Did USA Waste of California, Inc. Employees Receive Inaccurate Wages?

In recent news, USA Waste of California, Inc. has faced allegations that it failed to provide its employees with accurate wages.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV002366

The Plaintiff: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Diridoni, filed a class action complaint alleging that USA Waste of California, Inc. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendants: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The defendant, USA Waste of California, Inc., faces numerous allegations of labor law violations, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse for required expenses

• Failing to pay sick wages

• Failing to pay wages when due

The alleged allegations would be a violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Such alleged conduct could give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

According to case documents, USA Waste of California, Inc. workers were allegedly not granted the required ten-minute rest periods when working longer than four hours. Claims also indicate that on certain occasions, employees were mandated to work shifts exceeding five hours without being afforded a meal break, as per company policy. Consequently, these employees missed out on their meal breaks without receiving extra pay, following what is alleged to be the standard policy and practice of the defendant. The class action lawsuit, Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc., is currently pending in the Sacramento 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 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.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. Facing a Lawsuit Claiming Wage Statement Violations

In recent news, Hunt Construction Group, Inc. allegedly failed to comply with labor law by providing workers with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09121

The Plaintiffs: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

Ruben Almader is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Hunt Construction Group, Inc., where he claims the company committed multiple violations of California Labor Codes. The allegations include:

• Failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

• Not providing required meal and rest breaks.

• Inaccurate wage statements.

• Not reimbursing necessary expenses.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that Hunt Construction did not pay sick wages or wages when due, actions that could lead to significant civil penalties under state law.

The Defendant: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Hunt Construction Group, is implicated for allegedly failing to comply with California Labor Code § 226, which mandates that employers provide accurate and itemized wage statements to their employees. The lawsuit claims that the wage statements issued by Hunt Construction did not include essential details such as the applicable hourly rates, total hours worked, and the pay period during which the wages were earned. This omission has led to allegations that the company did not fulfill its legal obligations regarding employee wage documentation.

What Is An Accurate Itemized Wage Statement?

The requirements for an accurate itemized wage statement are stipulated by California Labor Code Section 226. The following details must be listed clearly to comply with state law and ensure full transparency for the employee:

1. Employee info: Name and SSN (last four digits) or an employee ID number

2. Employer info: legal name and address

3. Wages earned during the pay period (both Net and Gross)

4. Any hourly rates used to pay the employee during the current pay period

5. Total hours worked by the employee (unless the employee is salaried/exempt) and their applicable hourly rate

6. Any applicable piece rate and the number of units (if the employee is paid on a piece-rate scale)

7. All deductions from the wages

8. The current pay period

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Mainspring Energy, Inc. Employees Make California Labor Law Violation Allegations

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, Mainspring Energy, Inc. allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for the cost of using their cell phones to perform their job duties.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.:24-CIV-01894

The Plaintiff: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Edward Young, filed a class action complaint alleging that Mainspring Energy, Inc. violated multiple California Labor Codes. These violations include failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing legally mandated meal and rest periods, and not reimbursing employees for necessary business expenses like using personal cellular phones for work. Young's case highlights systemic issues within Mainspring Energy concerning the treatment of employees and adherence to state labor laws, seeking civil penalties for these infractions.

The Defendant: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The defendant, Mainspring Energy, Inc., is a corporation doing business in California providing clean energy. The plaintiff, Edward Young, was hired as a non-exempt hourly employee for Mainspring Energy, Inc. in September 2021.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

While employed at Mainspring Energy, Inc., Young, and other similarly situated employees were allegedly required to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Since California Labor Code 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." the plaintiff argues they are violating labor law. Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc., a class action lawsuit, is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Did GT Independence Services, LLC Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, GT Independence Services, LLC has faced allegations that it violated labor law by failing to reimburse its employees.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014402-CU-OE-CT

The Plaintiff: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Annabelle Cruz, filed a class action complaint alleging that GT Independence Services, LLC violated the California Labor Code. Annabelle Cruz is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against GT Independence Services, LLC, where it is alleged that employees were not given ten-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, as required. The lawsuit also claims that employees, including Cruz, were compelled to work shifts longer than five hours without the mandated meal breaks, violating company policy without additional compensation. Furthermore, Cruz and other class members were reportedly not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, such as using personal cellular phones for work-related activities, contrary to California Labor Code 2802.

According to the lawsuit filed, GT Independence Services, LLC employees were, allegedly, from time to time, unable to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Additionally, employees were allegedly required from time to time to perform work as ordered by the company for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. As a result, employees forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation, according to Defendant's corporate policy and practice.

GT Independence Services, LLC also allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. California Labor Code 2802 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." During employment, Plaintiff and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their cellular phones as a result of, and in furtherance of, their job duties.

The Defendant: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, GT Independence Services, LLC, specializes in facilitating self-directed care for individuals with disabilities, enabling them to manage their own care and hire support staff of their choosing. As an employer, GT Independence focuses on providing supportive work environments but has faced allegations regarding labor practices, including issues with rest periods and reimbursement policies.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The case Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an 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.

Do Distributors of Tastykake & Wonderbread Qualify for an Exemption?

The high court recently decided that distributors of baked goods like Tastykake and Wonderbread to various retailers could qualify for an exemption Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). An exemption would allow them to proceed with their wage and hour action.

The Case: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The Court: U.S. Supreme Court

The Case No.: 23-51

The Plaintiff: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, distributors of products made by Flower Foods, argued that they were misclassified as independent contractors and denied overtime pay and other paycheck protections they should have received if the company had appropriately classified them as employees.

The Defendant: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The defendant in the case, LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, argued that the FAA required that the suit be resolved out of court due to an arbitration clause in the distributors’ contract. However, the plaintiffs counter-argued that they were exempt from the act as workers engaged in interstate commerce (exemption found in Section 1 of the FAA exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”).

The Case: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The question before the high court was whether or not the exemption applied to bakery workers or if it was only applicable to workers in the transportation industry. While a May 2022 ruling ruled that workers weren’t exempt because they primarily made money by selling baked goods, Judge Roberts noted the court’s last decision on a Section 1 exemption, Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the court decided that the exemption application depends on a worker’s attributes - not those of the business they work for or the industry they work in. The judge pointed out that the language used in the exemption referenced the “worker” being “engaged” in commerce, which focuses on the performance of work rather than the industry of the company or employer.

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 help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Alakor Healthcare LLC Pay Employees an Accurate Wage?

In recent news, former employees have questioned whether Alakor Healthcare paid their workers an accurate wage.

The Case: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

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

The Case No.: 24STCV04927

The Plaintiff: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

Eugene Zaldivar, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Alakor Healthcare LLC violated the California Labor Code. Alakor Healthcare, LLC employed Zaldivar from November 16th, 2016, through May 22nd, 2023.

The Defendant: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

The defendant in the case, Alakor Healthcare, LLC, is a limited liability company that provides healthcare services throughout California. According to the lawsuit, Alakor Healthcare, LLC violated these labor laws:

• Paying Minimum Wage

• Paying Overtime Hours

• Failing to Provide rest periods and meal breaks

The case., Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC, is currently pending in the LA County Superior Court of the State of California.

The Case: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

According to the complaint, workers at the Alakor Healthcare LLC Boeing facility were not provided with the mandated ten-minute rest periods if they worked more than four hours. Furthermore, there were instances where, as per the company's directives, employees worked shifts exceeding five hours without being provided a meal break. Consequently, these workers missed out on their meal breaks without receiving extra pay, following what is said to be the defendant's standard practice and policy. This purported misconduct breaches various sections of the California Labor Code.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, don't hesitate to 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.

Interglobo Logistics Class Action Brings Up Meal, and Rest Breaks Claims

In recent news, Interglobo has been accused of violating meal and rest break labor laws. The class action lists multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 24STCV04814

The Plaintiff: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The plaintiff in the case, Rogan Ghazarian, claims that Interglobo Logistics allegedly failed to pay its employees' wages accurately for all their hours. Ghazarian filed the class action complaint on behalf of himself and others in a similar situation with the company.

The Defendants: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The case, Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics, allegedly violated numerous Sections in the California Labor Codes: §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, & 2802. The allegations listed in the complaint include:

• Failing to pay minimum wage

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide employees with regular meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to pay wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse workers when they purchase a necessary work expense using their own money

Why Would a California Employee Refuse to Provide Legally Required Breaks and Rest Periods?

There are various reasons why some California employers may not adhere to the state's rest break and meal period regulations. 1) a misinterpretation of California's labor laws can lead employers to mistakenly believe they are in compliance when they are not. 2) Additionally, understaffing might lead some employers to prioritize business needs over compliance, attempting to limit employees' access to breaks. 3) Furthermore, in competitive industries with thin margins, some employers might view the strict enforcement of break periods as a financial burden that affects their bottom line. 4. Lastly, there's also the issue of workplace culture; in environments where taking breaks is implicitly discouraged or where there is a lack of enforcement mechanisms, employees might feel pressured to skip rest periods and meal breaks. These practices, however, expose employers to significant legal risks and penalties.

The Case: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The Interglobo Logistics class action lawsuit is currently pending in the LA County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California meal and rest break lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.