Will Superior Court Judge Give Final Approval to $36M Equinox Settlement?

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court judge gave Equinox a nod indicating they can expect to receive final approval on the $36 million global settlement to resolve California state and federal labor law allegations claiming Equinox pushed more than 15,000 employees to complete off-the-clock work and skip meal periods, and rest breaks.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The Court: U.S. District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 19-cv-05072-WHO

The Plaintiff: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The plaintiffs in the case are group fitness instructors and personal trainers employed in a nonexempt status. The plaintiffs claim they regularly worked over 40 hours in one workweek and more than 8 hours in one workday. According to the complaint, nonexempt workers were paid hourly for the time they were clocked in and at a piece rate for finishing specific tasks. Equinox allegedly let plaintiffs and qualifying class members complete numerous tasks off-the-clock without pay, such as:

• Interacting with clients outside of classes or training sessions

• Organizing and creating calendars for scheduling

• Scheduling work meetings

• Engaging with supervisors

• Contacting prospective clients

• Prepping client programs for sessions.

In addition to not receiving pay for the hours required to complete the off-the-clock tasks, the hours spent were also not considered for overtime calculations.

The Defendant: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The defendant in the case, Equinox, owns and operates luxury health clubs in California. According to allegations in the labor law complaint, Equinox's published policies discouraged/prohibited workers from submitting all the hours they worked. For instance, personal trainers were limited to two to three hours weekly for session-related activities. They were required to reach out to management if they felt they needed to spend more time than that on their fitness programming outside of training sessions. According to the plaintiffs, performing all the tasks associated with programming required by Equinox within the time allotted was not realistic. As a result, plaintiffs claim that Equinox's standard policy resulted in inaccurate wages, overtime wages, and wage statements.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

In the case, Fodera v. Equinox Holdings, the $36 million wage and hour settlement approved by the court represents the resolution of claims from numerous California State and Federal Court cases. The hefty settlement covers a class of more than 15,000 hourly nonexempt current and former Equinox workers employed from April 2015 to December 2022. The class includes a PAGA group of nonexempt personal trainers and fitness instructors. Equinox allegedly failed to pay for pre-short work and post-shift work. Additionally, the plaintiffs pointed out that Equinox's company policy regarding meal periods, rest breaks, wage statements, and other wage and hour practices are not in line with labor law requirements. Superior Court Judge Herbert issued final settlement approval on September 21, 2023.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, 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.

Elite Bohemian Grove Club Faces Class Action Alleging Employment Law Violations

In recent news, an elite secret club called Bohemian Grove faces labor law violation allegations, including failing to pay overtime and not giving workers breaks.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2023cv02760

The Plaintiff: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Anthony Gregg, Wallid Saad, Shawn Claiborne, filed the proposed class action on June 25, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, demanding a jury trial. The plaintiffs are former Bohemian Grove valets who worked at the club’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California, for several years. They allege unfair labor practices, including 16-hour workdays with no breaks and failing to pay overtime and minimum wages.

The Defendant: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The defendant in the case, Bohemian Grove, one of the most elite and secretive clubs in the U.S. (with Reagan and Nixon listed among its elite membership), faces multiple labor law allegations:

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

2. Collective Action - Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.)

3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods

4. Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks

5. Failure to Pay All Wages at Termination (Labor Code Section 201-203)

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

7. Unfair Business Practices; 8. Violation of Labor Code Section 2699 (PAGA)

Bohemian Grove attracts some of the world’s most powerful people to mysterious gatherings in the woods outside of San Francisco, California, and has long been the focus of conspiracy theorists and general fascination. The plaintiffs worked for several years at Bohemian Grove’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California (a secretive 2,700-acre camp near the Russian River that’s been in operation every summer for 150 years). The club lists 2,600 active members and a significant wait list.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Club is comprised of 100 camps, each with one or more captains who consistently violate numerous labor laws yearly. The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Grove treasurer, B. Dawson, personally directed valets to falsify payroll records and perform work off the clock. According to complaints in the lawsuit, throughout the 14-day summer camp each year, workers were consistently paid for eight hours when working 16-plus hour workdays without breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. If certified, the class action status would affect 300 employees. The plaintiffs seek up to $1.5 million in damages from the all-male Bohemian Grove club.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Did SpaceX Violate Numerous California Labor Laws?

In recent news, a SpaceX employee alleges the company violated numerous California labor laws.

The Case: Juan Padilla v. Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. DBA SpaceX

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 23STCV17559

The Plaintiff: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Padilla, a former SpaceX employee, filed a class action accusing the company of a slew of California labor law violations, including failing to pay hourly workers proper minimum wages, straight-time wages, and overtime wages. Labor Law entitles hourly employees to a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period every five hours. According to the complaint, SpaceX often required employees to work more than five consecutive hours without providing them with their legally compliant meal breaks. Similarly, the complaint alleges that SpaceX required hourly workers to work over four consecutive hours without providing a legally required 10-minute rest break. The plaintiff also claims that the missed breaks were not compensated with an additional hour of pay as labor law requires.

The Defendant: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The defendant in the case, SpaceX, is a spacecraft engineering and manufacturing company co-founded by Elon Musk in 2002. In addition to the missed meal break and rest period claims and alleged minimum wage, wage and hour, and overtime pay violations, the defendant also faces allegations of failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses (like parking and cell phone use), and timely payment of final wages (California law stipulates that all unpaid wages are due immediately upon discharge or within 72 hours of a former employee’s departure).

The Case: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case is a former SpaceX employee and California resident. Padilla was employed at SpaceX from January 2022 through September 2022. Padilla seeks to represent anyone who worked for SpaceX in California as a non-exempt hourly employee at any time during the four years and 178 days preceding the initial complaint filing and ending when the notice to the class is distributed.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, 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.

California Class Action Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The Court: Orange County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

The Allegations: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

• Meal and Rest Period Violations

• Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

• Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

• Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

• Unreimbursed Business Expenses

• Wage Statement Violations

• Failure to Pay Wages on Time

• Unlawful Deductions

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, 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.

Class Action Accuses VNA Hospice of Overtime Pay Violations

In the Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice class action, VNA Hospice is accused of violating overtime pay requirements governed by labor law.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice and Palliative Care of Southern California

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California

The Case No.: CIVDS1909598

The Plaintiff: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against VNA Hospice, claiming the company failed to compensate hourly employees with accurate overtime wages. According to Carter, the company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt workers non-discretionary incentive wages calculated based on their performance on the job. The plaintiff argues that the bonuses should have been included in the employee’s regular pay rate for overtime wage calculation. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The defendant in the case, VNA Hospice, allegedly committed various California Labor Code violations by failing to pay its employees the proper overtime wages.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The case, Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice, includes claims that the company’s overtime calculations were not based on an accurate regular pay rate – leading to the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of VNA Hospice being underpaid in overtime wages. The class action complaint seeks penalties for missed rest periods and meal breaks based on the company’s lack of standard policy and practices providing employees with legally mandated breaks, minimum wage, and accurate overtime pay.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, 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.

Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Bluecrew Violated Labor Law

In a California class action lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the company failed to provide employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in inaccurate wages and overtime wages.  

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The Court: San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-602240

The Plaintiff: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Dela Cruz, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that as a result of rigorous work schedules, he and other employees who qualify as California class members were sometimes unable to take their thirty-minute meal breaks and that at other times they were not fully relieved of work duties during the meal breaks they did take. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that their employer sometimes failed to provide workers with their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours in one shift. 

When Do California Workers Get a Second Meal Break in One Work Shift? 

In California, workers are generally entitled to a second meal break if they work a certain number of hours in a single work shift. The specific rules for meal breaks in California are as follows: one meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work over 5 hours in one workday, and a second meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work more than 10 hours in one workday with the second meal break provided no later than the end of the worker’s tenth hour or work. There are certain exceptions for specific industries, and employees can waive their second meal break if their total hours in the day do not exceed 12 hours (as long as they did not already waive their first meal break). When an employer does not provide an employee with the required meal break, the employee is typically required to pay the employee an additional hour at the regular pay rate for each day a meal break was not provided. 

The Defendant: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The defendant in the case, Bluecrew, LLC, faced allegations of California labor law violations when an employee filed a class action complaint alleging that Bluecrew (and Bluecrew Staffing) allegedly:

1. Failed to pay minimum wage.

2. Failed to pay overtime wages.

3. Failed to provide legally mandated rest periods and meal breaks.

4. Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

5. Failed to reimburse their employees for necessary work expenses.

6. Failed to pay sick pay wages.

7. Failed to pay wages when due. 

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

Did Bluecrew violate California labor law? In the case Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC, California’s San Fransisco Superior Court had to consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the company’s standard practices violated California labor laws.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, 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.

Verizon Faces Another Overtime Lawsuit

There is no shortage of overtime lawsuits when it comes to Verizon.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Santillan, and more than 500 employees, claimed they were denied overtime, meal and rest breaks, and expense reimbursements. The plaintiffs claim that the company’s standard practices violated California labor law and federal labor laws.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case is Verizon Connect Inc. et al. Verizon Communications Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications giant. Antonio Hiram Santillan originally filed the complaint in May 2021, alleging that Verizon Connect (a Verizon subsidiary) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations and failed to either provide or compensate workers for mandatory meal breaks. Santillan worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan’s San Diego putative class action alleged that Verizon:

• failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate

• failure to provide all meal periods

• failure to pay all wages

• failure to reimburse business expenses

• failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements

• unfair business practices

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The parties attended mediation on January 30, 2023, and reached a settlement agreement between Verizon and hundreds of current and former employees. In June 2023, U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff granted preliminary approval of the $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit. The judge ruled that the settlement represented an acceptable resolution for the case. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the class would receive about half their expected damages with expectations that class members would see $1,800 payouts.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced overtime attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.