Century Lighting & Electric Sued for Wage-and-Hour Violations in Santa Clara County

/

Workers at a Bay Area service contractor filed a putative class action alleging broad violations of California wage-and-hour law. The complaint states that non-exempt employees were required to work off the clock, missed legally required meal and rest breaks, and paid work expenses without receiving reimbursement. The case seeks unpaid wages, penalties, and injunctive relief.

Case: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

Case No.: 25CV461988

The Plaintiff: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

The named plaintiff, Cruz M. Juarez, worked as a non-exempt hourly employee from December 2021 to September 2024. He brings the action on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated California employees who were classified as non-exempt.

The Defendant: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Century Commercial Service (doing business as Century Lighting & Electric) is alleged to operate a service contracting business throughout California, including Santa Clara County. The complaint names the company and the Doe defendants.

A History of the Case: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

The plaintiffs filed the Cruz M. Juarez class action in Santa Clara County Superior Court in March 2025, asserting causes of action under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law. Claims include failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, late final pay, unreimbursed business expenses, unlawful deductions, time-rounding and timekeeping manipulation, and failure to produce personnel records.

The Main Question Being Considered: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Did Century maintain policies or practices that violated California wage-and-hour requirements—such as off-the-clock work, noncompliant meal/rest breaks, rounding or altering time records, unpaid overtime at the correct regular rate, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses—on a class-wide basis?

Why This Case Matters: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

California labor law protects the rights of non-exempt employees to take off-duty meals and paid rest breaks, receive payment for all hours worked (including pre- and post-shift tasks), receive accurate wage statements, receive timely final pay, and receive reimbursement for necessary expenses. The allegations here mirror issues many workers face statewide. Understanding these rights—and how timekeeping, rounding, or unreimbursed costs can quietly erode pay—helps employees recognize and address potential wage theft.

FAQ: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Q: What court is handling this case?

A: Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV461988.

Q: What time period does the proposed class cover?

A: The complaint seeks relief for non-exempt California employees during the four years preceding the filing date, subject to the court’s determination.

Q: What wage violations are alleged?

A: Missed meal/rest breaks without proper premiums, off-the-clock work, unpaid minimum and overtime wages at the correct regular rate, rounding and altered time entries, unlawful deductions, inaccurate wage statements, late final pay, unreimbursed expenses, and failure to timely provide personnel records.

Q: Does the lawsuit ask for reimbursement of work expenses?

A: Yes. It alleges violations of Labor Code § 2802 for items like required cell phone use, internet, uniforms, and tools.

Q: What remedies does the complaint seek?

A: Unpaid wages and premiums, restitution, penalties (including waiting time and wage-statement penalties where applicable), interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Do Your Wage Statements Match Your Hours Worked?

If wage statements don’t match hours worked, breaks are cut short or on-call, or out-of-pocket costs aren’t reimbursed, those can be violations. Do you have questions about filing a California class action?

Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Your knowledgeable employment law attorneys in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago are ready to help you protect your employee rights.

Ninth Circuit Sends Farmworker Wage and Hour Case Back to California State Court

/

A recent Ninth Circuit ruling reaffirmed that California farmworkers can pursue wage and hour claims in state court even when employers argue collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) should control. The case of Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc. highlights the ongoing legal battles farmworkers face over minimum wages, sick pay, overtime, and meal/rest breaks.

Case: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Court: U.S. Appellate Court, Ninth Circuit

Case Nos.: 23-3379 and 23-4335

The Plaintiff: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, a farmworker, brought claims against Sunsweet Growers Inc., alleging that the company failed to pay her and other workers minimum wages, sick pay, and overtime. She also claimed Sunsweet denied legally required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and did not reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Defendant: Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Sunsweet Growers Inc., known for processing and distributing prunes, argued that the case should be decided in federal court because the claims were tied to provisions in a collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 856. The company also sought dismissal, contending that Renteria-Hinojosa failed to follow CBA dispute resolution procedures.

A History of the Case: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Renteria-Hinojosa filed suit in California state court in 2023. Sunsweet quickly removed the case to federal court, claiming Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) preempted the claims. U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta disagreed and sent the case back to state court.

Sunsweet appealed, but the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Calabretta’s ruling in August 2025. The appellate panel explained that while CBAs govern certain topics, state labor law protections — such as those regarding overtime, rest breaks, and wage statements — remain enforceable under California statutes.

The Main Question Being Considered: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The central question was whether Renteria-Hinojosa’s wage and hour claims were preempted by federal law due to her union’s collective bargaining agreement. The Ninth Circuit ruled they were not. California law provides independent rights that cannot be waived simply by invoking a CBA.

Why This Case Matters: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

This decision reinforces that California workers can rely on state labor law protections even when covered by a union contract. Employers cannot avoid state court scrutiny by funneling disputes into federal court through LMRA preemption arguments. For farmworkers and other unionized employees, the ruling strengthens access to state-based wage and hour protections.

FAQ: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Q: What did Renteria-Hinojosa claim against Sunsweet Growers?

A: She alleged unpaid minimum wages, sick pay, overtime, denied meal/rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, and a lack of expense reimbursement.

Q: Why did Sunsweet try to move the case to federal court?

A: Sunsweet argued the claims were governed by a collective bargaining agreement, triggering federal jurisdiction under the LMRA.

Q: How did the Ninth Circuit rule on jurisdiction?

A: The Ninth Circuit held the claims belong in California state court because they rely on state labor law protections, not just the CBA.

Q: What does this ruling mean for California workers?

A: It confirms that unionized employees still have enforceable state labor rights and cannot be forced to resolve wage claims only through federal courts.

Q: Why is this case important beyond farmworkers?

A: It sets a precedent that employers can’t misuse CBA preemption to sidestep California’s labor laws, benefiting all unionized workers in the state.

California Workers Should Make it a Priority to Know Their Rights

California’s labor laws provide strong protections for workers, whether or not a union contract covers you. Employers may argue that federal law overrides your rights, but this case shows courts are willing to uphold California protections.

If you believe you have been denied overtime, meal breaks, accurate pay statements, or other rights, the attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. With offices in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago, our experienced employment attorneys are ready to fight for you.

Seattle Jury Awards $98 Million in Unpaid Wages Verdict Against Providence Health & Services

/

In one of the largest wage-and-hour verdicts in recent years, a Seattle jury found Providence Health & Services liable for unpaid wages to thousands of hourly employees. The April 2024 decision highlights how small, routine wage violations (such as missed breaks or time clock rounding) can accumulate to substantial liability for employers and substantial back pay for workers.

Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 21-2-13058-1 SEA

The Plaintiff: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The plaintiffs in this case were hourly employees of Providence Health & Services. The group is one of the largest hospital systems in the United States. The case represented approximately 33,000 current and former employees who worked across Providence hospitals and healthcare facilities in Washington.

The Defendant: Providence Health & Services

Providence Health & Services is a major nonprofit healthcare organization with hospitals and medical centers throughout Washington and beyond. As an employer of tens of thousands of healthcare workers, Providence was accused of engaging in systemic wage-and-hour violations affecting thousands of nurses and staff.

A History of the Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The lawsuit alleged Providence used practices that violated Washington wage laws, including:

  • Failing to provide a legally required second meal break for employees working shifts longer than 10 hours.

  • Using timekeeping systems that “rounded” employees’ work hours in ways that disproportionately benefited the employer.

For example, employees who clocked in a few minutes early or stayed a few minutes late often lost that time entirely under Providence’s rounding policies. Similarly, employees frequently worked through required breaks without being paid. After extensive litigation, a King County jury determined Providence willfully violated wage laws, awarding nearly $98 million in unpaid wages and damages.

The Main Question Being Considered: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The key legal question was whether Providence’s timekeeping and break policies violated Washington wage law and deprived employees of earned wages. The case focused on whether the system of rounding and automatic deductions for breaks—even when breaks were not taken—constituted unlawful wage theft.

Even "Small" Labor Law Violations Should Not be Ignored

This case demonstrates that employers cannot dismiss small violations as insignificant. A few missed minutes or overlooked breaks, when applied across tens of thousands of employees, can result in significant liability. It also shows workers that they have the right to challenge unlawful wage practices—even in industries where working through breaks has been normalized.

FAQ: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

Q: How much was the verdict against Providence Health & Services?

A: The jury awarded nearly $98 million in unpaid wages and damages.

Q: How many employees were affected by the lawsuit?

A: About 33,000 hourly employees across the Providence system in Washington were included in the class.

Q: What were the main violations alleged?

A: Missed meal breaks for long shifts and unlawful rounding practices that shaved minutes off employees’ work time.

Q: What does Washington law require for long shifts?

A: Employees working more than 10 hours should receive a second 30-minute meal break, in addition to standard rest breaks.

Q: Why is this verdict significant for workers?

A: It highlights that “small” violations (like shaving a few minutes or denying breaks) can result in large-scale wage theft and that workers have legal recourse.

Workers Should Take Note of Wage Violations

The Providence case is a strong reminder for California workers that wage violations are often systemic, so even seemingly small or insignificant violations are worth challenging. Small discrepancies in pay can add up over time, particularly when applied to thousands of employees.

If you believe your employer has failed to pay overtime, denied breaks, or used timekeeping systems that shortchange your wages, you should speak with an experienced wage and hour lawyer right away. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

FedEx’s $240 Million Settlement: Driver Misclassification and Overtime Rights

/

In 2016, FedEx Ground agreed to pay a $240 million settlement. One of the largest wage and hour settlements over the past decade, the settlement resolved cases in litigation across 20 states. The FedEx lawsuits alleged that the company misclassified thousands of workers across the nation. Classified as independent contractors, FedEx drivers were allegedly denied overtime pay, benefits, and other legal protections to which employees are entitled under state and federal employment law.

Case: Carlene M. Craig et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. et al

Court: District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

Case No.: 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN

The Plaintiff: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Carlene M. Craig and thousands of other FedEx drivers brought claims, arguing they were treated like employees in practice but denied the pay and benefits to which employees are entitled under the law. They alleged that FedEx’s contractor model was designed to cut costs while shifting the burden of employment expenses onto workers.

The Defendant: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is the shipping giant’s ground delivery division. The company classified drivers as “independent contractors.” However, FedEx drivers were required to wear uniforms, follow company policies and procedures, and drive FedEx vehicles. By labeling drivers as contractors, FedEx avoided paying overtime, payroll taxes, and providing employee benefits.

A History of the Case: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The misclassification lawsuits were filed in multiple states beginning in the early 2000s. Courts repeatedly found that FedEx exerted significant control over drivers’ day-to-day work, making them employees under labor laws. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that FedEx drivers in Oregon and California did not meet the legal requirements and definitions of "independent contractor," but were, in fact, employees.

Facing mounting legal setbacks, FedEx agreed in 2016 to a $240 million global settlement covering claims in 20 states. The global settlement followed a $226 million settlement in California reached the year before, bringing FedEx’s total payouts in these cases to nearly $466 million.

The Main Question Being Considered: Craig v. FedEx

The central issue was whether FedEx drivers were truly independent contractors or employees. Courts evaluated the degree of control FedEx exercised over drivers’ schedules, uniforms, vehicles, and work methods. Ultimately, appellate rulings determined that FedEx’s level of control made drivers employees under the law, entitling them to overtime pay and other protections.

Why This Case Matters: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

This settlement is a landmark in wage and hour law. It underscores that employers cannot simply label workers “independent contractors” to avoid legal responsibilities. For employees, the case demonstrates that overtime and wage protections apply based on the reality of the working relationship—not the title an employer uses. FedEx’s payout also forced the company to change its business model, shifting away from direct driver misclassification practices.

FAQ: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Q: What was the FedEx misclassification settlement about?

A: The settlement resolved claims that FedEx delivery drivers were misclassified, and that the misclassification as independent contractors denied drivers overtime pay and benefits.

Q: How much did FedEx agree to pay?

A: FedEx paid $240 million in 2016 to settle lawsuits in 20 states, on top of a $226 million California settlement the prior year.

Q: How many drivers were affected?

A: Approximately 12,000 FedEx Ground drivers shared in the settlement.

Q: What legal standard did courts use to decide the case?

A: Courts focused on the degree of control FedEx had over drivers’ uniforms, vehicles, schedules, and work methods, finding they were employees under labor law.

Q: Why does this case matter for workers today?

A: It shows that workers may be entitled to employee protections even if their employer labels them as contractors.

If you have questions about misclassification, overtime rights, or filing a California class action, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

On-Call Meal Breaks Disputed: Garrett v. Core Analytics

/

In Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 24CV103976), hourly imaging-services employees claim they were kept on duty during meal and rest breaks—allegedly violating a wide swath of California wage-and-hour statutes.

Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Lere Garrett has worked for Core Analytics Radiology since July 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee at the company’s clinical-laboratory and mobile X-ray operations in Alameda County. On behalf of a putative California class, Garrett seeks back wages, penalties, and expense reimbursements for uncompensated break time and other alleged payroll shortfalls.

The Defendant: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Core Analytics Radiology, Inc. operates diagnostic imaging services, including mobile X-ray units, throughout California. As an employer, it must comply with Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 351, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, as well as the applicable Wage Order governing meal and rest periods, minimum wages, overtime premiums, wage statements, and expense reimbursement.

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Forum & Status: Pending class action in Alameda County Superior Court.

Core Allegations:

  • Employees were required to stay on duty or be on call and face interruptions during off-duty meal breaks.

  • Second meal periods were not provided on shifts exceeding ten hours.

  • Overtime, minimum wage, and business-expense reimbursements were allegedly shorted.

  • Pay stubs allegedly omitted required details (hours, rates, periods) in violation of § 226.

Statutory Hooks: Labor Code §§ 201–203 (waiting-time penalties), 226 (wage statements), 226.7 & 512 (meal/rest), 2802 (expenses), plus minimum- and overtime-wage provisions.

Relief Sought: Unpaid wages, premium pay for missed breaks, statutory and civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, and complete reimbursement of class members’ losses.

The Main Question: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Did Core Analytics Radiology’s on-call scheduling and payroll practices—especially its failure to provide uninterrupted, off-duty meal and rest periods—violate California Labor Code requirements, thereby entitling Garrett and similarly situated employees to wages and statutory penalties?

FAQ: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Q: What constitutes an “off-duty” meal break under California law?

A: The employee must be relieved of all work duties and employer control for at least 30 uninterrupted minutes. Being required to stay on call—or getting pulled back mid-break—invalidates the meal period and triggers premium pay.

Q: How much is the meal-break premium if my employer violates the rule?

A: For each workday an employer fails to provide a compliant meal or rest break, they owe the worker an extra hour of pay at the employee's regular pay rate (Labor Code § 226.7).

Q: Can missed meal breaks also affect overtime calculations?

A: Yes. If on-duty meal periods extend the total hours worked beyond eight in a day or 40 in a week, those extra minutes count toward overtime, which must be paid at 1.5 times or 2 times the regular rate, as applicable.

Q: What details must appear on a compliant California wage statement?

A: Pay stubs must list total hours worked, all hourly rates, gross and net wages, pay-period dates, employer name and address, and accrued paid-sick-leave balances. Missing or inaccurate data can result in penalties on a per-pay-period basis under § 226.

Q: Are business-expense reimbursements part of this lawsuit?

A: Yes. Garrett alleges that Core Analytics failed to reimburse employees for required expenses (e.g., mobile service mileage, equipment, or phone use), a violation of Labor Code § 2802, which can result in repayment plus interest and attorneys’ fees.

If you have questions about filing a wage and hour complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Carr v. 2nd Street USA: Wage-Statement Class Action

/

In Sterling Carr v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al., a pending class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, employees claim that the second-hand retail chain systematically violated multiple California wage-and-hour protections, most notably the requirement to provide accurate, itemized wage statements.

The Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV12806

The Plaintiff: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Sterling Carr, an hourly employee of 2nd Street USA, Inc., brings this suit on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers. He alleges that the company’s wage practices—reflected in faulty pay stubs; short-changed employees and masked other Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

2nd Street USA, Inc. operates “2nd STREET” resale boutiques throughout California. As Carr’s direct employer, the company is responsible for complying with California Labor Code §§ 201–203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802, as well as the applicable Wage Orders.

The Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

The wage and hour class action was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint included several allegations, including:

  • Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

  • Failure to comply with meal and rest breaks laws

  • Failure to reimburse business expenses

  • Failure to pay sick wages and all wages when due

  • Failure to furnish accurate wage statements—pay stubs allegedly omitted hourly rates, total hours worked, and pay-period dates, violating Labor Code § 226(a)

The plaintiff filed suit seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff also seeks civil penalties under PAGA.

The Main Question in the Case: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Did 2nd Street USA’s pay-stub format—and the underlying payroll practices it concealed—violate Labor Code § 226 and related provisions, thereby entitling Sterling Carr and other employees to statutory penalties and back wages?

FAQ: Sterling Carr, v. 2nd Street USA, Inc., et al

Q: What information must appear on a California wage statement?

A: According to Labor Code § 226, California wage statements must include: total hours worked, all applicable hourly rates, gross and net wages earned, payroll dates, and employer identification details. Missing any of these can trigger statutory penalties.

Q: Can an inaccurate wage statement alone support a lawsuit?

A: Yes. Even if all wages were paid, employees may sue for penalties if the employer fails to provide accurate, itemized statements, because transparency is a right protected by California law.

Q: How does a class action benefit workers in wage-statement cases?

A: A class action lets employees pool smaller individual claims (often just a few hundred dollars each) into one lawsuit, increasing leverage and reducing legal costs while ensuring uniform relief for all affected workers.

Q: What penalties could 2nd Street USA face if Carr prevails?

A: The company could owe per-pay-period penalties under § 226(e), waiting-time penalties for any late final wages, reimbursement for unpaid expenses, and additional civil penalties under PAGA—plus attorneys’ fees and interest.

Q: Do employees have to show they were underpaid to win wage-statement penalties?

A: Not necessarily. California courts hold that the mere failure to provide required information—causing difficulty in verifying pay—can constitute “injury,” making the employer liable for statutory damages even when wage amounts are otherwise correct.

If you have questions about filing a wage and hour complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did Merrill Lynch Issue Inaccurate Pay Stubs to Their Employees?

/

A California employee has filed a lawsuit against Merrill Lynch, alleging the company violated state labor laws by issuing inaccurate or incomplete wage statements.

Case: Nancy Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

Court: os Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2024-01400634-CU-OE-CXC

Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch: The Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff Nancy Jauregui filed the lawsuit on May 20, 2024, in Orange County Superior Court, asserting claims related to labor law violations. While specific employment details have not been publicly disclosed, Jauregui is bringing the claim as an individual, alleging that she and possibly other employees received improper wage statements during her tenure with the company.

The Allegations Listed in the Labor Law Complaint:

The complaint, filed as a labor dispute categorized under "Other Labor," centers on alleged violations of California Labor Code Section 226, which governs the accuracy of wage statements and pay stubs. While the filing does not currently include detailed public allegations, the title and nature of the case suggest concerns about missing, incomplete, or incorrect information on employee pay stubs, such as pay period dates, hours worked, or applicable wage rates.

Learn More About the Defendant:

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is a well-known financial services and wealth management firm operating throughout the United States, including California. The company employs numerous staff members in various roles, including support, administrative, and advisory positions. In this case, Merrill Lynch is accused of violating California's strict labor code regarding employee pay documentation.

Key Legal Question: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

The core legal question is whether Merrill Lynch failed to provide wage statements that meet California's strict itemization requirements and whether such violations entitle the plaintiff (and potentially others) to statutory penalties.

Legal Implications: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

Even without evidence of wage underpayment, California law provides penalties for technical violations of wage statement requirements. If Jauregui proves that Merrill Lynch failed to issue pay stubs containing required elements—such as hours worked, hourly rates, or pay period dates—the company could face statutory penalties of up to $4,000 per employee, in addition to attorney's fees and costs. The case also reinforces employer obligations regarding payroll transparency, even in high-salaried industries such as finance.

Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch: The Employer's Position

As of now, Merrill Lynch has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and no defense filings have been made available. In similar cases, companies often assert that any wage statement deficiencies were minor, unintentional, or quickly corrected. The company may also seek to challenge the scope of the claims or prevent the case from proceeding on a broader representative basis.

Why This Case Matters: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

This case serves as a reminder that California's labor protections apply to all employers, regardless of industry. Even in professional settings, administrative oversights in payroll can trigger lawsuits and penalties. For employees, this case underscores their right to receive clear and complete wage statements as mandated by law.

What Comes Next for Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

Filed on May 20, 2024, in Orange County Superior Court's Civil Complex Center, the case is in its earliest stages. Merrill Lynch will likely respond within the court-mandated timeline. If the case proceeds, it could involve discovery, pre-trial motions, and potential efforts to settle or dismiss the complaint. As of now, no class or representative claims have been indicated, and the case remains listed as "Not Classified by Court."

FAQ: Jauregui v. Merrill Lynch

Q: What does California law require on a pay stub?

A: Labor Code § 226 mandates that wage statements include the pay period dates, total hours worked, hourly rates, gross and net wages, and other specific line items.

Q: What are the penalties for inaccurate wage statements?

A: Employees can recover up to $50 for the first pay period violation and $100 for each subsequent pay period, up to a maximum of $4,000, plus court costs and attorney's fees.

Q: Is this a class action?

A: No. As of now, the case is filed by a single plaintiff and has not been certified or proposed as a class action.

Q: What should employees do if they suspect their pay stubs are incorrect?

A: Employees should document the discrepancies, request clarification from their employer, and consider consulting a labor attorney to determine if their rights have been violated.

Do you have questions about filing a California labor law complaint? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.