$3.65 Million Settlement Goes to Dancers for California Labor Lawsuit

A $3.65 million settlement was approved by the District Court for the Central District of California, effectively ending the California labor lawsuit alleging that The Spearmint Rhino nightclub chain made a practice of misclassifying dancers as independent contractors. The practice of misclassifying workers as independent contractors violates FLSA (the Fair Labor Standards Act) and California Labor Law.

The Spearmint Rhino Misclassification Lawsuit Receiving Extra Attention:

The dancers at Spearmint Rhino nightclub offered nude, semi-nude, or bikini entertainment to the club’s patrons at various locations since October 30, 2017. In the end, they will net approximately $2.6 million. The misclassification lawsuit filed by Spearmint Rhino’s dancers is just one in a long series of suits and related legal actions that are inspiring a noticeable reaction. The attention this case received is party due to the novelty of a sex industry labor lawsuit, but also due to the currently charged political debate about AB 5, California’s new gig worker law based off of the Dynamex decision.

Dancers Actually Pay their Employer to Work for Tips:

Did you know that in many cases, dancers in the sex industry end up paying their employers so they can work for tips? It’s true. The economics of exotic dancing are unlike anything you’ve seen in other industries. Dancers are required to pay an assortment of “fees” such as house fees or dance floor fees before performing at an establishment.

In some cases, the dancers must sign an agreement requiring them to pay a lease fee for the “business space” they will be using. Additionally, many employers in this industry charge exotic dancers a higher stage fee if they are not fully nude by the end of their performance. Exotic dancers do not receive wages; they work for tips. Dancers share their tips with the bartenders, DJs, and dressing room helpers (often referred to as House Moms). If it’s a slow night, an exotic dancer may go home with very little to show for a full shift.

Legal Actions Targeting the Exploitative Sex Industry:

Ortega v. The Spearmint Rhino is just one in a series of similar lawsuits. The change that would come with AB 5 would not be limited to exotic dancers or the sex industry. The legislation was originally drafted to address misclassification issues in the gig economy. AB 5 applies to any California worker who finds themselves pushed or forced into independent contractor status without fully understanding the consequences of the classification.

Opponents of AB 5 Refuse to Comply or Seek Exemption

The purpose of AB 5 is to address misclassification in the workplace. Misclassification is a significant issue because employees have essential wage and hour protections in place that do not apply to independent contractors. In some cases, it can be difficult to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. Following Dynamex, the legislature introduced AB 5 to address this problem using a simple test to determine which workers are employees (and entitled the protections of employment law), and which workers are independent contractors.

Many employers actively fought against AB 5 before it was enacted. Some were exempted using modifications to the law. Other California employers (like Uber and Lyft) announced that they would not comply with the terms of AB 5. In the face of such powerful opposition, some wonder what would happen to workers like the Spearmint Rhino dancers if AB 5 is repealed or left without the power of effective enforcement through additional amendments or judicial limitations?

The Fate of California Misclassification Suits: With or Without AB 5

The Ortega suit against Rhino Spearmint night club was filed in before AB 5 was enacted – in February 2017. It was filed before the Dynamex decision that led to the legislative change. While the case did not receive an actual judicial decision, the defendant found the arguments presented strong enough to warrant making a settlement to resolve the matter out of court. This conclusion would be likely with or without AB 5 in place. While it is likely that misclassification lawsuits would be more difficult for California workers to win without AB 5, it is not their only hope.

If you need to discuss misclassification or how to file a misclassification lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Siemens Mobility Sued Over Alleged Missed Breaks and Wage Issues

Siemens Mobility is currently facing a potential class-action lawsuit after one of their material handlers, Dewitt Nunery, sued to allege wage issues, skipped lunch and rest periods, and inaccurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Claims He Was Required to Work Through Breaks:

The plaintiff in the case is a Siemens Mobility warehouse worker and material handler with an hourly pay rate of $16.37. Nunery claims Siemens required him to work through breaks at the Sacramento County train factory. Nunery claims that in addition to not getting a chance to take his breaks, he was not offered accurate overtime payment for missed break time.

Skipping “Paid” Breaks Should Add Time to the End of the Shift

Since rest breaks are "paid time," skipping rest breaks during a work shift should add that time to the end of the shift, but Nunery claims it wasn't. Still working at the train factory, Nunery alleges the company pressured him to work over seven days consecutively without overtime pay. Siemens train factory has been growing significantly throughout the last several years, with numerous large orders coming in from throughout the United States and Canada. The factory fulfills orders for trains, train sets, and light rail vehicles.

Seeking Legal Help to Resolve an Employment Law Violation:

Originally, Acara Solutions Inc., a staffing agency based out of New York, placed Nunery at the Siemens train factory. Later he worked for Siemens directly. Nunery claims he experienced the same payment issues and employment law violations under both Acara Solutions Inc. and Siemens. Nunery seeks penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act and seeks class-action for others in similar situations at the company. Nunery's attorney filed a notice of violations of the California Labor Code in October. In December, they filed a civil suit in Sacramento County Superior Court. Effective February 10, 2020, the case was moved from Sacramento County court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The Suit Alleges Numerous Employment Law Violations:

Nunery's suit alleges meal break violations, rest break violations, minimum wage violations, and overtime pay violations. Nunery also claims that the company failed to provide accurate and itemized wage statements and failed to provide Nunery with a day off for seven consecutive days on the job.

The Siemens factory, located just south of Sacramento, is the third largest manufacturer in the region employing 1,500 workers.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or if you need to file an overtime pay lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Lawsuit Against Penske Truck Leasing Co. Alleges Overtime Violations

In a class-action lawsuit, allegations claim Penske Truck Leasing Co. violated numerous California Labor Code provisions, including failing to provide employees with minimum wage, violating overtime pay requirements, and failing to provide employees with required rest periods. The class action complaint was filed by the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. The class-action lawsuit (Case No. 20STCV04055) is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The class-action lawsuit alleges that Penske:

• Failed to provide accurate and itemized wage statements

• Failed to accurately record and offer legally required meal and rest periods

• Failed to provide employees with legally required overtime wages

• Failed to pay minimum wage

• Failed to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failed to pay wage in a timely manner

The allegations in the class action complaint against trucking magnate, Penske, violate Labor Code.

What is an Accurate Wage Statement?

The wage statement or pay stub serves as a document employees receive each pay period to provide details about how their paycheck was calculated. In the state of California, there are specific laws that govern the info that employees receive along with payment for hours worked. In general, employees have the right to receive an accurate record of how many hours they worked, how much they are paid per hour, the total wages they are paid, and any deductions made from their gross wages. By requiring employers to issue accurate wage statements, the law allows employees to keep a statement providing them with a record after cashing paychecks.

The complaint included additional allegations in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, engaging in unfair competition when engaging in a company-wide policy that failed to accurately record and calculate missed meal breaks and rest periods. The plaintiff also claims that the company intentionally disregarded their obligation to comply with employment law requirements by failing to provide workers with all required payment for work performed.

If you need to talk to someone about overtime law or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Employees Sue Bravo Stars Lisa Vanderpump and Ken Todd for Wage & Hour Violations

Lisa Vanderpump and Ken Todd’s restaurant empire is the foundation for a drama-filled Bravo series. Stars on the show, Vanderpump Rules, tend to be more than happy to participate in spite of the drama the show is known for creating. But recently, several former employees filed a lawsuit alleging that they were not provided proper wages.  

Bravo Stars Sued for Various Employment Law Violations:

Former employees claim that Bravo stars Lisa Vanderpump and Ken Todd failed to pay wages or overtime wages for four years (and maybe more). In December 2019, Adam Pierce Antoine, and several other former employees, filed a class-action lawsuit. The defendants, Lisa Vanderpump and Ken Todd own several California restaurants, including SUR, Tom Tom, Pump, and Villa Blanca. Allegedly, staffers at the Bravo stars’ restaurants were not compensated fairly when they worked overtime - as a standard practice. The plaintiffs also allege that the owner, Lisa Vanderpump, regularly dedicated time and energy to altering employee time records to manipulate the number of hours to minimize the number of hours rather than providing for all the hours worked. Not only does this represent wage and hour violations and overtime pay violations, but it also violates federal requirements to provide employees with an accurate wage statement.

Bravo Stars Allegedly Fail to Pay Employees for Hours Worked:

Allegedly, Lisa Vanderpump did not provide a minimum wage to her employees for their hours due to numerous standard “practices” that businesses can be tempted to institute as a means of minimizing labor costs.

• Off the Clock Work: Employees were not paid for hours worked “off the clock.”

• Unpaid Training: Employees were not paid for mandatory training.

• Unpaid, but On Call: Employees were not paid for time spent on call.

• No Meal or Rest Breaks: Employees were not provided with meal and rest breaks required by California labor law, and were not otherwise compensated. (According to labor law, Employees who are not given meal breaks or rest breaks should be compensated and allegedly, this never happened for employees at the many restaurants owned by the well-known Bravo stars).

In addition to wage and hour and overtime violations, Vanderpumpand Todd allegedly did not provide terminated employees with accurate wage statements reflecting the time they worked. Plaintiffs filed suit citing they suffered damages and Antione seeks more than $25,000. 

In response to the lawsuit, the restaurant describes the plaintiff as disgruntled workers who were written up and given plenty of warnings by their supervising staff before they were let go. The owners also insist that they take action to prevent abuse toward their staff or their patrons.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Caterers Sue LA Airport for Unpaid Overtime

Caterers working at Los Angeles International Airport airlines filed suit against Sky Chefs in December 2019. The California workers claim they are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime.  Sky Chef workers allege they were shortchanged wages earned from January 1, 2019, throughout the entire year. The plaintiffs seek class-action certification. Sky Chef responded by advising those seeking information that they do not comment on pending litigation.

The employees filing suit claim that Sky Chefs uses a standard practice to calculate overtime for workers at LAX that bases overtime pay rates on a wage below the legally required minimum wage. The practice is described as “systematic, widespread, and flagrant” in the lawsuit. If the allegations are true, the employment law violations were both widespread and flagrant.

Examples of Alleged Employment Law Violations:

One plaintiff included in the lawsuit alleges that Sky Chefs failed to provide him full payment for overtime, underpaying him by $3.74 per hour for all overtime hours worked. The plaintiffs’ legal counsel estimates the number of affected Sky Chefs employees to be between 500 and 900 workers assigned to various facilities adjacent to LAX. Plaintiffs seek damages equal to their underpaid overtime hours plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. It is estimated to total at least a few million dollars.

The California Overtime Lawsuit Follows Living Wage and Affordable Health Care Protest:

The Sky Chefs California overtime lawsuit followed the protest staged by Sky Chef workers the month prior at the Los Angeles airport. The protest called for a living wage and affordable health care.

If you need to discuss how to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

The Fight Over California’s Gig Economy Law Escalates: Drivers Sue Uber for Back Pay

A group of Uber drivers recently filed a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit filed against Uber at the end of 2019 seeks retroactive pay, benefits, and overtime for Uber drivers. Pay, benefits, and overtime would be retroactive to April 2018, the time at which the Dynamex ruling was issued by the California Supreme Court that set new standards for when companies are expected to provide benefits to workers.

Uber Drivers Alleged Violations of Labor Law:

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the suit, plaintiffs argue that Uber improperly classifies drivers as independent contractors instead of employees with access to employee benefits and employee protections. The legislation was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September 2019 and codified the Supreme Court ruling into law. Assembly Bill 5 creates an ABC test for contractor-employee distinction based on three factors.

Uber Claims Their Practices Do Not Violate Labor Law:

When asked for a comment on the suit, Uber did not immediately respond, but later stated that they do not plan to make changes to their practices to comply with the law because they maintain their driver classifications are correct. Together with other gig economy powerhouses (Lyft, Doordash, etc.) Uber is also floating a ballot measure that could allow them to continue the practice of classifying drivers as independent contractors.

The suit names three dozen Uber drivers as representatives for current and former Uber employees. Class size is an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 drivers that opted out of arbitration clauses. The plaintiffs claim that drivers should be classified as employees and be eligible for minimum wage, overtime pay, mileage reimbursement, cell phone usage, and additional reimbursement for expenses.

AB 5 Increases Misclassification Lawsuits:

With AB 5 taking effect as of January 1, 2020, more lawsuits are expected throughout the year as workers learn about their newly granted rights. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, championed AB 5 and also encouraged California attorneys to file lawsuits over misclassified employees.

In response to the drivers’ fight against the gig economy’s practice of classifying them as independent contractors, two other groups have sued in a challenge to the legal claims insisting that it would dramatically decrease their ability to earn a living.

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$2.75 Million Goes to Temp Nurses in Overtime Case Settlement

In recent news, a group of temporary healthcare providers alleged overtime violations. After filing suit (Dalchau et al v. Fastaff, LLC, N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-01584), and gaining class certification, the overtime class action lawsuit was settled. The class members will split about $1.6 million.

The nursing staff company that allegedly violated overtime regulations, will pay $2.75 million to settle the case. The collective action settlement won final approval from a California federal court. The class members include more than 2,750 nurses and technicians across the nation. The members allege that Fastaff LLC did not include housing stipends in their overtime calculations, which is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor law.

Defining Overtime Pay: Overtime pay is compensation paid to an employee who works more than “full time” hours as defined by federal labor law. The rate of overtime pay is calculated by multiplying the regular hourly rate of pay by 1.5. The amount of overtime pay provided to an employee is the overtime pay rate (as previously calculated) multiplied by the number of hours worked over 40 in one week or over 8 in one day.

$1.7 million of the settlement will be split amongst class and collective members, after necessary deductions. Each of the members will receive a payout of approximately $624.  

Lead plaintiffs in the case, Stephanie Dalchau and Michael Goodwin, will receive $10,000 service awards. Counsel will receive $916,000 in attorneys’ fees and $27,700 for reimbursed litigation costs. The hybrid settlement is seen as fair, reasonable, and adequate by Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The settlement was granted preliminary approval May 12th, 2019. Orrick determined that appropriate notice was issued to putative class members and no objections were made to the terms of the settlement.

If you are not being paid overtime or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.