Did Unifi Aviation, LLC Fail to Provide Employees with Mandatory Meal & Rest Breaks?

/

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, Unifi Aviation, LLC faces allegations of labor law violations, with plaintiffs specifically alleging that the company failed to provide the meal and rest breaks required to offer employees according to labor law.

The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00019287-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Leiv Berg, is an Unifi Aviation, LLC employee. Berg started work with the company in January 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Berg is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages for all hours worked. During this time with the company, Berg noticed practices that he alleges violate labor law and responded by filing a class action complaint representing himself and all other similarly situated employees (non-exempt workers previously employed by the defendant or staffed by a third party during the period beginning four years before the date the complaint was filed, and ending on the date determined by the court). They seek compensation for losses incurred during the California Class Period caused by Unifi Aviation’s policies and practices allegedly failing to compensate employees legally.

The Defendant: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant in the case, is an aviation services provider in California. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly engaged in several policies and practices that violated labor law, including:

  • Interrupting employees during off-duty meal breaks to perform work tasks (without appropriate compensation) resulting in what is often referred to as “off-the-clock” work or unpaid time working.

  • Using a payroll system that rounds down employees’ time (as a standard practice) resulting in employees receiving less pay than if the company paid them for all time worked without rounding the numbers.

  • Requiring mandatory temperature checks and Covid symptom questionnaires (without pay)

  • Calculating overpay rates without including bonuses earned from the company’s non-discretionary incentive program

  • The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The court defines an off-duty rest period as the time when an employee is relieved of all work-related tasks. Employees must be free to engage in personal activities during rest periods and should not be subject to their employer’s control or restrictions. Employees should not be required to remain on-site, on call, or perform work-related tasks or duties during off-duty rest periods or meal breaks. In the case, Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant faces wage and hour allegations, overtime allegations, failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay sick wages (in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s)).

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Breakfast Republic Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

/

In recent news, Breakfast Club faces a PAGA-only lawsuit alleging multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic Carmel Valley, LLC

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

The Case No.: 21SMCV01447

The Plaintiff: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The plaintiff in the case, Chanda Young, filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the popular breakfast eatery, Breakfast Republic, violated multiple California labor laws.

The Defendant: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The defendant in the case is the Breakfast Republic, a popular dining location. According to the class action, eight Breakfast Republic corporate entities violated California Labor Law, including their Ocean Beach location in Newport. Employees of the trendy eatery sued the restaurant claiming multiple California labor law violations, including:

  • failure to pay minimum wage

  • failure to pay overtime

  • failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods

  • failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

  • failure to provide wages when due

  • failure to provide tips

  • failure to provide required itemized wage statements

The Case: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The case, Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

Warning Signs that Could Indicate California Labor Law Violations:

California employees should be aware of common warning signs that their employers are violating labor law, such as:

  • Misclassification: Employers may misclassify employees as exempt from overtime pay when they should be classified as non-exempt.

  • Off-the-Clock-Work: Employers may sometimes require workers to complete job duties or work-related tasks before or after their scheduled shifts, during their off-duty meal breaks, etc. Without compensation, doing so violates labor laws.

  • Improper Overtime Rate Calculation: Employers may miscalculate the overtime rate by not including additional compensation such as commissions, bonuses, or certain types of incentive pay.

If you believe your rights regarding overtime pay have been violated, it's advisable to consult with an employment lawyer who can assess your specific circumstances and provide guidance accordingly.

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

Fedex Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

/

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. faces allegations of California labor code violations in a recent PAGA-only action.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIV-SB-2305596

The Plaintiff: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that FedEx Ground failed to provide their employees with all the legally required meal and rest periods (or compensate them for missed meal and rest periods). Ortiz-Dixon filed the lawsuit alleging violations of numerous labor laws including: § 2699, et seq. §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California labow law suit seeks penalties for the defendants’ multiple alleged violations.

The Defendant: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The defendant in the case, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., allegedly failed to fully relieve their workers (plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees) of the legally required 30-minute meal breaks. In addition, from time to time, FedEx also allegedly required workers to work more than four hours without providing them with the legally required ten-minute rest periods. “Off duty” rest periods are defined by the California Supreme Court as when an employee is relieved from all their work-related duties and not under their employer’s control.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

In the case, Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a PAGA-only action. PAGA is a mechanism California workers can use to enforce state labor laws as a proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is essentially a law enforcement action designed to protect the public, not for the benefit of private parties. PAGA actions enforce Labor Code with citizens deputized as private attorneys general and not as a means of recovering damages or restitution for a private party.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law 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.

California Class Action Alleges Marriot Owes Banquet Servers Tips

/

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Schulman tentatively found that Marriot owed banquet servers close to $9M.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-16-550454

The Plaintiff: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are two former banquet servers for the hotel and conference space, Marriott. During their busy season, the largest ballroom seats up to 5,000 people. The class action focuses on the time between January 2012 and April 2017 when Marriott added a mandatory service charge to customers’ food/beverage bills. From January 2012, the service charge was 23%. Marriott increased the charge to 24% from November 2015 through April 2017. During this five-year period, Marriott distributed 70-72% of the mandatory service charge to their banquet staff. They retained the remainder. Plaintiffs in the case allege this standard practice equates to the employer skimming between 30 and 28% of the total. The plaintiffs filed as a class action, and considering normal turnover, the class of servers is likely to total about 150 people.

The Defendant: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The defendant in the case, Marriott International Inc., revised the billing format to break the mandatory charge into a “staff charge” and a “house charge” in April 2017. The Ordono case only focuses on the period prior to this change, but those arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs find this change telling.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

In the case, John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc., the judge tentatively found that the plaintiffs were entitled to $8.97 million because a reasonable customer may assume the mandatory service charge is a gratuity that goes to their server. California Labor Code 351 states that tips or gratuities belong to the employee, and employers may not take them or deduct any portion of them from the worker’s pay.

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

Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s Face Allegations of Labor Law Violations in California Class Action

/

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, two major department stores face allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violations, multiple California labor law violations and a violation of California’s unlawful business practices statute.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-00768

The Plaintiff: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

Six plaintiffs filed the complaint on February 21, 2023, Ha Nguyen, Alex Bhagatram, Alicia Taylor, Soraya Lodin, Teyani Cisneros, and Michael Webster. The plaintiffs worked at Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s California locations as sales associates or inventory control specialists. The group filed a proposed class action in California federal court attempting to represent over 1,100 current and former hourly employees in similar situations at Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s locations in California throughout the past four years. The plaintiffs allege that the stores regularly require off-the-clock work, fail to provide off-duty meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s (Bloomingdale’s is a subsidiary of Macy’s), regularly deducted 30 minutes for meal breaks (even though employees often worked through their meal breaks), did not reimburse workers for necessary use of their personal cell phones, personal computers or internet to complete job duties.

Labor Law Requires Employers to Pay Minimum Wage and Provides Breaks:

As of January 1, 2023, the minimum wage is $15.50 per hour for all California employers. Some cities/counties have higher minimum wages than the state’s rate. California Labor Low also requires employers to offer their nonexempt employees working more than five hours an off-duty 30-minute lunch break, plus 10-minute breaks every four hours, and a second 30-minute off-duty meal break if the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

According to the court documents in Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC et al., workers were not paid for all hours worked because they were not compensated for the meal breaks the company failed to provide. The company also allegedly calculated overtime pay rates incorrectly (using the employee’s lower hourly base rates instead of the higher rate, including their sales commission). The stores also allegedly failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the hourly employees, so the employees’ wage statements didn’t reflect the correct amount of gross/net wages.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Violate California Labor Code?

/

In recent news, a class action complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court includes allegations that Prudent Security Solutions Inc. violated California Labor Code.

The Case: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Brian Bradford was employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. in Los Angeles from March to April 2022. He was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Lisa Bradford was also employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. from March to April 2022, but she was paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses.

The Defendant: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California.

The Case: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

In the case, Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc., the plaintiffs claim that their employer violated several labor laws. California law requires employers to pay every employee on an established payday for all the hours they work during that pay period, at a pay rate no less than minimum wage. According to labor law, hours worked means time when the employee is subject to the employer’s control, which includes any time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. According to court documents, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly required workers to complete work before their shift, after their shift, and during off-duty meal breaks. The off-the-clock work was allegedly not compensated, resulting in minimum wage violation allegations.

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

Warby Parker Employee Files Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

/

In a recently filed California class action complaint, a Warby Parker employee from Santa Clara County alleges numerous labor law violations.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV414694

The Plaintiff: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Chery, was an employee of Warby Parker in the county of Santa Clara. Warby Parker employed Chery as a non-exempt employee as of December 2019. Chery filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and qualifying class members citing numerous labor law violations.

Allegations: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

  • Unfair Competition

  • Failure to pay minimum wage

  • Failure to pay overtime wages

  • Failure to provide legally required breaks and meal periods

  • Failure to provide wages when due

  • Failure to provide accurate ittemized wage statements

  • Failure to reimburse employees for required work expenses

The Defendant: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The defendant in the case, Warby Parker, is a Delaware corporation conducting business in California. The defendant is a retailer of prescription eyeglasses, contact lenses, and sunglasses with locations throughout California.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

According to the court documents in Robert Chery v. Warby Parker, Chery filed the California class action alleging the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks for employees. The case is currently pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The plaintiff claims that a rigorous work schedule meant that employees were unable to take off duty meal breaks, and during meal periods that should have been off the clock, employees were allegedly not fully relieved of their work duties. According to Chery, the company would interrupt the employees during off-duty meal breaks so they could complete job-related tasks. According to teh plaintiff, employees were expected to work over 5 hours in one work shift without being provided an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Warby Parker did not provide a second off-duty meal break when employees completed shifts reaching 10 hours. Warby Parker allegedly expected workers to be on call and essentially on duty during their off-duty meal breaks. While employees allegedly forfeited their meal breaks, they were not provided additional compensation as company policy indicates they should.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.