$5.7M Settlement Follows Cognizant Overtime Lawsuit

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., IT services giant, recently agreed to settle an overtime lawsuit for $5.7 million. The lawsuit included allegations that the firm failed to pay a group of US employees for overtime hours worked. 

What is Overtime Under California Law?

According to California state law, employers are required to pay all nonexempt employees daily overtime one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours they work over 8 hours (up to and including 12 hours in any workday), and for the first 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.

The Plaintiff in the California Overtime Case:

While the Cognizant overtime lawsuit is a class action covering several different, but similar workers, the named worker in the lawsuit is Debi Mishar. Mishar was a testing analyst for a Sacramento Blue Shield of California location for Cognizant. The other workers included in the class action were also workers in the company’s quality assurance testing business.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: California Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

According to the documents included in the California overtime class action, Mishar was paid an annual salary until August 2012, when Cognizant switched his payment to an hourly wage. Mishar alleges that the defendant underpaid overtime by failing to include certain amounts of pay when they calculated the employee’s “regular rate of pay” used to calculate overtime pay.

The Cognizant California Overtime Class Action Lawsuit: 

The overtime class action lawsuit was filed in US Federal Court on August 25, 2017. The court granted preliminary approval of the $5.7 million settlement earlier this month. A hearing is set to seek final approval on November 12, 2020.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or 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.

Will California Successfully Force Uber and Lyft to Reclassify Drivers as Employers?

In recent news, California seeks to force Uber and Lyft to reclassify its drivers as employees – with a deadline only weeks out! Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to file court documents that could make it happen. His office plans to seek a preliminary injunction against both massive rideshare companies. If the court agrees, both would be required to grant their drivers’ employment status while the lawsuit is still pending.

Should Rideshare Companies Own Up to Their Responsibilities?

Becerra feels it is time for the two rideshare companies to own up to their responsibilities and take care of the people who make them such a success – their drivers. By misclassifying drivers or other workers as consultants or independent contractors, employers like Uber and Lyft effectively pass responsibility for certain business costs on to their workers. In this scenario, workers or taxpayers end up footing the bill for employer obligations like paying a legal wage, paying overtime, offering sick leave, unemployment insurance, etc.

Do Rideshare Companies Intentionally Misclassify Drivers as Independent Contractors?

Last month, the group sued Uber and Lyft under the state’s gig work law, AB-5 accusing them of miscategorizing drivers as independent contractors. Earlier this month, the state regulator ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are employees under California law. Regardless, both rideshare conglomerates continuously defended their position that a mandatory reclassification of drivers would negatively impact their business models, cause a price increase, and leave drivers out of work.

Rideshare Companies Insist Drivers Want to be Independent Contractors

According to Uber and Lyft, most rideshare drivers want to be independent contractors. The companies have already made significant changes to their rideshare apps to retain their current business model under California law. Matthew Wing, an Uber spokesperson, even went so far as to call out California’s elected officials for focusing on “shutting down an entire industry” instead of trying to create work for the more than 3 million Californians currently without a job.                                            

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.

Lululemon Allegedly Failed to Pay Accurate Overtime to California Employees

Lululemon USA Inc. is facing overtime allegations. The California overtime lawsuit claims that the company violated the PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) when they failed to calculate and pay their employees overtime wages accurately. The suit is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.  

Lululemon Faces Numerous Employment Law Allegations

In the LA overtime lawsuit, Lululemon faces allegations from the plaintiff and other aggrieved employees that they did not receive payment for all hours worked, including overtime hours. The plaintiffs also claim that the company failed to keep accurate records, provide required meal and rest periods, and provide suitable seating for employees (when the nature of their work reasonably permitted sitting).

The Lululemon Lawsuit Includes Multiple Labor Law Violations

In the California lawsuit, plaintiffs made several severe allegations of employment law violations, including:

Violation of applicable sections of California Labor Code and the requirements of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order due to a company policy, practice or procedure that allegedly failed to provide aggrieved employees with seating when their job duties reasonably permitted sitting while working.

• Failure to pay overtime

• Failure to pay for all hours worked

• Failure to keep accurate wage and hour records

• Failure to provide required meal breaks

• Failure to provide required rest periods

What is the PAGA or Private Attorney General Act?

In addition to bringing individual claims, plaintiffs can sue under PAGA for alleged employment law violations. The Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) is a California statute enabling workers to file suit against their employees for labor law violations. Using PAGA, California workers can act as private attorneys general and seek civil penalties as if they were a state agency. The statute was designed to allow citizens to be deputized to enforce labor code and was created in response to California state’s limited resources. Under PAGA, employees can step into state regulators' shoes to seek civil penalties and receive a portion of the amount they recover as compensation. Civil penalties recovered under PAGA are split, with 25% going to employees and 75% going to California.                                        

If you need to talk to someone about overtime violations or if you need to file a California 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.

Worker Sues LA Affordable Housing Firm for Overtime Violations

Blaike Wellington, a former LA Affordable Housing employee, filed a lawsuit claiming the nonprofit failed to pay overtime. Wellington also claims she was not the only one that went unpaid.

LA Family Housing Allegedly Failed to Pay Overtime

In the lawsuit filed recently by a former employee, Blaike Wellington, allegations were made that the company failed to pay the plaintiff overtime. Wellington also claimed in the lawsuit documents that there were other “similarly aggrieved employees” that were not paid as required by law. LA Family Housing is one of the area’s most active affordable housing developers. In addition to claims that they failed to pay overtime, they are facing numerous other allegations in the California lawsuit.

LA Family Housing’s Work in the Area: 

LA Family Housing plans to complete an affordable 54-unit development in San Fernando Valley’s North Hills neighborhood. The nonprofit also partners with the Coalition for Responsible Community Development to create a 32 unit, 100% affordable complex in Florence designed to house the homeless and family members. The website indicates that LA Family Housing operated over 400 housing units in the LA area in 2018, moved over 2,200 people into permanent housing situations, and assisted close to 11,000 people as they transitioned out of homelessness and stark poverty.

Wellington Claims Nonprofit Also Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements:

In addition to alleged overtime pay violations, Los Angeles Family Housing is facing numerous other claims of employment law violations, including keeping accurate hourly records of timesheets for their workers. Blaike Wellington, the only named plaintiff in the suit, is a former employee and former resident advocate for the nonprofit. Wellington left her place with Los Angeles Family Housing in January. She claims she was not the only employee treated in this manner and that there are other similarly “aggrieved employees” at the LA nonprofit. For instance, employees were left alone at the front desk without assistance and without the ability to leave their workstations for meal breaks or rest periods as mandated by labor law. Wellington’s suit seeks back wages, interest, penalties, and legal fees.

If you need to discuss overtime pay or other employment 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 any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$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.