Ardagh Metal Beverage USA Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In recent news, Ardagh Metal Beverage USA faces a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging California Labor Law violations.

The Case: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-at-00056

The Plaintiff: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

Diaz, the plaintiff in the case, filed the original complaint on Dec. 6, 2021. Diaz is a former non-exempt employee of Ardagh Metal Beverage USA. In the complaint, Diaz alleges Ardagh failed (and continues to fail) to pay all minimum and overtime wages to their non-exempt workers. In the complaint, Diaz argues that the defendant’s policy unfairly rounded time entries to the nearest quarter-hour and failed to incorporate all forms of compensation when they calculated employees’ overtime wages. Additionally, the complaint claims that Ardagh failed to comply with employment law mandates to provide meal breaks and rest periods. The complaint requests class certification of all non-exempt employees working for Ardagh Metal Beverage USA in the four years preceding the complaint filing.

The Defendant: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

According to the complaint, Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in Solano County, California as a manufacturer and supplier of beverage cans and other sustainable packaging. The Defendant removed the employment class-action lawsuit Grant Diaz filed in California state court to the Eastern District of California. The defendant argues that the Eastern District of California has jurisdiction over Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc. through the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); claiming that the case meets the original federal jurisdiction requirements under CAFA because 1) the class action has over 100 class members, 2) the matter in controversy in the aggregate is more than $5 million and 3) there is minimal diversity involved.

Summary of the Case: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that due to the policies noted above, Ardagh violated California’s Labor Code by failing to pay all minimum wages, failing to pay all overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods as required, failing to provide appropriate itemized wage statement violations, as well as waiting time penalties and unfair competition claims. Based on these violations, the plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential, general, and special damages. Additionally, plaintiffs seek statutory waiting time penalties, restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, and costs. Ardagh denies all claims and denies that class members have been damaged in the alleged amount. The defendant also argues that the plaintiff failed to identify a proper class of plaintiffs (along with 14 other affirmative defenses).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Legoland California Faces Class Action Alleging Meal Break Violations

In recent news, one of California’s most popular amusement parks, Legoland California, faces a class-action lawsuit alleging they failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Case: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The Court: San Diego Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2021-00052868-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Sierra Steele, was employed by Legoland California since March 2019. Steele was classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As such, she was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods as well as the payment of minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked. Steele alleges Legoland California, LLC violated employment law by failing to provide meal breaks, failing to offer rest periods, failing to pay minimum wage, and failing to provide accurate overtime wages.

The Defendant: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

Legoland California, LLC, the defendant in the case, owns and operates leisure facilities offering visitor attractions, theme parks featuring hotels, water parks, spas, holiday villages, conference venues, and golf courses.

Summary of the Case: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The plaintiff filed the Class Action on behalf of herself and a California class. The class is defined as all individuals currently or previously employed as non-exempt employees by Legoland California at any time during the period beginning four (4) years before the complaint filing (with end date determined by the court). Steele filed a class action complaint alleging that Legoland California, LLC violated the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges Legoland California, LLC failed to compensate the plaintiff and other employees for all the time they were under their employer’s control. Allegedly, Legoland California required employees to work longer than four hours without being provided their ten minute rest periods from time to time. Additionally, plaintiffs allege that Legoland employees were allegedly required to work for more than five hours without receiving their legally mandated off-duty meal break.

In Violation of California Labor Law: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

According to Cal. Lab. Code § 226, employers must provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." According to the lawsuit, Legoland California violated this California Labor Code when they allegedly failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements for their employees.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss meal break 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.

Are Waiting-Time Penalties Recoverable for Meal and Rest Period Violations?

A recent case leaves California courts considering whether waiting-time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest period violations.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct

The Case No.: BC372146

The Plaintiff: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case, Naranjo, (and a class of former and current employees) were a class of security guards. The group filed suit against Spectrum alleging meal break violations. They sought premium wages, along with derivative remedies, waiting time penalties, itemized wage statement penalties, and attorney fees.

The Defendant: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Spectrum, contracts exclusively with federal agencies. Its officers take temporary custody of federal prisoners and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detainees who must travel offsite for medical treatment or other appointments, and they provide continuous supervision until the individuals are returned to their custodial locations. Spectrum officers also guard witnesses awaiting court appearances.

Summary of the Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

On appeal, the court held that nonexempt employees (at-will, on-call, and hourly) who are paid for on-duty meal periods are also entitled to premium wages unless the employer has a written agreement that includes an on-duty meal period revocation clause. The court of appeals also held that unpaid premium wages for meal break violations accrue prejudgment interest at seven percent. However, unpaid premium wages for meal break violations do not entitle the employees to additional remedies (under sections 203 and 226) if the employee’s pay or their pay stubs during the course of the violations included the wages earned for their on-duty meal breaks, but not the unpaid premium wages. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in denying certification of the rest break class. The findings were affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court of appeals held that unpaid premium wages for meal-period violations didn’t entitle employees to pay stub penalties or waiting-time penalties. Many watch this case to see if it can resolve the long-standing debate about waiting-time penalties. Are they recoverable for meal and rest period violations? If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts, potential penalties for California meal and rest period violations will increase.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing 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.

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.