Petaluma Poultry Facing Lawsuit

The Petaluma Poultry lawsuit seeks class action status. The lawsuit was filed against Petaluma Poultry and its parent company based on allegations the company violated a number of different wage and labor laws throughout the previous four years of their business practices.

The original complaint was filed June 9, 2017 in Sonoma County Superior Court on behalf of employees, both former and current, asserting that they were not paid overtime wages. Plaintiffs assert that the company, Petaluma Poultry, failed to pay overtime and compensate their workforce for the time they spent changing out of protective gear when their shifts were completed. Additional claims allege that the poultry company did not provide their employees with the required 30-minute meal breaks. They also claim that when required meal breaks were missed (or not provided) that the company did not provide the employees with compensation.

Each individual violation can be considered “small” on its own. But when taken as a whole and applied across the entire population of Petaluma Poultry workers, they had a significant effect over time. Plaintiffs’ legal counsel notes that this is the exact situation that is well suited for class action procedure.

The original complaint was filed on behalf of Angelica Gutierrez. Gutierrez worked in Petaluma’s production department at the processing plant from 2011 through 2016. During that time, 200 or more workers may have been impacted by the alleged violations.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid compensation on behalf of employees who worked overtime and missed meal breaks, etc. It also seeks penalties, damages and attorneys’ fees as is standard. The plaintiff brought the suit against the poultry company in order to protect her rights as an employee as well as to protect the rights of her co-workers in accordance with the California labor code.

In addition to Petaluma Poultry, the lawsuit also names Delaware-based Coleman Natural Foods and Maryland-based Perdue Foods, owner of both Petaluma and Coleman. The spokesman for the companies declined to comment, as litigation is pending. Although the spokesman did reference Perdue Foods’ statement on wages and working conditions posted on the company website.

The statement posted on the company’s website reads, “We continue to comply with all applicable wage and hour laws and regulations, including those related to minimum wage, overtime compensation, piece rates, and any/all legally mandated benefits. Further we ensure all associates work within the limits of regular and overtime hours. Where overtime is required, those associates are normally granted at least one day off in every seven-day period.”

There are 563 workers employed by Petaluma Poultry. The majority of the workers are hourly and unionized.

If you have trouble obtaining your overtime compensation or if you work overtime without receiving overtime compensation, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Lamar Dawson’s Lawsuit Against the NCAA, Pac-12 is Dismissed

Lamar Dawson, ex-USC football player, filed a California lawsuit against the NCAA and Pac-12 that was dismissed earlier this month by a federal judge, Judge Richard Seeborg. Dawson’s class action was filed in September 2016 seeking minimum wage and overtime pay as well as additional compensation as a result of alleged NCAA and Pac-12 Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code violations.

Lamar Dawson started out at USC as a linebacker his freshman year in 2011, but was injured. His injuries disrupted his football career and he lost his shot at the NFL – mostly due to a torn ACL that occurred in 2013. He redshirted in 2014 and played in 8 games throughout the 2015 season, finishing with 31 tackles.

This decision to dismiss was reminiscent of a similar case last year involving former track and field athletes from the University of Pennsylvania. The three-judge panel in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in that case ruled former student-athletes at NCAA Division I schools are not technically considered employees under the rules set down by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dawson contended during the course of the case that his specific situation was different than the case of University of Pennsylvania’s track and field athletes because football is a revenue-generating sport (in comparison to track). The judge ruled that revenue generation as a determination of employment status is not supported legally. Seeborg set aside the policy question of how Division I FBS college football players should be compensated for what he considered a more fundamental issue determining the direction of the case and his eventual ruling: legal basis for finding them employees under the FLSA. He found none.

The NCAA and Pac-12 were not surprised by the ruling. Both had previously stated similar opinions regarding the validity of Dawson’s claim dating back to the original filing. The NCAA is pleased with the outcome and reiterated their stance that there is no legal support for college athletics participation constituting “employment” with the university. They went on to specify that playing college sports is an opportunity for students to obtain a quality education and build skills that prepare them for educational success at the college level. They concluded their thoughts on the matter by regretting the wasted funds and resources that are spent on cases such as this that will eventually be dismissed. The Pac-12 was also pleased with the ruling finding that it reaffirmed their conviction that college athletes are students – not employees.

If you have questions regarding employment status or whether or not you are misclassified on the job, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Minimum Wage Lawsuit Vs. California Club Filed by Exotic Dancers

Two former exotic dancers out of San Francisco recently joined the growing ranks of dancers who are pursuing litigation against California clubs allegedly in violation of labor law. Elena Pera and Sarah Murphy filed their California minimum wage lawsuit on January 11, 2017 listing S.A.W. Entertainment LTD as the defendant in the case. In this case, the company, doing business as Condor Gentleman’s Club, allegedly filed to provide legal minimum wage to exotic dancers as a result of misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees.

Pera and Murphy seek damages and restitution on behalf of themselves and other exotic dancers in similar positions. The plaintiffs filed the minimum wage lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Legal counsel involved in the case stated that dozens of cases have been handled with similar claims and circumstances in the last four years, that there is currently a nationwide push for this type of case, and that virtually ever court that has decided similar cases held that the exotic dancers were employees – not independent contractors.

2011: Courts handed down a decision favoring a group of exotic dancers out of Georgia claiming they should be classified as employees and not independent contractors (Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises operating as Club Onyx). This ruling was designated as a “road map” for cases involving dancers and clubs. It included a number of definitions of factors determining if a worker is, in fact, an employee in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Legal trends indicate that the law will support the argument that the girls are employees rather than independent contactors. Categorization as employees would entitle them to minimum wage, overtime payment, and liquidated damages due to the misclassification.

Due to the legal trend, more dancers are coming forward with lawsuits against their clubs and dancing establishments across the country mainly citing misclassification as well as other general labor-law violations.

If you have questions regarding misclassification or unpaid overtime, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Employees Claim California Nail Salon Regularly Stole Wages

A recent lawsuit claims that nail salon owners make a habit of mistreating their employees; specifically the suit claims that nail salons are stealing their employee’s wages. The suit was filed by four nail salon employees: Tuyet Mai Nguyen, Thu Hang Pham, Jenny Hoang, and Trinh Truong. The women sued the Tustin Nailspa in Orange, California claiming the company withheld their wages, deducted money from their paychecks for the use of salon supplies and equipment, and other labor code violations.

The plaintiffs have been employed at Tustin Nailspa for the last ten years. Over that course of time, the salon has had several different owners. The women claim the problems started when additional chairs were added in 2005. The owners wanted to recoup their investment and see the increased profits more quickly so they allegedly took it out on the employees. The employees’ hours were allegedly increased, they were underpaid, not compensated for overtime worked, forced to skip lunch, and did not receive any type of extra compensation for their additional work.

Tustin Nailspa has faced lawsuits before. In 2013, a former employee sued citing similar allegations. In response, an investigation was opened into the salon by the California Department of Industrial Relations, a Division of Labor Standard Enforcement. The investigation resulted in $28,000 in fines against the salon owners.

Allegations in the current suit were made against multiple owners as the malpractices are claimed to have spanned a time period during which ownership changed hands. Plaintiffs are seeking recompense from both current and former owners involved in the alleged violations. The owners, through legal representation have denied the allegations and claim the plaintiffs are simply disgruntled former employees.

The plaintiffs have experienced some trouble in their attempts to get the case to court. Their first attorney was removed due to a conflict and their second attorney was not fluent in Vietnamese so the women struggled to communicate their needs. The case is generating awareness of the challenges faced by immigrants attempting to navigate the American legal system as well as the potential for mistreatment of employees in nail salons across the country.

If you have questions about filing a lawsuit, California labor law or how to obtain overtime compensation, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

$16 Million PNC Settlement to Settle Wage Suit

In response to a collection of Fair Labor Standards Act claims alleged by a group of mortgage loan officers, PNC Bank NA has agreed to offer a $16 million settlement. Plaintiffs in the wage suit claimed that the company denied them overtime wages and proper commission payments. 17 PNC BANK mortgage loan officers, some former and some currently employed, brought the collective action. The loan officers claim that PNC used an improper process for the calculation of commissions and that the company did not allow the employees to report overtime hours even though work in addition to what would be recognized as full time was required of them to fulfill their job duties.

According to the documentation, the settlement agreement will apply to mortgage loan officers employed by PNC in California from August 7th, 2011 through January 4th, 2017, New York from April 4th, 2011 through January 4th, 2017 and any other state from August 7th, 2012 through January 4th, 2017. PNC also noted that the settlement agreement is not an admission of liability or damages, but a move to avoid the burdens of further litigation.

Key Developments in the Case:

December: It was recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification regarding commission recapture claims be granted.

Mid-November: Plaintiffs’ motion to strike PNC’s exemption defense was granted. The motion argued that former employees were exempt according to FLSA.

November: Conditional certification of the collective action was granted by Judge Schwab due to indications of uniform, nationwide employment policies in place at PNC.

The lawsuit alleged that during the hiring process, the company offered a salary of $24,000 per year based on a 40-hour workweek. Once hired, many of the officers worked more than 40 hours in a week and sometimes took work home with them in order to “catch up.” The “overtime” was allegedly not compensated. The workers allege that PNC offered bonuses to managers who refused, reduced or prevented workers from accurately reporting their overtime hours. In fact, it is alleged that the Branch Managers’ own pay was reduced in direct relation to the amount of overtime wages that was paid out to mortgage loan officers at the branch.

Plaintiffs also claimed that PNC did not accurately track and record the hours worked by mortgage loan officers, mortgage loan officers were not compensated for all the hours they worked, the company did not accurately calculate overtime (by NOT applying a “weighted average” including salaries, commissions, etc.), that PNC illegally deducted overtime pay from commissions, and that PNC was in violation of minimum wage requirements.

If you have questions about minimum wage requirements, or the calculation of overtime pay in compliance with California Labor Law, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Halliburton Bid to Dismiss Claims Made in Wage Suit

A former employee of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (an oil and gas provider out of California) filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging wage violations (Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc. et al., case number 1:16-cv-01300, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.) In response to Halliburton Energy Services’ request for dismissal of the amended complaint, the Plaintiff accused the energy giant of copying bids for dismissal in other cases with similarities to the current suit.

The company’s bid to dismiss Geurrero’s claim came last month after an amended complaint was filed. U.S. Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill permitted the amended filing when the judge dismissed the suit that includes allegations of California labor law violations due to a failure to provide rest breaks and pay wages for all hours worked, etc. The plaintiff responded to the dismissal bid submitted by Halliburton by pointing out that the dismissal motion filed was almost identical to that filed in every case with similar claims that Guerrero listed in his first amended complaint.

Guerrero claims that his former employer has no evidentiary support or analysis for claims that Guerrero and the putative class are exempt from California’s overtime laws. Allegations Halliburton faces in the suit include claims that Halliburton policy requires workers to work through meal periods, the company fails to comply with California labor law by providing employees with first meal periods within the first five hours of a work shift, claims for missed rest periods, etc.

Halliburton insists that Guerrero’s overtime claims included in the amended complaint are not legally supported because his hours were regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and this makes him exempt from overtime eligibility. The company also insists that Guerrero failed to provide factual support for claims that the company denied him legally compliant meal and rest periods. Halliburton also urged the court to strike Guerrero’s allegations regarding their alleged failure to maintain accurate records in violation of California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders due to irrelevance since Guerrero cannot allege a viable claim for the violation.

Guerrero’s proposed class action includes allegations that he worked as a nonexempt truck driver as well as industrial worker for Halliburton, but failed to receive proper compensation in accordance with employment law. The suit was first filed in state court, but was later moved to federal court.

Halliburton’s responding dismissal bid claimed Guerrero’s lawsuit failed as a matter of law as there were no alleged facts included as support of a cognizable legal theory and because the various claims included were riddled with substantive defects that left too many questions. Judge O’Neill was inclined to agree and on November 2nd, 2016, he did so officially – stating that facts were missing from the complaint, specifically noting the need for dates as to when the alleged failures to pay straight time and overtime wages occurred. He also agreed with Halliburton that Guerrero failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9 in claims that the company failed to pay wages at the time of his termination.

If you have questions regarding overtime or overtime wage calculation, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

10,000 Workers Joined Together in Chipotle Wage Theft Class Action Suit

Chipotle has long been known for its amazing burritos. But there’s something new that it’s becoming well known for: angry workers! They’re all over the news. Right now, close to 10,000 current and former Chipotle employees are joined together in a class action wage theft lawsuit against the much-loved Mexican food franchise. According to court records, the suit started two years ago when a former manager located in Colorado filed. But since then almost 10,000 workers have joined the class action. To keep things in perspective, that is equal to almost ¼ of the Chipotle franchise’s current workforce.

What is a Class Action? This is a type of lawsuit through which one or a number of persons can sue a separate party on behalf of a larger group of persons. The “larger” group of persons represented are referred to as “the class.” The reason behind the class action lawsuit can vary widely, but issues being disputed will be common to all members included in the “class” and the people affected are so numerous handling each suit individually would be impractical for the court.

What is Wage Theft? Wage theft is a general phrase commonly used in employment law to refer to a number of different violations resulting in employers not providing pay to employees/workers for time worked or job duties completed. In the current case, the wage theft occurred through off-the-clock work and failure to pay overtime. These are two very common forms of wage theft that employers perpetrate in efforts to maximize their own profits (at the cost of their employees). 

The initial complaint against Chipotle, filed in Colorado in September 2014, included accusations that the company forced employees complete unpaid overtime with required duties “after” they clocked out for their shifts (sometimes referred to as off-the-clock work). Workers also claim their presence was required at mandatory after-shift meetings and that those who “closed” had to complete cleanup off-the-clock. According to allegations made in the lawsuit, Chipotle maintained company-wide policies that supported this type of behavior: management was urged to require off-the-clock work to reduce expenses and maximize profits.

If you have questions about what constitutes “off-the-clock” work, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhomik to discuss your situation.