PAGA-Only Action Lawsuit Against Renoir HM Alleges California Labor Code Violation

According to a PAGA-Only action lawsuit filed recently in San Francisco County Superior Court, Renoir HM allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with mandatory meal and rest periods or provide compensation for all hours worked by employees.

The Case: Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-21-595913

The Plaintiff: Alma Heyman

The plaintiff in the case is Alma Heymen. Allegedly the Plaintiff and other employees in similar situations completed required temperature checks and mandatory Covid-19 symptom questionnaires as part of a screening process prior to clocking in for their day of work.

The Defendant: Renoir HM, LLC

The lawsuit alleges that Renoir HM, LLC failed to pay employees for all the time under Defendant's control. However, the plaintiff argues that as they were not paid for their off-the-clock work (time spent completing mandatory screening for Covid-19), the company did provide their employees for all hours worked resulting in violations of minimum wage law.

The Case: Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC

San Francisco-based employment law attorneys, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed the PAGA-Only lawsuit against Renoir HM, LLC. The lawsuit alleges the company violated Labor Code § 2699, et seq. The suit seeks penalties for alleged violation of various California Labor Codes: §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC (Case No. CGC-21-595913) is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

What is PAGA?

Using the PAGA mechanism, the State of California can enforce labor laws through an employee suing under PAGA as the proxy agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agency. PAGA-Only Actions are essentially law enforcement actions and are not intended for recovering damages or obtaining restitution. Instead, the PAGA creates a deputized citizen able to enforce labor law as private attorneys general.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or off-the-clock work, 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.

Former California McDonald’s Employee Files a Wage and Hour Class Action

A former McDonald’s employee, Elisa Alvarez, filed a California Class Action alleging wage and hour violations. 

The Case: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The Court: San Luis Obispo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV-0533

The Plaintiff: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The plaintiff, Elisa Alvarez is a former employee of the defendant. According to the lawsuit, Alvarez was employed as a non-exempt employee from March 2017 to March 2019 and received her last paycheck from the Defendant in March 2021. Alvarez was paid on an hourly basis, and was allegedly entitled to meal and rest periods, minimum wage, reporting time pay, and overtime wages as required by employment law. The plaintiff brings the Class Action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all individuals

who are or were previously employed by the Defendant as non-exempt employees during the time period beginning four years preceding the date of the filing of the Complaint and ending on the date determined by the court to define the Class Period. The aggregate claim of California class members is under $5 million. The plaintiff reserved the right to amend class definitions before the Court determines if class certification is appropriate. 

The Defendant: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The defendant in the case, SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca

Details About the Case: Elisa Alvarez v. SLO Arches, Ivernia, and Golden Seneca (collectively “McDonald’s”)

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against SLO Arches, Inc. ("SLO Arches"), Ivernia, Incorporated ("Ivernia"), and Golden Seneca, Inc. ("Golden Seneca") (collectively, "McDonald's"), McDonald's franchisees. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant failed to provide employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide required meal and rest periods, failed to reimburse for required business expenses, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to provide wages when due. According to California employment law, employers must pay employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in each payroll period. Hours worked is legally defined as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” Allegedly, McDonald's required employees to complete work before and after their scheduled shifts, and during the employees’ off-duty breaks. According to the lawsuit, McDonald's failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock before and after their shifts as well as during breaks. Based on these allegations, McDonald’s failed to provide their employees with applicable minimum wage for the complete number of hours they worked.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, 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.

Did Front Porch Communities & Services Violate California Labor Code?

In a recent PAGA-Only Action filed against Front Porch Communities and Services, the plaintiff alleged that the California corporation violated multiple California labor codes by failing to compensate employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to reimburse employees for business expenses.

The Case: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 21CV386663

The Plaintiff: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The plaintiff, Catherine Zuli, was employed by the Defendant, Front Porch Communities & Services, from September 2019 through December 2020. During her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid on an hourly basis. As an hourly, non-exempt employee in the state of California, Zulu was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, as well as minimum wage and overtime pay. The plaintiff seeks fixed civil penalties for alleged violations of California Labor Codes.

The Defendant: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The defendant in the case, Front Porch Communities & Services, is a California corporation offering nursing, continuing care retirement communities, and residential care facilities.

About the Case: Catherine Zulu vs. Front Porch Communities & Services

The PAGA-Only Action is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV386663. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay employees for all hours worked including time spent waiting in line for and undergoing mandatory temperature checks, a Covid-19 screening. As the time spent was not counted as hours worked, it was also not calculated into the employees’ pay for regular hours or overtime hours, and plaintiff alleged this constitutes additional violations of minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Through PAGA, the State of California can enforce labor laws through the employees suing under the PAGA who do so acting as a proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is intended as a law enforcement action and is not designed to benefit private parties by recovering damages or obtaining restitution.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or if you’ve experienced other California 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.

California Nonprofit Wage Theft Lawsuit: Preliminary $170K Settlement

In June 2021, Downtown Streets Team, a California nonprofit came to a $170,000 preliminary settlement agreement to resolve a wage theft lawsuit.

The Case: Jaclyn Epter v. Downtown Streets, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Francisco

The Case No.: CGC-19-579955

The Plaintiff: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The plaintiff in the case, Jaclyn Epter, is a former employment specialist at Downtown Streets. Epter filed a class-action lawsuit in December 2019 on behalf of herself and other case managers and employment specialists for nonpayment of wages. The lawsuit alleged wage theft or wage abuse based on overtime violations, failure to provide mandated break and lunch time compensation, late payment of wages after termination or resignation, etc. for the time period between Oct. 11, 2015 and March 31, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the nonprofit illegally misclassified its employment specialists and case managers, who support the nonprofits various programs, as salary workers exempt from the protections of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The defendant in the case, Downtown Streets, is a nonprofit corporation that employs the homeless and low wage earners and runs the Downtown Streets Team. The “team” provides street cleaning service throughout Palo Alto and surrounding Bay Area cities. The purpose of the nonprofit’s street cleaning team is to help uplift the homeless in the area (as well as low wage workers) and assist them in finding employment and housing.

The Allegations: Epter v. Downtown Streets

Some of the allegations plaintiffs cited in the lawsuit included:

• Failure to pay wages for all hours worked

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu thereof

• Failure to provide rest breaks or premium wages in lieu thereof

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to timely pay final wages at termination

• Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law

More About the Case: Epter v. Downtown Streets

The plaintiff in the case claims that she was instructed to record her hours as no more than 8 in a workday or 40 in a work week regardless of how many she worked. She also alleges that employees were discouraged from taking meal or rest breaks, and that the company did not provide them with accurate, itemized wage statements. According to court documents, the wage theft lawsuit’s preliminary settlement was approved on June 25th, and a final settlement will potentially be determined by the court on Sept. 23rd. The $170,000 settlement is intended to resolve the wage theft lawsuit, and pay 72 employees affected by the pay disparities to provide for uncompensated overtime, (as well as providing compensation for missed meal and rest breaks mandated by employment law). The allegations claimed millions of dollars in losses, so the defendant sees the $170,000 settlement as a good outcome. Downtown Streets denied the allegations, but will examine its records for any employees not property compensated.

If you need to discuss California state law or if you need to file a class action lawsuit, 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.

California Minor League Baseball Players Sue for Unpaid Wages

In recent news, Minor League Baseball players sue for unpaid California wages. Some question whether the farm system is a form of indentured servitude.

The Case: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

The Case No.: 3:14-cv-00608-JCS

The Plaintiff: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

The plaintiffs in the case are minor leaguers alleging that they are paid significantly less than minimum wage according to employment law. Unlike major league baseball players, minor league players have no union. However, minor leaguers comprise the overwhelming majority of baseball players employed by the MLB. Attempts to organize minor league players are generally not successful because minor leaguers fear retaliation - they hope to end up with a major league career, and don’t want to hurt their chances.

The Defendant: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Since the 1920s, all MLB teams actively depend on extensive “farm systems” to develop their baseball players. MLB teams actually employ only a small number of players (baseball players that actually play in MLB stadiums). However, each major franchise simultaneously stockpiles anywhere from 150 to 250 minor league baseball players. Altogether, the MLB franchises collectively employ approximately 6,000 minor leaguers in their farm systems. The original 2014 Complaint filed in the Senne case focuses on the allegedly problematic farm system. The complaint notes that Major League Baseball’s (MLB) exemption from federal antitrust laws allows it to collude on the working conditions for the development of baseball players; enabling them to hoard players while depressing salaries. Most minor league players earn from $3,000 to $7,500 per year while routinely working more than 50 hours per week (frequently up to 70 hours per week during championship season). Minor league players regularly receive pay that falls below minimum wage and they are not provided with overtime wages. Minor league players are provided no payment during spring training, instructional leagues, or winter training while they typically work more than 50 hours per week during these time periods.

The Case: Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

The lawsuit seeks to recoup the damages minor leaguers sustain as a result of illegal wage and labor practices in the farm system.As five of the defendants are located in California, an entire minor league operates out of the state, and hundreds of minor leaguers work in California throughout the winter months, the suit includes class action damages under the state laws of California. In July, the U.S. Magistrate narrowed the subclass of plaintiffs eligible to seek injunctive relief in Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. The decision of the U.S. Magistrate is just another adjustment defining who may participate and how they can participate in the lawsuit.

If you need to discuss violations of California state employment law or if you need to file a California class action 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.

Former Virgin Air Flight Attendants File Wage and Hour and Overtime Claims

In the case of Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc., the judge will need to consider the origin of the defendant’s policy regarding meal period and rest break provisions outside of California.

The Case: Julia Bernstein, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Virgin America, Inc., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California.

Case No.: 15–v–02277–JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case are current and former Virgin America flight attendants. The plaintiffs in the class action allege that Virgin failed to pay them for hours worked before their flights, after their flights, and between their flights, as well as time spent in mandatory training, time they were “on reserve,” time they were required to spend taking mandatory drug tests, and time spent filling out required incident reports. The plaintiffs also allege that the company did not allow them to take meal periods or rest breaks as required by law, did not pay appropriate overtime pay and minimum wage, and did not provide class members with accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Virgin American is an airline company. Headquartered in Burlingame, California, Virgin trains their flight attendants in California. In fact, the company has received millions of dollars from the to do just that. All flight attendant training for Virgin takes place in California. Many of the flights arrive or depart from a California airport, as well. The airline estimates that in the last ten years, the average number of daily flights departing California airport has never fallen below 88.6%

Background of the Case: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

In most recent news, the judge found that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption against extraterritorial application of meal and rest break requirements for breaks and rest periods that occur outside of California. This finding is based on the judge’s decision that the plaintiffs did not show that the Virgin airline company policy originated at the company’s California headquarters.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or overtime pay 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.

Mortgage Company Workers File Suit Regarding Out-Of-Office Pay

Workers for a California mortgage company, Guild Mortgage Co., filed putative class and collective actions against their employer claiming they were shortchanged pay for work they completed outside the office.

Details of the Case: Sergio Mayoral et al. v. Guild Mortgage Co. et al.

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

Case No.: 3:21-cv-00486

Mayoral et al. v. Guild Mortgage Co.: The Plaintiff

Sergio Mayoral and Miguel Mayoral, Loan Officer Assistants, allege that Guild Mortgage Co. denied them pay for over 20 hours of out-of-office work they completed weekly in order to secure new clients for the company. The plaintiffs claim the company’s failure to pay wages earned, and overtime wages constitutes a violation of wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs further claim that Guild Mortgage maintains a policy and standard practice of only paying assistants for work completed in the office, and doesn’t acknowledge or record work completed out of the office. Both plaintiffs worked for Guild Mortgage from April 2019 through January 2020. In order to generate business, the 2 men attended networking events, open houses, etc. and since these activities were outside of the office, the work was not allegedly not compensated.

Mayoral et al. v. Guild Mortgage Co.: The Defendant

According to the complaint, the Guild Mortgage Co. payment practice in place for Loan Officer Assistants means workers did not receive full wages for all the compensable hours worked, and in some cases, did not receive overtime pay they were due.

Mayoral et al. v. Guild Mortgage Co.: An Overview

The plaintiffs seek to represent other non exempt hourly originating loan officer assistants for Guild Mortgage locations throughout the US in an FLSA collective action. It’s estimated the class could be over 1,000 members.

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.