$16 Million PNC Settlement to Settle Wage Suit

In response to a collection of Fair Labor Standards Act claims alleged by a group of mortgage loan officers, PNC Bank NA has agreed to offer a $16 million settlement. Plaintiffs in the wage suit claimed that the company denied them overtime wages and proper commission payments. 17 PNC BANK mortgage loan officers, some former and some currently employed, brought the collective action. The loan officers claim that PNC used an improper process for the calculation of commissions and that the company did not allow the employees to report overtime hours even though work in addition to what would be recognized as full time was required of them to fulfill their job duties.

According to the documentation, the settlement agreement will apply to mortgage loan officers employed by PNC in California from August 7th, 2011 through January 4th, 2017, New York from April 4th, 2011 through January 4th, 2017 and any other state from August 7th, 2012 through January 4th, 2017. PNC also noted that the settlement agreement is not an admission of liability or damages, but a move to avoid the burdens of further litigation.

Key Developments in the Case:

December: It was recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification regarding commission recapture claims be granted.

Mid-November: Plaintiffs’ motion to strike PNC’s exemption defense was granted. The motion argued that former employees were exempt according to FLSA.

November: Conditional certification of the collective action was granted by Judge Schwab due to indications of uniform, nationwide employment policies in place at PNC.

The lawsuit alleged that during the hiring process, the company offered a salary of $24,000 per year based on a 40-hour workweek. Once hired, many of the officers worked more than 40 hours in a week and sometimes took work home with them in order to “catch up.” The “overtime” was allegedly not compensated. The workers allege that PNC offered bonuses to managers who refused, reduced or prevented workers from accurately reporting their overtime hours. In fact, it is alleged that the Branch Managers’ own pay was reduced in direct relation to the amount of overtime wages that was paid out to mortgage loan officers at the branch.

Plaintiffs also claimed that PNC did not accurately track and record the hours worked by mortgage loan officers, mortgage loan officers were not compensated for all the hours they worked, the company did not accurately calculate overtime (by NOT applying a “weighted average” including salaries, commissions, etc.), that PNC illegally deducted overtime pay from commissions, and that PNC was in violation of minimum wage requirements.

If you have questions about minimum wage requirements, or the calculation of overtime pay in compliance with California Labor Law, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Halliburton Bid to Dismiss Claims Made in Wage Suit

A former employee of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (an oil and gas provider out of California) filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging wage violations (Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services Inc. et al., case number 1:16-cv-01300, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.) In response to Halliburton Energy Services’ request for dismissal of the amended complaint, the Plaintiff accused the energy giant of copying bids for dismissal in other cases with similarities to the current suit.

The company’s bid to dismiss Geurrero’s claim came last month after an amended complaint was filed. U.S. Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill permitted the amended filing when the judge dismissed the suit that includes allegations of California labor law violations due to a failure to provide rest breaks and pay wages for all hours worked, etc. The plaintiff responded to the dismissal bid submitted by Halliburton by pointing out that the dismissal motion filed was almost identical to that filed in every case with similar claims that Guerrero listed in his first amended complaint.

Guerrero claims that his former employer has no evidentiary support or analysis for claims that Guerrero and the putative class are exempt from California’s overtime laws. Allegations Halliburton faces in the suit include claims that Halliburton policy requires workers to work through meal periods, the company fails to comply with California labor law by providing employees with first meal periods within the first five hours of a work shift, claims for missed rest periods, etc.

Halliburton insists that Guerrero’s overtime claims included in the amended complaint are not legally supported because his hours were regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and this makes him exempt from overtime eligibility. The company also insists that Guerrero failed to provide factual support for claims that the company denied him legally compliant meal and rest periods. Halliburton also urged the court to strike Guerrero’s allegations regarding their alleged failure to maintain accurate records in violation of California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders due to irrelevance since Guerrero cannot allege a viable claim for the violation.

Guerrero’s proposed class action includes allegations that he worked as a nonexempt truck driver as well as industrial worker for Halliburton, but failed to receive proper compensation in accordance with employment law. The suit was first filed in state court, but was later moved to federal court.

Halliburton’s responding dismissal bid claimed Guerrero’s lawsuit failed as a matter of law as there were no alleged facts included as support of a cognizable legal theory and because the various claims included were riddled with substantive defects that left too many questions. Judge O’Neill was inclined to agree and on November 2nd, 2016, he did so officially – stating that facts were missing from the complaint, specifically noting the need for dates as to when the alleged failures to pay straight time and overtime wages occurred. He also agreed with Halliburton that Guerrero failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9 in claims that the company failed to pay wages at the time of his termination.

If you have questions regarding overtime or overtime wage calculation, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

10,000 Workers Joined Together in Chipotle Wage Theft Class Action Suit

Chipotle has long been known for its amazing burritos. But there’s something new that it’s becoming well known for: angry workers! They’re all over the news. Right now, close to 10,000 current and former Chipotle employees are joined together in a class action wage theft lawsuit against the much-loved Mexican food franchise. According to court records, the suit started two years ago when a former manager located in Colorado filed. But since then almost 10,000 workers have joined the class action. To keep things in perspective, that is equal to almost ¼ of the Chipotle franchise’s current workforce.

What is a Class Action? This is a type of lawsuit through which one or a number of persons can sue a separate party on behalf of a larger group of persons. The “larger” group of persons represented are referred to as “the class.” The reason behind the class action lawsuit can vary widely, but issues being disputed will be common to all members included in the “class” and the people affected are so numerous handling each suit individually would be impractical for the court.

What is Wage Theft? Wage theft is a general phrase commonly used in employment law to refer to a number of different violations resulting in employers not providing pay to employees/workers for time worked or job duties completed. In the current case, the wage theft occurred through off-the-clock work and failure to pay overtime. These are two very common forms of wage theft that employers perpetrate in efforts to maximize their own profits (at the cost of their employees). 

The initial complaint against Chipotle, filed in Colorado in September 2014, included accusations that the company forced employees complete unpaid overtime with required duties “after” they clocked out for their shifts (sometimes referred to as off-the-clock work). Workers also claim their presence was required at mandatory after-shift meetings and that those who “closed” had to complete cleanup off-the-clock. According to allegations made in the lawsuit, Chipotle maintained company-wide policies that supported this type of behavior: management was urged to require off-the-clock work to reduce expenses and maximize profits.

If you have questions about what constitutes “off-the-clock” work, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhomik to discuss your situation.  

Golden State Phone and Wireless Faces Wage Allegations and Class Action

Israel Padron, a San Luis Obispo local, recently filed a class-action wage and hour suit against Golden State Phone and Wireless, his former employer. He alleges that he was not provided with appropriate overtime compensation. The complaint was filed July 20, 2016 on behalf of other employees in similar situations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Israel Padron claims that Golden State Phone & Wireless’s practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff’s complaint included allegations that he worked over 40 hours per workweek between October 2012 and September 2015 and did not receive overtime pay as deemed appropriate by law. He claims that the company miscalculated the overtime rate of pay as they failed to include the value assigned for bonuses and/or commissions applicable to his position with the company.

Employers that either require or allow employees to work overtime are required to provide pay as dictated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay anytime they work in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. The overtime pay is required to be at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The FLSA (with some specific exceptions) requires employers to include bonus payments as a part of the employee’s regular rate of pay when they are calculating their overtime pay in accordance with minimum rates of overtime pay set down by FLSA.

Padron requests that he receive a trial by jury in order to resolve the lawsuit and seeks compensatory, consequential, general and special damages, liquidated damages, restitution, interest on due and/or unpaid wages, legal fees, and other relief that the court may deem justified.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if you have been denied overtime pay by your employer, please contact one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

$240M Paid to Settle FedEx Driver Wage Claim Suit Reaching Across 20 States

FedEx agreed to pay $240M to settle wage claim suits from delivery drivers in 20 different states. Drivers claim that the company misclassified them as independent contractors.

Misclassification as independent contractors meant that drivers were shorted on wages. The $240M settlement follows closely on the heels of the $226.5M deal by California drivers last year. Plaintiffs in the recent wage claim suit includes drivers from: New York, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Plaintiffs filed individual memoranda supporting their motions for settlement. There were approximately 12,000 class members noted as involved in the settlements.

Drivers involved in the wage claim suit claimed that FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. was in violation of a number of state laws. Drivers allege that FedEx deducted company business expenses from their pay, that FedEx misclassified workers (as an act of unjust enrichment) and generally violated consumer fraud laws. 

The settlement was reached on the same day a California federal judge awarded $37.2M in attorneys’ fees for FedEx drivers in the California suit. In the California suit, drivers lodged similar allegations of misclassification. The California suit was based specifically on California state employment law providing protection to workers.

Both suits are part of a number of lawsuits FedEx drivers have been filing throughout the states (40 states having experienced similar suits so far). The lawsuits were eventually consolidated in multidistrict litigation and certified class actions. All included alleged misclassifications on the part of FedEx and that the action left workers without important benefits to which they would be entitled had they been categorized accurately as employees.

If the settlements are approved by the court, the litigation that started 12 years ago could be reaching a conclusion that has been awaited by many.

If you have questions regarding misclassification or wage and hour claims, please get in touch with an experienced southern California employment law attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Voters Approve Changes to Paid Sick Leave in San Diego

June 7th, 2016, voters in San Diego made a new law that comes with a virtually immediate effective date. This new law will require area employers to move forward with efforts at compliance immediately in order to avoid being in violation of employment law.

The ordinance was originally approved in August 18, 2014. It was scheduled to become operative on April 1, 2015. One month after its approval, petitions were filed by opponents to suspend the law. The City Council voted to submit the matter to voters during the June 7, 2016 election and in so doing, allowed voters to demonstrate that they approved. The law will not apply retroactively, and will not be operational until 10 calendar days after the council adoption of a resolution that declares the election’s results (unless a separate, earlier date is designated in the resolution itself).

The San Diego law is applicable to all employers and their covered employees. A covered employee is one that performs at least two hours of work within the San Diego city boundaries for an employer for one or more calendar weeks in the year, is entitled to state minimum wage or is a participant in a State of California Welfare-to-Work Program. Exceptions are in place for those paid under a special license at below minimum wage, those working for publicly subsidized summer programs or other short-term youth work programs, student employees, program counselors, camp counselors, and independent contractors.

For additional information regarding the application of sick leave and minimum wage laws, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Drivers’ Employment Status Leaves Uber Being Sued…Again!

Uber is being sued again. The question of the Uber drivers’ employment status has opened the class action floodgates. Within two weeks of the settlement of $100 million for class action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that sought driver reclassification from independent contractors to employees, Uber is fielding two new cases against their company.

Following the California and Massachusetts case resolution, similar nationwide class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Uber drivers in both Florida and Illinois courts. The drivers (plaintiffs) allege that Uber, a San Francisco company, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The new suits seek unpaid overtime wages and work-related expenses on behalf of drivers.

The class action suit that was filed in Illinois takes the familiar allegations to a new level by attempting to recover tips that drivers earned which they allege the company stole from them or caused them to lose through Uber policies and communications.

Legal representation for the Illinois class action lawsuit indicated that the settlement with California and Massachusetts drivers was an obvious attempt by Uber to band aid the situation when it called for much more drastic methods. Many drivers who work using the Uber service do so as a means of supporting themselves and their families. They need the protection of wage and hour laws and overtime pay requirements, just as much as the rest of the workers in the nation.

Uber responded to the new legal activity with a statement indicating that 90% of their drivers work with Uber because they enjoy being their own boss and that the reclassification of drivers from independent contractors as employees would take that away from them. They would no longer have the flexibility that the status of independent contractor affords. Uber “employees” would have designated shifts, a fixed hourly wage that would limit their earnings, and prohibitions would keep them from driving for additional ride-sharing apps.

If you have questions about the misclassification of workers or if you are an independent contractor and have questions about misclassification of employees, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.