A Common Nucleus of Fact in Two Recent Employment Law Suits

In recent news, the court sides with Walmart in two different but connected wage statement violations lawsuits.

The Case: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 18-cv-04598-JSC

The Plaintiff: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The plaintiff in the case, Anguiano-Tamayo, filed a putative class action in 2018 bringing claims under California Labor Code §§ 226 and 2698 against her employer, Walmart Assocs.

The Defendant: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The defendant in the case, Walmart Assocs., moved to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss but stayed the case saying it was duplicative of an earlier-filed case pending at that time in the Northern District of California. The duplicative case concluded in 2021.

The Duplicitous Case: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Roderick Magadia filed the duplicative putative class action in 2016 against his former employer Wal-Mart. (Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK, Dkt. No. 1-1.) Magadia alleged three violations of the California Labor Code:

• wage statement violations (adjusted overtime pay rates allegedly did not include hourly rates or hours worked),

• failure to list pay-period start and end dates on statements of final pay,

• and meal break violations.

In June 2018, Wal-Mart attempted to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting partial summary judgment based on Canales (No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK, Dkt. No. 129 at 3), a recent California Court of Appeals decision. The court denied "any motion for reconsideration" based on Canales. At the same time, Magadia attempted to amend the original complaint to add a new theory of liability based on Walmart's attempt to raise a new defense. The district court denied the request based on the advanced state of litigation combined with their denial of the defendant's request to raise a new defense. In response, the plaintiff's counsel filed the instant action on behalf of Ana Anguiano-Tamayo, a different employee, and filed an administrative motion to consider whether the two cases were related, arguing that they shared overlapping factual allegations regarding Wal-Mart's wage statements. Wal-Mart opposed claiming that the cases are based on unique theories of liability (Anguiano-Tamayo calls into question how certain wage statements reflect pay periods, and Magadia calls into question how wage statements reflect hourly rates and hours worked. The court denied the request to relate the two cases and stayed the more recently filed case, Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

A Common Nucleus of Fact: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

After the conclusion of Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc, the Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs. case proceeded. While the theories behind the two cases were determined to be unique, in considering Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs., the court decided that they did both arise out of the same transactional nucleus of fact. The court found that Magadia precludes the plaintiff's claim in Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment.

If you have questions about wage statement violations or need to file an employment law claim, please contact 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.

Zero Motorcycles Settles Wage and Hour Claims with $425K Class Action Settlement

To resolve wage and hour claims that the company failed to provide workers with proper wages, Zero Motorcycles agreed to pay a $425,000 settlement.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Cruz

The Case No.: 19-CV-03725

The Plaintiff: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are employees of Zero Motorcycles. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the company violated California law by failing to calculate correct regular pay rates and forcing employees to perform off-the-clock work. Allegedly, these labor law violations resulted in the company paying their employees less than minimum wage and inaccurate overtime wages. The plaintiffs also claim that the company denied them rest and meal breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, separation wages, and related penalties (all of which constitute labor law violations).

The Defendant: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The defendant in the case, Zero Motorcycles, manufactures and sells various motorcycles. The models they offer vary from street bikes to dual sport bikes. According to Zero Motorcycle's website, the California-based company specializes in high-performance electric technology. However, in the plaintiff's class action lawsuit, the company is accused of failing to pay its employees properly.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The wage-and-hour class action lawsuit, Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc., listed several alleged labor law violations: paying their employees less than minimum wage, paying inaccurate overtime wages, denying employees their rest and meal breaks, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to offer separation wages promptly, etc. The class action also included claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Zero Motorcycles did not admit to any wrongdoing, but they did agree to pay the $425,000 settlement to resolve the alleged California labor law violations. The wage and hour settlement benefits those who worked for Zero Motorcycles in California between Dec. 16th, 2015, and June 13th, 2021. The settlement terms allow class members to collect a payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period, so workers who completed a more significant number of workweeks during the class period will be eligible for a higher settlement payment. The proposed settlement agreement also includes a $30,000 payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency for PAGA violations. The court scheduled a final approval hearing for the settlement for July 26th, 2022.

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

Class Action Lawsuit Alleged Merrill Lynch Violated Wage & Hour and Overtime Pay Laws

Did you know Merril Lynch resolved unpaid wage and overtime pay claims in a 2020 class action lawsuit with a settlement deal?

The Case: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Incorporated

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

The Case No.: CIV 2001671

The Plaintiff: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Scrooc, made allegations under various California laws: the state's labor laws, the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Private Attorneys General Act or PAGA (a law that allows California workers to bring labor claims on behalf of the state's labor authority). The plaintiff filed a class action alleging Merrill Lynch underpaid their California financial advisors.

The Defendant: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

Merrill Lynch is an investment management company. The investment management company employs financial advisors and associates who work with customers to guide them in creating personalized investment plans and retirement plans. According to the Merrill Lynch website, the company employs more than 13,000 financial advisors.

Summary of the Case: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

Did Merrill Lynch take advantage of its California advisors by failing to pay wages properly? While Merrill Lynch did not admit any wrongdoing and continues to contend that its company complied with California wage-and-hour laws, it agreed to a $1.375 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the wage and hour and overtime pay claims. A $100,000 portion of the settlement fund was allocated for PAGA claims, including some payments to eligible class members and a sizeable financial penalty paid to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members include Merrill Lynch employees who worked in California as Client Associates between Aug. 26th, 2016, and May 12th, 2022, and had one of the following job titles: Registered Client Associate, Registered Senior Client Associate, Investment Associate, Private Wealth Associate, Sales Assistant, Sales Associate, Account Associate, Brokerage Associate or any other non-exempt administrative support position.

If you have questions about California employment law, wage and hour violations, or need help filing a California class-action lawsuit, please contact 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.

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.