Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: One of 2021’s Key California Employment Law Cases

California courts didn’t see a lot of activity in 2020, but that seems to be changing in 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state, including Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services. 

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, S258966. (B256232; 40

Cal.App.5th 444; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC372146). 

In 2021, Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The cases present two different issues. Does the violation of Labor Code 226.7 give rise to employment law claims under Labor Code sections 203 and 226 if the employer doesn’t include premium wages in the employee’s wage statements, but the wage statement does include the wages the employee earned for meal breaks? What prejudgment interest rate applies to unpaid premium wages owed due to Section 226.7? 

The Plaintiff, Naranjo, Claims Spectrum Security Services Violated California Labor Law: 

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, a class of security guards allege meal break violations and seek premium wages, as well as penalties for waiting times, and inaccurate wage statements, as well as attorney’s fees. When the Court of Appeals considered the case, they found that unpaid premium wages for meal periods violations do not entitle employees to penalties for inaccurate pay stubs or waiting time.

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

When the case appears before the California Supreme Court in 2021, the court will be expected to resolve a long-standing debate on recoverability of waiting time penalties for meal break and rest period violations. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the findings of the lower courts, potential penalties for California meal break and rest period violations would increase since violations could be compounded by any alleged pay stub penalties or any waiting time penalties. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Key 2021 California Employment Law Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

Activity in California courts in 2020 was fairly quiet, but there are several potentially significant cases coming to the California Supreme Court in 2021 that could have a significant impact on California’s employers and employees. 

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, Nos. E068730, E068751

In 2021, Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The case addresses the question of whether an employee’s settlement agreement with a staffing agency on a wage and hour claim precludes the same employee from suing the staffing agency’s client, for whom the employee provided services, citing the exact same wage and hour claims. 

The Plaintiff, Grande, Claims Eisenhower Medical Center Violated California Labor Law: 

FlexCare, LLC (FlexCare) is a temporary staffing agency. According to the plaintiff in the case, FlexCare provided an assignment for Grande to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (Eisenhower). The Plaintiff claims Eisenhower did not provide her with the required meal and rest periods, wages for hours worked, and overtime wages according to California labor law. Grande, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action lawsuit. The class action was filed on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to various positions at numerous California hospitals. The Plaintiff’s claims were based on her work on assignment at Eisenhower, and FlexCare settled with the class. A release of claims was executed by The Plaintiff. The trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement. A year later, Grande filed a second class action lawsuit alleging the same labor law violations. Grande filed the second class action lawsuit against Eisenhower, who was not listed in the prior class action. 

Can Grande File a Second Class Action Against a Different Defendant Citing the Same Labor Law Violations? 

FlexCare argued that the Plaintiff could not bring a separate lawsuit against Eisenhower based on claims settled in the prior class action. During a trial limited to questions of whether or not the Plaintiff could file the second class action, the trial court held that Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement, so the doctrine of res judicata did not apply since the hospital was not a party to the prior litigation or in privity with the staffing agency, FlexCare. The Court of Appeals agreed. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center:

California employers and employees should watch the Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center case since the California Supreme Court’s decision could affect staffing agencies and how they approach settlement of claims when their clients are not also named as Defendants in the case. The issue could have a notable impact for California staffing agencies as duplicative litigation could mean they have to pay settlement costs twice due to indemnity clauses. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Recent Allegations Point to PAGA Violations at Citibank

In recent news, a PAGE violations lawsuit was filed against Citibank, N.A., alleging the company violated the PAGA (The Private Attorney General Act) when they allegedly failed to properly calculate employee wages.

Citibank Facing PAGA Violation Allegations:

The San Francisco California PAGA lawsuit was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court (Case No. 20-CIV-03650). According to the allegations, the plaintiffs (and other similar situated employees at the company) were frequently not able to take off-duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of job duties during their meal periods.

California Labor Law: Mandatory Rest Periods and Meal Breaks

According to California labor law, employees who work for more than 5 hours in one shift are entitled to a thirty minute meal break before the end of their 5th hour of work. The thirty minute meal break is legally required to be uninterrupted (the employee must be released from their job duties during their breaks/meal periods).  

What is PAGA and How Does it Work?

The Private Attorney General Act or PAGA is a mechanism in place that enables employees suing under PAGA to do so with the State of California enforces California labor law as the proxy agent of a California labor law enforcement agency. Seeking recovery or civil penalties under PAGA is, in essence, intended to protect the public from illegal practices rather than to benefit the plaintiff/s as a private party or parties. The act of filing a lawsuit under PAGA is essentially a law enforcement action not intended to recover damages or gain restitution for an employment law violation, but to give everyday citizens the power to enforce the Labor Code as if they were deputized as private attorneys general.

Allegations Made in the Citibank PAGA Lawsuit:

Due to the rigorous work schedules of the plaintiffs and similarly situated employees at Citibank, they were periodically denied the mandatory rest breaks and meal periods that California employers are legally required to provide.

If you need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace or if you need to file a PAGA 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.

McDonald’s Pays $26M Settlement After Wage-Theft Lawsuit

Due to a recent wage theft lawsuit, McDonald’s is paying a $26 million settlement to thousands of their California employees. 

McDonald’s Settles Wage-Theft Lawsuit: 

In accordance with the terms of the wage-theft lawsuit settlement, McDonald’s will pay out $26 million to thousands of their workers. Employees will get checks for as much as $3,900 in lost wages due to violations of labor code. 

McDonald’s Pays California Fast-Food Workers $26 Million: 

McDonald’s agreed to the settlement in November 2019. The $26 million wage-theft lawsuit settlement was approved by a California Supreme Court judge in October 2020 after a year-long battle arguing the wage theft allegations. The original California wage-theft lawsuit claimed the massive fast-food powerhouse failed to pay employees all wages due, failed to give employees legally required meal breaks and rest periods, and failed to provide accurate overtime pay. Eligible California class members will receive checks averaging $333.52. Some class members will receive settlement checks in amounts up to $3,927.91. 

California Class Members for the Class Action Number Roughly 34,000:

There are approximately 34,000 California-based McDonald’s employees at corporate-owned locations in the state that will receive settlement checks as a result of the suit. The original wage-theft lawsuit was filed in 2013. Workers alleged that McDonald’s committed wage theft in numerous ways, but mainly by failing to pay all earned wages when due, failing to give workers required meal breaks and rest periods, failing to pay minimum wage, and failing to pay overtime. 

Additional Terms of the McDonald’s Wage-Theft Lawsuit Settlement: 

In addition to the monetary settlement, McDonald’s agreed to additional requirements included in the terms of the settlement agreement. According to the wage-theft lawsuit settlement, McDonald’s will rework some of their company policies managing and pertaining to overtime, rest breaks, and uniform practices. McDonald’s also agreed to provide training that informs California workers of correct practices.

If you need help with unpaid overtime pay or other California Labor Code violations, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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.

K. Hovnanian Class Action Alleges Multiple California Labor Law Violations

A recent class action lawsuit claims that K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC allegedly failed to provide proper payment for work completed, and failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses required during the process of completing their job duties. The employment law class action also alleges that the national home builder failed to provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods to California employees. 

K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC Class Action Lawsuit, Case No. RIC2003319: 

The class action is currently pending in the Riverside Superior Court of the State of California. According to the plaintiff in the case, California class members were periodically denied their legally mandated rest periods by K. Hovnanian and K. Hovnanian managers. Periodically, employees were allegedly required to work more than 4 hours without the 10 minute rest period mandated by labor law, and were sometimes not able to take off-duty meal breaks or were allowed meal breaks, but not relieved of their work duties as required. 

K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC Faces Numerous California Labor Law Violation Allegations: 

The Defendant allegedly intentionally failed to reimburse the plaintiff in the case and other California class members for business expenses incurred during the course of completing their job duties. 

Under California Labor Code Section 2802 Employers Must Reimburse for Certain Expenses: 

According to California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred “in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful.” The labor code continues on to define “necessary expenditures or losses” for the purposes of Labor Code 2802 as including “all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.” 

K. Hovnanian Faces Penalties and Citation for Alleged Violations: 

The law also states that California employers in violation of Labor Code 2802 may face recovery of penalties. It also states that the commissioner may issue a citation against either the employer or the person acting on behalf of the employer that violated reimbursement requirements. Citations may be issued in the amount determined to be due to the employee and any amounts recovered are payable to the affected employee. 

If you need help collecting unreimbursed job expenses, or if you need to file a California class action 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.

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.