First Advantage Settles Class Actions Claiming they Ran Illegal Background Checks

In recent news, First Advantage settles class-action suits claiming they ran illegal background checks on employees.

The Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct.

The Case No.: CIV-535083

The Plaintiff: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks on consumers without securing prior authorization to do so, which is required by the FCRA. Class members in the case include any consumers who had a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization and provided to a prospective employer between the dates August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020.

The Defendant: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Defendant in the case is First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. First Advantage is a background check company specializing in providing services to employers during their hiring processes.

Details of the Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. is one of two class-action lawsuits claiming First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)). The settlement, which was granted final approval on Dec. 8, 2021, resolves both class actions and benefits individuals who had a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage anytime between August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020 without prior authorization as required by law. Allegedly, First Advantage violated the FCRA by failing to clearly inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and failed to get written authorization. However, First Advantage hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing. But as part of the settlement agreement, they did agree to change their terms and policies ensuring consumers provide prior authorization before any background checks are run on them for the benefit of their potential employers.

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.

Home Depot Faces Class Action Alleging Failure to Pay Wages for Off the Clock Work

A recent California class-action lawsuit claims Home Depot failed to pay employees for every hour worked and provide workers with appropriate meal periods and rest breaks.

The Case: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Court: California Central District Court

The Case No.: 3:22-CV-00276

The Plaintiff: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case, a former Home Depot employee, claims Home Depot has a policy to round down employees’ clock-in and clock-out times for their work shifts, and meal periods. As a result, Home Depot workers allegedly lose hours resulting in not being paid for all hours worked. When employees work a shift at closing, they’re required to clock out, wait at the door for other workers to clock out, and then wait for management to arm the alarm system before leaving. The complaint argues that the policies and procedures in place at Home Depot amount to time employees work that they are not paid for.

The Defendant: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Home Depot, allegedly retained control over their employees and their activities during the time they spent waiting for the standard closing procedure. The company’s round-down policy also allegedly shaved off up to a quarter-hour at a time.

Summary of the Case: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

In effect, the Defendant retained control of their employees/the plaintiffs without paying wages for the time. Therefore, the plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked time they were not compensated for which violates California Labor Code. As a result of their policies and business practices, Home Depot allegedly owes employees for unpaid minimum wage hours, as well as unpaid overtime hours (for those who worked more than 40 hours in one week or 8 hours in one day).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing 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.

Nurses Brought in to Provide Treatment at Lompoc Facility File Class Action Against VXL

Two nurses claim VXL Enterprises misclassified them as independent contractors, and violated labor law by failing to pay overtime wages.

The Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

The Court: California North District Court

The Case No.: 4:22-CV-01579

Plaintiffs in the Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

Plaintiffs in the case claim they were hired by VXL in May 2020 to work as medical support staff at Lompoc Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California. The plaintiffs claim that while VXL required 12-hour shifts, but failed to pay nurses time-and-a-half overtime wages even though they were allegedly working more than eight hours per day or more than 40 hours per week.

More About the Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

The defendant in the case, VXL Enterprises LLC, classified the nurses as independent contractors. However, due to the alleged amount of control the company exerted over their nurses, plaintiffs argued they were misclassified. Nurses involved in the case claim that the company micromanaged their work, and even controlled transportation and lodging. The relationship described by plaintiffs in the case resembled an employer/employee relationship.

The Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

Plaintiffs also claim they were not provided with appropriate meal breaks and rest periods, and their pay stubs did not accurately list their hours worked. The lawsuit was transferred from California’s Central District Court to the state’s Northern District Court, and the class action seeks to represent workers employed by VXL in California who were misclassified as independent contractors, and not paid overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

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.

Sheraton Hotel Faces a Class Action Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

Sheraton Hotel workers filed a class action alleging The Sheraton, LLC and NFNY Hotel Management LLC violated state labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to meet minimum wage pay requirements, and not handing over tips to their workers.

The Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court Western District of New York

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00046

The Plaintiff: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

Doris Green and Christina Casero filed the original lawsuit against The Sheraton Hotel. The two are former hourly workers for the Sheraton Niagara Falls Hotel. The former employees cited both the hotel and NFNY Hotel Management, the company that runs that particular hotel location, as defendants in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the companies violated labor law by failing to comply with minimum wage, and wage statement requirements as well as failing to hand over tips earned by their workers.

The Defendant: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The defendants in the case, The Sheraton, LLC, and NFNY Hotel Management are both facing allegations of labor law violations. The Sheraton is a popular and well-known hotel chain with many locations throughout the nation. NFNY Hotel Management is the company that ran The Sheraton Niagara Falls location at the time the plaintiffs were employed. The plaintiffs, Casero and Green, claim the companies' wage notices fail to accurately and timely show employees their true rates of pay and proper tip credits to be taken into consideration against the minimum wage. The wage notices allegedly failed to include names, addresses, and phone numbers for the joint employers. According to the plaintiffs, affected workers included waiters, bartenders, servers, room service attendants, and nonmanagerial service workers.

More Details of the Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The two former Sheraton Niagara Falls employees accuse the hotel owners and hotel management of depriving them of minimum wage and their earned tips. The allegations are made in a class action lawsuit with class members including a variety of different Sheraton employees paid at an hourly rate. One of the plaintiffs, Casero, was employed as a server at the Sheraton Niagara Falls from May 2016 through August 2020. Casero’s hourly rate of $8.25 did not meet New York’s state minimum wage (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during her time of employment). Green, another plaintiff, worked as a Sheraton Niagara Falls bartender, front desk associate, and other roles at the hotel from May 2019 through August 2020. Green’s hourly pay rate of $12 also did not meet the state minimum wage requirements (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during the time of employment). The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of current and former hourly workers at the Sheraton Niagara Falls location. The group seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, legal fees, and costs. The plaintiffs also seek a jury trial, and the case is pending.

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.

Former Sony Playstation IT Security Analyst Seeks Class Action Status in Gender Discrimination Suit

A former security analyst for Sony Interactive Entertainment (the maker of the popular Playstation gaming console) is suing for gender discrimination and wrongful termination.

The Case: Emma Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.:3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Emma Majo

Emma Majo, the plaintiff in the case, seeks class-action status so other women impacted by the alleged gender discrimination at Sony’s workplace can be included. According to the lawsuit, women at Sony were not paid equally to male employees who had similar job titles and job duties. Women were also allegedly denied promotions and equal compensation. Majo alleges that Sony not only tolerates but cultivates a work environment that discriminates against their female workers.

The Defendant: Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

According to the lawsuit, Sony was made aware of the discrimination when Majo submitted a signed statement in 2021. Majo’s lawsuit alleges that “soon after” they received the signed statement, the company fired her. While Sony claims her dismissal was due to the elimination of a department, Majo said she wasn’t even a part of the supposed department that was eliminated.

Summary of the Case: Emma Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

According to Majo, the bias against women regarding promotions, etc can be detailed back through her career with Sony that began in 2015. For instance, Majo remained in the same position without a promotion for six years even though she frequently asked for one. Allegedly some of her male supervisors wouldn’t speak to women if the door was closed, and if a male colleague was present, the security director would only speak to the man.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing 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.

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.