Former Dow Subsidiary to Pay $3.8M to Settle Proposed California Wage Class Action

A former Dow subsidiary, a spin off of Dow Chemical Co., agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle a proposed California wage class action. The proposed class action was filed by employees claiming the company denied workers mandatory rest periods, and meal breaks.

Details of the Case: Craig et al v. Corteva, Inc. et al

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:19-cv-07923

Craig et al v. Corteva: The Plaintiff

In Craig et al v. Corteva, the putative class consists of any current or former hourly worker employed by Dow Chemical Co. or Dow AgroSciences LLC as long as they completed 12-hour shifts at the Pittsburg, California plant sometime between December 2015 and the date of preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Jason Craig and Michael Ross, named plaintiffs in the case, were employees at a 24/7 pest control and agricultural products manufacturing plant. They filed the suit in December 2019 claiming the company denied them rest periods and meal breaks.

Craig et al v. Corteva: The Defendant

The plant in question in the case was originally owned by Dow Chemical Co. According to the motion, following a 2017 merger, DowAgrosciences also became an owner of the plant. In 2019, DowAgrosciences was spun off from Dow and is now named Corteva Agriscience LLC. The Dow Chemical Co. spin off will pay $3.8 million to settle the proposed class action in connection to the agricultural products plant in Contra Costa County, California. The proposed settlement agreement came after several months of discovery and research of the company’s pay and employee break policies. Corteva denies any wrongdoing and claims they comply with wage and hour law.

Craig et al v. Corteva: An Overview of the Case

In a Friday motion for preliminary approval of a settlement with Corteva Agriscience LLC, the workers asked the judge to approve an agreement to settle claims that they weren't given breaks during their shifts at an agricultural products plant in Contra Costa County, California. If approved, the settlement would cover attorney fees, and distribute $2.77 million amongst the 207 class members. Plaintiffs felt the settlement was reasonable and relevant as it would yield a prompt, certain recovery for class members without requiring additional time and litigation costs.

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

Court Denied Request for Panel Rehearing of California Wage Suit

In March 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied KM Industrial Inc.’s request to reconsider their decision to return a wage and hour suit to state court. The decision followed the discovery that the company used assumptions that inflated the price tag associated with the suit so that it could get the case into federal court.

Details of the Case: Levone Harris v. KM Industrial Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 20-16767

Levone Harris v. KM Industrial Inc.: The Plaintiff

The plaintiff, Levone Harris, filed suit against KM Industrial in 2019. Harris is a former KM Industrial employee that claims KM Industrial violated state labor law. Allegations made in the suit included failing to provide required overtime pay, failing to reimburse business expenses, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide workers with accurate wage statements.

Levone Harris v. KM Industrial Inc.: The Defendant

KM Industrial had the case removed to federal court on the grounds that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (The company estimated the amount in controversy to be close to $7.1 million). A district judge granted a motion by Harris to send the case back to state court after finding the estimate provided by KM Industrial was “grossly exaggerated.” The company appealed, claiming the decision conflicted with precedent, but the request for rehearing was denied. The denial left the panel’s prior majority decision in place to remand the proposed class action to state court.

Levone Harris v. KM Industrial Inc.: An Overview

After the panel majority in November agreed with the district court’s decision that the Defendant improperly assumed when estimating amounts in controversy and failed to show their calculations were reasonable. Without proof that the members of the hourly employee class and the two subclasses were the same (and worked that long enough work shifts to quality for meal breaks and rest periods), the assumptions presented by KMI were found unreasonable.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from wage and hour violations, 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.

Wells Fargo Employees Seek Class Certification in Employment Lawsuit

Wells Fargo workers seek class certification from California federal court for employees claiming they were cheated out of mandatory breaks, pay as required by employment law, and forced non-reimbursed expenses to comply with dress codes at the financial institution.

Details of the Case: Caudley Simon v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:20-cv-00211

Simon v. Wells Fargo: The Plaintiff

Wells Fargo employees seek class certification in Caudley Simon v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. Plaintiffs claim they were cheated of pay, mandatory breaks and rest periods, and reimbursements for money spent complying with the company’s stringent dress code policy. Plaintiffs filed the motion in California federal court arguing that there are five categories of Wells Fargo employees that should be certified due to the fact that they were allegedly harmed by the same company policies at various Wells Fargo branches throughout California. The named plaintiff, Simon, is a former personal banker for Wells Fargo. He sued Wells Fargo in December 2019 alleging that he (and other workers in similar situations) were regularly deprived of mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, and were not provided paper wage statements in compliance with employment law. Additional allegations were also listed.

Simon v. Wells Fargo: The Defendant

Plaintiffs in the case claim that Wells Fargo’s timekeeping system precluded their workers from logging interrupted or condensed rest periods and meal breaks. Additionally, court documents allege that due to the company’s strict dress code, employees were forced to spend hundreds each year to comply and to pay for dry cleaning bills. Wells Fargo states the claims are meritless, and that they are committed to complying with state and federal employment law.

Simon v. Wells Fargo: An Overview

Wells Fargo employees seeking class certification include a pay stub class of workers who received payment through direct deposit and did not receive paper wage statements. Another class of workers spent “hundreds” of dollars annually to comply with the Wells Fargo dress code, and manage their dress code with expensive dry cleaning bills. It’s estimated that the combined class members could total more than 6,000 Wells Fargo workers.

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.

$1.5 Million Settles Timeshare Company’s Wage Class Action

In recent news, a timeshare company agrees to settle a California wage and hour class action for $1.5 million.

Details of the Case: Anders Pagh v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.

Court: United States District Court Central District of California

Case No.: 8:19-cv-00812

California Federal Judge Approves $1.5M Settlement:

A California federal judge approved the $1.5 million settlement to resolve two consolidated wage and hour class actions. The class actions were brought by sales workers claiming a timeshare company, Wyndham Destinations Inc. and their subsidiary shorted them earned wages and mandatory paid rest periods. U.S. District Judge John Holcomb issued the final judgment approving the settlement between the two parties. The court found that the proposed settlement offered notable monetary recovery for class members and that the suggested amount was fair, adequate, and reasonable in comparison to continued litigation and the associated costs for both parties.

The Plaintiffs:

The plaintiffs in the case were sales representatives of Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. and Wyndham Destinations Inc. who alleged that the commission pay system used by the giant timeshare company cheated them out of fair wages, violated minimum wage law, and violated mandatory rest break laws. Originally, the plaintiffs, Pagh and Lee Forney, filed two separate wage and hour class actions against the Wyndham brands. However, the two plaintiffs entered a joint prosecution agreement in summer of 2019.

Allegations in the Case:

The plaintiffs in the case claim they worked under commission or a commission-draw system. Under this system, employees were effectively paid an advance on their projected future sales. Based on this pay system, workers claimed they didn’t receive payment for non-sales-related work time. They also claim they didn't get paid 10-minute rest breaks while working for Wyndham on commission. In a motion for preliminary settlement approval, Wyndham brands argued that their pay system was not commission-draw based.

The Results of the Settlement:

The approved $1.5 million settlement will cover plaintiffs’ attorney fees, costs, and settlement administration costs, as well as $10,000 service awards for two lead plaintiffs, Anders Pagh and Jerry Lee Forney. Class members include current and former California sales force employees employed by Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. and Wyndham Destinations Inc. as long as they were paid on commission between July of 2017 and April of 2020.

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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Are Recycling Sorters Owed a Prevailing Wage?

When the California Supreme Court affirmed an appellate decision in late March 2021, California Justices confirmed that recycling sorters are owed a prevailing wage. 

Details of the Case: David Kaanaana et al. v. Barrett Business Services Inc. et al.

Court: California Supreme Court

Case No.: S253458

The Defendant in the Case: 

The Defendant in the case is a company supplying sorters at a sanitation district-owned Los Angeles recycling facility. The Defendant argued that the governing Depression-era statute was only applicable to construction work and that the law did not expand the type of work the prevailing wages requirement covered (as found in Section 1720(a)(2). 

The Plaintiff in the Class Action: 

The plaintiffs in the case were California workers that filed suit against Barrett and their former manager on behalf of belt sorters in general that were employed at two different locations of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2 between April of 2011 and September of 2013. The class of workers insisted they were owed a prevailing wage per the state Legislature’s 1937 enactment of the Labor Code.  The Code incorporated provisions of a 1931 Public Wage Rate Act in the newly codified Public Works Chapter. And workers, in direct opposition to Barrett’s argument, insisted that the law covers more than construction work. 

An Overview of the Case:

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Carol Corrigan, the high court pronounced that Barrett Business Services Inc.’s interpretation of the state statute wasn’t adequate, and that the law (in effect since the late 1930’s) intended to include additional types of work outside of construction and installation work (as in the 1931 uncodified version). At trial, the court granted Barrett’s motion to strike the prevailing wage allegations. However, the state court of appeal reversed the ruling. Justice Corrigan disagreed with Barrett’s arguments that the law applied only to construction work, instead stating that the covered district provision provides a definition depending on the governmental district for which work is performed rather than the type of tasks performed on the job.

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.

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

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.

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

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.