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.

Staff Assistance Inc. Faces Claims of Overtime and Meal Break Violations

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a proposed class action Complaint against Staff Assistance, Inc. (SAI) on December 29, 2014 alleging labor law violations. The suit is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. A full copy of the complaint is available online, but a brief summary outlining the main points of the suit follows. 

SAI is a California based company that offers home health, palliative care, caregiving and hospice care services through an extensive network of employees. Licensed Vocational Nurses employed by SAI filed the suit listing allegations of numerous violations of California Labor Laws.

Allegations included in the suit against SAI:

·       Licensed Vocational Nurses were required to work unpaid hours, resulting in a failure to pay both wages and overtime.

·       Failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements (enabling the company to avoid payment of overtime wages).

·       SAI failed to abide by legally required meal breaks – according to California law, employers must provide all non-exempt employees that receive hourly wages with thirty minute meal periods before they complete five hours on the job. Failure to provide an uninterrupted meal period as required results in a penalty of one hour of pay according to the California Labor Code.

·       Failure to provide reimbursement for expenses incurred while employees fulfilled job duties (such as costs of travel/gas when traveling from job site to job site as assigned). This is in direct violation of California Labor Code Section 2802 requiring California employers to indemnify employees for any and all expenses that are incurred while in the course of fulfilling the requirements of their employment.

Allegations made in the suit indicate that the company’s practice to avoid paying overtime wages is based on uniform policy evident in SAI business records.

To get additional information about the class action lawsuit against Staff Assistance, Inc., please get in touch with one of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik at (866) 771-7099 or get answers online here. The southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik can assist you out of offices in: Los Angeles, San Diego, or San Francisco. Get in touch if you need someone to help you fight unfair business practices, or violations of the labor law in the workplace. 

Mexican Farm Workers Strike: Demanding Overtime Pay, Breaks, Water and Healthcare

April 28, 2015 - The Associated Press states that the average farm worker will make between $8-10 for a full 10-hour day of labor. Supporting yourself on such an income is difficult. Supporting your family on such an income is close to impossible. The Baja, California Mexican farm workers strike involves fifty thousand. Their strike is an aggressive method of protesting low wages, poor living/working conditions as well as general right abuses.

As the Mexican farm workers and the growers attempt to come together to resolve the issue, millions in crops have rotted in the field as the two play tug of war over the operations/property. It has been reported that workers have been witnessed throwing rocks and burning tires as they attempt to increase the attention given to the alleged mistreatment of the workers who farm millions of dollars worth of produce including strawberries and tomatoes in Baja. While the dispute was escalating, workers on strike blocked the main north-south highway and the Transpeninsular Highway. It’s also notable that additional strikes are breaking out in the surrounding area.

Workers are on strike demanding overtime pay, health care, water, breaks and time off. They also seek an end of arbitrary firings, and other abuses including sexual abuse. Workers (who are typically paid $8-10 per day) are requesting an increase to $20/day for long days in the sun or hothouse.

The farmers are being urged to return to work before the destruction of the crops leads to a destruction of jobs. Many could be affected by the ripple effect this would have on the region’s economy. During the course of the strike, over 200 protestors have been arrested for various activities including: riots, vandalism, rock-throwing, etc. To protect themselves and their livelihoods, businesses have boarded up their windows. More than 1,000 police officers have been dispersed throughout Baja, California area to control the situation.

If you are looking for information on hostile workplace conditions, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Recruiting Manager Files Overtime Suit Against Robert Half

On September 5, 2014, a California recruiting manager filed an overtime suit against Robert Half International Inc. The recruiting manager, Theresa Daniels, worked at Robert Half as a recruiting manager from January 2014 through June 2014. She filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court in California.

The suit filed by Ms. Daniels made a number of claims, including:

• The company misclassified her and other, similar employees as exempt from overtime.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial duties that would classify them as exempt from California overtime laws.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial authority.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, had only a minimal role in supervising employees and not authority to make employment related decisions regarding other employees.
• All recruiting managers, Theresa Daniels included, were strictly monitored and tightly controlled by both the company policy and their direct supervisors.

The suit seeks class action status and back overtime pay for unpaid wages.

Robert Half indicated that there are meritorious defenses to the allegations being made by Ms. Daniels and they will be defending themselves against litigation.

If you or someone you know are misclassified as exempt – preventing you from receiving the overtime pay you are entitled to at work, please contact your southern California employment law experts right away: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Ninth Circuit Ignores Legal Written Policy in Favor of Using Statistical Sampling to Certify Class

September 3, 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a certification of class in Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.: 800 nonexempt insurance claims adjusters claimed that they worked overtime and did not receive payment. This is in spite of the company’s written policy stating that nonexempt employees would be paid for all the hours they work.

The Ninth Circuit based their decision on the discovery that three common questions existed:

1. The existence of an “unofficial” Allstate policy that discouraged employees from reporting overtime.
2. Whether or not employees’ workloads forced them to work overtime (in excess of eight hours in one day or over 40 hours in one week).
3. If Allstate’s timekeeping method resulted in unpaid overtime or underpayment for overtime.

The court discovered that the adjusters weren’t responsible for the preparation of time sheets/clocking in and out. Instead the time cards were set to a default of eight hours each day and 40 hours each week. Supervisors could submit “exceptions” for hours that were worked outside of the default schedule. The Ninth Circuit decided that a common question did exist in relation to the question of whether the timekeeping method resulted in unpaid overtime for adjusters.  

The Ninth Circuit also held that liability for the problem and whether or not the employer should have known its employees were working off the clock could be resolved with statistical sampling. Although, it is important to note that the Ninth Circuit did not specify exactly how the issues could be resolved through statistical sampling.  

This decision could provide a basis for a legal standard, making an employer’s lawful written policy not enough to completely insulate the company from class certification questions. The recent decision is a deviation from previous rulings as in the Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart Stores v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

If you have questions regarding class certification or the method of timekeeping used at your place of business, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik for additional information. 

California Labor Law: Governor Brown’s New Law

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Assembly Bill 1897, creating new Labor Code section 2810.3. The new labor code section created by the Assembly Bill applies to almost all companies with 25+ employees that obtain or receive workers to complete work through the “usual course of business” from other businesses that provide workers (otherwise known as labor contractors). The new law makes such companies liable for three things:

• Payment to contractor’s employees
• Any contractor’s failure to secure appropriate workers’ compensation coverage as required
• Compliant actions regarding occupational health and safety requirements (OSHA) in place

Companies will now have a new statutory liability. The legal contraction of labor services in regards to the new Labor Code section isn’t related to the required finding of joint/co-employment or any type of control over working conditions, the method of payment, scheduling of work hours, or the overall work site environment. Under the new law, each company is liable even if they can exhibit proof that they were not aware of violations that existed or occurred.

The new labor code law applies to workers who are completing their job in the normal course of business on site. California employees who are exempt from overtime (i.e. executive, administrative and professional employees) are excluded from the new law’s reach. There are also a few exemptions from the definition of a “client employer” who is covered under the new law: companies with fewer than 25 workers, companies who use 5 or less labor contract workers at any given time, state organizations, homeowners and home-based businesses who receive labor contract services in their homes, and companies providing transportation services. Additional limited exemptions in relation to non-profit, community organizations, unions, apprenticeship programs, motor club services, cable operators, telephone corporations, etc.

The new law will be effective as of January 1, 2015. For additional information regarding exceptions and exclusions of the new labor law, contact your southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.