SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses

In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.

The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

AT&T Settles California Wage & Hour Class Action for $575K

As part of a settlement to resolve minimum wage and overtime pay claims, AT&T agreed to a settlement.

The Case: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiffs in the case filed a collective action citing wage and hour violations and overtime pay violations. According to the class action lawsuit, AT&T wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt, which allegedly denied the misclassified employees benefits like minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. The class includes anyone working for AT&T Mobility Services in California as a non-exempt employee between November 2, 2021, and September 21, 2022.

The Defendant: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T, is a phone company that provides cellular services to consumers. The company also offers internet and TV plans. AT&T has numerous locations throughout California. AT&T denied any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to resolve the allegations of overtime pay and minimum wage violations.

Details of the Case: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. Businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal action. Consumers, including the plaintiffs in the AT&T class action lawsuit Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility, can file claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Doing so allows them to seek penalties for the state’s labor regulator. While AT&T never admitted any wrongdoing, they did agree to a $575,000 class action settlement to resolve these wage and hour allegations. (The settlement includes a $7,500 payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA). The parties also included a pro rata cash payment for class members in the AT&T settlement. The amount will be based on the number of weeks worked by each worker during the class period.

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

Shipt Same Day Delivery Service Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations

In recent news, Shipt faces wage and hour law violation allegations in Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Court: Dist. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist. Minn.

The Case No.: 27-cv-22-15991

The Plaintiff: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Ellison, claims alleged violations of Minnesota wage and hour laws due to Shipt, Inc.’s misclassification of workers as independent contractors. In his complaint against Shipt, the Attorney General alleges that Shipt shoppers must comply with detailed instructions provided by the company and rules on the performance of every aspect of their job duties. Shoppers are also allegedly required to offer shopping services personally, with Shipt prohibiting them from hiring an assistant. According to the complaint, shoppers are also subject to performance reviews and have an ongoing but indefinite relationship with the company. Shoppers must complete both onboarding and corrective training (as necessary), usually need to schedule their work hours in advance and are reimbursed for certain expenses connected to customer orders.

The Defendant: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Shipt, Inc., is a same-day delivery service. Shipt is a wholly owned subsidiary of Target, the popular big box store. It offers an app designed to make online grocery delivery easy by connecting Shipt shoppers with nearby stores with the things they need. The company has “shoppers” that they classify as independent contractors that provide same-day delivery of groceries and other household items purchased by users of the Shipt app online platform. The same-day delivery service provider was sued for independent contractor misclassification in Minnesota. Shipt faces allegations of violating the state wage and hour laws due to the misclassification of workers.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

According to the Attorney General, additional factors considered in the case included:

• Shipt can also discharge their shoppers at any time for any reason

• Shopper services are only available to the public through the app

• Shoppers are unable to generate a profit or a loss based on job performance

• Shoppers are not required to make a significant investment in the business

• Shoppers are an essential element of the company’s day-to-day business.

Most expect Shipt to deny the allegations of employment law violations.

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

Papa, Inc. Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Violation Claims Due To Alleged Misclassification

A California federal district court granted conditional collective certification of claims brought under the federal FLSA for minimum wage and overtime violations arising from the alleged misclassification of Pals employed by Papa, Inc.

The Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The Court: California Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

The Case No.: CV-496 June 2015

The Plaintiff: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim the company misclassified the Pals, assistants who provide daily living tasks and companionship to seniors, as independent contractors. According to the collective action complaint, Papa Inc.’s Pals were misclassified based on the following:

1. The company conducted background checks before allowing the workers to connect with customers.

2. Providing the workers with training and strict policies.

3. Setting the pay structure for the Pals.

4. Tracking the location and productivity of Pals workers.

5. Retaining the right to terminate Pal workers without cause or for violating rules imposed in the Papa Inc. contract.

The Defendant: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The defendant in the lawsuit, Papa, Inc., operates an app allowing seniors and their families to access the services of “Papa Pals.” Pals assist with chores and offer companionship services. The company contends that the Pals are independent contractors because they choose how often they use the app. They also operate primarily at the direction of the seniors or the seniors’ families who access the app, and they do so free from the direct supervision of the company. The company argued that the court should deny the plaintiff’s certification motion because the plaintiffs failed to establish they suffered any failure to receive overtime wages or minimum wage because they worked so few hours. The court disagreed, finding that the arguments were related to the merits of the claims, which were not appropriate to consider at that time.

Details of the Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The court concluded that the plaintiff adequately showed that Pal workers are treated as independent contractors, which creates the potential of not receiving overtime pay and minimum wages required by employment law for those legally classified as employees. This court’s decision seems to contradict past case decisions. For instance, in 2021, the Fifth Circuit decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC required district courts to scrutinize similarly situated workers from the outset of the case instead of issuing a lenient conditional certification in the early stages of the suit. The case brings attention to the continuing discussion of how companies should classify their workers.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

The JetBlue California Wage Case Gets Early Approval

In recent news, JetBlue Airways agreed to a $3.6 million settlement to resolve flight attendants' class-action claims alleging that the carrier violated California labor law. The proposed settlement received preliminary approval from a federal judge.

The Case: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 4:15-cv-01203

The Plaintiffs: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

Plaintiffs in Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp is a proposed class action filed in 2015 amidst a flurry of litigation over whether California's strict and detailed wage laws apply to flight attendants. The element creating difficulty is that flight attendants, by the nature of their jobs, are based in the state but spend most of their time on the job - in the air. The complaint accused JetBlue of requiring flight attendants to miss their rest periods and meal breaks and not paying them for the time as California law requires. The plaintiffs also claim JetBlue failed to issue accurate wage statements reflecting their pay, hours, etc.

The Defendant: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

Other airlines and trade groups faced similar allegations questioning if a federal law regulating airlines and railroads preempted state laws and arguing that a ruling to the contrary would result in costly regulatory patchwork requiring airlines to eliminate services and increase prices. The defendant in the case, JetBlue Airways Corp, presented similar arguments in this case.

Details of the Case: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

The California Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers the state) ruled in recent years that state employment law generally applies and does not specify airlines, so the industry must comply with them. In 2016 and 2017, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed many of the claims but then stayed the case pending appeals in several similar lawsuits. White vacated his earlier decisions and revived several claims against JetBlue in 2020 after the court issued plaintiff-friendly rulings. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to look at the issue after receiving encouragement from the Biden administration to allow the lower court rulings to stand. Legal counsel for the plaintiff filed the proposed settlement in San Francisco federal court. The terms designate California flight attendants employed since 2011 as benefits of the settlement. While JetBlue Airways Corp agrees to pay $3.6 million to be distributed to more than 500 flight attendants to settle the long-running lawsuit, they deny any wrongdoing. The parties agree that the settlement would resolve the claims accusing JetBlue of failing to pay their workers for missed rest breaks or meal periods, violating California labor law.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Sends Domino’s Wage Lawsuit Back to 9th Circuit

In recent news, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the Domino’s wage lawsuit back to the 9th Circuit.

The Case: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The Court: Supreme Court of United States

The Case No.: 21-1572

The Previous Ruling: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

Domino’s Pizza LLC employed the ingredient delivery drivers that filed the wage and hour lawsuit. The previous ruling in the case, Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona, was issued in December 2021 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the drivers qualify for a federal law carveout from arbitration agreements because they deliver out-of-state products from Domino’s centralized California depot to various franchise stores throughout California.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the California wage and hour lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza LLC solely to send the case back to the lower court. The ingredient delivery drivers filed suit seeking to clarify which workers are exempt from mandatory arbitration based on their engagement in interstate commerce. The drivers delivered out-of-state products from Domino’s centralized California depot to franchise stores across the state. The Ninth Circuit found that this qualified them for a federal law carveout from arbitration agreements. However, the U.S. Supreme Court justices’ decision vacated the December 2021 ruling suggesting the appeals court reconsider the case in light of the recent decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon.

The Dispute: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona case is falling amid a surge of litigation over transportation workers’ attempts to avoid mandatory arbitration of various employment disputes. Domino’s argued that the appeals court misinterpreted the Federal Arbitration Act and urged the high court to determine which class of transportation workers are covered by the exemption. Saxon did not offer a decision on the issue. In Saxon, the justices unanimously concluded that a former Southwest ramp supervisor qualified for the named exemption because she was involved in transporting goods across state or international borders, which fell inside the Act’s parameters. The finding allowed the ramp supervisor to pursue her overtime dispute in court rather than arbitration. However, in Saxon, the court specified that the exemption does not cover all transportation workers. Domino’s suggested the appeal is the ideal opportunity to settle the question resulting in a split among the Eleventh, Night, and Seventh Circuit Courts. In opposition, the drivers argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is in line with Saxon because the high court’s finding indicated the arbitration carveout applies when there is movement of goods in interstate commerce (even if the worker completing the transportation does not cross a state line themselves).

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

Fresenius USA Manufacturing Moves for Summary Judgment in Overtime Suit

Fresenius USA Manufacturing allegedly violated California's labor laws governing meal periods, rest breaks, and overtime compensation. In a March 14, 2022 order, the court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Case: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

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

The Case No.: 18cv1163-LAB

The Plaintiff: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Sergio Cota, worked for the Defendant, Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. as a truck driver from May 21, 2008 through April 19, 2017. During his time employed at the company, Cota claims the company violated California's labor laws relating to meal periods, rest breaks, and overtime pay. He also filed derivative claims for failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by law, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The Defendant: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

The defendant in the case (FUSA Manufacturing, plus parent company and co-defendant Fresenius USA, Inc.) employed Cota as a driver. In December 2018, after Cota filed his claims, the Secretary of Transportation declared that the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 preempted California's meal and rest break rules for commercial drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration then stated that the declaration applied to any future enforcement of the specified statutes, even those connected with alleged conduct that occurred before the declaration.

Details of the Case: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

When the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court took up another action involving the FMCSA's preemption decision (Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA, Case No. 19-73488), the parties in Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc. jointly moved to stay the case and await the court's decision. Since it was reasonable to expect the other case's ruling to be "controlling" in the Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc. case, the Court granted the motion to stay. In Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA, the Ninth Circuit upheld FMCSA's preemption determination but found that FMCSA's opinion on retroactivity was not a reviewable final agency action. In a March 14, 2022 order, the court determined that Cota's wage and rest period claims relied on unenforceable California state law and that his overtime allegations overlooked that he was exempt from the overtime protections used as the basis for the claim. The other wage-related claims Cota filed were derivative of the first three failed claims, and the attached UCL and PAGA claims cannot stand on their own without another claimed violation as support. Based on these arguments, the court granted Fresenius U.S.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in Defendant's favor.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action suit, 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.