Ex-Dancer Sues Strip Club for Misclassification

The misclassification controversy is not exclusive to the gig economy. As the gig economy’s problems seem to escalate, problems are growing in other industries as well. In Daytona Beach, a former dancer at Grandview Live is suing the strip club claiming they owe her back wages because they misclassified her as an independent contractor when she was allegedly an employee.

Brittany Hall, former dancer at Grandview Live in Daytona Beach, claims that due to the club’s misclassification, she allegedly earned less than minimum wage and was not paid overtime. Hall, like the other exotic dancers at the club, was paid strictly in tips from customers. She worked at the strip club for over two years without overtime and receiving less than minimum wage, which attorneys for the plaintiff claim is fairly standard in the industry.

Hall claims Grandview Live owes her money because they violated wage and hour law by paying her less than minimum wage and failed to pay her overtime hours she was due. Hall also alleges that the club took tips from her in addition to their other employment law violations.

California legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 5 which will require companies to treat their workers as employees if they meet certain standards. The bill is set to go into effect January 1, 2020 and will have a massive impact on gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft and DoorDash. But it will also benefit workers like Brittany Hall, working in industries that have been around since before smartphones and apps were introduced.

Sometimes employers misclassify workers unintentionally. In some cases, it is an honest mistake. Other employers actively and purposefully misclassify their employees in order to maximize profits and minimize costs. Employers have major incentives to shift workers off their payrolls due to taxes, unemployment insurance, workers compensation premiums, etc.

If you are misclassified or if you are not being paid overtime wages for all your hours worked, please do not delay. Get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP so we can help.

Quick Dispense, Inc. Faces Allegations of PAGA Violations

A Los Angeles employment lawsuit alleges that Quick Dispense, Inc. violated California labor law by failing to pay non-exempt California employees overtime wages as well as failing to offer legally required rest and meal breaks. Employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP filed the class action lawsuit in September 2019. The class action lawsuit alleges PAGA violations and failure to accurately calculate overtime wages. The lawsuit is pending in LA County Superior Court (Case No. 19STCV29405).

According to the California class action, Quick Dispense, Inc. violated numerous labor laws by:

1.    Failing to provide non-exempt employees with fair payment for all hours worked

2.    Failing to provide non-exempt employees with accurate overtime wages

3.    Failing to provide legally required meal and rest breaks

4.    Failing to provide employees itemized wage statements with accurate listings of hours and wages

5.    Failing to provide payment of wages in a timely manner

6.    Failing to pay minimum wage

7.    Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

PAGA (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act) authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to seek recovery of civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state in response to Labor Code violations. PAGA enables California to enforce state labor laws by allowing the employee experiencing the violation to file suit to recover civil penalties as an act of protecting the public from companies and entities in violation of employment law.

If you need more information about filing a class action lawsuit in California or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

California’s Expanded Definition of “Employee”

As of September 18, 2019, AB-5 codified the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex v. Superior Court decision in which the California Supreme Court adopted the “ABC” test for use when determining coverage under the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Under the new California law, the application of the ABC test is expanded to the entire California Labor Code. It takes effect in 2020.

According to the ABC test, the law assumes that any individual who is performing a service for someone else is an employee. The hiring individual or the one receiving the benefit of the service must prove that the worker is an independent contractor if they want to rebut the basic assumption of employment. To be successful, the “hiring” entity would need to meet each one of three different ABC test requirements:

1.    The “worker” must have freedom in connection to the performance of their job duties; the hirer must not maintain control/direction of the worker while they are on the job.

2.    The worker must perform work that falls outside of the hirer’s usual or typical business.

3.    The worker must be shown to be engaged in independent and established trade or business of the same nature as the work they are performing for the hirer.

Determining if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor carries great significance. If the worker is classified as an employee the employer bears responsibility for paying numerous taxes, providing worker’s compensation insurance, and complying with the various state and federal statutes governing employment issues like overtime pay, minimum wage, working conditions, etc. When an employee is misclassified on the job, the hirer can be sued for unpaid wages and overtime, etc.  

The second part of the ABC test is particularly troublesome for employers in the gig economy. It can be taken as a direct challenge to the fundamental business model on which the gig economy thrives. Companies will need to look to the court to determine what is and is not “outside” their usual course of business. Some companies may be able to persuade the judge to make a favorable distinction, but many fear the effect of the new law. Some companies are actively lobbying California legislators for statutory exemptions under AB-5. Occupational and industry exemptions will remain subject to traditional common law definitions of employment.

If you need more information about misclassification in the workplace and what it means to be denied an overtime wage, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP at one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

Adventist Health System/West Faces California Overtime Lawsuit

According to the class action lawsuit filed in Sacramento, California in September 2019, the Adventist Health System/West violated various California Labor Code provisions when they did not provide their non-exempt employees with the required amount of overtime pay. Class members in the case are represented by Sacramento employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. The class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendant not only failed to provide non-exempt employees with the required overtime wages, but that they also failed to provide legally required rest and meal breaks. The overtime class action lawsuit is currently pending (Case No. SCV0043607).

According to the complaint filed by the Sacramento employment law attorneys, the company is still in violation of overtime wage requirements for non-exempt employee who are working overtime hours, above and beyond the 40 hour/8 hour “full time” definition provided by law. The lawsuit also includes allegations that the company acted on both company policy and standard operating procedure when they knowingly failed to provide the accurate rate of pay for overtime hours that their employees completed on the job. Adventist Health System/West is also accused of failing to provide non-exempt employees with legally mandated off-duty thirty-minute meal breaks without interruption as well as legally mandated on-the-clock rest periods.

The class action lawsuit was filed seeking one hour of pay for every workday during which the employee missed their off-duty meal period (required for every 5 hours worked), and one hour of pay for each workday during which a second meal period was not provided when an employee completed ten hours on the job.

Please get in touch if you would like to know more about addressing overtime violations in the workplace or if you need assistance filing an employment related lawsuit. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assist you in one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

Defining the Employment Status of a College Football Player

In recent news, the question was asked, “Is a college football player an employee of the NCAA?” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recent affirmed dismissal of a college football player’s lawsuit for failure to state a legal claim clearly indicates they feel the answer is no. The ruling means that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Pac-12 Conference are not legally required to pay a college football player minimum wage and overtime in accordance with federal or California wage laws.

The NCAA, a not-for-profit educational organization, and the Pac-12 Conference were listed as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a college football player. The plaintiff claimed they acted as joint employers because they prescribed terms and conditions under which student athletes perform. The appeals court ruled that the football players were not employees under the FLSA due to economic realities in the relationship between the entities listed as defendants and the players. The found that the defendants in the case were regulatory bodies rather than employees and in so doing, upheld a district court’s ruling on the case.

The appeals court stated that the district court was accurate in their dismissal of the college football player’s California overtime claims based on the state’s decision to exclude student athletes from receiving workers compensation benefits combined with the state appellate court’s interpretations of the related legislation.

When considering the district court’s dismissal of the football player’s suit, the 9th Circuit used the “economic realities” test under FLSA. The test considers certain variables:

The plaintiff’s expectation of compensation

The alleged employer’s power to hire and/or fire

Any evidence that action was taken to evade the law

The court found that limitations on scholarships did not establish an expectation of compensation, the players were not able to show that either regulatory entity held the power to fire or hire a player, and that the NCAA rules did not show a clear intent to evade wage and hour law. They also found that the revenue generated by the relationship between the NCAA and their student athletes did not create an employment relationship.

If you have questions about the Fair Labor Standards Act, unpaid overtime or wage and hour law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

National Implications of Unpaid Home Care Overtime Lawsuit?

A Los Angeles County unpaid home care overtime lawsuit could have national implications. The Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled that home care providers paid through the state or county can file suit for unpaid overtime citing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Prior to this case, workers paid by the state or county to provide home care were exempt from overtime laws at both the state and federal level.

The introduction of a new Department of Labor (DOL) regulation changed the scenario in 2015, but the change didn’t occur without some kickback. The new regulation was set to go into effect on the first day of 2015, but a federal court in Washington, D.C. blocked it. This ruling was overturned later that same year. In response to the legal action, the DOL decided the new regulation would not be enforced until Nov. 12, 2015 (even though it was initially set to go into effect on January 1, 2015).

In California, compliance with the new regulation was pushed until February of 2016. This prompted an LA County home care worker (In-Home Supportive Services (HSS) program employee) to file a lawsuit to recover 13 months of unpaid overtime (overtime that would be due in accordance with the original “effective” date of the new regulation, Jan. 1, 2015). LA County moved to dismiss arguing that the county was simply acting as part of the larger state and under the 11th amendment, had immunity in this situation.

District court ruled in favor of LA County and stated that home care workers could not recover wages from prior to Nov. 12, 2015, the date “enforcement” started. Both parties filed an appeal, escalating the case to the Ninth Circuit Court.

The Ninth Circuit Court judge maintained that the county had 11th amendment immunity and also that home care service providers could file suit to recover unpaid overtime wages earned as of the original Jan. 1, 2015 effective date of the new DOL regulation. The ruling could mean a significant financial blow for LA County since the county currently employs an estimated 170,000 home care workers in the IHSS program. Additionally, the implications could easily reach outside of this particular case in this specific county. The ruling could open the door to further collective actions filed by home care workers employed through various government programs with more collective actions likely to pop up in different counties.

William A. Dombi, President of the National Association for Home Care & Hospice (NAHC) disagrees. He went on record stating that holding county-level government employers liable for overtime wages during a time period when federal court specifically vacated the requirement is unfair. He also noted that any impact would be limited by the two-year limit on filing FLSA actions.

If you have questions about overtime violations or if you need to discuss your rights as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

California Private Colleges and Universities May Be Forced to Move to a Time-Card System for Adjuncts

Unless a legislative fix is successful, California's private colleges and universities may be forced to move to a time-card system for adjuncts. California legislation regarding the exempt status of adjunct workers has the backing of both the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the Service Employees International Union – making this a rare instance in which colleges/universities and their adjuncts are in complete agreement. If the litigation is successful, it will prevent numerous private colleges and universities from requiring adjuncts to complete time cards as a means of avoiding labor law violations on overtime. California's public institutions are not affected as they are generally unionized.

Numerous colleges and universities facing faculty overtime violation lawsuits in recent years have reached settlement agreements with the plaintiffs. For example, Stanford University provided a $900,000 settlement in 2018 due to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of continuing studies program instructors. After attorney's fees, each adjunct involved was entitled to a partially taxable award of $1,417. Kaplan University also settled a similar suit. Other colleges and universities facing similar legal actions settled privately.

The implementation of a time-card system or other documentation of adjunct working hours was private colleges and universities' response to the new trend in employment law actions. Faculty groups insist that time cards are not a functional solution. Not to mention that requiring the completion of labor-style time cards of adjuncts could be viewed as insulting and wrong. Many adjuncts find the idea both inconvenient and humiliating.

The proposed litigation, AB-1466, would clarify when an adjunct at an independent institution would qualify as exempt under wage and hour law. The bill would specifically classify employees working in education as exempt if they offer credit-bearing instruction at independent colleges or universities, meet the existing legal test determining whether or not their work involves advanced knowledge, and they receive salary compensation (equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage at full-time employment or no less than two times the state minimum wage times the hours of service). The bill would also provide additional clarification (and a more generous definition) of hours of service.

If you need to discuss overtime pay violations, please call one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP's various locations: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago. We are ready to be your advocate as you seek resolution for labor law violations in the workplace.