Kindred Attempts to Settle Wage, Meal Break Claims with $12M Deal

A $12 million settlement is on the table to settle allegations that Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc. and its subsidiary Gentiva Certified Healthcare Corp. violated California labor law. The company allegedly failed to provide workers with minimum wage and required meal breaks. The proposed class of approximately 1,600 workers were employed by the company. The class members asked a California federal judge to grant preliminary approval of the $12 million agreement with the health care company and its subsidiaries. This would result in an average $5,415 recovery per class member after payments were deducted for the state and other associated fees related to the settlement.

The proposed class’ legal counsel seeks $3 million in fees and $125,00 in costs. The lead plaintiff’s incentive award portion of the settlement would total $20,000.

Also pulled from the settlement would be $150,000 payment for the claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 allowing private citizens to sue for civil penalties on their own behalf and on behalf of other employees and the state. 75% of the payment will go to California. The rest would be distributed to appropriate class members.

Employees involved in the suit requested that the federal judge certify them for settlement. Included in the proposed class are: clinicians or piece rate workers employed by the health care company and their subsidiaries after August 24th, 2012 whose job duties included providing skilled home care. The employees argued that certification was appropriate because the proposed class was numerous, and the legal questions involved were common to all included class members.

The original suit was filed in August 2016 with Cashon alleging that Kindred and Gentiva failed to pay appropriate wages and overtime and did not provide required meal breaks, rest periods or wage statements. The companies claim they were involved in no violations and that they were in compliance with labor laws. Early mediation occurred in April 2017 but did not result in resolution. After discovery, parties engaged in a second bout of mediation in November 2017 which resulted in the proposed settlement.

If you have questions about overtime laws in California or if you need to know what it takes to gain class certification, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$16.8M Overtime Deal on Kellogg Case is a Go

A federal judge threw preliminary support behind a $16.8 million deal to settle overtime claims against Kellogg Co. The suit alleges that the company misclassified its workers and failed to properly compensate workers for overtime they earned. If the settlement goes through it ends claims that Kellogg violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to plaintiff, Patricia Thomas, Kellogg deprived their territory managers and their retail store representatives of premium pay when workers were completing hours in excess of 40 per week. In early 2014, the class was certified. Following class certification, Kellogg attempted to squash the suit repeatedly by arguing that the employees failed to show that class members were similarly situated. In their bed for the judge’s approval, the class brought two things to the judge’s attention: without proving that Kellogg willfully violated the FLSA, 20% of the plaintiffs would recover nothing, and if the company proved that the fluctuating workweek applies, but the class prevailed on all other issues, the plaintiffs’ recovery dropped to about 30% of the total damages claimed.

In March 2014, the third amended complaint was filed claiming that the territory managers and retail store reps often worked over 60 hours in one workweek but did not receive the time-and-a-half premium overtime rate that the workers were allegedly due.

Plaintiffs allege that their job duties were to police the store locations contracted with Kellogg to ensure their products were properly displayed, that Kellogg received access to the correct amount of square footage on shelves, to build and stock Kellogg displays at customer store locations, and to monitor the freshness of the Kellogg products. Specifically, the amended complaint stated that the rep’s primary job duty was not sales. Motions for summary judgement were rejected in late 2016. The core issues of the case include: whether or not plaintiffs engaged in sales and were sales the primary duty. The settlement comes after years of litigation.

If you need assistance determining overtime payment or if you aren’t being paid overtime you are due, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Labor Code Lawsuit Alleges RFI Enterprises Failed to Pay Overtime

A California Labor Code lawsuit was recently filed against RFI Enterprises. According to the suit, the company wrongfully denied their employee overtime.

Plaintiff, Brian P., was employed at RFI Enterprises’ San Jose location. The company is a multi-systems integrator established in 1979 that does business across the nation with offices in California, Washington and Nevada. They install and monitor fire and life safety solutions. They offer a number of different systems: life safety systems, electronic access control, intrusion detection, closed circuit television, alarms, and fire safety. Their monitoring center provides 24/7 support to their various systems.

According to California labor law, employers are required to pay overtime. The required overtime pay rate is one and a half times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked over eight in one day or 40 in one week. According to the plaintiff in this case, the company did not factor wage premiums or shift differential pay into the regular rate of pay used to calculate their overtime pay rates.

According to the overtime lawsuit against RFI Enterprises, the company calculated overtime pay rates that were based on the employees’ base hourly rate of pay. This resulted in a lower overtime pay rate below the minimum overtime pay rate required by law. California labor law also requires that employers provide their employees with accurate wage statements. The plaintiff in the case also alleges that the employer was in violation of this regulation.

Not only does the plaintiff claim that the company was in violation of overtime pay rates and the regulation requiring that they provide accurate wage statements, but that the company did so maliciously and intentionally. According to the complaint, the company was unwilling to current their unfair business practices.

RFI Enterprises, the Defendants, allegedly engaged and have continued to engage in both unfair and unlawful business practices as detailed above. The plaintiff proposes to represent a class of employees in the California class action. A subclass has also been proposed to represent employees paid shift differential pay after Jan. 12, 2017.

If you fear your employer is in violation of California labor code or you have questions about what makes an employee exempt from overtime, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Home Depot Faces Former Employee's Allegations of Overtime Violations

Marco A. Batani, out of San Diego, recently filed suit against Home Depot, alleging unlawful business practices and failure to pay overtime. The complaint was filed January 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In Batani’s complaint, it states that he was employed at Home Depot between 2016 and 2017 as a sales consultant, but that he was misclassified as an outside salesperson. Yet his duties while on the job consisted of mainly non-exempt tasks.

In promotional materials describing potential careers with The Home Depot, the one-stop shop for customers building a home, the company describes a warm workplace culture. The company website states that they couldn’t have “done it without the culture and feeling of home and family among the associates in our stores, distribution centers and corporate office.” Yet the claims made by Batani in the recent California overtime lawsuit paint a far different picture of the situation.

In Batani’s suit, he claims that during his employment he consistently worked over eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week – without being provided with the legally required overtime compensation. (According the FLSA, employers are required to provide overtime pay for any hours worked beyond “full time.” The law also defines full time as 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours/week.) 

Batani also alleges that he was not provided with the legally required meal periods and was not reimbursed for all job expenses.

In addition to the above allegations, Batani claims that Home Depot USA failed to provide employees with wages due at separation, failed to provide timely and accurate wage statements, and failed to reimburse business expenses. All of the allegations are in vio0lation of state law.

Batani seeks a trial by jury. He filed suit to seek damages of $100, an aggregate penalty up to $4,000, compensatory and liquidated damages, nominal damages, restitution and disgorgement, punitive and exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. He also seeks any additional relief the court may deem just in the situation.

If you have questions about overtime pay or if your employer is refusing to provide you with required meal and rest breaks, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Based Newspaper Fires Employees Who Demanded Overtime With Expensive Consequences

Can a company fire an employee because they sued for back overtime? Recent news indicates that the answer is no – at least in California. This is exactly what Joong-Ang, publisher of Korea Daily (a Korean language newspaper based in California), found out when the court ordered him to pay $584,612 to three former employees.

The story began in June of 2013. Three of the newspaper’s employees filed a California overtime lawsuit alleging that they were not paid overtime wages as required by law. Only a couple months later – the three employees were fired from their jobs with Korea Daily.

Some claim this was a coincidence – which is arguable considering the fact that on the same day the three employees who filed suit were let go, all the employees at the same printing facility were also let go. Yet all the employees let go from that printing facility were rehired by another company that took over the operations – all except the three employees who filed a California overtime lawsuit against the newspaper. According to the three plaintiffs, they were not advised of the opportunity alongside their co-workers.

When they discovered what had happened, the three now unemployed workers added more claims to their suit including wrongful termination.

The courts sided with the plaintiffs. They won the case. The Korean language newspaper appealed, but late last month, Korea Daily lost their appeal.

According to California Labor Code Section 1199, it is illegal for an employer to fail to provide overtime wages in accordance with the Industrial Welfare Commission. As occurred in this case, the employees have the right to overtime wages and may exercise that right (in this situation by filing an overtime lawsuit). If the employer then terminates the employee for exercising their right to overtime pay, the worker could be entitled to additional “damages” due to wrongful termination.

So, essentially, Joong-Ang, the publisher of Korea Daily, was ordered by the court to pay $584,000 for firing employees who demanded they be paid overtime the company was required to pay by law. If you are a company in California make sure you are familiar with both federal and state overtime rules. Employees are entitled to overtime and are seeking restitution in court more than ever before.

If you are a California business that needs assistance with employment law violations or if you are a California employee who is not paid overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Market Research Company Faces Allegations of Failure to Pay Overtime

Information Resources Inc., a market research business, faces allegations of unpaid wages and violation of workers compensation acts from a California resident. Iram Bakhtiar filed the class action lawsuit on August 9th, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case number 3:17-cv-04559-JCS). Bakhtiar alleges the company failed to provide fair wages and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Terms to Know:

A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit in which a group of people (plaintiffs) with the same or similar injuries that are the result of the same product or action sue the Defendant/s as a group. Other names for lawsuits brought to bear on behalf of a “group” suffering similar injuries or losses are: mass tort litigation and multi-district litigation (MDL).

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal law. It was designed to establish minimum wage, overtime pay eligibility, recordkeeping and child labor standards. Requirements set in place through the FLSA apply to full-time and part-time workers in the private sector as well as both full and part-time workers in federal, state, and local government positions.

Overtime pay refers to federal overtime provisions that are designated in the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA. Unless a worker qualifies (in accordance with FLSA) as exempt, employees must receive overtime pay for any hours worked over 40 in one workweek or 8 in one day at a rate o pay no less than time and one-half the worker’s regular rate of pay.

Bakhtiar, who worked for Information Resources Inc. client services from June 2011 through September 2016, worked over 40 hours a week with no overtime pay. This is in violation of FLSA. Bakhtiar also claims the Defendant failed to provide required meal and rest breaks during her employment.

Bakhtiar filed suit seeking unpaid overtime, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, enjoin the defendant, legal fees, restitution, penalties, and other compensation/relief as deemed appropriate by the court.

If you have questions about overtime pay and overtime pay regulations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.

$5.95 Million Settlement Reached in Record Time in California Overtime Suit

A California overtime pay class action suit is setting records – in how quickly a settlement can be reached. Final approval was granted by a California federal judge for a $5.95 million settlement to resolve the class action brought by service managers against Ecolab Inc. alleging California overtime law violations.

Court records show that the plaintiff class alleged improper classification as overtime exempt. In reality, workers were due overtime for any hours worked in excess of 8 hours in any given day, and 40 hours in any given week. The terms of the settlement indicate that the class includes 158 workers. Each should receive $442 per week of work in accordance with the terms of the settlement.

In addition to the $442 per week of work, the five class representatives will receive an additional allotment of $5,000. $15,000 will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $9,000 will be paid to the claims administrator.

Some say the speed with which the parties reached a settlement is due to the fact that it follows on the heels of another, similar case against Ecolab. The other case against Ecolab, Ross v. Ecolab, ended in a $35 million settlement in March 2016. The settlement in Ross v. Ecolab was preceded by seven years of litigation. Campos v. Ecolab was filed in August 2016 and was in mediation after only three months. Final approval for the proposed $5.95 million settlement was granted within a year of the original lawsuit filing.

Both Ross v. Ecolab and Campos v. Ecolab included allegations of misclassification and failure to pay overtime. In Ross v. Ecolab, the class was made up of dishwasher servicers, and employees undertaking promotion and marketing tasks for Ecolab’s line of cleaning products. Campos v. Ecolab plaintiffs sought similar relief, but class members were route managers and service managers that were not included in the previous lawsuit. The quick resolution of the case is due in large part to work already done in the Ross litigation. In fact, due to the known association between the two cases the judge handling the case decreased the legal fees given for handling Campos v. Ecolab as most of the heavy lifting was already taken care of due to the prior Ross v. Ecolab.

If you are worried about not receiving overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.