

The plaintiffs brought the class-action lawsuit alleging that Chipotle systematically discriminated against Hispanic or Mexican workers with claims under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Plaintiffs in the case sought class certification with a proposed class of about 43,000 workers (mostly Hispanic or Mexican hourly workers). The suit alleged numerous discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims based on two alleged Chipotle policies:

What Chipotle Policies Led to the Discrimination Suit?

English-Only Policy: Plaintiffs in the case alleged there was an unwritten policy that prohibited Chipotle employees from speaking Spanish on the job.

Promotion Policy: The plaintiffs in the case also alleged that an unwritten Chipotle policy required a subjective English proficiency before a Chipotle employee could be promoted to a management position.

Were Alleged Unwritten Policies Company-Wide?

The plaintiff employees alleged that the unwritten policies applied at all California Chipotle locations (approximately 400 across the state). The Defendant argued that there was a lack of evidence demonstrating this claim. Additionally, Chipotle argued that even if the unwritten policies did exist and were company-wide, claims would require individualized inquiries into the company policies, including the alleged decision-making by supervisors determining promotion, etc. at individual restaurants. The court’s response to the request for class certification was that when considering class certification, the court cannot accept the Plaintiffs’ theory of the case at face value, but must instead engage in rigorous analysis to determine whether or not Rule 23 is satisfied. In some cases, this analysis overlaps with the merits of the dispute.

Did Plaintiff Employee’s Evidence Rebut Their Own Argument?

The court also stated that the plaintiff’s evidence offered in support of their argument actually rebuts the inference that Chipotle uniformly imposed the named policies across all their California locations. When examining 12 declarants, the court received differing responses. Half the declarants did not experience the alleged English-only policy. Some who claimed they experienced the alleged English-only policy were permitted to speak Spanish among themselves at work. The declarant testimonies led the court to conclude that there was no evidence of a “company-wide” English-only policy applicable across the entire proposed class.

The plaintiffs and declarants also experienced different policies and requirements for promotion, depending on their location and their supervisor. One declarant asserted they did not experience the alleged promotion policy at all. Some “similar” experiences were noted, but those employees worked in the same store under the same general manager. Testimonies on record indicated that four of the 400 California Chipotle locations had employees who were told at varying times that promotion depended on improving their English proficiency. Based on testimonies offered, the court concluded that, in regards to the unwritten promotion policy, the evidence did not suggest a uniform, “company-wide” policy applicable to all class members.

Without a common question of law or fact, class certification is not appropriate since the suit would not be resolved efficiently in a single proceeding. Due to these facts and findings, the court denied class certification. This action is a reminder to California employees that class action certification requires proof of the existence of a uniform policy – especially when allegations are based on unwritten policies.

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Workers File a Class Action Lawsuit Against Cannabis Companies

Casey Denning and Natalia Cole filed a California lawsuit suing Cannabis harvesting company Loud Buddha LLC and Pura Cali Management Corp, a cultivation contractor associated with Loud Buddha. The companies allegedly violated provisions of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the companies forced workers to work long hours in an oppressive workplace with no overtime pay or meal breaks. They also allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiffs filed on their own behalf as well as others in similarly situated positions with the cannabis companies.

According to Plaintiffs: Workers’ Duties Were Dangerous & Included:

• Cultivating marijuana plants

• Harvesting marijuana plants

• Bucking marijuana plants (removing buds and stems)

• Hanging marijuana plants

• Placing marijuana plants in large commercial freezers to be transported

According to the lawsuit, over 50 workers completed these job duties to total multiple tons of cannabis each year from the Pura Cali marijuana farm.

The Complaint Against Loud Buddha & Pura Cali: What Were the Alleged Violations?

1. Employees forced to work 12-hour days every day of the week.

2. Workers were expected to stay on the job site in a remote location, sleeping on cots. Workers were threatened with discipline if they failed to comply.

3. Employers failed to keep track of workers’ time accurately.

4. Employers failed to provide required meal breaks and rest breaks.

5. Workers were not reimbursed for work expenses (i.e., meals, travel, etc.)

6. Employers allegedly failed to provide overtime pay, paying workers $15/hour in cash.

7. Time records kept by the employer were allegedly unreliable and inaccurate – depriving workers of earned wages and failing to comply with FLSA record-keeping requirements.

Workers employed by the cannabis company are often referred to as “trimmigrants.” The trimmigrants are typically young and often undocumented seasonal workers. The abusive, arguably dangerous conditions endured by the trimmigrants working in Northern California’s Emerald Triangle have been going on for years. The chronicles of their situation include tales of murder, sexual assault, and disappearances.

If you have questions about how to identify employment law violations or if you 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 any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Disney Attempts to Prevent Class Action Pay Inequality Lawsuit

Several employees sued Disney alleging pay inequality based in gender discrimination. Disney attempted to prevent the potential class action from moving forward, but the plaintiffs pushed back insisting that their claims need to be investigated rather than dismissed outright.

Disney attempted to dismiss the gender pay inequality allegations claiming the pay differences were based on other factors like education, seniority, etc. According to California’s Equal Pay Act, the centuries old practice of paying female workers less than their male counterparts is harmful to the State’s economic health.

Disney’s spokesperson claims Disney is firmly committed to equitable pay and is prepared to engage with any workers that feel they are experiencing gender discrimination affecting their pay. The company insists that the plaintiffs have misrepresented the facts and mischaracterized the company’s practices. Disney’s legal counsel challenged the plaintiffs’ counsel in their attempt to invoke a class action procedure arguing that the matter is unsuited to the resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims since they are each inherently individualized.

The pay discrimination lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2019 by two Walt Disney employees: LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. According to the suit, Rasmussen was a Disney worker for 11 years. Her most recent job title with Disney was Product Development Manager. The 2nd plaintiff, Moore, worked for Disney for 23 years and was a Senior Copyright Admin Administrator for the studio’s music division. 

Additional plaintiffs joined the case in September 2019. The 10 plaintiffs involved in the case are employed in various areas of the Disney enterprise including: Hollywood Records, Disney Imagineering, Walt Disney Studios, and Disney ABC Television. The number of plaintiffs indicates the matter may be eligible for class action status and plaintiffs’ counsel has encouraged other Disney workers who believe they have experienced gender discrimination to come forward and join the class action.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or if you are experiencing gender discrimination at work, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Following Years of Complaints, Uber Proposes a New Minimum Wage for Drivers with a Catch

A California bill that could be a massive financial blow to Uber and Lyft’s profits is getting closer and closer to becoming a law. In response, the ride-hailing companies are increasing their lobbying efforts in an attempt to block it or destroy it once and for all. Uber emailed drivers and riders this month laying out their own proposals to offer their drivers benefits and protections as requested, but is there a catch?

In the email, Uber stated that they were advocating for a new policy to strengthen protections for rideshare drivers by creating a minimum hourly rate (approx.. $21 per hour while on a trip), including the costs of drivers’ average expenses, offering their drivers access to paid time off, sick leave and compensation if they are injured on the job. They also stated the new policy change suggestions would empower their drivers to have a collective voice and make decisions about their work.

The email is on par with prior comments the company made since the bill was drafted earlier this year, but it added a new specific minimum wage mention. According to information in a 2018 study from Schaller Consulting, rideshare drivers for Uber and Lyft spend 63% of their miles driven (on average) with passengers in the car. This number only applies specifically to when a driver has a passenger in the car or is in route to pick a passenger up (63% of the time). And this isn’t the only part of Uber’s proposal that activists in support of drivers’ rights find misleading. The real take home pay being offered is significantly lower than the apparent $21/hour.

The bill in question, Assembly Bill 5, was passed by the legislative body in May 2019. It depends on the Senate’s appropriates committee to bring it before a full vote of the second chamber. The bill would institute a test to determine worker status as employee or independent contractor. The test contains three parts: determining if a worker is free from the company’s control or direction while they perform job duties, determining if the worker is performing work that falls outside of the hiring group’s typical business, and determining if the worker has their own independent business outside the job for which the entity hired them.

The passage of the bill could be disastrous for the huge gig companies offering ride-hailing services.

If you have questions about your employment rights as a driver in California or if you need to find out how to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.