April 07, 2021

Lawsuit Filed Against Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. Alleging Failure to Pay Accurate Wages

April 07, 2021/ Blog Author

Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. faces allegations in a recently filed lawsuit that they failed to provide their employees with accurate wages.

Details of the Case: Matthew Place vs. Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc.

Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

Case No.: 34-2021-00294802

The Allegations in the Case: Matthew Place vs. Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Matthew Place, alleges Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to compensate their employees for missed meal and rest breaks, as well as allegedly failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses. Failing to fulfill these employment law requirements means failing to provide accurate wages to employees.

According to the Lawsuit: Matthew Place vs. Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc.

According to the allegations, the Defendant, Mountain F. Enterprises, Inc. violated labor law multiple times, including:

Failing to Pay Minimum Wage
Failing to Pay Overtime Pay
Failing to Provide Legally Mandated Meal Breaks
Failing to Provide Legally Mandated Rest Periods
Failing to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements
Failing to Reimburse Employees for Necessary Business Expenses
Failing to Provide Wages when Due

Alleged Behavior Would Violate Various Sections of California Labor Code:

If the allegations made in the lawsuit are correct, the Defendant is in violation of numerous Labor Codes.

§201
§202
§203
§226
§226.7
§510
§512
§1194
§1197
§1197.1
§2802
applicable Wage Order

Violations of labor code can result in civil penalties.

Alleged Violation of California Labor Code Section 226:

According to California Labor Code § 226, “...every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing...the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate." According to the lawsuit, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements allowing workers to pinpoint their gross wages and net wages earned. This alleged behavior constitutes a violation of California Labor Code § 226.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

February 11, 2021

Will the CRST Trainee Wage Lawsuit Be Resolved with $12.5M Settlement?

February 11, 2021/ Blog Author

The five-year old wage lawsuit against CRST may soon be resolved. A proposed $12.5 settlement could resolve the trainee wage claims. However, a former CRST driver involved in a separate lawsuit wants the federal court to oppose the settlement.

All the Details on the Case: Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Case Number: 16-10095-PBS

Court: District Court District of Massachusetts

Date Filed: January 2016

The Plaintiff in the Case: Juan Carlos Montoya

Defendant: CRST Expedited, Inc.

Allegations Made by the Plaintiff:

The Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Montoya, filed the lawsuit in January 2016, alleging that CRST Expedited, Inc. and CRST International, Inc. underpaid their long-haul truck drivers, misled long-haul trucker drivers about the costs of driver training, and assessed excessive fees to recoup costs in violation of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act), and state law. The Plaintiff also sought class certification for a collective action.

Alleged Unpaid Training Leads to Wage and Hour Lawsuit:

According to court documents, drivers in the CRST training program were not compensated for hours worked while training. The court documents described the training program as being conducted in four phases: Driver training school (minimum of one week), Orientation (3.5 days), Training with assigned “lead” driver (28 days), and continuation training (6 months or more).

Preliminary Settlement Agreement: Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Juan Carlos Montoya reached a preliminary settlement agreement on December 15, 2020. If granted approval, the preliminary settlement agreement would be on behalf of a class of thousands of other former CRST driver trainees. The preliminary settlement agreement with the mega carrier totals $12.5 million, and the case is being heard by Massachusetts federal court.

Wage and Hour & Off the Clock Work Claims:

The Plaintiff’s complaint claims that trainees were not paid for mandatory training in Phases 1 or 2, but rather trainees in the program accumulate “debt” owed to the company to reimburse the company for training costs like advances for tuition, lodging, drug tests, etc. According to the complaint, trainees in the last two phases of CRST’s long-haul driver training program are paid a rate per mile for any on-duty drive time, but they are not paid for any time spent loading or unloading, or any time the truck is not in transit. When considering the off the clock work, payment during the last two phases of training, is less than minimum wage.

Former California CRST Driver Opposes Settlement:

Only one day after the preliminary settlement agreement was filed, a former CRST driver involved in a California lawsuit filed an objection to the settlement (Markson v. CRST). Plaintiffs in the separate lawsuit oppose the preliminary settlement arguing that the agreement is too broad because the settlement agreement terms require plaintiffs in the Montoya case not bring any further action against CRST. This claim could disqualify class members in the Marson case with overlapping claims.

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.

January 26, 2021

$7.5M Settles Ikea Class Action Wage and Hour Suit

January 26, 2021/ Blog Author

In recent news, Ikea agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California labor laws.

All the Details on the Case: Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

Case Number: 19-cv-01182

The Plaintiff in the Case: Cahilig

Defendant: Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The History of the Case: Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The class action lawsuit alleged that Ikea violated California labor laws by failing to provide employees with paid rest breaks. Plaintiffs in the case also claimed that Ikea’s written rest period policy violated California labor law because the policy required that Ikea employees stay on site during their paid rest periods. Ikea employees were also allegedly required to take their breaks in the Staff Cafe or other specified non-work areas on site.

What Determines the Rest Break Violation in Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that to fulfill labor law requirements, California employers must relinquish control over how their employees spend their time during rest breaks and meal periods.

Plaintiff in the Case Made Additional Allegations:

In addition to citing rest period violations, plaintiffs in the case claim that Ikea failed to provide wages owed to their employees in a timely manner along with accurate wage statements.

Judge Gives Settlement Preliminary Approval:

On June 17, 2020, a federal judge gave the proposed settlement agreement preliminary approval. Ikea agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the class action lawsuit.

The Class Action and the Settlement:

In Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, 6.400 class members will receive 75% of the full settlement amount. The remaining funds will go toward attorneys’ fees and associated costs.

If you need to discuss California labor law violations in the workplace or if you need to file a California wage and hour 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.

January 18, 2021

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

January 18, 2021/ Blog Author

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.

January 14, 2021

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

January 14, 2021/ Blog Author

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.

January 06, 2021

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

January 06, 2021/ Blog Author

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.

December 31, 2020

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

December 31, 2020/ Blog Author

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.