Wage and Hour Law: Chef Sues Raiders Star Antonio Brown for Unpaid Bill

Stefano Tedeschi, “The Sports Chef,” is suing Raiders star Antonio Brown for $40,000 of unpaid bills. Brown allegedly hired The Sports Chef to cater an event at a mansion the Raiders star rented leading up to the Pro Bowl in 2018. Brown’s attorney responded to allegations that they would be filing a motion to dismiss.

According to Tedeschi’s lawsuit, Brown allegedly wrongfully terminated the agreement and wouldn’t allow the chef to get the food or equipment. Tedeschi claims Brown did not provide him with a reason for the termination. The chef declined Brown’s later offer to provide payment in the form of social media advertising. Tedeschi was also advised by one of Brown’s associates not to “make eye contact” with the Raiders star as he left.

Just four months prior to the lawsuit filed by Chef Tedeschi, Brown settled another lawsuit including allegations that he threw items off a South Florida apartment balcony that came close to hitting a two-year-old boy. The boy’s guardian sued Brown for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. A second suit was filed in connection to the same incident by the owner of the apartment building. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Brown returned to practice with the team in September after not practicing since the end of July. His agent went on record denying that Brown left the Raiders and thought about retiring after his grievance to wear his preferred helmet did not meet with success. The helmet Brown prefers, the Schutt Air Advantage, is the same helmet Brown has used throughout his career, but it is no longer approved for use in the league.

If you have not been paid for hours you have worked or if you have experienced other employment law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

Immigrant Laborers File Wage Theft Lawsuit to Reclaim Years of Backpay

In an attempt to reclaim years of backpay they claim they are owed by their employer, immigrant workers in New Jersey filed a wage theft lawsuit just a week after the state imposed stricter penalties. The group of eight immigrants filed a class action lawsuit suing the car wash where they worked alleging they were not receiving minimum wage or overtime payment they were due.

The wage and hour and overtime class action lawsuit alleged that the car wash, Caribbean Car Wash Inc., and the carwash owners were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA and the state wage and hour law. Plaintiffs allege that it was standard policy at the carwash to allow managers to take the tips of their workers and that the company failed to comply with record-keeping requirements with proper and complete time sheets or records.

The exploitation of immigrant workers in the car wash industry is a widespread issue that happens all too frequently. Many immigrant workers are unaware of their employment rights and are afraid that they will lose their job if they speak up. It is important for immigrant workers to know that the law protects them regardless of their immigration status. Plaintiffs in the suit are Rigoberto Andux Mirabal, Gabriel Cano Arango, Yoan Aquino Martinez, Lucas Alberto Pedronzo Toledo, Julio Cesar Ochoa, Nelson Batista Corbo, William Ricardo Antunez Valdez, and the estate of Carlos Alberto. The plaintiffs listed the Caribbean Car Wash, Oscar Ulpiano, and Roberto Ulpiano (both manage employees and operate the business) as Defendants.

According to plaintiffs in the case, the owner (who owns around 100 car washes and gas stations) employs mostly Latino immigrants and regularly orders them to arrive at work early for their shifts but does not allow them to clock in until customers arrive. Workers also allege that when business is slow, they are required to clock out but remain on duty until more customers arrive. This causes workers to put in many hours without pay.

If you are required to work off the clock or your employer is in violation of employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

Defining the Employment Status of a College Football Player

In recent news, the question was asked, “Is a college football player an employee of the NCAA?” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recent affirmed dismissal of a college football player’s lawsuit for failure to state a legal claim clearly indicates they feel the answer is no. The ruling means that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Pac-12 Conference are not legally required to pay a college football player minimum wage and overtime in accordance with federal or California wage laws.

The NCAA, a not-for-profit educational organization, and the Pac-12 Conference were listed as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a college football player. The plaintiff claimed they acted as joint employers because they prescribed terms and conditions under which student athletes perform. The appeals court ruled that the football players were not employees under the FLSA due to economic realities in the relationship between the entities listed as defendants and the players. The found that the defendants in the case were regulatory bodies rather than employees and in so doing, upheld a district court’s ruling on the case.

The appeals court stated that the district court was accurate in their dismissal of the college football player’s California overtime claims based on the state’s decision to exclude student athletes from receiving workers compensation benefits combined with the state appellate court’s interpretations of the related legislation.

When considering the district court’s dismissal of the football player’s suit, the 9th Circuit used the “economic realities” test under FLSA. The test considers certain variables:

The plaintiff’s expectation of compensation

The alleged employer’s power to hire and/or fire

Any evidence that action was taken to evade the law

The court found that limitations on scholarships did not establish an expectation of compensation, the players were not able to show that either regulatory entity held the power to fire or hire a player, and that the NCAA rules did not show a clear intent to evade wage and hour law. They also found that the revenue generated by the relationship between the NCAA and their student athletes did not create an employment relationship.

If you have questions about the Fair Labor Standards Act, unpaid overtime or wage and hour law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

California Private Colleges and Universities May Be Forced to Move to a Time-Card System for Adjuncts

Unless a legislative fix is successful, California's private colleges and universities may be forced to move to a time-card system for adjuncts. California legislation regarding the exempt status of adjunct workers has the backing of both the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the Service Employees International Union – making this a rare instance in which colleges/universities and their adjuncts are in complete agreement. If the litigation is successful, it will prevent numerous private colleges and universities from requiring adjuncts to complete time cards as a means of avoiding labor law violations on overtime. California's public institutions are not affected as they are generally unionized.

Numerous colleges and universities facing faculty overtime violation lawsuits in recent years have reached settlement agreements with the plaintiffs. For example, Stanford University provided a $900,000 settlement in 2018 due to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of continuing studies program instructors. After attorney's fees, each adjunct involved was entitled to a partially taxable award of $1,417. Kaplan University also settled a similar suit. Other colleges and universities facing similar legal actions settled privately.

The implementation of a time-card system or other documentation of adjunct working hours was private colleges and universities' response to the new trend in employment law actions. Faculty groups insist that time cards are not a functional solution. Not to mention that requiring the completion of labor-style time cards of adjuncts could be viewed as insulting and wrong. Many adjuncts find the idea both inconvenient and humiliating.

The proposed litigation, AB-1466, would clarify when an adjunct at an independent institution would qualify as exempt under wage and hour law. The bill would specifically classify employees working in education as exempt if they offer credit-bearing instruction at independent colleges or universities, meet the existing legal test determining whether or not their work involves advanced knowledge, and they receive salary compensation (equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage at full-time employment or no less than two times the state minimum wage times the hours of service). The bill would also provide additional clarification (and a more generous definition) of hours of service.

If you need to discuss overtime pay violations, please call one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP's various locations: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago. We are ready to be your advocate as you seek resolution for labor law violations in the workplace.

Does a Recent FLSA Interpretation Limit Worker Wage & Hour Lawsuits?

The Department of Labor recently proposed changes to how the law interprets the “joint employer rule.” The joint employer rule is regularly utilized by workers filing class action wage and hour lawsuits to reach beyond their immediate employer and seek recovery or compensation from a corporate parent, franchisor, or other related entity. If the proposed changes to the joint employer rule interpretation go into effect, it will change how the federal FLSA is applied, but it would not limit wage and hour protections under California state labor law.

The DOL announced the proposed change on April 1, 2019, and received praise from employers and the opposite from employee advocate groups. Those against the change argue that the new interpretation would create an opportunity for employers to avoid liability for meeting FLSA standards by outsourcing labor to third parties or working strictly with contractors. The change could leave millions of workers on unstable ground, potentially vulnerable to federal labor law violations.

The proposal attempts to define the circumstances under which a business could be held jointly responsible for wage and hour violations. A test with four elements would be used to determine if a second business or business entity could be held liable. The four factors would be: 1) if the additional party has the power to hire or fire the employee, 2) if the other party is involved in supervising the employee’s schedule or employment conditions, 3) if the additional party has the power to determine the employee’s rate of pay or method of wage payment, and 4) if the other party handles maintenance of employment records.

According to California labor law, the general rule is that state statutes can be more protective of rights of the individual or entity that the law is intended to benefit, but it cannot be less protective of those rights. Following this general rule, California state labor laws provide more wage and hour protections than the FLSA in numerous ways. The newly proposed interpretation has yet to go into effect and it may not limit the right of California employees since a significant amount of the responsibility to protect workers’ rights depends on state legislators.

If you have questions about California state labor law or if you need to file an employment law suit, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. With convenient locations in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago, we are ready to be your advocate and help you seek justice for unfair working conditions.

Ninth Circuit Confirms Employees Must be Compensated by the “Second”

The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco, California confirmed that even tiny amounts of work time must be counted and compensated (as in seconds on the clock). This opinion (Rodriguez v. Nike) should end the debate following the recent employer-driven campaign to revive the de minimus federal standard when considering California employment law issues and labor lawsuits.

In Rodriguez v. Nike, Isaac Rodriguez filed suit following his employment at a Nike owned California retail store. He worked at the Nike store from November 2011 through January 2012. Employees at the store (and other Nike stores throughout California), employees paid an hourly wage were required to track their hours on the clock using a time clock. As a theft deterrent, Nike required employees to allow exit inspections anytime they left the store (at the end of their shift or for a break). The mandatory checks varied in length depending on the circumstances, but they always occurred while the employee was clocked out, and the time was uncompensated.

Rodriguez filed a California class-action lawsuit against Nike in 2014 alleging violations under numerous sections of the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code. The complaint was dismissed in District Court on September 2017 with the court reasoning that the time necessary for the inspection was so brief it did not need to be counted according to the de minimus standard.

Then Troester v. Starbucks changed the landscape for this employment law issue when the court ruled that de minimus did not apply if the lawsuit being considered was brought at a state level under California labor code. The rule for federal lawsuits was not to be used for state lawsuits. After the 2018 ruling, Isaac Rodriguez went back to court amidst the new legal landscape. The Ninth Circuit Court sent Rodriguez's case back to the District Court for a decision consistent with the recent ruling in Troester v. Starbucks. The result was a reaffirmation of the judgment that the federal de minimus rule does not apply to state-level lawsuits, which is good news for wage earners in California. The question went from arguing over how many seconds we were talking about to a discussion of whether or not an employee is legally entitled to payment for work no matter how much time is in question.

An entire series of similar California cases have developed since the Troester v. Starbucks ruling. The ruling will affect all California wage earners, and the precedent provides both employers and employees a firm grasp of how to treat off the clock situations. 

If you have questions about off the clock job duties or if you have experienced California labor law violations in the workplace, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Comcast and O.C. Communications Reach Settlement in California Wage and Hour Suit

The $7.5 million settlement presented by Comcast and O.C. Communications for California wage and hour violations was rejected initially. But it was approved in early July 2019 after two years of litigation. The California wage and hour lawsuit involved approximately 4,500 techs. Allegations included in the federal class action stated that O.C. Communications, skilled technician supplier, and Comcast both violated state and federal laws. The companies were accused of numerous wage and hour violations including not paying workers for all the hours they worked, failing to compensate their technicians for piecework and overtime, and failing to provide workers with the required minimum wage.

A group of technicians classified as non-exempt whose job duties included installing cable, tv, phone, security, and internet services to Comcast customers sued the companies as joint employers (Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00251). The plaintiffs claimed the companies failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, did not provide appropriate compensation for rest and meal breaks, did not reimburse their employees for business-related expenses, and did not provide required wage statements. All of the above allegations are violations of California’s labor code.

The original rejection of the settlement  April 2019 was due to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria’s concerns that the agreement did not address avoiding repeat scenarios. He saw the issues as being systemic. He also felt the settlement was achieved at a discount and wanted assurances that the employment law violations would be unlikely to recur.

According to case documents, Comcast techs sometimes worked 60 hours in a week and were paid on a hybrid hourly/piece-rate basis based on different tasks and jobs. One plaintiff alleged Comcast assigned him 32 jobs to complete instead of the more typical eight jobs in one shift. Comcast workers regularly ate on the job (skipping meal breaks), were required to be on call at all hours, and had to provide their own tools. One plaintiff was allegedly told to under-report his work hours.

If you have experienced injustice in the workplace or if you have been the victim of California labor law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.