Clarifying Premium Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Periods

The California Supreme Court held that an employee’s regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The decision was announced on July 15, 2021, while the court considered the implications of Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case No.: S259172

The Plaintiff: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The plaintiff in the case is a hotel bartender named Ferra. Ferra alleged that Loews improperly calculated her meal and rest period premium payments by excluding her non-discretionary quarterly incentive bonuses when they completed the premium pay calculations.

The Defendant: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

Loews argued (successfully) before a trial court as well as a court of appeal that Ferra’s ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is her base hourly rate of pay and that the regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is distinguishable from her overtime regular rate of pay. The California Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the decision from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that: “the ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay under California Labor Code section 226.7(c) is synonymous with the regular rate of pay for overtime as defined under California Labor Code section 501(a). Thus, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must include non-discretionary payments, meaning those that are paid pursuant to [a] prior contract, agreement, or promise . . . .”

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

When the California Supreme Court held that an employee’s ‘regular rate of compensation’ for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s ‘regular rate of pay’ for overtime pay, they clarified a common point of argument in California wage and hour lawsuits. When California employers pay their employees meal and rest period premiums, they must use the employee’s overtime regular rate of pay (including non-discretionary payments for any work performed). The California Supreme Court also ruled that the holding applies retroactively. As such, California employers should review and update their payroll policies and any related procedures associated with meal and rest period premiums to verify that premium payments are paid at the regular rate of pay, and include applicable non-discretionary payments.

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.

Vail Resort’s $13M Settlement Offer to Resolve California Wage & Hour Lawsuits Could Hurt Colorado Suit

Vail Resorts offered $13 million to settle five California wage and labor lawsuits, which could have negative repercussions for a similar lawsuit filed in Colorado.

The Case: Randy Dean Quint, John Linn, and Mark Molina, Individually and On Behalf

Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-03569-DDD-GPG

The Plaintiff: Quint, Linn, and Molina v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that Vail Resorts willfully and systematically failed to pay hourly employees for all their hours worked at the hourly wage rate designated in employment agreements. The lawsuit alleges that ski/snowboard instructors, ticket scanners, lift operators, and other employees are all (to varying degrees) not fully compensated for all hours worked during their shifts. Plaintiffs point out in the lawsuit that Vail Resorts requires employees to complete “off the clock” work, unpaid training, unpaid travel, and unpaid “dressing time.” Plaintiffs also allege that Vail Resorts did not reimburse employees for the purchase or maintenance costs of their ski and snowboard equipment or for cell phones required for the job. According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts exploited the plaintiffs and thousands of other seasonal employees for years in violation of federal and state labor laws (Colorado, California, Utah, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New York, Vermont, and Michigan). The plaintiffs seek class-action status for eligible current and former employees that worked for Vail Resorts during the past three years.

The Defendant: Quint, Linn, and Molina v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Vail Resorts, is a recreational and hospitality company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado.

The Case: Quint, Linn, and Molina v. Vail Resorts, Inc.

Vail Resorts filed a motion to pause the Colorado case while the California settlement negotiations proceeded. In November 2021, a federal judge granted the motion. California plaintiffs’ attorneys filed preliminary approval paperwork outlining the settlement deal in early 2022. The California lawsuits are similar in many ways to the proposed class-action lawsuit in Colorado filed in December 2020. However, Colorado counsel says they would have asked for a settlement far in excess of the $13.1 million spread across a class of 100,000 people, as well as requiring policy changes to be negotiated into the deal. Vail Resorts argues that the settlement for the California lawsuits should also resolve and release outstanding claims in other courts, including the Colorado case. “resolve and release all outstanding claims against Vail Resorts,” including the Colorado case. Colorado plaintiffs argue that the Colorado case must move forward to seek an end to the egregious treatment of employees at Vail Resorts.

If you have questions about overtime 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.

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.