Sea West Services Faces Allegations of Wage and Hour Violations

A lawsuit filed recently claims Sea West Services violated California’s Labor Code when they allegedly failed to provide their workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

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

The Case No.: 23CV038585

The Plaintiff: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jose Ruelas, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, Sea West Services, faces allegations that they violated numerous employment laws, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the company violated employment law by

(1) failing to pay minimum wages;

(2) failing to pay overtime wages;

(3) failing to provide required meal and rest periods;

(4) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

(5) failing to pay wages when due;

(6) failing to reimburse employees for required expenses; and

(7) failing to pay sick pay.

The Case: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

In the case Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC, the court will consider the application of state and federal labor codes. In California, employers must pay their employees on the established payday for each pay period, no less than minimum wage, for all hours worked during the pay period. According to the plaintiff, Sea West Services, LLC failed to compensate workers for work they needed to complete before and after their scheduled shifts and off-duty breaks. The off-the-clock work went uncompensated.

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 employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego Faces Wage and Hour Violation Allegations

San Diego's Rady Children's Hospital faces wage and hour violation allegations.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00027035-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

Jones, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

The defendant in the case, Rady Children's Hospital, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failure to pay sick wages

• Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego restricted their employees' activities, preventing unconstrained walks. Employees could not leave work premises during their rest periods. Since the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off-duty rest periods, and California's Supreme Court defined "off duty" as time when an employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control, this alleged behavior constitutes a labor law violation. The case, Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

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 employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$72.5M Settlement in California Home Depot Wage & Hour Class Action

In recent news, Home Depot faces allegations of California labor law violations.

The Case: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

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

The Case No.: 16-01854

The Plaintiff: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The plaintiff in the case, Utne, filed the class action wage and hour lawsuit in March 2016, claiming Home Depot violated labor laws. While the plaintiff filed suit in 2016, the case was scheduled for trial in 2023.

The Defendant: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The defendant in the case, Home Depot USA, is the largest U.S. home improvement retailer in the U.S. The company denies the labor law violation allegations but agreed to settle to avoid costly and uncertain litigation. The company stated that the settlement allowed them to focus on serving their employees and customers. The parties agreed to a settlement with the settlement covering over 272,000 California Home Depot employees (employed since March 8, 2012).

The Case: Utne v Home Depot USA Inc

The case, Utne v Home Depot USA Inc, turned into a long-running class action lawsuit based on allegations that Home Depot underpaid California workers. Home Depot agreed to resolve the case with a $72.5 million settlement to avoid the litigation costs and the uncertainty of litigation. The parties filed the preliminary settlement in San Francisco federal court seeking the judge’s approval. After taking out legal fees and costs (estimated at $24.2 million plus $3.5 million in expenses), the settlement would go to hourly employees who worked the closing shift and waited off the clock after the Home Depot stores were locked for the night. 41% of the settlement is designated for employees who were unpaid for the time they spent off the clock prepping for their shift (putting on their aprons, etc.) And 9% is designated for employees who lost pay due to Home Depot’s standard policy of rounding hours to the nearest quarter hour.

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

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.