Lawsuit Claims Citrix Violated Wage and Hour Law and Overtime Law

According to a recent lawsuit, Citrix Systems did not pay their employees for time spent completing mandatory pre-and post-shift tasks. Additionally, Citrix workers were allegedly denied proper overtime wages.

The Case: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

The Court: North Carolina’s Eastern District Court

The Case No.: 5:21-CV-00088

The Plaintiff: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

Cirillo, the plaintiff in the case, is a former inside sales rep at the company’s Raleigh, North Carolina location. Cirillo alleges that she and other workers in similar situations weren’t paid for the time they spent completing mandatory pre- and post-shift tasks or for overtime.

The Defendant: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

The defendant in the case, Citrix Systems Inc., is a software development company employing more than 8,100 global workers. More than 2,000 of their employees are inside sales reps at the Raleigh location. According to the complaint, Citrix Systems Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state employment law by failing to appropriately pay employees, and retaliating against the plaintiff in the case.

Situations in the Workplace that Allegedly Violate Labor Law:

• According to the complaint, Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc., a number of business practices, policies, and situations in the workplace constituted a violation of labor law including:

• Requiring employees to report only scheduled shift times regardless of the number of hours actually worked

• Required “pre-shift” tasks required in order to be “work ready” such as checking emails, logging in to various programs, etc.

• Requiring employees to work through unpaid lunch breaks

• Requiring post-shift tasks (like shutting down computers, finishing paperwork, sending emails and touching base with clients and potential customers (including clients in other time zones)

• Failing to include nondiscretionary commissions as part of the workers’ regular rates of pay when calculating overtime pay rates

Summary of the Case: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc. proposed collective and class action, also alleges Citrix failed to inform the plaintiff, Cirillo, of her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and retaliated against her after she sustained a workplace injury that necessitated that she work from home for an extended period. In summary, the plaintiff, who worked for Citrix from summer 2018 through the beginning of 2020, alleges she was wrongfully terminated from her position.

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.

Goodyear Faces Allegations of Missed Breaks for California Workers

A former Goodyear Tire employee alleges the company did not provide proper meal and rest breaks or payment in lieu of the mandatory rest periods and meal breaks.

The Case: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The Court: California’s Northern District Court

The Case No.: 5:22-CV-01320

The Plaintiff: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The plaintiff in the case is a former employee, Franco, who worked as a Goodyear service advisor at two different Goodyear service locations in San Jose, California. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was paid at an hourly rate of $16 to $19 with an added bonus referred to as SPIFF.

The Defendant: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The defendants in the case, The Goodyear Tire, and Rubber Company, allegedly denied their employees opportunities to take their 30-minute, uninterrupted meal breaks (required by California law). Goodyear paid the employees a meal break premium at their base hourly rate in lieu of the meal breaks. However, according to the lawsuit, the meal break premiums, which are to be paid at an employee’s regular rate of pay (including all forms of compensation), did not include the plaintiff’s SPIFF bonus as part of the regular pay rate. As a result, employees were allegedly underpaid for their missed meal breaks. Plaintiffs claim the same treatment was given to missed rest periods.

More Details of the Case: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The case was initially filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on January 8, 2022. On March 2, 2022, the case was removed to California’s Northern District Court. In addition to the alleged unlawful pay practices, the plaintiffs claim Goodyear failed to provide accurate wage statements, and pay workers for time worked at the time of termination. Goodyear’s wage statements allegedly failed to show accurate gross and net wages earned (due to leaving out time worked during “off the clock” rest periods and meal breaks). The lawsuit seeks to cover those who worked for Goodyear at a California location as non-exempt, hourly employees sometime during the last four years (prior to the date of the lawsuit filing).

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.

Former Peloton Employee Files California Wage and Hour Lawsuit

A former Peloton employee based out of California claims the company violated wage and hour law.

The Case: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The Court: Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01425

The Plaintiff: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case is a Los Angeles resident who worked for Peloton as an hourly employee in the sales department. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff worked for Peloton Interactive from November 2016 through December 2021. He claims that he and other similarly situated employees at the company were deprived of meal and rest breaks, wages owed for working through breaks and rest periods, and were not reimbursed for phone and vehicle expenses required to perform their jobs. He also alleged that when the company paid overtime wages, it was not issued at the correct overtime pay rate (not considering commissions, bonuses, etc. when calculating their time and a half wage). Plaintiffs also claim the company failed to pay employees for accrued vacation and paid time off wages when employees were terminated from their positions.

The Defendant: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Peloton Interactive, Inc., is a fitness equipment and media company. According to the lawsuit filed by the former Peloton employee, the company failed to pay appropriate minimum wage, failed to provide accurate overtime pay, and did not provide employees with their mandatory rest periods and meal breaks (among other alleged wage and hour violations).

Case Details: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The complaint was initially filed by the ex-Peloton Interactive employee in Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 2, 2022. On March 3rd, the case was removed to California’s Central District Court. The proposed class action seeks to cover current and former non-exempt employees that worked for Peloton Interactive at any point during the last 4 years.

If you have questions about California employment law 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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California’s Day Management Company Allegedly Failed to Accurately Record Employee’s Hours

Andrew King, a former employee of Day Wireless Systems, makes allegations that the company violated labor law.

The Case: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV01620

The Plaintiff: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The plaintiff in the case, Andrew King, was allegedly employed by DBA Wireless Systems from December 2015 through May 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The plaintiff claims that during his time with the company, Day Management Systems policies and standard business practices resulted in employees not receiving full payment for all hours worked. The plaintiff and other members of the California class seek an injunction preventing similar future conduct, as well as relief for those economically injured by Defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

The Defendant: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The Defendant in the case, Day Management Systems DBA Day Wireless Systems, is a part of California’s Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance Industry.

More About the Case: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

Day Management Corporation (or Day Wireless Systems) allegedly violated the California Labor Code when they failed to accurately record employee hours, failed to accurately pay employees' wages, etc. The full list of allegations included in the complaint includes six violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages due, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide legally mandated wage statements (accurate and itemized), failure to reimburse employees for work expenses, and failure to provide wages when they are due. The plaintiffs also point out that the company failed to pay their employees for all the time they were under their employer’s control (including mandatory Covid-19 screening required before clocking in for their shift). Failure to include off-the-clock time in employee hours resulted in a failure to pay minimum wage, and a failure to pay overtime wages when due.

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.

Options for Youth-California, Inc. Facing California Labor Code Violation Allegations

In recent news, Options for Youth-California, Inc. is facing allegations of multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2132685

The Plaintiff: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

Anthony Gutierrez, the plaintiff in the case, filed the PAGA only complaint seeking civil penalties on behalf of himself and all current and former aggrieved employees of Options for Youth-California. Under PAGA, California workers are allowed to bring an action on behalf of themself or on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only.

The Defendant: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

According to the complaint, Options for Youth-California, Inc. is a California corporation offering students a personalized, flexible approach to their education.

What is a PAGA Action?

PAGA creates the opportunity for individuals to act on behalf of California state to enforce state labor laws through the legal system. Under PAGA, an employee can file a lawsuit as the proxy of the California State Labor Law Enforcement Agency. For all intents and purposes, a PAGA-only action is fundamentally a law enforcement action intended to protect the public and not intended to benefit any private party. Under PAGA actions, the plaintiff seeks not to recover damages or restitution, but to act as a “deputy” private attorney to enforce California State Labor Code.

Summary of the Case: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

According to the complaint, Options for Youth-California, Inc. allegedly failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest breaks, which resulted in underpaying employees' wages. The company has multiple locations throughout the state of California. The employer allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks. The plaintiff also claims that employees were required (now and then) to work more than four (4) hours without being offered the legally required ten-minute rest period (as outlined by employment law). According to the California Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are defined as the time during which employees are relieved from all their work-related tasks and responsibilities, and are also free from their employer’s control.

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

Did THC-Orange County Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Meal Breaks?

In recent news, another California employer faces allegations of Labor Law violations.

The Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-597887

The Plaintiff: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Arva Anderson, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that THC - Orange County, LLC violated California Labor Code. Anderson was employed by the Defendant from July 2021 through October 2021 and the company classified Anderson as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. As such, Anderson was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Allegations: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

According to the complaint, THC-Orange County, LLC, the Defendant, failed to pay workers minimum wage, failed to provide workers with overtime pay, failed to provide legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks, failed to offer workers accurate and itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse workers for necessary expenses, and failed to pay worker’s wages when they were due.

The Defendant: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Defendant in the case, THC-Orange County, LLC, provides healthcare services (including both medical and surgical care services) in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

All the allegations represent violations of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements that show the worker’s "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." in addition to other data. The lawsuit alleges that THC-Orange County, LLC allegedly violated California Labor Law by failing to fulfill this requirement for accurate and itemized wage statements.

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

Sheraton Hotel Faces a Class Action Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

Sheraton Hotel workers filed a class action alleging The Sheraton, LLC and NFNY Hotel Management LLC violated state labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to meet minimum wage pay requirements, and not handing over tips to their workers.

The Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court Western District of New York

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00046

The Plaintiff: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

Doris Green and Christina Casero filed the original lawsuit against The Sheraton Hotel. The two are former hourly workers for the Sheraton Niagara Falls Hotel. The former employees cited both the hotel and NFNY Hotel Management, the company that runs that particular hotel location, as defendants in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the companies violated labor law by failing to comply with minimum wage, and wage statement requirements as well as failing to hand over tips earned by their workers.

The Defendant: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The defendants in the case, The Sheraton, LLC, and NFNY Hotel Management are both facing allegations of labor law violations. The Sheraton is a popular and well-known hotel chain with many locations throughout the nation. NFNY Hotel Management is the company that ran The Sheraton Niagara Falls location at the time the plaintiffs were employed. The plaintiffs, Casero and Green, claim the companies' wage notices fail to accurately and timely show employees their true rates of pay and proper tip credits to be taken into consideration against the minimum wage. The wage notices allegedly failed to include names, addresses, and phone numbers for the joint employers. According to the plaintiffs, affected workers included waiters, bartenders, servers, room service attendants, and nonmanagerial service workers.

More Details of the Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The two former Sheraton Niagara Falls employees accuse the hotel owners and hotel management of depriving them of minimum wage and their earned tips. The allegations are made in a class action lawsuit with class members including a variety of different Sheraton employees paid at an hourly rate. One of the plaintiffs, Casero, was employed as a server at the Sheraton Niagara Falls from May 2016 through August 2020. Casero’s hourly rate of $8.25 did not meet New York’s state minimum wage (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during her time of employment). Green, another plaintiff, worked as a Sheraton Niagara Falls bartender, front desk associate, and other roles at the hotel from May 2019 through August 2020. Green’s hourly pay rate of $12 also did not meet the state minimum wage requirements (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during the time of employment). The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of current and former hourly workers at the Sheraton Niagara Falls location. The group seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, legal fees, and costs. The plaintiffs also seek a jury trial, and the case is pending.

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.