Jimmy John's Agrees to Pay $1.8M to Resolve Overtime Pay Dispute

In recent news, Jimmy John’s agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle wage and hour claims. Employees brought form wage and hour claims against Jimmy Johns under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Details About the Case: Jimmy John’s Overtime Litig., N.D. Ill., 2/15/21

Case Numbers: 14-CV-5509, 15-CV-1681 & 15-CV-6010 

Court: Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

The Plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Claims Case: 

Sixty-six assistant managers from various Jimmy John’s corporate-owned locations that opted into the FLSA collective will receive a settlement check from a $272,500 fund. Additionally, more than 500 Jimmy John’s managers at different independent Jimmy John’s franchisees will receive gift cards totaling $300. The Jimmy John’s gift cards are transferable and can be resold for cash. Two plaintiffs initially filed the suit in July 2014, alleging assistant store managers were misclassified, leaving them exempt from overtime pay. In 2015, the lawsuit became a collective action after numerous other suits were filed. Plaintiffs involved in the case were employed at various Jimmy Johns franchises nationwide, and all allege they were cheated out of overtime pay due to misclassification. 

Seeking a Settlement to Resolve Misclassification, Wage and Hour, and Overtime Pay Claims: 

The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a motion o Feb. 15th to Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees, $250,000 in litigation costs, and $2,500 service award for each named plaintiff in the case. The settlement proposal was intended to resolve three consolidated collective actions alleging FLSA violations stemming from the alleged misclassification. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: 1st Light Energy Inc. Faces Lawsuit

In recent news, 1st Light Energy Inc., is facing a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide workers with accurate wages, as well as other claims. 

All the Details on the Case: Landin v. 1st Light Energy Inc.

Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2020-9700

Filed: Nov. 19, 2020

Court:San Joaquin County Superior Court

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Sammy Landin

Defendant: 1st Light Energy Inc.

The Lawsuit Against 1st Light Energy Inc.:

The lawsuit against 1st Light Energy Inc. is currently pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The lawsuit lists several allegations. 

• Failure to provide minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime pay

• Failure to provide required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements

• Failure to provide wages promptly when due

• Failure to reimburse employees for necessary job-related expenses

Other Claims Made in the 1st Light Energy Lawsuit: 

In addition to the claims already listed, the lawsuit alleges that the company committed acts of unfair competition violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 with a company policy failing to correctly calculate and record accurate overtime pay rates for overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff in the case and others in similar situations with the company. According to the lawsuit, the company’s failure to meet this burden was ongoing and intentional. Failing to properly calculate and pay the legally required compensation for work completed violates California Labor Code. 

California Overtime Requirements: What is Overtime Pay? 

Most non-exempt California employees have the legal right to payment for overtime hours worked. When the California employee works more than a certain number of hours in one day or in one work week, they are due an overtime wage as payment. Overtime pay is a type of increased payment employees earn when they work “overtime hours.” Overtime hours accrue once an employee works more than a certain number of hours in one workday or one workweek. The overtime pay rate is determined using a specific calculation based on the employee’s regular rate of pay. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law 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.

Vail Resorts Faces Lawsuit Alleging Labor Law Violations

On Dec. 3, 2020, three employees filed a lawsuit against Vail Resorts alleging the company violated federal and California state labor law, and multiple other states’ labor laws. Plaintiffs in the case seek class action status. 

All the Details on the Case: Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

Case No.: 1:2020cv03569

Filed: December 3, 2020

Court:United States District Court for the District of Colorado

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Randy Dean Quint, Mark Molina and John Linn

Defendant: Vail Resorts Inc.

Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status for Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in early December 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of R. Quint, J. Linn, and M. Molina seeks class action status. If granted, class action status would include eligible current and former employees of Vail Resorts for the last three years. Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Defendant exploited seasonal employees and violated both federal and state labor laws. The lawsuit seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for alleged violations and fairly compensate plaintiffs and others in similar circumstances for damages some estimate at over $100 million. 

The Plaintiffs Seek Others to Join the Class Action: 

Plaintiffs in the case seek others in similar situations to join the proposed class action against Vail Resorts. According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts broadcasts above-market hourly wages for their workers, but they allegedly did not pay hourly employees for all hours worked at the rate agreed upon in employment contracts. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant’s employment law violations applied to ski instructors, snowboard instructors, ticket scanners, lift operators, etc. All are allegedly not fully paid for their entire shift, according to the lawsuit. “Off the clock” work that was allegedly left unpaid included some training, travel time, dressing time, use, purchase or maintenance of ski/snowboard equipment, and use, purchase or maintenance of cell phones. 

Workers Allegedly Not Paid for All Hours Worked: 

According to the lawsuit, Quint was employed as a seasonal Vail Resorts employee and full-time snow sport instructor at Beaver Creek Resort for seven years. The Plaintiff claims during that time he worked 470 hours for which he did not receive payment, as well as 422 hours of allegedly unpaid overtime. 

According to the lawsuit, Linn was a part-time employee and full-time snow sports instructor at Beaver Creek. The Plaintiff claims he worked 213 hours that were not paid, as well as 130 hours of unpaid overtime during his years with the company. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law 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.

Sticker Mule, Popular Sticker and Merchandising Company, Faces Overtime Lawsuit

Tierra Bonefort, former Sticker Mule LLC and Print Bear LLC employee, filed a federal overtime lawsuit alleging the sticker-making companies violated labor law when they failed to pay overtime wages.

California Sticker Mule Employee Files Suit and Seeks Class Action Status:

Bonefort’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on October 5th. Bonefort’s suit seeks back pay, attorneys fees, and class action status. If class action status is granted, the lawsuit would allow approximately 40 other former and current Sticker Mule and Print Bear employees and workers to join the suit.

Allegations Included in the Overtime Lawsuit:

Bonefort alleges that Sticker Mule and Print Bear (mutually owned sticker making companies) did not pay appropriate overtime wages in accordance with the law (both federal and state labor law) from Sept. 12, 2018 through Jan. 31, 2020. During this time period, Bonefort often worked more than 40 hours per week at the two companies located at 49 Elk Street and 336 Forest Avenue respectively. Allegedly the companies have three shifts for workers and they offer a pay differential for late/overnight work shifts. However, they do not include the pay increase for late/overnight shifts when they calculate overtime pay rates.

In Addition to Miscalculating Overtime Pay, Defendant Failed to Issue Accurate Pay Statements

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant did not provide their employees with accurate wage statements as required by law. By law, wage statements were required to include the employer’s phone number, and the base rate for the employee’s pay. Class members allegedly did not receive pay statements with the required information. The number of overtime hours Bonefort worked during the time period in question is not listed in the lawsuit. However, the plaintiff does require class certification and to notify other potential litigants of their right to join the class.

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California 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.

Air Medical Company Agrees to Pay a $78 Million Settlement in Overtime Suit

The judge in an overtime lawsuit case recently approved a $78 million settlement. The settlement between an air medical company and the medical helicopter company’s California flight crew employees resolves employment law claims of overtime pay violations and missed breaks.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement:

After three months of negotiations and legal maneuvering, Colorado based Air Methods Corporation agreed to settle an overtime class action lawsuit brought by their California flight crew. The Alameda County Superior Court Judge provided preliminary approval in July 2020.

The Settlement Between Air Methods and the Medical Helicopter California Flight Crew:

According to the settlement recently approved by the court, Air Methods out of Colorado plans to provide daily overtime to employees on their California medical flight crews effective June 28th. Daily overtime pay to medical flight crews based out of California and providing services for Air Methods should result in an approximate 20% increase in the salaries of the affected employees.  

The Defendant: Air Methods Providing Medical Transport Via Helicopter in Various States

Air Methods is a medical transport company. In fact, Air Methods is one of the country’s largest air medical transport companies and has operations in various states throughout the nation. Each Air Methods medical helicopter/aircraft is staffed with teams of nurses and paramedics. These services are often provided in remote areas (and to remote areas) throughout the US.  

Employment Law Violation Allegations Made in the Overtime Class Action:

According to the overtime class action documentation, Air Methods violated overtime pay law. The medical transport company is accused of refusing to pay daily overtime for California flight crews that worked more than eight hours in one workday. Air Methods California flight crew employees regularly worked 24 hour shifts according to plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs also claimed that Air Methods refused off-duty meal breaks or rest breaks for their medical flight crew members. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, plaintiffs in the case should receive an average of more than $100,000 each.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law 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.

Former ”Jeopardy” TV Game Show Employee Claims Sony Alleges Wrongful Termination & Age Discrimination

Glenn Kagan, 66, claims that Sony fired him from his job as a contestant-wrangler for the long-running TV game show “Jeopardy!” Kagan says he was replaced by a younger employee when the show started filing again during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Plaintiff Sues Sony for Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination: 

The veteran contestant-wrangler filed suit in California state court alleging that he worked at “Jeopardy!” for more than half his life, but when the show came back to file amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, Sony suddenly terminated his employment and gave his job to a younger replacement. Kagan brought the age discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act citing Sony and Quadra Productions as Defendants. The Defendants in the case face wrongful termination and overtime pay violation allegations. 

Plaintiff Fired and Replaced by Younger Employee Amid Covid-19 Pandemic: 

In the lawsuit, Kagan claims that the company replaced him with a much younger contestant coordinator after falsely accusing him of improper mask-wearing at work. The plaintiff was allegedly fired in August 2020 despite 34 years of employment. In the lawsuit documentation, Kagan claims he had no write-ups or reprimands on the job, no prior warnings, but was fired for not wearing a mask even though he was not provided with any protocols or instructions for wearing a mask. Kagan also claims the company did not provide any personal protective equipment. Kagan claims the real reason Sony fired him was to replace him with a younger employee. 

Plaintiff’s Job History on the “Jeopardy!” TV Game Show: 

The plaintiff was employed as the “Jeopardy!” TV game show’s senior contestant coordinator. As Senior Contestant Coordinator, Kagan was responsible for taking the trivia game show’s contestants to the green room, helping as a “stand in” for Alex Trebek during rehearsals, communicating with contestants, and assisting contestants with their necessary paperwork. A contestant coordinator in his 20’s was promoted in 2016, and according to Kagan, the younger employee gradually took over Kagan’s duties (i.e. stand-in work, etc.), yet according to Kagan, the show had not raised any issues related to Kagan’s work performance. 

Returning to Work After Telecommuting During the Covid-19 Pandemic: 

In July 2020, when Kagan returned to set for the show’s 37th season after several months of working remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic, he was assured along with other returning employees that “Covid Captains” would be providing personal protective equipment and instruction upon their return to work. Kagan alleges there was no guidance, no rules and no masks provided. Kagan claims he brought his own mask from home. Kagan states that his mask inadvertently slipped at one point during the day while he was speaking with a contestant, and that he pulled his mask down to speak to a security guard who was not able to understand him on another occasion. These are the only two occurrences Kagan can think of that producers and human resources could be referring to when they conducted a video meeting with him the next day and reprimanded him for “failing to wear a mask.” Kagan claims he responded that the company did not provide PPE or guidance/policy regarding mask wearing. In response to the discussion, he was suspended. While Kagan was suspended, the younger coordinator took over his job. Kagan was fired a few weeks later. 

Plaintiff Cites Multiple Employment Law Allegations: 

In addition to claiming wrongful termination based on age discrimination, Kagan claims he frequently worked over 40 hours in one week, but did not receive overtime pay, and also claims he did not receive accurate wage statements.

If you need to discuss how to file a California overtime lawsuit or if you have questions about identifying California Labor Law 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.

Court Approves Farmers Insurance Overtime Pay Settlement

In recent news, the court approved Farmers Insurance investigators’ $5.5 million overtime settlement. While the settlement resolves the case, this is not the first time Farmers violated the FLSA and California labor law. 

The California Wage and Hour Lawsuit Alleged Overtime Violations: 

The California wage and hour lawsuit alleged Farmers failed to pay overtime, and provide meal breaks and rest periods. The approved settlement applies to Special Investigators who worked for a California Farmers location from 2013 to 2018. While this settlement brings the recent California overtime lawsuit to a close, it’s not the first time Farmers has faced overtime pay violations. And it’s not the first time they’ve settled an overtime claim either. 

Judge Approves Farmers Overtime Pay Lawsuit Settlement: 

California federal Judge Hixson approved the settlement in late August 2020. The judge stated that settling the case was the quicker and easier path to resolution in comparison to continued litigation (litigation already extended over 3 years). With the approved settlement, Farmers special investigators and former special investigators can see a guaranteed route to payment. Each of about 80 plaintiffs in the case will receive about $47,000, which the judge noted was a “sizable” recovery. 

Other Famers Overtime Lawsuits and Overtime Lawsuit Settlements: 

Farmers Call Center Employees in 2011: Farmers isn’t new to overtime pay violation allegations or overtime lawsuits or even overtime lawsuit settlements. In 2011, Farmers agreed to a $1.52 million overtime pay settlement for 3,459 call center employees (that worked from Jan. 1, 2009 through May 10, 2010 in Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas) after investigations discovered “significant systemic violations” of the FLSA overtime and accurate record provision. The settlement terms required Farmers to maintain future FLSA compliance with proper records and accurate compensation for all hours Farmers employees work. 

Farmers Claims Adjusters in 2014: In 2014, a group of Farmers claims adjusters filed a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide rest periods and meal breaks. Close to two years down the road, Farmers settled the lawsuit with a $4.9 million settlement to 2,114 plaintiffs (Farmers claims adjusters employed between September 2011 through August 2016). 

The Most Recent Farmers Overtime Pay Settlement: The recent overtime settlement stemmed from a wage and hour lawsuit filed in 2017 by Farmers Insurance special investigators (David Deluca et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al., case number 3:17-cv-00034). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

If you have questions about how to identify California labor law violations or if you need 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.