Pennsylvania Grocery Salesman Files Suit to Seek Overtime Pay

A Pennsylvania grocery distributor claims he is entitled to overtime pay from his employer. According to the federal suit he filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Brian Place claims his regular salary didn’t compensate for the number of hours that he worked as Sure Winner Foods’ sales administrator. The Maine based distributor specializes mostly in frozen foods.

Brian Place alleges that the distributor violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act. Place complains that he worked for Sure Winner Foods from February 2014 through April 2014. During the three month time period, Place traveled to various stores in central and eastern Pennsylvania. His job duties required that he stock products on store shelves for Sure Winner Foods clients. Place alleges that he spent substantially more than a full 40 hour work week on his standard schedule, received a fixed salary and that he was classified as exempt from overtime pay.

According to Mr. Place, his exempt status was incorrect and other employees at the distribution company are in similar positions with no recognition or pay for overtime. He alleges that he and other individuals filling similar positions in the company were (and are) being cheated out of wages they deserve. The suit specifies overtime pay violations specifically between 2011 an 2014. Mr. Place is seeking individual relief and collective relief from Sure Winner, urging other employees to step forward.

According to the Department of Labor site, employers must pay at least time and a half wages to any and all employees who work one or more hours over the 40-hour workweek mark. To discuss any of the many exemptions to the rule, contact the California overtime pay experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Failure to Pay Overtime Has Navy Federal Credit Union Making News

In recent news, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Navy Federal Credit Union failed to pay appropriate overtime wages. Accusations were made against the Vienna based federal credit union by some of the branch workers. The original suit was filed by Anthony Lee out of Clark County, Nevada on May 27^th in the U.S. District Court, but he plans to seek class action status so others can join in the suit. Mr. Lee has been a member services representative at Navy Federal Credit Union for almost six years. This position is categorized as non-exempt from overtime (according to the suit filed).  Lee claims that he and other workers in jobs with similar duties have been frequently required to work off the clock both before their shift starts and after it ends. The total of the “off the clock” work was approximately 30-45 minutes per day per employee. The lawsuit alleges that this practice of requiring off the clock work before and after shift work is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In addition to allegations that the Navy Federal Credit Union violated FLSA, Lee claims that one of his previous managers in the workplace referred to him by the “N” word on multiple occasions. In response, a statement was issued by Navy Federal: “The fair treatment and well-being of our employees is of the utmost importance to us…we take this claim seriously and are looking into it.”

The Navy Federal Credit Union is the largest credit union in the United States employing approximately 11,000 employees worldwide. It’s possible that up to 500 of their workers might be a part of the class action started by Lee in regards to FLSA violations, etc. The suit will be seeking a declaratory judgment that the allegations made were illegal as well as an injunction preventing further similar activities. Damages are unspecified, but will include waiting time penalties as well as court costs.

Class action lawsuits serve an important function in the workplace. They provide employees with the opportunity to come together and assert their rights under California Labor Laws and federal employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik with questions on class action suits in California. 

$2.4 Million Settlement for Guest Thai Workers Awaiting Approval by U.S. District Court

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced June 3, 2014 that EEOC and four Hawaii growers settled for $2.4 million in response to a suit alleging that Thai guest workers supplied by labor contractor Global Horizons, Inc. were discriminated against based on race and national origin. The proposed settlements are still waiting for approval by the U.S. District Court for District of Hawaii, but as they follow the court’s ruling earlier in the year that Global Horizons was in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through their engagement in what was described as a pattern of harassment and discrimination against the Thai workers, many expect quick approval.

In 2011, the EEOC sued Global Horizons, as well as multiple growers in Hawaii and a couple growers in Washington State. The high-profile human trafficking case alleged that Global Horizons misled poor Thai workers that were forced to pay high fees in order to enter the United States as guest workers. Once on US soil, the Thai guest workers were then subjected to substandard housing, passport confiscation, harassment on the job, passport confiscation, etc.

Four separate proposed consent decrees would benefit approximately 500 Thai workers (those who worked between 2003 and 2007). Under the proposed consent decrees, defendant Mac Farms would pay $1.6 million, Kauai Coffee would be $425,000, Captain Cook Coffee would pay $100,000 and Kelena Farms would pay $275,000. Payments would go to the alleged discrimination victims in amounts to be determined by the EEOC.

For more information regarding equal employment or discrimination in the workplace, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, your California discrimination and employment law experts. 

Examples of Employment Discrimination: Common Forms of Discrimination in the Workplace

The basic definition of employment discrimination is when an employee is treated unfavorably because of their race, their skin color, their disability, religion, age, gender, national origin, group affiliations, etc. Discrimination is illegal in any facet of employment. That means that the illegality of discrimination extends beyond simply hiring and firing practices.

Some common forms of discrimination in the workplace include:

• Indicating a preference amongst candidates in a job advertisement
• The exclusion of potential employees during recruitment
• Discrimination when deciding upon promotion and lay-off candidates
• Denial of the use of company facilities or the disruption of the use of common workplace facilities
• Discrimination when assigning leave (maternity, disability, retirement options, etc.)
• Denial of employee benefits due to discriminatory factors
• Payment of equally experienced and qualified employees in the same position, performing the same job duties, different salaries

Employers who make assumptions based on race, gender, age, etc. are breaking the law. It’s also illegal for an employer to make assumptions regarding an employee’s capabilities because of disabilities. In addition, employers are prohibited from withholding opportunities on the job because of the employee’s relationship with someone of a certain race, age, ethnicity, etc. Discrimination sometimes comes in the form of harassment based on personal traits that are protected by the law.

Employers are required to inform all employees of their rights under EEOC laws, but if you need more information or if you have questions regarding its application to your workplace, contact the California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Whistleblower’s $25 Million Lawsuit Against Nike Heads to the Jury

In the course of the more than $25 million lawsuit proceedings against Nike, the jury heard two very different versions of events. Douglas Ossanna is a former Nike electrician, fired in early 2013. He claims that Nike fired him in retaliation after he reported unsafe working conditions for electricians at the approximately 600-acre campus in Washington County. Nike denies the allegations. Nike’s version of events has Ossanna being fired for playing a pickup basketball game on a court in the Bo Jackson Building when the facility was designated as off limits.

The more than $25 million lawsuit consists of $572,000 in economic damages, $1.5 million in non-economic damages and as much as $25 million in punitive damages. During the closing arguments, attorneys for the plaintiff argued simplicity. They claim a simple and clear-cut case of retaliation in the workplace. It was argued that Ossanna had made concerns clear regarding unsafe working conditions to at least six different Nike managers over a period of a few years. Ossanna claims none of his unsafe working conditions reports were ever investigated or resolved by Nike.

On top of being fired, Ossanna’s representation make it clear that he suffered harsh working conditions including excessive amounts of overtime in response to his reporting of problems with workplace safety.

Nike indicated that they did not retaliate against the electrician and that as a supervisor, he had access to every building on the Washington County campus. Nike’s attorney, argued during her closing argument that the decision to terminate Ossanna’s employment was consistent with other recent terminations in the company including a Nike employee was terminated for lying in order to receive a $20 gift card.

If you or someone you know is a victim of retaliation in the workplace, contact the employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to find out how you get legal reparations for the damage to your career, your finances and your life. 

Workers Sue Crabtree and Evelyn Over Missing Meal Break Pay

California courts recently heard accusations against a luxury skin care product manufacturing company, Crabtree & Evelyn Ltd. The Connecticut based company was founded in 1972. They have grown to include several hundred retail locations all selling a range of products: fragrances, soaps, lotions, home spa products, etc. Former employees claim that they were denied mandated meal breaks and rest periods. Three plaintiffs filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court: Irina Eremina, Fernando Hernandez and Lillian Zamora. The plaintiffs indicated that they believed Crabtree & Evelyn was in violation of California Labor Law when they failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods. They also claim that the company manipulated pay stubs/time sheets to make it look as if breaks and meal breaks had been provided and used. In addition to not receiving their required break times, workers were not compensated for overtime accumulated by working through said breaks and meal breaks.

Proposed class is seeking a jury trial and financial restitution (for unpaid wages, attorney costs, etc.), but potential class members have not yet been defined. The three plaintiffs filed a grievance with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency in February in an effort to settle the matter, but didn’t hear back within the 33-day period required prior to filing suit under California state law. This fulfilled the requirement (under California’s Private Attorney General Act) to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to presenting claims to the court.

If you fear you may need to talk to someone about potential violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) in your workplace, contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Accusations from Workers Indicate Costco Stiffs Workers on Meal Breaks and Ignores Sexual Harassment Charges

A proposed class action in California court alleges that Costco Wholesale Corp. doesn’t provide compensation for rest or meal breaks. The former employee making the allegations further claims that the discount retail giant retaliated against him when he reported sexual harassment to supervisors. Lead plaintiff is Micah Ornelas. Micah claims that warehouse employees were not provided with rest and meal periods and were not compensated for breaks as mandated in California law. Micah also claims that he was fired when he reported instances of both sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions to his direct supervisor.

The plaintiff claims that as a result of Costco’s labor law violations, he has suffered and will continue to suffer:

• Economic damages
• Emotional distress
• Humiliation
• Mental anguish/embarrassment
• Manifestation of physical symptoms related to the case

In addition to his own personal experience with a failure to respond to reports of sexual harassment, Ornelas claims that a female employee was harassed and physically threatened by the supervisor and told to “keep quiet” about the incident after reporting the problem. When the warehouse manager was approached about the problem, Ornelas claims that he was told the direct supervisor would be fired. Instead he was promoted. When Ornelas went back to the warehouse manager with concerns over this “resolution” he also informed him of unsafe working conditions (that had been discussed in pre-shift meetings previously with not action taken to remedy the situation by management). He was told that the harassment complaint was none of his business. Ornelas was suspended for three days. Upon returning from his suspension, Ornelas was subjected to sexual harassment as well.

Ornelas complained one last time about instances of sexual harassment, which resulted in his immediate termination without explanation. Ornelas claims that he was not paid all his wages upon termination.

If you have unfair wage and hour practices in force at your place of employment, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to quickly remedy the situation.