The Apple Employee Bag-Check Class Action Returns

The Apple employee bag-check class action decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had Apple paying retail workers for any time spent waiting their turn for mandatory bag checks. The Ninth Circuit decision was unanimous and aligned with the previous California Supreme Court ruling that employees' time spent being screened after their work shift is compensable.  

The Ninth Circuit Decision that Apple Should Pay Employees Waiting for Bag Checks

The Ninth Circuit found that the U.S. District Court that initially presided over the Apple employee bag-check lawsuit erred when they handed Apple a victory. The appeals court found that the California Supreme Court's holding means employees are now entitled to summary judgment on the issue.

The Original Apple Mandatory Employee Bag-Check Lawsuit: 

The lawsuit asking whether or not the time Apple employees spend in line waiting for a mandatory post-shift bag check is compensable or not was filed in 2013. The wage and hour lawsuit claimed that Apple's policy requiring its employees to clock out before they complete the mandatory bag check resulted in 1-1.5 hours of unpaid time at work each week on average. Class-action status was granted in 2015. 

Apple Bag-Check Lawsuit: California Supreme Court Decision

The California Supreme Court's decision in February determined that the time Apple employees spent waiting for the mandatory bag checks before they could leave after work was compensable under the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage. California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage requires employers to compensate employees for all time when they are under their employer's control. The Supreme Court's findings were based on a few factors: 

1. Exit bag searches were mandatory for all employees leaving work, and therefore involved a significant degree of employer control. 

2. The mandatory nature of the bag searches was enforced by potential disciplinary action. 

3. The bag searches exist primarily for the employer's benefit. 

Apple Bag-Check Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Decision 

The Ninth Circuit court agreed with the California Supreme Court – rejecting Apple's arguments that:

1. Employees can choose not to bring bags to work to avoid the mandatory bag checks. 

2. Whether the policy was enforced through discipline was disputable.  

The court found that regardless of whether or not the exit searches were enforced through discipline, Apple employees' time waiting for and completing exit bag searches under the Apple policy is compensable since the time is considered "hours worked" under state law. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court's grant of Apple's motion for summary judgment and ordered the district court to grant the employees' summary judgment motion. 

If you need to discuss employment law violations or have questions about how to file a California class action, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Cigna Faces Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

A California wage and hour class-action lawsuit alleges Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company failed to pay employees accurately. 

Did Cigna Fail to Provide Workers Minimum Wage and Overtime?

According to the wage and hour class action, Cigna violated numerous California Labor code provisions when they allegedly failed to provide accurate pay and overtime pay. California state law protects workers against employers who try to increase profits by underpaying their workers, requiring unpaid work (i.e., mandatory unpaid training, off-the-clock work, etc.), or failing to calculate overtime pay accurately. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed the class action complaint (Case No. 283609) that is now pending in the Tulare Superior Court of the State of California. 

Cigna Allegedly Failed to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages

The class action complaint outlines multiple violations of California Labor Law: 

1. Failure to pay minimum wage

2. Failure to accurately record and provide employees with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

3. Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

4. Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

5. Failure to provide wages to workers when due

Additional Allegations: Did Cigna Commit Acts of Unfair Competition? 

The Cigna class action also alleges that the health and life insurance company committed acts of unfair competition that violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. For example, according to the class action, the company allegedly held a company-wide policy and standard procedure that failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime pay rate for workers. As a direct result of inaccurate overtime pay calculation standards and processes in place at Cigna, the company also allegedly failed to provide accurate overtime pay to workers. 

What Happens When California Employers Violate Labor Law? 

Most California businesses are subject to several regulatory and legal requirements (Federal, state, and local levels). The labor law requirements are designed to protect America’s workers. The state of California takes employment laws seriously, even when complying with the law may be difficult for California employers, so violating labor law can result in severe consequences for California employers.                              

If you need help collecting unpaid overtime, or if you need to file a California overtime pay lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$3.6 Million Settlement to Resolve Sherwin-Williams Wage and Hour Claims

Managers and associates of Sherwin-Williams banded together to file claims against their employer alleging failure to pay overtime, provide required meal breaks and rest periods, and other California labor law violations in Anderson v. The Sherwin-Williams Company No. 5:17-cv-02459 (C.D. Calif. May 12, 2020). As a result, Sherwin-Williams Company will pay $3.65 million to settle the claims.  

A Brief Outline of the Case: Anderson v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Workers in the case allege that he paint store not only did not pay proper overtime, and provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, but that they also failed to completely reimburse work expenses. Approximately 5,700 Sherwin-Williams workers are included in the settlement class according to court documents.   

A History of the Case: Anderson v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Plaintiffs in the case filed suit under California law, but in this type of case, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is often violated. The case includes the type of common allegations that frequently result in large settlements – like the one Sherwins-Willimans proposed to resolve the claims. 

Common FLSA Violations: Meal Breaks

Meal Breaks: Failure to keep track of, provide, or authorize meal breaks as required by law is responsible for many wage and hour related claims, even more so when they involve automatic deductions. For instance, some employers automatically deduct the 30 minutes from their worker's pay as if they always take their rest period, but do not actively ensure that the workers actually take the time off (or even actively make it possible for them to take the mandatory meal break or rest period). According to labor law, workers are supposed to be provided with meal breaks and rest periods during which they are not working.  

Off the Clock Work: Automatic deductions for breaks/rest periods are not prohibited, but employers are required to provide employees with payment for all hours worked, so if deductions are made, but employees are not taking the time off work, they are not being paid for their time. Additionally, employers are required to keep accurate records of all hours worked, so if breaks are recorded, but not taken, records being kept are inaccurate. Off the clock work is a common FLSA violation that leads to many off the clock wage and hour lawsuits. 

Overtime Pay: Another common FLSA violation is failure to provide accurate overtime pay for workers who are working more than full time. FLSA obligates employers to pay their nonexempt workers time and one-half for all hours worked beyond 40 in one workweek. 

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Papa John's Pizza's California Wage Theft Lawsuit Settled for $3.4 Million

When California workers filed suit against Papa John's International, some wondered if the case would present an opportunity to clarify joint employer responsibility guidelines. Instead, Papa John's requested that the Central District of California approve a $3.4 million settlement to resolve the case.

Papa John's Wage Theft Lawsuit Allegations:

The wage theft lawsuit included allegations that the popular pizza chain failed to pay their workers for mandatory training, which would violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, wage requirements of New York, and California labor law.

Request for Settlement Approval Leaves Important Issues Unresolved:

With the case resolved with the pending settlement, there are issues left unresolved. Should Papa John's International be held liable when franchises engage in wage violations? 8.43 million Americans worked at franchise businesses in 2019, and many were minimum wage workers who can't afford to put in unpaid hours on the job. No one questions whether or not mandatory unpaid job training is legal – it's not. The question is who is responsible, but the settlement means this case won't lead to any answers.  

Details of the Case: Avalos v. Papa John's International, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case is Sofia Avalos along with several other Papa John's employees and a proposed class of Papa John's hourly employees. According to the lawsuit, workers were required to complete mandatory online job training. Employees were required to complete the training before they clocked in for a shift or after they clocked out, so they were not paid for the mandatory training.

Who Was Responsible for the Wage Violation?

Online training modules were accessed on the corporate website, and workers allege it was a common practice to require the mandatory training be completed off the clock across various Papa John's facilities throughout the nation. Due to the way the training was tracked, Papa John's knew (or had very good reason to know) that the training modules were completed off the clock. In addition to not being paid for all their hours worked, the standard practice also resulted in undercounted total hours, inaccurate calculations of minimum wage and overtime, and inaccurate wage statements.  

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or need to file an overtime lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ice Cream Shop’s CAFA Removal Rejected by California Federal Court

In recent news, a California district court remanded a wage and hour class action (Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC) back to state court after rejecting evidence and arguments supporting its removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

History of the Case: Hayes v. Salt & Straw, LLC 

The plaintiff in the case filed a workplace class action alleging nine California labor code violations and one claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit includes broad allegations. Allegedly, the defendant failed to provide employees with appropriate wages, failed to provide employees with mandatory rest breaks and meal periods, failed to keep accurate records, failed to include non-discretionary bonuses in the employees’ regular rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rate, and failed to provide employees with accurate overtime pay based on their alternative workweek schedule.

The Defendant in the Case Removed to Federal Court:

The ice cream shop listed as the defendant in the case removed to federal court under CAFA. The plaintiff sought to remand by arguing that CAFA’s $5 million threshold had not been established. The district court heard the plaintiff’s argument and agreed, remanding the case back to California state court and finding that the defendant’s estimate of the amount in controversy was based on unreasonable assumptions.

More About the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA):

Congress provides jurisdiction over class actions to federal courts when they involve at least 100 class members, there is minimal diversity, and the amount in controversy is more than $5 million. Defendants seeking to remove under CAFA must include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the designated jurisdictional threshold. When the plaintiff in the case disagrees with the amount in controversy the defendant identifies, both parties submit their argument and evidence to the court. The defendant bears the burden of proof. The removing defendant is allowed to make assumptions regarding the amount in controversy. As the court explained in this case, those assumptions must be reasonable and appropriate considering any actual evidence submitted by the other party.

Evidence Submitted by Defendant in Support of Removal to Federal Court:

The defendant in the case submitted a declaration from counsel and a declaration from a human resources manager based on a review of regularly kept payroll records, but they did not submit the actual payroll records. The plaintiff argued that the payroll records were necessary, but the court disagreed, finding that the declarations were well-supported evidence for CAFA removal purposes. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not submit any evidence in competition with the declarations, so there was no evidence that they were unreliable or inaccurate.

The Court’s Eventual Rejection of Defendant’s Assumptions:

The court did agree with the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s estimates were based on unreasonable assumptions for four of the claims in the suit. The court criticized the defendant’s argument for assuming a 100% violation rate for the overtime wage estimate, waiting time penalty estimate, wage statement claim estimate, and off the clock estimate.

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California employment law claim, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Wage Theft Lawsuit: Papa John’s Settles for $3.4 Million

Papa John’s requested approval of a $3.4 million settlement to end a wage theft lawsuit in the Central District of California. According to the lawsuit, Papa John’s allegedly failed to pay workers for mandatory training time. Required training without pay, as described in this lawsuit, violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor law. 

As the case proceeds towards settlement, some are left wondering about issues left unresolved in the case.

Should Companies Be Held Liable for Franchise Wage Violations? 

Should Papa John’s International, Inc. be held liable for wage violations of company franchises? In 2019, about 8.43 million Americans worked for franchises across the nation, many of which were earning minimum wage. As minimum wage workers, as a general rule, they could not afford unpaid training hours. While required on the job training is against the law (this is not in question), it is less clear who is responsible for the wage violation. 

The Avalos v. Papa John’s International, Inc. Case:

Sofia Avalos, along with other California Papa John’s delivery drivers, and a proposed class of hourly employees were all allegedly required to complete online training modules to teach them their job duties and provide the level of service necessary for the position. These required training modules needed to be completed before clocking in or after clocking out for their shift. While they were required to spend time completing the training on Papa John’s corporate site, they were not paid for the time necessary to complete the modules. Workers involved in the suit claim this was a common practice for Papa John’s facilities across the nation. The method of logging the training as complete indicates that Papa John’s International was aware or had reason to be aware that it was being completed “off the clock.” Since the employees’ total number of hours were miscounted, calculations of minimum wage, overtime pay, and final wage statements were also incorrect.

The Settlement Agreement for Papa John’s Wage Theft Suit:

Choosing discretion to a big legal battle, Papa John’s International decided to settle. The settlement agreement designates 30% of the gross fund for worker’s attorney fees and $80,000 for legal costs. $185,000 is to administer the settlement. Corporate-owned store employees who submit a claim will receive a payment up to $166, and franchise employees will receive $50 gift cards.

The Risk of Joint Employment in Avalos v. Papa John’s International, Inc.:

One of the reasons Papa John’s International turned to settlement, in this case, is most likely the risk that the court could decide that Papa John’s, the corporate parent in this scenario, is a joint employer of franchise pizza delivery drivers. Turning to the settlement agreement allows them to avoid this issue as settlements do not create a precedent. Setting aside the $50 “gift card” provision, the lack of a precedent is a victory for the defendant in this case.

If you need to talk to someone about wage theft or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

LA’s Genwa Korean BBQ Faces $2.1 Million in Files for Labor Violations

Popular LA Korean barbecue restaurant, Genwa, faces $2.1 million in fines due to labor law violations like failing to keep proper time records, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide mandatory meal breaks. 

LA’s Popular Genwa Korean Barbecue Restaurant Allegedly Violated Numerous Labor Laws:

Alleged violations at Genwa affected 325 dishwashers, servers, and cooks at two different restaurant locations in Los Angeles, one in Beverly Hills and the other in Mid-Wilshire. The owners of Genwa Korean BBQ were cited for violations by the California Labor Commissioner’s Office in late January and fined $2.1 million. The company allegedly failed to pay workers minimum wage, provide overtime pay, and provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. 

Other Genwa Locations Not Included in the Lawsuit:

Genwa, an upscale Korean BBQ restaurant with numerous locations, caters to a mix of Korean and non-Korean clientele. All three locations are distinctly outside of Koreatown, but only two of the three sites were listed in the lawsuit. The Downtown South Park location was not included. Typical for a Korean barbecue restaurant, a lot of the cooking takes place on a tabletop grill in front of the customers, a practice that puts more labor focus on service-oriented staff. Similar issues seem to riddle the Korean barbecue world as a whole, as illustrated by the wage theft and labor issue-focused feature in a Los Angeles Times article published in 2019.

Investigations Uncovered Multiple Labor Law Violations: 

After an investigation based on Genwa worker complaints, numerous violations were discovered. 

• Genwa required their full-time staff to clock out multiple times a day (during an 11-hour shift).

• Genwa refused to allow workers to take legally mandated rest and meal breaks.

• More than 50% of Genwa workers were paid less than minimum wage.

• 50% of Genwa workers were not provided full overtime pay or required itemized wage statements.

• Genwa servers were required to attend quarterly meetings without compensation, regardless of scheduled days off.

Fines, Damages, and Penalties for Labor Law Violations:

Due to the numerous labor law violations, J.B.K. Wilshire Corporation, Genwa, Inc. and Genwa’s corporate officers, Jay and Jin Kwon are required to pay $1,428,759. The payment is intended to cover unpaid wages, missed meal periods and rest breaks, split shift premiums, overtime, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties for any affected Genwa employees. The corporation, the restaurant, and its officers were fined an additional $633,800 in civil penalties. Genwa workers affected by the labor law violations will receive damages, missing wages, and interest. The employers have appealed.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.