Magic Mile LLC Faces Class Action for Allegedly Violating California Labor Code

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Magic Mile LLC allegedly failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Alessandro Dirienzo vs. Magic Mile LLC

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00050292-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Alessandro Dirienzo

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit alleges that Magic Mike LLC engaged in various California Labor Code violations:

all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to provide overtime payment

• failing to provide rest and meal periods employees are legally required to offer

• failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• failing to provide wages when they are due

For more information regarding how these practices and procedures allegedly violate the California Labor Code, see: Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802 as well as the applicable Wage Order. According to the lawsuit, the alleged violations give rise to civil penalties. The plaintiff in the case was employed from May 2021through June 2021. During his time with the company, he was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly, and entitled to both legally required meal and rest periods as well as payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendant: Magic Mile LLC

Magic Mile LLC, the Defendant in the case, is a California company providing freight shipment services.

The Case: Alessandro Dirienzo vs. Magic Mile LLC

According to the lawsuit, Magic Mile LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve Plaintiff and other California Class Members of their work duties during their meal breaks. According to the suit, employees were also sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without their legally required ten (10) minute rest period. In order to fulfill labor code requirements, employers must not only offer meal and rest periods in accordance with the law, but they must also relieve workers of their work duties during this time. For a rest period to qualify as “off duty” the employee must be free from their employer’s control.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against 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.

Tyler Technologies to Settle California Class Action with Settlement?

In recent news, Tyler Technologies agrees to pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that they don’t properly pay their employees.

The Case: Aaron Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-07647

The Plaintiff: Aaron Kudatsky

Aaron Kudatsky, the plaintiff in the case, filed the federal class action in November 2019. Kudatsky worked for Tyler Technologies as an “implementation consultant” from July 2016 to March 2019. As a Tyler Technologies “Implementation Consultant,” Kudatsky would travel to courts showing clerks how to configure new case management software and assist them in learning how to use it on their computers. While training sessions were occurring, Kudatsky remained on site. In addition to on-site training sessions, he provided remote assistance to court clerks to help set up applications and troubleshoot any problems.

The Defendant: Tyler Technologies

The defendant in the case, Tyler Technologies, is a rapidly expanding software vendor. The Defendant, Tyler Technologies, faces claims that they did not pay overtime pay, and did not provide wage statements as required by law. The plaintiff claims that while working with the company, he regularly worked well over the full-time 40 hour work week and was not paid overtime pay. He also alleges that Tyler Technologies did not provide him with accurate itemized wage statements as required by law.

Summary of the Case: Aaron Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

U.S. District Judge William Alsup conditionally certified a class in May 2020. In 2021, after a couple of rounds of mediation, the two parties in the case announced that they agreed on a $3.15 million settlement. Last week, the judge approved the settlement. The settlement agreement does not specify any changes to Defendant’s employment practices but will deliver $2.4 million to 294 employees. Each employee in the class will receive from $200 to $10,000. The remainder of the settlement covers attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss how to file a California class action, 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.

Aspen Surgery Center Faces California Class Action Lawsuit

The Aspen Surgery Center in Walnut Creek, California faces a class action lawsuit alleging the facility violated California Labor Codes.

The Case: Kristina Murdock, Noel Hudson, and Alexandra Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court

The Case No.: C21-02047

The Plaintiff: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The plaintiffs, Kristina Murdock, Noel Hudson, and Alexandra Soto, filed a class action lawsuit against Aspen Surgery Center LLC on October 1, 2021 in Contra Costa California Court. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees alleging that the Walnut Creek, California facility violated California labor codes. Murdock was employed by the Defendant from December 2015 to April 2020. Hudson was employed by the Defendant from April 2016 to August 2020. Soto has been employed by the Defendant since September 2017 and is currently still employed. The company classified all three workers as non-exempt employees, paid them on an hourly basis, which means they were entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages required by state and federal law.

The Defendant: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc. are listed as joint employers holding joint responsibility for any California labor code violations. According to court documents, the Defendant provides surgical care in the state of California.

The Case: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The lawsuit against Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc. (joint employers in the case) is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, provide legally required meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for required business expenses (employees were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones and personal vehicles to fulfill job duties without reimbursement), and failed to provide wages when they were due. These allegations all constitute labor code violations. (Violation fall under the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and alleged violations could give rise to civil penalties).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.

1st Precedential Decision from California Appellate Court: Striking a Claim Based on Manageability

In recent news, a California appellate court ruled that trial courts have “inherent authority” to strike claims under California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) if they won’t be manageable at trial. This is the first precedential decision on this particular issue from a California court.

The Case: Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC

The Court: Court of Appeals of California

The Court No.: B302988

The Plaintiff: Wesson v. Staples

Fred Wesson filed a PAGA claim on behalf of himself and 345 other employees alleging that he and the other employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime.

The Trial Court’s Decision: Wesson v. Staples

The defendant, Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, moved to strike the PAGA claim citing that it would be “unmanageable” and therefore constitute a violation of its due-process rights. The claims were made based on the number of employees the plaintiff was attempting to represent in combination with the general nature of the claim’s allegations. While arguing that the claim was unmanageable, the defendant insisted that in order to show the employees were properly classified, individualized proof would be necessary and that based on this requirement, the case could “not be fairly and efficiently litigated.” The plaintiff responded by arguing that the trial court wasn’t authorized to strike the PAGA claim on grounds of manageability and that, even if they did have the authority, the PAGA claim was manageable. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the PAGA claim.

On Appeal: Wesson v. Staples

Considering the procedural quagmire associated with PAGA claims, many argue that courts should strike any claims that would be unmanageable at trial. In some cases, trial courts have agreed. In other cases, trial courts disagree. However, the Wesson decision is the first time a California Court of Appeal has issued any published authority on this issue. The appellate court, drawing upon courts’ inherent authority to manage litigation, held that courts do have the authority to ensure PAGA claims can be “fairly and efficiently tried” and that when necessary, courts may strike unmanageable claims. The appellate court also held that, in the matter of the Wesson claim specifically, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claim based on the grounds that it was unmanageable.

The Repercussions of the Appellate Court’s Decision: Wesson v. Staples

The appellate court’s decision is particularly interesting considering that the fact that PAGA claims do not have to meet class action requirements means that PAGA claims generally present more manageability concerns than a class action. The appellate court did also note that a court finding a claim to be unmanageable would not necessarily result in striking the claim as the court should first attempt to resolve manageability problems by altering trial schedules, limiting the scope of the claim, etc. A published California Court of Appeal decision endorsing the ability to strike unmanageable PAGA claims will likely increase the number of California employers filing motions to strike, and subsequently, increase the number of California workers seeking class action certification in response to employment law violations.

If you have questions regarding filing a class action or how employment law protects California employees from discrimation, harassment, wage and hour violations and more, 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.

Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement for OneStaff Overtime Class Action

Parties in the Madison v. OneStaff Medical overtime class action negotiated a settlement agreement and received preliminary approval from the court.

The Case: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

The Court: United States District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01384-AWI-JLT

The Plaintiff: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

The plaintiff, Pamela Madison, filed a complaint on September 30, 2020 asserting three putative claims under California law: failure to pay overtime, unfair business practices, and waiting time penalties. The complaint also included a putative collection claim under FLSA. The claims were all founded on the defendant’s alleged exclusion of per diem and allowance payments from Travelers’ overtime wages. Madison sought to represent a class of Travelers employed by the defendant in California as far back as September 30, 2016 who received hourly per diems, housing allowances, and/or travel allowances. Madison also sought to represent a collective of Travelers falling under the same definition.

The Defendant: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

OneStaff assigns hourly healthcare workers short term travel assignments at various medical facilities, hospitals, and clinics. The Plaintiff was employed as a OneStaff Traveler in Bakersfield, California from Sept. 2019 through December 2019.

More About the Case: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

On February 28, 2021, the Court stayed the case to allow parties to explore possibilities of early settlement. The parties engaged in mediation on April 15, 2021, ultimately agreeing on the principal terms of settlement. On May 26, 2021, after additional negotiations were completed, the parties finalized a settlement agreement providing a maximum recovery of $525,000. The plaintiff in the case sought preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached with OneStaff Medical Limited Liability. After considering the proposed settlement and the proposed class notice, documents, issued findings, and recommendations, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The proposed settlement was approved on a preliminary basis as fair and adequate, and Pamela Madison was appointed representative for the class. The final approval and fairness hearing is set for October 18, 2021.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against harassment 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.

Trulieve Workers & Applicants Granted Class Certification

Logan Lyttle filed a class action lawsuit against Trulieve after the company rescinded a job offer based on a background check and sought class certification. After considering oral arguments from both parties, the Court decided to grant-in-part and deny-in-part the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.

The Case: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:19-cv-2313-CEH-TGW

The Plaintiff: Lyttle v. Trulieve

Lyttle, the plaintiff in the case, alleged in the class action suit that the defendant took adverse action against both employees and applicants based on background checks, and that their methods violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Lyttle claims he applied for a job with Trulieve and was given a conditional job offer, but that the job offer was later rescinded based on the contents of Lyttle’s “consumer report” or a background check. Prior to rescinding Lyttle’s job offer, Trulieve allegedly failed to provide notice of their intent to rescind, a copy of the report they based their action on, or a summary of the applicant’s rights under FCRA.

The Defendant: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The Defendant, Trulieve, is a cannabis company. Allegedly, Trulieve admitted that the denial of employment based on Lyttle’s consumer report was a mistake.

Details in the Case: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The FCRA § 1681b(b)(3)(A) states that when using a consumer report (aka background check) for “employment purposes, before taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person intending to take adverse action shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a copy of the document “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” prescribed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).” Lyttle attests that if he had been offered the required adverse action notice, a copy of the report, and a summary of his rights under FCRA, he could have offered clarification, and the error could have been avoided. However, since the defendant allegedly offered no notice of adverse action and did not provide a copy of the report or the applicant’s FCRA rights, Lyttle did not have the chance. Instead he brought a claim against the defendant under the FCRA. On August 13, 2021, the US District Court, Middle Dist. of Florida certified an “Adverse Action Class” in the class action suit. According to court documents, Trulieve settled the class action lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or filing an adverse action class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ladies Win Class Action Status in the Google Gender Pay Disparity Suit

In recent news, a class of 10,800 women win class action status in the gender pay disparity suit against Google.

The Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

The Case No.: CGC-17-561299

The Plaintiff: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, almost 11,000 women, filed the lawsuit claiming that Google pays men more than women for doing the same job. Four lead plaintiffs will represent the women in the class group over claims of gender-based pay discrimination. The plaintiffs allege violations of California’s Equal Pay Act, which is one of the strongest measures of its kind in the country.

The Defendant: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Alphabet Inc.’s Google failed to persuade the judge in the case to block class-action status for the gender-pay disparity lawsuit. Google claims that they conducted an analysis for the last several years designed to ensure pay, bonuses and equity awards are fair. The company claims that when they discover differences in pay, including gender-based disparities, they make adjustments; increasing pay to remove the disparities before new compensation goes into effect.

The History of the Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case seek more than $600 million in damages. Women at various tech companies have turned to the courts to seek equal pay and treatment at work, but have had difficulty gaining traction. Other gender disparity lawsuits on behalf of women workers in other industries (retail, finance, etc.) have seen similar results. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked 1.5 million women that worked at Walmart Inc. from pursuing discrimination clams as a class, which set the bar fairly high.

Similar Cases In a Number of Industries:

Oracle Corp. faced similar allegations last year and saw a similar ruling.

Twitter Inc. faced a lawsuit from their female engineers, but the plaintiffs were not granted class action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

Microsoft Corp. also faced claims of gender-bias, but the plaintiffs failed to win class-action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from gender discrimation, 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.