Aldi, Inc. California Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Settlement?

Plaintiffs in a California class action lawsuit claim that a major grocery chain violated employment law. Aldi, Inc., the grocery store chain, offers to resolve the claims through settlement.  

Plaintiffs Allege California Grocery Store Failed to Pay Overtime: 

A recent California class action alleges Aldi, Inc. failed to pay employees for all hours worked. The original Plaintiff in the case, Jeree Grant, filed the class action claiming misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide payment for all hours worked. According to Grant, Aldi employed her to work at one of their grocery stores from October 2017 to May 2018, but she did not receive payment for all the hours she worked. The California class action lawsuit listed other allegations under California labor code, including meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, etc. Aldi has a reputation for being brutally efficient amidst the competition in the California grocery store scene. They draw shoppers with low prices and a minimal $0.25 deposit for grocery cart rentals. Yet shoppers are not aware that a significant portion of the "discount" they enjoy is possible because Aldi management doesn't just keep a "tight" rein on labor costs – their grip far more than "tight." According to the lawsuit, management violates labor law to take advantage of their own workers, adding to their bottom line by taking from those who cannot afford the loss. 

Aldi Grocery Store, Defendant in California Class Action Lawsuit:  

The central claim in the Aldi class action is misclassification under California labor law. Other allegations under the California labor code regarding mandatory meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements follow from the lawsuit's central claim. While the allegations in the class action are fairly simple, the speedy resolution could indicate a more complicated story of worker abuse. Some suspect a widespread problem of systemic misclassification to treat hourly nonexempt workers as if they were managerial staff so the company can avoid paying overtime wages. 

Defendant Offers to Settle with Grocery Workers in Misclassification Case:  

Aldi, the grocery store facing the misclassification allegations, offered to settle with the class of potentially thousands of California workers. The company didn't waste time offering a $2 million settlement. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to your 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.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Impact Group Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, a class action overtime lawsuit was filed against Impact Group, LLC. The overtime lawsuit alleges that the company violated several California Labor Code provisions.

Impact Group Allegedly Violated Multiple California Labor Code Provisions:  

According to the recent class-action lawsuit, Impact Group LLC allegedly failed to provide workers with minimum wage, failed to provide overtime pay, and failed to provide mandatory rest periods. California labor law requires employers to provide California employees with meal and rest periods. The case (Case No. 30-2020-01141107-CU-OE-CXC) is pending in California’s Orange Superior Court.

Allegations Made Against Impact Group in Recent California Overtime Lawsuit:

In the overtime lawsuit filed against Impact Group, LLC, plaintiffs allege that Impact did not provide accurate itemized wage statements, did not properly record required meal and rest periods, did not provide mandatory meal and rest periods, did not pay overtime wages as required by law, did not pay minimum wage as required by law, did not reimburse employees for eligible required expenses, and did not pay wages when they were due. The laundry list of allegations cite violations in several applicable California Labor Code Sections, including §§201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order. Alleged violations leave the company subject to civil penalties.

What Is an Act of Unfair Competition?

The complaint also includes allegations that Impact Group, LLC engaged in acts of unfair competition. “Unfair competition” is defined as dishonest or fraudulent rivalry in trade or business. Unfair competition is a branch of intellectual property law relating to the practice of endeavoring to substitute your own goods or products in the market for those of another to deceive buyers or the public. Engaging in acts of unfair competition violates the California Unfair Competition Law under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”).

Impact Allegedly Engaged in Unfair Competition:

The lawsuit alleges that Impact Group engaged in unfair competition through the use of a company-wide policy/procedure failing to calculate and record overtime rates accurately for the plaintiff and other class members. Impact’s willful disregard of their legal obligation to accurately record overtime hours worked, and accurately calculate overtime rates for employees meant their workers did not receive full overtime pay for overtime hours.

If you need to discuss employment law violations in the workplace or overtime pay violations, 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.

$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.