Pacific Western Bank Faces Allegations they Violated California Labor Code

A recent lawsuit filing includes allegations that Pacific Western Bank violated California Labor Code by failing to provide accurate and itemized wage statements for employees.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2127696

The Allegations Against the Defendant: Pacific Western Bank

The plaintiff in the case includes a number of allegations in the lawsuit including that Pacific Western Bank allegedly failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wages statements (with required itemization), failed to provide payment of earned wages when due, and failed to reimburse employees for required work expenses.

Violations of Labor Law: Pacific Western Bank

According to allegations made in the lawsuit, Pacific Western Bank violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees proper wages. Additional allegations indicate the employer failed to provide accurate pay statements to their workers as required by employment law.

Employment Law Requires Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements:

According to the lawsuit filed, Pacific Western Bank violated numerous employment laws listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). According to California Labor Code § 226, every employer in the state of California must provide their employees with an accurate and itemized written wage statement showing gross wages earned (among other items). Plaintiffs in the case allege that Pacific Western Bank failed to provide the required wage statements identifying an accurate gross wage earned and net wage earned. Allegedly, the wage statements provided by Pacific Western Bank failed to identify the accurate total hours worked per pay period, and the calculations of total hours worked during the pay period did not match those listed on the statement.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Helzberg's Diamond Shops Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops face a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging they failed to pay wages to their employees.

The Case: Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The Court: Superior Court of California County of Alameda

The Case No.: 21CV003531

The Plaintiff: Eduardo Ybarra

Eduardo Ybarra, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that his employer, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC failed to provide meal and rest breaks required by law. The rigorous work schedules of Helzberg’s Diamond Shop employees apparently left them unable to take their off-duty meal breaks, and when they did take a break, they were not fully relieved from work duties. According to the plaintiff, employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal periods in order to complete work duties.

The Defendant: Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The defendant in the case, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC, opened their first Helzberg Diamonds over a century ago in Kansas, and now has more than 200 jewelry stores across the nation.

Summary of the Case: Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC lawsuit alleges that employees were required to perform their job duties for shifts lasting over 5 hours without receiving an off-duty meal break or rest period. Additionally, the class action claims that the employer failed to offer employees their second off-duty meal period each working day they completed shifts lasting longer than ten hours. Due to the policy in place at Helzberg’s Diamonds Shops, employees claim they needed to remain on call and on duty even during what was considered their “off-duty” meal periods and breaks. Since “off-duty” meal periods and breaks are defined as not being under the company’s control, employees claim they were regularly forfeiting their meal breaks, but the company did not provide them with the necessary added compensation.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss how to file a California class action, 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.

Ruth’s Chris Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action

According to the class action lawsuit, Ruth’s Chris allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide their workers with the meal and rest periods they are required to provide by law.

The Case: Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

The Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: MSC21-02077

The Plaintiff: Amanda M. Patterson

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda M. Patterson, alleges that Ruth’s Chris required employees to perform off the clock work before and after their scheduled work shift, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. According to California employment law, employers must pay employees on their established payday for the stated pay period, the applicable minimum wage for all hours the employee worked in that pay period. Time worked is defined as the time during which the employee is under the employer’s control, and includes time an employee is allowed to work (even if they are not required to work). The Plaintiff claims Ruth’s Chris did not provide compensation to employees for time spent working off the clock, and still under the employer’s control. Therefore, Ruth’s Chris allegedly did not pay its employees a fair minimum wage for all the hours they worked during each specified pay period as required by law.

The Defendant: RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

The defendant in the case, RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth’s Chris), is a California corporation conducting business in the State of California, Contra Costa County, and owning/managing Ruth’s Chris Steak House restaurants. The defendant faces a number of allegations as outlined in the California class action including allegedly failing to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked, provide meal and rest periods required by law, pay workers minimum wage, provide overtime pay for overtime hours worked, provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and pay wages in a timely manner. The listed allegations violate California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1198.5.

Details About the Case: Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

In Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris), The Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris) case (MSC21-02077) is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a class action 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.

Pacific Western Bank Faces Allegations of Failing to Pay Employees Proper Wages

According to a recent lawsuit, Pacific Western Bank allegedly failed to pay employees proper wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements as required by employment law.

The Case: Keelain Gonzalez v. Pacific Western Bank

The Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County

The Case No.: CIVSB2127696

The Plaintiff: Keelain Gonzalez

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit alleges that Pacific Western Bank violated labor law numerous times by:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime pay

• failing to provide legally mandated rest and meal periods

• failing to provide accurate wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• failing to provide wages when they are due

All the above are violations of the California Labor Code including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802 as well as the applicable Wage Order. In addition, the plaintiff claims their alleged behavior gives rise to civil penalties.

The Defendant: Pacific Western Bank

Pacific Western Bank, the Defendant in the case, provides comprehensive community banking, national lending, and venture banking services.

The Case: Keelain Gonzalez v. Pacific Western Bank

The class action lawsuit (Case No. CIVSB2127696) alleges that Pacific Western Bank violated California Labor Code. According to § 226, every employer must provide their employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing. Accurate itemized wage statements should include the correct gross and net wages earned, which the Defendant in this case allegedly failed to identify. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant failed to identify the accurate total hours worked in each pay period. The lawsuit is currently pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

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

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.