$5M Deal to End California Truck Drivers’ Overtime Suit Against PepsiCo

The proposed class of PepsiCo Inc. truck drivers requested preliminary approval from a California federal court for a $5 million settlement that, if approved, would resolve allegations leveled at PepsiCo by the drivers. Allegations against the soda giant include: failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses. All the allegations are in violation of both state and federal labor law.

Lead plaintiff, Nathaniel Helton, argued in the motion for preliminary settlement approval that the settlement is both fair and reasonable. If approved, the settlement would mean $1,988 to each of the approximately 1,800 class members who drove for one of the PepsiCo subsidiaries included in the suit.

If the settlement is approved by the court, it would mean an end to the proposed class action that was filed by Helton in state court against PepsiCo. And subsidiaries in early 2017. According to the lawsuit the drivers were required to monitor their vehicles, have their phones with them during meal break and other breaks, and in doing so, the company denied them legally mandated breaks. This also means that the company failed to pay overtime as required by labor law.

The plaintiffs in the case also claim that the company failed to cover business expenses for the truck drivers. For instance, paying for electricity required to charge phones drivers were required to keep on them, and final wages for drivers who were terminated or quit their position.

The Defendant, PepsiCo, denied the allegations. They also removed the lawsuit to federal court in spring of 2017. When the suit was moved to federal court, Helton, the plaintiff, amended the complaint to include additional claims under the FLSA and Private Attorneys General Act. Following two failed attempts at mediation, the parties involved reached a settlement in May. The deal would mean class counsel would receive $1.25 million (25% of the settlement), and no more than $65,000 in expenses. Helton would receive $7,500 as an incentive payment. The settlement also includes a $100,000 payment to resolve the PAGA claim (75% would go to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% would go to the class’ fund).

If you have questions about overtime violations or other violations of California labor law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Employee Who Went Viral Flipping Off Trump Loses Unfair Firing Claim

Juli Briskman, a marketing analyst, claims she was illegally forced to quit her job because a picture of her flipping off President Trump’s motorcade when viral. A Virginia state judge tossed her claim of unfair firing but preserved her second claim that her former employer cut her severance pay short.

Judge Penney Azcarate granted Briskman’s former employer, Akima LLC’s, motion for a demurrer on Briskman’s unfair termination claim from the bench. The Judge also rejected the company’s claims that it did not actually agree to pay Briskman four weeks severance as she claims.

Briskman’s legal representation stated that the judge outlined where there were deficiencies in the plaintiff’s argument that she qualifies for a public-policy exemption from at-will employment doctrine of the state of Virginia. Briskman and her legal representation see it as a chance to shore up the claim. Briskman’s attorneys plan to take the opportunity to review the complaint, and make amendments so the complaint may satisfy the court.

According to the original complaint, filed by Briskman in April, she was forced to quit her job because the company feared the notoriety caused by the viral photo could cost Akima LLC government contracts. The infamous photo was taken by a photographer in October. Briskman was on a weekend bike ride when President Trump’s motorcade went by and she flipped it off. At first, Briskman was not identified, but later she updated her social media profiles with the image. The picture was featured a few days later on both The Tonight Show and Jimmy Fallon. At this point, Akima forced Briskman to resign for fear of negative reprisals against the company due to the notoriety of the photo.

Akima is a private company in Virginia where state law allows businesses to fire most employees for any reason. But Briskman argues that the company was in violation of the state’s at-will employment doctrine because Akima fired her as a result of fear that they could face retaliation and lose government contracts. As it would be illegal for the government to punish the company for an employee’s political views, Briskman claims that the company was barred from firing her for the situation. Briskman also claims Akima breached her employment contract when they promised four weeks of severance upon her resignation and then only paid her for two.

If you have questions about wrongful termination or other need to discuss other unfair firing claims, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

VW’s Rebranding Effort Allegedly Included Policy to Purge Older Workers

In response to a 2015 diesel emissions scandal, Volkswagen AG instituted a rebranding strategy. According to a 53-year old worker, Jonathan Manlove, the rebranding strategy allegedly included a policy to remove older employees from the company. The worker claiming age discrimination filed a collective action in Tennessee federal court.

Manlove claimed in the complaint that VW’s attempt to create a distraction from the diesel emissions scandal fallout or what has become known as the Dieselgate scandal with two different rebranding labor campaigns included clear discrimination violations. Particularly, the company planned to get rid of management positions that were filled by “older” employees. The plaintiff alleged that the new policy was in clear violation of U.S. age discrimination laws.

The rebranding strategies were implemented in 2016 with the twin policies: TRANSFORM 2025+ and Pact for the Future. They were implemented globally. According to American law, VW’s policy of purging older employees from their management ranks is illegal age discrimination.

The plaintiff stated in the complaint that VW’s own press releases on their new strategies made clear their intentions to eliminate older employees. The company openly stated that they would be using early retirements and “natural fluctuations” in order to reach their rebranding strategy goals to become “slimmer, leaner and younger.” 

Manlove filed suit on behalf of VW employees in the United States of America over the age of 50. Manlove worked as a VW assistant manager in logistics before he was demoted in June 2017. The demotion came only days after the VW announcement that the company would be creating a younger workforce at management levels.

VW advised Manlove he had one hear to find and obtain another assistant manager position at the company before the move would become a permanent demotion. Yet somehow Manlove’s positive performance reviews did nothing to keep him from being assigned to remain in the demoted position by VW Human Resources as well as being advised he was not allowed to apply for openings at the company.

According to the complaint, many others were affected. Since the announcement of the policy change, six employees under the age of 30 were promoted to assistant manager positions at the logistics department of VW at the Chattanooga, Tennessee manufacturing facility where Manlove was employed. At the same time, only two over 50 employees retained their assistant manager positions.

If you are experiencing age discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Alleged Gender Bias Amid Jones Day Fraternity Culture Leads to Lawsuit

A former partner at Jones Day sued the firm recently alleging that they treat women as “second class citizens” and indulge in a fraternity culture with rampant gender bias. The gender bias lawsuit was filed in California court and outlines a workplace culture where men are given preferential treatment. The plaintiff further claims that she was fired for speaking out about the situation.

Wendy Moore, attorney and former partner at Jones Day firm, alleged that the firm promotes a “boy’s club” or what she frequently referred to as a fraternity culture. In said fraternity culture, the plaintiff claims that male partners hold the majority of management and other leaderships positions at the firm. She also claimed that male partners (and therefore the majority of the managers and others in leadership positions) provided more support and mentoring for other men at the firm. Women were not offered the same opportunities.

Allegedly, the firm discouraged attorneys from discussing pay rates. The plaintiff also claims that the firm relied on a subjective performance evaluation system the she claims favored male attorneys at the firm. The firm’s pay practices allegedly allowed Jones Day firm to pay females less than their male counterparts.

Moore, plaintiff in the case, claims that speaking about the boys’ club culture and the gender pay inequality led to workplace retaliation. She also claims that her discrimination complaints were not addressed. She claims that the firm eventually terminated her stating they had “cause,” despite the fact that Moore had a stellar client service record as well as recognition from outside sources for her high quality of work.

Moore started working at the firm in early 2013 as a partner – it was a lateral hire. She worked as an equity and executive compensation attorney out of the Jones Day Palo Alto, California office. In 2015, she was promoted to hiring partner for the Silicon Valley and San Francisco offices. She received high praise for recruiting one of the “best classes Jones Day (NorCal) ever had,” according to Moore’s complaint. She claims that despite being a partner at Jones Day, she was regularly paid less than male attorneys at the firm. In fact, according to the complaint, Moore was at one point paid less a male sixth-year associate even though she was a sixth-year partner at the time.

If you have questions regarding a gender bias workplace or if you are experiencing retaliation in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$3.9M Settlement Agreed on in Golden Corral Overtime Lawsuit

In recent news, the Golden Corral Corporation has recently agreed to settle a wage and hour lawsuit. The wage and hour lawsuit was filed by Golden Corral workers who alleged that they were denied overtime pay during mandatory training for the company. The company agreed to settle for $3.9 million. This agreement came after the workers alleged the company was in violation of both state and federal labor law when they denied their workers overtime payment when they completed overtime for training.

Originally, the suit alleged that the Defendant, Golden Corral Corp., failed to provide compensation to their assistant managers for company training. Instead, they were given lump sums. The proposed settlement awaits approval from an Ohio federal judge. The proposed settlement would resolve the alleged FLSA violations against Golden Corral. The claimant is also requesting class certification so workers eligible to join the class can choose whether or not to join. This would allow them to choose whether or not to release their claims.

Robert S., the lead plaintiff, filed the proposed class action wage and hour lawsuit in January 2017. He alleged that Golden Corral wrongfully denied him and other workers in his situation overtime for training. The lump sum they were paid instead was distributed for each training week, even though the training hours amounted to more than 40 hours per week the majority of the time.

Businesses are required to pay their non-exempt employees 1.5 times their hourly rate when they work over 40 hours in one week or over 8 hours in one day. This is regulated by federal labor law. In addition to the regulations set down by federal labor law, each state also has labor policies in place to protect employees from this type of workplace abuse. In the Golden Corral case, plaintiffs claim the company wrongfully denied their employees proper compensation for all hours worked, which is in violation of the FLSA as well as state labor law.  In the aftermath of the legal trouble, Golden Corral adjusted their practices, now paying their managers in training an average of between $628.71 to $5,882 per week – amounts which are determined

Golden Corral reportedly has already changed its ways in wake of the claim, paying their managers in training an average of between $628.71 to $5,882 per week.

If you have questions about mismanagement of your plan’s funds or if you suspect your employer of ERISA violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Tentative Class Certification Offered to Thousands of Wells Fargo Employees in Meal Break Row

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Brian C. Walsh, a California state judge, granted a tentative class certification to thousands of Wells Fargo workers. The employees claim that they were not paid appropriately (in accordance with employment law) for missed mealtimes. They also claim that Wells Fargo did not provide pay stubs as required. While the judge tentatively granted class certification, he did end up withholding his final ruling after hearing the bank’s argument that it used an individualized system to document meal premiums for their workers and that the individualized system does not support this type of class wide litigation.

Silvia Hernandez, former Wells Fargo customer service representative, filed the motion to certify two classes in the litigation. The banking giant, Wells Fargo, opposed the motion. Prior to the hearing, the judge issued a tentative written decision to both parties that he was going to grant the motion. But after the hearing, the judge stated that he needed to give the matter additional thought. He specifically said that he wasn’t actually changing the “tentative,” but that he was going to think about the matter.

The two classes off workers that Hernandez proposed in the motion were divided into two categories: a class based on the lawsuit’s wage settlement claims, and a class based on the second claims focused on the meal break violations. Most of the arguments during the hearing focused on the second of the two claims: meal break violations.

Hernandez, the original Plaintiff in the case, alleges that when Wells Fargo pays one of their non-exempt workers for a meal break that was missed, they base the pay on the worker’s hourly pay, but that the missed meal break pay should actually be calculated based on the worker’s total pay or compensation which would include bonuses. The bank claims that their calculations are based on self-reporting done by workers on an “honor system.” Thus, since they don’t verify the information provided by the workers – there’s a question regarding whether or not they can be held legally responsible for legal claims related to the amount of pay.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or if you need assistance with wage and hour or overtime violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Class Action Filed Against Toms Shoes Citing Violation of California Labor Law

Plaintiff Teena M. recently filed a California labor laws class and collective action lawsuit against Toms Shoes, LLC. She claims the company violated wage and hour law. The suit was filed on behalf of herself and others in similar situations at the company. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2018. She is demanding a jury trial.

According to the plaintiff’s claims, she was hired by the famous shoe company in October of 2016 on an hourly, non-exempt employee basis. This meant that she was able to work overtime hours and receive overtime compensation as regulated by state and federal labor laws. Yet while she worked overtime hours, she alleges that Toms did not properly pay her for the overtime hours she worked. 

According to the California labor law lawsuit the plaintiff and “all of Toms other hourly, non-exempt employees who work overtime and receive commissions, non-discretionary bonuses, and/or other items of compensation aside from their base hourly rate, are not adequately paid for all of the overtime they work.”

The California labor laws lawsuit filed by Teena M. cites violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.   

The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The class action was filed on behalf of both current and former employees of Toms Shoes, LLC.

The FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, record keeping, youth employment standards and more. All of the standards set by the FLSA affect employees in the private sector as well as in Federal, State and Local government employment. This type of FLSA class action suit can allow groups of employees who may be suffering from violations of employment law to seek recompense for the violations in a court of law.

If you have questions about overtime violations or if you are not being paid overtime for hours you work over the standard full-time work week of 40 hours, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.