Misclassified Driver Files Appeal After District Court Dismisses All Claims

Brant, an allegedly misclassified driver, appealed after the U.S. District Court dismissed all claims in his FLSA lawsuit.

The Case: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

The Case No.: 21-2122

The Plaintiff: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eric R. Brant, hauled freight for the defendant in the case. Brant was classified as an independent contractor in 2018 and 2019. Brant sued Schneider in July 2020, claiming federal and state law violations and alleging Schneider National Inc. was willfully misclassifying workers as independent contractors. Brant claims Schneider engaged in several employment law violations, including minimum wage requirements (FLSA and Wisconsin Law), unjustly enriching itself (Wisconsin law), and Truth-in-Leasing regulations (federal law). When the case was before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge William C. Griesbach granted Schneider's motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings (No. 20-cv-01049-WCG). Brant appealed the decision.

The Defendant: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case is Schneider National, Inc., a significant motor carrier. In 2019, Schneider oversaw thousands of trucks in its freight business. Most of Schneider's drivers are employees, but in 2020 it designated more than a quarter of its drivers as independent contractors. At this time, Schneider recruited drivers interested in being "owner-operators" who had not independently invested in purchasing a truck by leasing Schneider's trucks out to drivers who would then drive for Schneider under contract. Under this contract, Brant became an "owner-operator" and hauled freight for Schneider from December 2018 to August 2019. While Brant claims the company misclassified him and violated multiple employment laws, the company claims they were engaged in a business deal with Brant, relying on two written contracts. The Lease allowed Brant to lease a Freightliner truck from Schneider, and an Operating Agreement allowed Brant to lease the truck back to Schneider and receive 65% of the gross revenue for the shipments he hauled for Schneider.

Details of the Case: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

While the U.S. District Court granted Schneider's motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Appeals Court found that the district court erred in basing its decision on the terms of Schneider's contracts because the economic reality of the working relationship is the critical factor when determining whether a person is an employee under the FLSA, not the terms of a written contract. Instead of basing the decision on the terms of the written agreement, the decision should be based on the behaviors, practices, and job requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that Brant had alleged legal, viable claims for relief under the FLSA, Wisconsin minimum-wage law, Wisconsin law of unjust enrichment, and the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations. TheU.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

If you have questions about how to file a misclassification 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Original Mike’s Settles Wage and Hour Class Action with $974k Settlement

In recent news, Original Mike’s is set to settle a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a $974k settlement.

The Case: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2016-00893360-CU-BT-CXC

The Plaintiff: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

According to the plaintiffs in the case, Original Mike’s business actions violated California labor laws. The state of California has some of the strictest protections for employees in the entire country, which can result in steep penalties for employers found in violation of labor law.

The Defendant: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case is Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al. Original Mike’s is a restaurant with locations in various locations in California. According to the 2016 class-action lawsuit filed against Original Mike’s, the company violated California labor law by failing to pay their workers the overtime and regular wages they were due in accordance with state and federal labor laws. In addition to wage violations, the plaintiffs claim Original Mike’s failed to provide employees with mandated meal and rest periods, legal compensation for missed breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, and complete final payment upon termination for all hours worked.

More Details of the Case: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

In response to the allegations, Original Mike’s agreed to pay more than $974,000 to resolve the claims that their policies and business practices violated California labor law and denied workers overtime pay and other standard benefits employers are required to provide their employees by law. The $974k settlement benefits California Original Mike’s employees who filled non-overtime-exempt positions at any point between December 26th, 2012, and December 16th, 2016.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how 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, and Riverside.

Security Employees Allege Unpaid Meal & Rest Breaks

In recent news, unpaid meal- and rest-break premiums may serve as the basis for waiting-time penalties and inaccurate wage statement claims for a group of California security workers.

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

The Court: Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four

The Case No.: S258966

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

The plaintiffs in the case allege that their employer violated labor law, specifically citing violations of California Labor Code § 226 which [sets] forth the requirement for employers to furnish accurate wage statements; and California Labor Code § 203 which [sets] forth the requirements for the timely distribution of all wages earned upon an employee’s departure from a job.

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

The Defendant in the case, Spectrum Security Services, Inc. provides security services (and related services) to clients on a contract basis, including a variety of federal departments and agencies.

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

The Second Appellate District Court of Appeal originally held that under Labor Code section 226.7, missed-break premium pay is not a “wage” for purposes of Labor Code sections 203 and 226. Finding that the failure to timely pay or report such payments can never support penalties under either section 203 or 226.However, in May 2022, the California Supreme Court reversed the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal’s finding, making clear that meal and rest period premiums are a type of “wage” and must therefore be accurately reflected on wage statements as well as being accurately paid out when the employee leaves the job (or is fired from the job). The California Supreme Court remanded Naranjo back to the Court of Appeal to determine if any missed-break “premium pay” supported any derivative Section 203 waiting time penalties or Section 226 wage statement penalties where the relevant conditions are met. In order to meet this standard for accurately reporting premium pay on all wage statements, both employers and employees will need to be diligent.

If you have questions about inaccurate overtime pay calculations, inaccurate wage statements, or other employment law violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced California 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 Wage and Hour Lawsuit: CAFA Amount in Controversy Requirement

In recent news, Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that defendant, Roadrunner, failed to meet the burden to establish the required $5 million minimum for the CAFA amount in controversy requirement and remanded to district court for further proceedings.

The Case: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 22-55058

The Plaintiff: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Griselda Jauregui, filed a putative class action against Roadrunner Transportation Services on behalf of all Roadrunner and former California hourly workers. The plaintiff alleged violations of California labor law, primarily wage and hour violations.

The Defendant: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

When the Defendant, Roadrunner, removed the case to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under CAFA, the plaintiff responded with a motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The district court found that Roadrunner failed to meet its burden to establish the requisite $5 million minimum for the amount in controversy, and remanded the matter to state court.

The Case Continues: Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.

Roadrunner relied heavily on their senior payroll lead’s conclusion that company payroll data and the plaintiff’s allegations held the amount in controversy to be in excess of $14.7 million. Before granting the motion to remand, the district court independently evaluated Roadrunner’s calculations for each of the seven claims/alleged violations. The district court found that Roadrunner sufficiently demonstrated the claimed amount for 2 of the seven claims, but the district court disagreed with the defendant’s calculations for the other 5 claims, and assigned each of these 5 claims with a value of $0. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court’s decision to remand based on what they identified as two primary errors: putting a “thumb on the scale” against removal, and assigning a $0 value to claims because they disagreed with one or more assumptions involved in the defendant’s estimates. The Ninth Circuit also held that nothing in CAFA or case law compels this type of drastic response when a district court disagrees with a single assumption underlying a claim valuation. According to the panel, Roadrunner met the CAFA amount in controversy requirements. If the lowest hourly wage rate identified by the district court is used the minimum wage claim is reasonably valued at $4.5 million. The two other claims accepted by the district court were valued at $2.1 million. These two claims’ values combined is more than enough to establish jurisdiction under CAFA without even considering the valuation of the additional claims that the district court valued at $0. Based on this, the panel remanded the matter to district court for additional proceedings.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss wage and hour 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.

Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. Face Allegations of Failing to Pay All Wages

In recent news, Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. face a class action alleging a failure to pay all wages.

The Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The Court: Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

According to the plaintiff in the case, Chamberlain, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages, failed to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements for employees, failed to provide wages when due, and failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses (see California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 for more info).

The Defendant: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

The defendant in the case is Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. The company operates and conducts business in the state of California, Yolo County. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc were joint employers of Chamberlan according to contracts signed by parties involved. As such, the parties are jointly responsible for any allegations.

More Details of the Case: Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc.

Due to rigorous work schedules, Classic VMS and Collision Pro's employees allegedly couldn’t take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty during their “off duty” meal periods. The Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc. lawsuit alleges employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks and required to complete tasks for their employer. Allegations indicate that employees were required to work over 5 hours without an off-duty meal break (as is required by law). Additionally, allegations indicate that when employees worked ten hours of work their employer did not provide them with the second off-duty meal period required by law. The Defendants’ policy allegedly kept employees on-call and on-duty during their off-duty breaks. The policy resulted in employees regularly forfeiting meal breaks without receiving compensation as required by law. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ strict corporate policy and practice caused them to regularly forfeit meal breaks with no additional compensation. The class-action lawsuit, Chamberlan vs. Classic VMS, Inc. and Collision Pro’s Inc., is currently pending in the Yolo County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how 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, and Riverside.

Metro Air Service Inc. Allegedly Failed to Pay Sick Pay Wages

A recent lawsuit alleges that Metro Air Service Inc. failed to pay sick pay wages.

The Case: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22STCV14964

The Plaintiff: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Metro Airservice Inc. in California from April 15, 2021 to May 13, 2021. At all times during his employment, the plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due time employees worked.

The Defendant: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The defendant in the case, Metro Airservice Inc., faces allegations of labor law violations. Metro Airservice Inc. is a corporation that conducts substantial business in the state of California as an air services provider.

Case Details: Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc.

The Gomez v. Metro Airservice Inc. case alleges that Metro Service Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime pay, failed to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, failed to provide employees with wages when due, and failed to pay employees sick page wages (under applicable Labor Code sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802 and the applicable Wage Order(s)). The allegations give rise to civil penalties. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Metro Airservice Inc. underpaid sick pay wages.

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

Titan Workforce Faces Class Action Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Titan Workforce faces allegations of Labor Code violations in a recent California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

The Court: San Joaquin Superior Court

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2022-3036

Plaintiff in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

In Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to comply with employment laws requiring that they provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods.

Defendant in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the class-action lawsuit, the defendant, Titan Workforce, violated California Labor Code referencing paying minimum wage, paying overtime wages, providing employees with meal breaks and rest periods, providing accurate itemized wage statements to employees, providing employees with wages when they are due, and reimbursing employees for business expenses. (See California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the wage and hour class action lawsuit, Titan Workforce allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which may result in civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file suit to pursue civil penalties on behalf of themselves, as well as other employees and the State of California due to California Labor Code Violations. For legal purposes, aggrieved employee means any person employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." (See California Labor Code Section 2699(c) for more info). Under PAGA, the aggrieved employee is “deputized” as a private attorney to enforce labor code.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime class action or PAGA lawsuit, please contact 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.