Did Okdak Fail to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Okdak violated labor law.

The Case: Roberto Contreras Jimenez v. Okdak, Inc.

The Court: California's Riverside County Superior Court

The Case No.: CVRI2404524

The Plaintiff: Jimenez v. Okdak

The plaintiff, Jimenez, filed a class action complaint alleging that Okdak, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. According to the class action complaint, Okdak failed to reimburse workers for required business expenses, violating Labor Code 2802. Jimenez claimed that during his employment, he and other class members were required to use their personal cell phones to fulfill their job responsibilities.

What is California Labor Code 2802?

California Labor Code 2802 requires employers to "indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." As such, employees who must purchase items or services in order to fulfill their job duties should receive a reimbursement for the business expense from their employer.

The Defendant: Jimenez v. Okdak

According to the plaintiff, Okdak failed to accurately record employee hours and provide accurate compensation for actual hours worked. Since labor law requires employers to pay their workers for all time worked, failing to do so is a violation. "Time worked" (when referring to labor law) refers to the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control. The plaintiff claims the employee required workers to work off the clock without pay. Since the off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the company allegedly failed to provide employees with minimum wage for their off-the-clock hours, which violates multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1).

More About the Jimenez v. Okdak Class Action Lawsuit:

The plaintiff filed on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees. The class action is pending in California's Riverside County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Pacific Bell Settles California Wage and Hour Class Action: $2.235M Settlement

In recent news, Pacific Bell resolved a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a proposed $2.235 million settlement.

The Case: Macopson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County California Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV13800

The Plaintiffs: Macopson v. Pacific Bell

The plaintiff in the case, Macopson, claimed Pacific Bell violated state wage laws. The class action was filed for Pacific Bell workers employed at California locations between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024. According to the original complaint, Pacific Bell underpaid their employees and failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses; both allegations allegedly violated California labor law. The plaintiffs filed claims under PAGA (California's Private Attorneys General Act). The state law enables workers to file these types of claims on behalf of other workers and California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members are those who Pacific Bell employed in California between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024.

What is the Origin of California's PAGA?

California's Senate Bill 796 (SB 796) enacted the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2004. The law was designed to reduce state labor law violations, address common unlawful and anti-competitive business practices, create the possibility for employees to collect penalties for labor law violations, and address staffing issues in state labor law enforcement.

California Telephone Company Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Pacific Bell, a California telephone company owned by AT&T. The plaintiffs claim that Pacific Bell's business practices violated labor law. Whlle they declined to admit any wrongdoing, the company chose to resolve the claims through a settlement agreement.

Macopson v. Pacific Bell: Learn More About the Case

The terms of the $2.235 million settlement agreement designate that class members employed by the defendant between April 10, 2018, and March 21, 2014, receive the designated payment and that class members employed by the telephone company between April 10, 2021, and March 21, 2024, are eligible for the PAGA payment.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are are ready to assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Amazon Settles for $3M in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Amazon settled a California wage and hour class action lawsuit for $3 million.

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The Court: California Eastern U.S. District Court

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Allegations: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amazon’s California employees who worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023, during the same workweek they received a signing bonus. In the original wage and hour complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Amazon violated California labor laws when they failed to include the signing bonus to determine the regular pay rate when calculating overtime pay. As a result, the workers were allegedly underpaid for their overtime.

The Defendant: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., is a multinational tech company and the largest online retailer in the U.S. (selling many products, including books, music, movies, electronics, apparel, etc.).

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The California Eastern District U.S. District Court approved a $3 million settlement to resolve the overtime violation claims in September 2024. The class counsel’s $1 million attorneys’ fees were included in the settlement amount. The settlement was intended to return alleged unpaid overtime wages to eligible California workers.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, 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.

Private California University Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A recent wage and hour case in LA County questions whether one of the local private colleges violated labor law. A former employee's class action alleges multiple violations.

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The Court: California's Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV00409

The Plaintiffs: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rosangela Torres, worked at the university from March 2022 through May 2023. During her employment, she claims that Cogswell College/University of Silicon Valley's employees had to face rigorous work schedules that prevented them from being fully relieved during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Allegedly, employees at the university were required to work without receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Additionally, the plaintiff claims the employer did not provide the specified compensation for missed breaks as required by labor law.

California Labor Law Rest Period Requirements: What Should Employees Expect?

California employers must provide their workers with a ten-minute rest period for a 2-4 hour shift. Employers must provide are required to provide workers with two rest periods (of at least 10 minutes) for shifts worked between six and eight hours. When employees work a shift of more than 10 hours, employers must provide them with three rest breaks (of at least 10 minutes). When California employees don't receive their rest breaks, labor law requires employers to compensate them with one hour of pay.

The Defendant: Cogswell College, LLC

The defendant in the case, Cogswell College, LLC, is also called the University of Silicon Valley. Torres, a former employee, alleges that the university's standard business practices violate labor law.

The Allegations: Included in the Class Action

• Failing to provide employees with off-duty rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to reimburse for required business expenses

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff claims that employees were subjected to numerous wage and hour violations due to overburdened work requirements and inadequate staffing at the university. The case is currently pending in LA County Superior Court.

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

Did Pureserve Building Services Deny Meal Breaks to their Employees?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Pureserve Building Services violated labor law.

The Case: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

The Court: California's Monterey County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV003470

The Plaintiff: Petra Rios Files Class Action Complaint

The plaintiff, Petra Rios, claims that Pureserve Building Services's standard business practices violated labor law. Californian workers are protected in the workforce through both federal and state labor laws. According to Rios's class action complaint, the company failed to provide their California workers with meal breaks and rest periods in compliance with labor law.

The Defendant: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

Pureserve Building Services, Inc., the defendant, allegedly failed to pay their employees for all their work hours. The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action complaint include:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to pay wages when due

• Failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

The class action's allegations constitute violations of multiple California Labor Code Sections, including 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 558, 1194, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

What Makes a Wage Statement Accurate and Itemized?

When discussing wage statement requirements, labor law refers to them as "accurate" and "itemized." Details regarding the wage statement requirements clearly state that they must include certain information:

• Pay period (dates for which the employee is being paid)

• Gross wages earned during the pay period

• Total hours worked during the pay period

• Piece rate along with the number of units earned (if applicable)

• Any deductions

• Net wages earned during the pay period

• Employee name and last four digits of their Social Security Number or an Employee Identification Number

• Name and address of employer

• Hourly rates (all applicable/in effect during the current pay period)

• Number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate (if applicable)

Failing to provide an employee with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing violates California Labor Code Section 226.

The Case: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

The case was filed in September 2024 in California's Monterey County Superior Court. Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc. is currently pending.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Associate Mechanical Contractors Underpay their California Workers?

Mark Frey recently filed a California class action claiming Associate Mechanical Contractors's inaccurate time keeping system resulted in numerous labor law violations.

Details About the Class Action: Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors

The Case: Mark Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The Court: San Diego Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU011410C

Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Frey, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, Frey (and other similarly situated California workers employed by the defendant) were underpaid because the company used an inaccurate timekeeping system to calculate their employee’s hours and pay.

The Defendant: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc., faces allegations that their timekeeping system used to calculate employee hours and total pay was inaccurate, resulting in minimum wage violations, overtime pay violations, meal break/rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to provide payment when it is due. All of the standard business practices listed constitute labor law violations.

Most of the labor law violation claims result from the company’s allegedly inaccurate timekeeping system. However, the plaintiff also states that he and other similarly situated employees were required to use their cell phones to perform their job duties, which he claims makes the employee’s personal cell phone a necessary business expense eligible for reimbursement.

The Case: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

In Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the company’s inaccurate timekeeping system and resulting alleged labor law violations alongside the defendant’s response to determine if the company has standard business practices and policies that violate labor law.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Equinox Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations: Class Action Lawsuit Pending

Another business with significant operations in California faces allegations that their standard business practices violate labor law. Equinox workers claim the company violated multiple wage and hour laws, including failing to pay minimum wage.

The Case: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

The Court: Marin County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case: CV0003780

The Plaintiff: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

Demarqus Wiggins is the plaintiff in the case. Wiggins filed a class action complaint in response to standard business practices he experienced at Equinox. The complaint alleges failures to provide eligible workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wage, etc.

Equinox, the Defendant, Facing Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Equinox San Rafael, LLC (aka Equinox). Equinox faces numerous allegations in the class action, each constituting a violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint includes the following allegations: failing to pay minimum wage, provide accurate overtime wages, offer meal breaks and rest periods, reimburse workers for business expenses, provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay employees for the hours they worked at the time they are due.

(The class action allegations constitute violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code).

More About the Case: Were Employees Required to Work "Off the Clock?"

The Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Marin County Superior Court. California labor law and federal labor law (FLSA) require employers to pay every employee an established payday for a specified pay period at a rate at or above the designated minimum wage for all the hours worked in the specified pay period. Payment can be calculated using various methods: time, per piece, commission, etc. If employers provide payment based on time or the number of hours worked, "hours worked" is defined by the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." According to the plaintiff in the case, Equinox required workers to complete "off the clock" work or work completed before or after they "clock in" to work for their scheduled shift. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Equinox employees were subject to standard business practices and policies that required working during off-duty meal breaks. Employees were allegedly not compensated with at least minimum wage for all the hours they worked in a pay period due to "off the clock" work, which is a labor law violation.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices can assist you.