Did 7 Eleven Fail to Provide California Employees with Wages and a Place to Sit?

7‑Eleven® is a well known gas station and convenience store throughout the nation. The company started out as Southland Ice Company in Oak Cliff, Texas in 1927. In 1946, the store’s operating hours were a standard 7am to 11pm, and the company changed their name to 7 Eleven. In recent news, this popular convenience store with locations nationwide is making the news for alleged employment law violations. 

The Case: The 7 Eleven, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2020-00043637-CU-OE-CTL

7-Eleven faces a class action lawsuit alleging wrongful termination.

The Allegations Made Against 7 Eleven: 

In recent news, a class action wrongful termination lawsuit was filed alleging that 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to provide their California employees with accurate wages or suitable seating conditions on the job. The 7 Eleven class action lawsuit is pending in the San Diego Superior Court of the State of California. 

California Employers are Required to Compensate Employees for All Time Worked: 

According to the complaint, 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to compensate their California employees for the time they worked. Time worked, when referring to employment law violations, is defined as time an employee was under their employer’s control. For example, from time to time, 7 Eleven employees were allegedly interrupted during their meal breaks or rest periods by work assignments. As a result, employees were performing job duties “off the clock.” When an employee performs work off the clock, they are not being paid for time spent working, which is a violation of California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant was allegedly aware (or should have been aware) that the plaintiff in the case (and other similarly situated California employees) were working off the clock. And if an employer is aware that their employees are working off the clock, the employer is also aware that they are not providing payment to their employees for all hours worked. If allegations are true, 7 Eleven California employees were not being paid accurate minimum wage and overtime pay. 

Additional Allegations Made Against 7 Eleven in the Class Action: 

The 7 Eleven lawsuit also includes allegations of wrongful termination, and an allegation that the company failed to provide seating for employees who spent the majority of their time on the clock behind a counter. According to the lawsuit, the vast majority of work duties performed behind the counter can be reasonably accomplished while using a stool or other seat.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, 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.

California Wage and Hour Laws: Do They Extend to Offshore Workers?

A recent case, Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, brings to light an interesting question for employees stationed off the shore of California. Which state’s wage and hour laws apply to an employee? Is it the state the employer is located? Is it the state in which they applied and interviewed for the job? Is it the state in which they acknowledged receipt of employment documentation and contracts? Is it the state in which they live while they work offshore? These are the questions being asked in this case. 

The Case: Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County

Case Info: Case number B298318, in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District

In Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, three employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming their employers violated California laws pertaining to minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest periods, providing accurate wage statements, and maintaining accurate wage statement records. The employers moved for summary judgment arguing that California labor laws do not apply, but the trial court denied the motion. 

The Employment Situation of Gulf Offshore Logistics Employees Stationed Offshore:

According to lawsuit documents, employees of Gulf Offshore Logistics provided maintenance service for offshore oil platforms located outside California’s boundaries. The vessel transporting the employees to the oil platforms so they could perform their job duties docked in a California port. Employees reached the California port by flying in and out of Los Angeles, California. The vessel sailed through the Santa Barbara channel (located within California’s state law boundaries), but then sailed out of California waters to reach oil platforms in need of service. 

The Court of Appeals Found that California Labor Law Did Not Apply: 

Due to a number of notable facts, the Court of Appeals found that California Labor did not apply. Notable facts that were considered prior to the Court of Appeal’s decision included: 

• The employer, Gulf Offshore Logistics, were LLCs formed under Louisiana law. 

• Members were all Louisiana residents. 

• Employees applied for and interviewed for their jobs in Louisiana. 

• Employees acknowledged receipt of employment documents in Louisiana. 

• Employees did not reside in California. 

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals decided that Louisiana had more significant contacts with the parties involved and a greater interest in regulating this particular employer/employee relationship than the state of California. 

The California Supreme Court on Related Cases: 

The California Supreme Court decided two related cases - both concerning the application of California wage and hour law to employees performing work for employers (both in and out of California). The first is Ward v. United Airlines (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732. The second is Oman v. Delta Air Lines (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762. In Ward v. United Airlines, the Court considered the application of California’s wage settlement requirement and held that workers are “covered...if they perform the majority of their work in California.” The court also found that if they do not perform the majority of their work in any one state, they will be covered if they are based “for work purposes in California.” In Oman v. Delta Air Lines, the California Supreme Court extended the holding to Section 204 governing timing of wage payments. The court found that requirements regarding wage statements in this section apply only during those pay periods when the employee was based in California or performed work primarily in California. In both cases, the California Supreme Court stated it would not be appropriate to adopt a single test to determine application of California wage and hour law to multistate workers since it would vary depending on the statute and the situation. 

In Light of California Supreme Court Decisions, the Court of Appeals Adjusted their Findings: 

After the California Supreme Court decision on both the Ward and Oman cases, the Court of Appeals adjusted their stance on Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County. The Court of Appeals’ new decision was that the most relevant issue was where the work was performed. Gulf Offshore Logistics could seek further review from the California Supreme Court.                          

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it applies to multi-state employment arrangements, 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.

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.