Another Multimillion Dollar Settlement to End an XPO Last Mile Wage Suit

Drivers had a big win in the California courtroom recently when XPO Logistics settled another wage lawsuit for close to $5.5 million. The settlement was split between just under 4,000 drivers. This is the third lawsuit of this type settled by the company in the last 4 months. Federal court documents state that the Defendant, XPO Last Mile, agreed to pay the class members $5.5 million to end the lawsuit originally filed at the end of 2016.  

The lawsuit was filed by Hector Ibanez in 2016. He filed the lawsuit on behalf of thousands of XPO Last Mile drivers in California. Ibanez alleged that the company misclassified him and others as independent contractors. The California drivers claim they did not receive payment for all hours worked. The drivers allege that they generally worked more than 40 hours per week and often put in more than 12 hours in a day. While these hours would qualify as overtime hours, they were not paid overtime wages because the company, XPO Last Mile, classified them as independent contractors. The drivers also allege that wages were not paid in a timely manner as required by law – particularly upon termination of employment. Noncompliant wage statements complicated matters.  

According to the California wage lawsuit, XPO Last Mile did not comply with meal and rest break requirements as determined by California Labor Code. They also allegedly failed to comply with wage and hour law, waiting time penalties, reimbursement of expenses necessary during the course of performing job duties, and providing legally required wage statements. If all the drivers eligible as class members participate in the settlement agreement, each will receive approximately $935.18.

This is just one of a number of California wage and hour suits pending during litigation. Two other lawsuits were settled around the same time as the Ibanez case.

If you need more information about filing a class action lawsuit in California or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

Quick Dispense, Inc. Faces Allegations of PAGA Violations

A Los Angeles employment lawsuit alleges that Quick Dispense, Inc. violated California labor law by failing to pay non-exempt California employees overtime wages as well as failing to offer legally required rest and meal breaks. Employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP filed the class action lawsuit in September 2019. The class action lawsuit alleges PAGA violations and failure to accurately calculate overtime wages. The lawsuit is pending in LA County Superior Court (Case No. 19STCV29405).

According to the California class action, Quick Dispense, Inc. violated numerous labor laws by:

1.    Failing to provide non-exempt employees with fair payment for all hours worked

2.    Failing to provide non-exempt employees with accurate overtime wages

3.    Failing to provide legally required meal and rest breaks

4.    Failing to provide employees itemized wage statements with accurate listings of hours and wages

5.    Failing to provide payment of wages in a timely manner

6.    Failing to pay minimum wage

7.    Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

PAGA (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act) authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to seek recovery of civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state in response to Labor Code violations. PAGA enables California to enforce state labor laws by allowing the employee experiencing the violation to file suit to recover civil penalties as an act of protecting the public from companies and entities in violation of employment law.

If you need more information about filing a class action lawsuit in California or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

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.