California Nurse Filed Two Class Actions with the Same Claims: Against the Staffing Agency & a Medical Center

A California nurse successfully filed for the same set of claims against two joint employers in two separate class actions.

The Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The Court: Cal.App.5th

The Case No.: RIC1514281

The Plaintiff: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The plaintiff, Grande, was assigned to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center by FlexCare, LLC, a temporary staffing agency. During her time working at Eisenhower Medical Center, Grande alleges she did not receive required mail and rest periods, was not paid wages earned for certain periods she worked, and did not receive overtime wages.

The Defendant: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The defendant in the case, Eisenhower Medical Center, worked with FlexCare LLC, a temporary staffing agency.

Summary of the Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The plaintiff’s claims were based solely on the time she was assigned to work at Eisenhower Medical Center by the temporary staffing agency, FlexCare LLC. Initially, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. FlexCare settled with the class, requiring the plaintiff to execute a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment that incorporated the settlement agreement and release of claims. One year later, the plaintiff filed a second class-action citing Eisenhower Medical Center as the Defendant. FlexCare intervened, insisting that the plaintiff could not bring a separate lawsuit against Eisenhower as the claims were already settled in the previous class action. After a limited trial, the trial court ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the terms of the prior class action’s settlement agreement since Eisenhower was not named in the previous lawsuit. As such, Eisenhower Medical Center did not have a legal right to avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata; they were neither a party to the prior litigation nor privity with FlexCare, LLC. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. The ruling on this case could affect how staffing agencies and the employers who work with them need to manage litigation in order to avoid duplicate litigation that would result in them paying twice for the same claims.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss how to file a California class action, 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.

Clarifying Premium Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Periods

The California Supreme Court held that an employee’s regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The decision was announced on July 15, 2021, while the court considered the implications of Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case No.: S259172

The Plaintiff: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The plaintiff in the case is a hotel bartender named Ferra. Ferra alleged that Loews improperly calculated her meal and rest period premium payments by excluding her non-discretionary quarterly incentive bonuses when they completed the premium pay calculations.

The Defendant: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

Loews argued (successfully) before a trial court as well as a court of appeal that Ferra’s ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is her base hourly rate of pay and that the regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is distinguishable from her overtime regular rate of pay. The California Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the decision from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that: “the ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay under California Labor Code section 226.7(c) is synonymous with the regular rate of pay for overtime as defined under California Labor Code section 501(a). Thus, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must include non-discretionary payments, meaning those that are paid pursuant to [a] prior contract, agreement, or promise . . . .”

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

When the California Supreme Court held that an employee’s ‘regular rate of compensation’ for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s ‘regular rate of pay’ for overtime pay, they clarified a common point of argument in California wage and hour lawsuits. When California employers pay their employees meal and rest period premiums, they must use the employee’s overtime regular rate of pay (including non-discretionary payments for any work performed). The California Supreme Court also ruled that the holding applies retroactively. As such, California employers should review and update their payroll policies and any related procedures associated with meal and rest period premiums to verify that premium payments are paid at the regular rate of pay, and include applicable non-discretionary payments.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against violations in the workplace, 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.

Wingstop Franchisee Faces Claims They Failed to Accurately Pay Employee Wages

According to a recent lawsuit, Sagar Holding Corporation (a Wingstop franchisee) violated labor law by failing to accurately pay employee wages.

The Case: Julianne R. Garcia v. Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

The Court: Superior Court of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV38872

The Plaintiff: Julianne R. Garcia

The plaintiff in the case, Julianne R. Garcia, claims that Wingstop employees were subjected to a rigorous work schedule that left them unable to take off-duty meal breaks. Wingstop employees were allegedly not fully relieved from work duties during their meal breaks and rest periods and were sometimes interrupted while on their breaks to perform tasks for their employer.

The Defendant: Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

According to the plaintiff, Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop franchisee) worked their employees on shifts longer than 5 hours without providing the required off-duty meal break and failed to provide their employees with a second off-duty meal period during workdays lasting more than 10 hours. Employees allegedly remained on call and basically on duty while they were taking their “off-duty” breaks, which is in direct contradiction to the legal definition of “off duty” in reference to meal breaks and rest periods.

Summary of the Case: Julianne R. Garcia v. Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

As the Wingstop franchisee’s standard policy allegedly required workers to forfeit their meal breaks and rest periods, they were due additional compensation under the law. However, the plaintiff in the case claims no additional compensation was provided. As such, the standard practice and policy of the defendant in the case led to additional claims of failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, etc.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA suit, 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.

Former Virgin Air Flight Attendants File Wage and Hour and Overtime Claims

In the case of Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc., the judge will need to consider the origin of the defendant’s policy regarding meal period and rest break provisions outside of California.

The Case: Julia Bernstein, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Virgin America, Inc., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California.

Case No.: 15–v–02277–JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case are current and former Virgin America flight attendants. The plaintiffs in the class action allege that Virgin failed to pay them for hours worked before their flights, after their flights, and between their flights, as well as time spent in mandatory training, time they were “on reserve,” time they were required to spend taking mandatory drug tests, and time spent filling out required incident reports. The plaintiffs also allege that the company did not allow them to take meal periods or rest breaks as required by law, did not pay appropriate overtime pay and minimum wage, and did not provide class members with accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Virgin American is an airline company. Headquartered in Burlingame, California, Virgin trains their flight attendants in California. In fact, the company has received millions of dollars from the to do just that. All flight attendant training for Virgin takes place in California. Many of the flights arrive or depart from a California airport, as well. The airline estimates that in the last ten years, the average number of daily flights departing California airport has never fallen below 88.6%

Background of the Case: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

In most recent news, the judge found that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption against extraterritorial application of meal and rest break requirements for breaks and rest periods that occur outside of California. This finding is based on the judge’s decision that the plaintiffs did not show that the Virgin airline company policy originated at the company’s California headquarters.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or overtime pay 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can Geico Employees Keep their Wage Suit Alive?

In recent news, Geico attempted to have an overtime pay lawsuit tossed, but in this instance, auto claim adjusters alleging the company forced workers to work off the clock, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods as required by law.

Details of the Case: Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:20-cv-11722

Workers Filed a Collective and Class Action:

In December 2020, workers filed a collective and class action alleging Geico employees were required to work off the clock, and work through breaks without appropriate compensation. The push to work through breaks and off the clock was allegedly a company effort to meet inspection quotas and employees claim they feared refusing could result in poor performance evaluations. Plaintiffs Alexander Rieske and Saul Gonzalez filed the suit alleging violations of California and New York state laws, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the motion, thirteen other adjusters have already joined the plaintiffs.

Defendant Files a Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Jurisdiction:

In March 2021, Geico filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that there was no practical reason to litigate out-of-state claims in California and indicating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims in the case. In their opposition filing, plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court decision the insurer relied on to push for dismissal of the nationwide collective action (and the New York state class action) doesn’t apply because unlike the Supreme Court case, Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. involves federal claims brought in federal court.

Does the 2017 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Decision Apply?

When filing for dismissal, Geico cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. However, plaintiffs in the suit claim this decision does not apply to the current case since Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court pertained to state jurisdiction finding that California state courts could not adjudicate mass tort claims when plaintiffs were not from California. The Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. action is different because it concerns federal claims in federal court. Plaintiffs further argued that if the court accepted the position presented by Geico that federal courts cannot hear out-of-state claims brought under FLSA, it would effectively eliminate the collective nature of the FLSA.

California Federal Court Finds Bristol-Myers Decision Does Not Apply:

In October 2020, the California federal court’s decision stated that the Bristol-Meyers decision does not apply to FLSA claims brought in federal court (including the current action).

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file FLSA claims, 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.

Aldi Agrees to Pay $2M in California Overtime Pay Lawsuit

Aldi, a discount grocery store chain, recently agreed to a $2 million settlement to end a California overtime lawsuit.

The Details of the Case: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:19-cv-03109

Overview of the Suit: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Thousands of California employees claim that Aldi, the discount grocery store chain, cheated them out of overtime wages. In summer 2020, the discount grocery store chain negotiated a settlement to shut down the overtime pay dispute. This is not the only time the Illinois-based company negotiated to resolve an overtime pay violation claim.

Other Overtime Pay Suits this Defendant Faced:

Aldi, the discount grocery store chain that faced allegations of overtime pay violations from California workers in 2020, previously settled claims with a group of New York store managers alleging they were ot paid for all hours they worked for $10 million. It was just a year after this $10 million wage and hour settlement that a pair of California employees for the same company unveiled their suit including similar allegations.

The Settlement: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

The two California workers involved in the California wage and hour lawsuit, filed the settlement in federal court on March 29, 2021. They seek settlement approval from U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt. Initially, the two (Grant and Lacey-Salas) filed two separate suits in 2020, but the court granted approval to consolidate the two cases in March 2021. Both plaintiffs alleged that the discount grocery store where they were employed did not provide California employees with full compensation for the hours they worked.

Seeking Settlement Approval in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit Against Aldi:

The plaintiffs are seeking settlement approval and hope to have payouts approved ranging from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand for themselves and for the 2,050+ workers in 70 different Aldi’s locations throughout California employed during the past 5 years.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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.

$1.5 Million Paid for California Overtime and Per Diem Suit

According to a California federal court filing, a medical staffing company recently agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in a California overtime class action.

Details of the Case: Hubbard v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc.

Court: United States District Court Northern District of California.

Case No.: 4:19-cv-06363

Allegations in the Case: Hubbard v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case allege they were shortchanged by the medical staffing company that employed them. The workers allege the company violated labor law; failing to provide proper overtime pay while employees were on travel assignments. According to the workers involved in the case, the alleged overtime law violations were a result of the company failing to factor in the employees’ per diems for base-pay rates. In short, medical workers claim the company, RCM Technologies (USA) Inc., miscalculated overtime wages. The group of medical workers recently called for preliminary approval of a settlement with the employer, RCM Technologies (USA) Inc.

Protracted Negotiations Resulted in Compromise and Settlement Terms:

While the negotiations were described as “protracted,” the health care workers eventually concluded that based on the size of the risk associated with attempting to recover the maximum amount they sought with the suit, a compromise was justified. For the purposes of the settlement, the plaintiffs were willing to agree with the terms and come to an agreement. Rhonda Hubbard filed the original lawsuit in October 2019 citing that RCM violated California labor law and California business laws associated with failing to pay accurate overtime pay.

The Class Members: Over 300 California Workers Employed by RCM

The certified class members numbered over 300. The class included any workers employed by RCM in California on a nonexempt, hourly basis during the four years before the lawsuit was filed (through class certification), and received overtime pay and a weekly per diem or stipend from RCM. According to the preliminary terms of the $1.5 million settlement, each class member can expect to receive approximately $3,110. Hubbard receives a $10,000 service award, and the attorneys are provided up to $500,000 in attorneys fees, and $20,000 in litigation costs.

Considering Per Diems & Overtime Pay:

Should per diems always be factored into a California employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations? The preliminary settlement occurred before the court provided an answer on the question at the heart of this case. However, In February, the Ninth Circuit ruled that per diem pay should have been considered part of the worker’s bae pay rate. Regardless, Hubbard wasn’t sure she could depend on the Ninth Circuit ruling to guarantee her class action’s success in litigation continued, since the Ninth Circuit also found that the inclusion of per diem for the purposes of calculating overtime should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.