Amazon’s Push for Delivery Guys Leaves Them Facing Employment Law Claims

This past summer, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos announced a need for aspiring entrepreneurs and offered them a chance to make $300,000 per year by starting their own Amazing delivery business with as little as $10,000 required to get started. Amazon is highly dependent on the creation of a network of independent drivers around the country as they struggle to keep up with demand. To entice entrepreneurs, Amazon uses their buying buyer to get their partners good deals on necessary items, like: vans, insurance, etc. Then they provide them with a steady stream of items to be delivered.  

The entrepreneurs tackling Amazon’s delivery needs are actually facing the bigger challenge as they attempt to recruit and hire drivers who can meet the high standards of Amazon at a low pay rate.

The structure leaves Amazon in a bit of a gray area legally. They have to be careful how much control they are exerting over the people employed by their delivery companies. Amazon already faces a number of lawsuits from delivery drivers that claim they were not paid wages as required by federal law while employed by Amazon partners and they’re including Amazon in the list of responsible parties since their job duties were on behalf of the giant online retailer. If Amazon finds a legal way to add drivers and vans without spending their own company funds, the risk could be worth it for them in the long run.  

Amazon has already gathered tens of thousands of entrepreneurs excited for this type of ground floor opportunity. The aspiring entrepreneurs go through phone interviews and several days of training. Within a few months, hundreds of new businesses have popped up all over America and they’re employing thousands of delivery drivers. More hopefuls fill a waiting list for further expansion in the coming year.

The business model appears profitable for Amazon as they avoid both the costs of training and maintaining drivers throughout the nation. The business model also appears profitable for entrepreneurs looking for a chance to run their own business with the power of Amazon supporting their efforts – many entrepreneurs are already enjoying the fruits of their efforts as Amazon partners. Yet Amazon’s new delivery model is drawing lawsuits that allege Amazon partners are violating overtime pay requirements by paying their drivers daily rates instead of hourly wages. A case in Illinois referred to the Amazon Partner Delivery Model as an “unlawful scheme” trying to avoid responsibility for providing legal wages to delivery drivers. FedEx paid out a $13 million lawsuit settlement to resolve claims of “misclassification” of workers leading to lost wages. They altered their business model in response, now requiring service providers to keep drivers on payroll. Amazon ended up settling in a similar lawsuit filed in California alleging that contract delivery drivers (listed as independent contractors) were underpaid.

Finding people willing to do quality work at low wages is a significant challenge. Most drivers are paid around $15/hour. This particular challenge has been passed from Amazon to the Amazon partners responsible for managing routes and drivers. Many expect this to be a slight redirection of the problem rather than a solution.

If you are dealing with misclassification in the workplace or you need to find out how to obtain overtime pay you are owed, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Former Bodyguards Receive Settlement After Suing Depp for Employment Violations

Two former bodyguards for Johnny Depp, Eugene Arreola and Miguel Sanchez, filed a California lawsuit in May 2018 alleging claiming Depp was in violation of employment law. Sanchez and Arreola claimed they were overworked and not paid overtime. The bodyguards also claimed they were subjected to unsafe working conditions. The lawsuit has now been settled.

Depp came to an agreement with the two former bodyguards who filed suit in 2018 and the case has been closed with all future hearings cancelled. Court documents indicate that the bodyguards reached a conditional settlement the resolves the matter. Settlement details were not released.

Arreola and Sanchez claimed in their lawsuit that Johnny Depp overworked and underpaid them during their time with him as bodyguards. They specifically cited a two-year period during which they described their time on the job as intolerable. They claimed they were expected to act as Depp’s babysitter. The duo claimed that between April 2016 and January 2018, they did not receive any overtime pay and they were deprived of food and rest breaks due to their work looking after the Depp family.

The original lawsuit was riddled with intense allegations. One claim described a situation in which the bodyguards were required to wipe drugs from Depp’s face at a nightclub in order to prevent others around the celebrity from seeing him using. The bodyguards describe their time with Depp during this time period as watching him spiral into a financial hurricane and act as babysitters for his children. One of the bodyguards claimed that one of his major job duties was to ensure that one of Depp’s children was looked after appropriately because they were living in an outhouse on Depp’s compound in Los Angeles.

Arreola and Sanchez asked for unspecified damages and compensation to make up for money they were owed due to overtime violations, etc. The two bodyguards described their job as requiring them to protect Depp from himself and his vices while he was in public – effectively making them caretakers.

Sanchez and Arreola (a 38-year-old LAPD veteran) worked happily for Depp for years while they were employed by a security company the celebrity hired, but then the problems started. Early in 2016, the bodyguards noticed Depp’s’ behavior start to change as well as the atmosphere in his Hollywood Hills compound. He started to make sudden and drastic changes to his staff and management team. The moves resulted in a substantial financial crunch for everyone except Depp.

In April of 2016, in the midst of his rocky marriage with Amber Heard, Depp fired the security company that employed both Sanchez and Arreola, Premier Group International. The bodyguards claim that Depp and his entourage made the change to “cut out the middle man” and hire the bodyguards directly so they could avoid the agency fee.

Once the guards were employed by Depp directly, their pay checks and hours were not properly tracked. They were expected to work 12-hour days and back to back shifts. And their job duties expanded to include safeguarding Depp and others who were around him as they engaged in “illegal activity.” They were often in situations that required more of them that what a bodyguard would reasonably be held responsible for. They were frequently being asked to perform the tasks of drivers for Depp and his family. They were repeatedly asked to drive vehicles that contained illegal substances as well as open containers and minors. They were asked to monitor unstable people in Depp’s life. Sanchez was specifically tasked with looking after one of Depp’s children (either 19-year old Lily rose or 16-year old John Depp III, the lawsuit did not specify which child). In fact, more often than not, Sanchez who was hired to protect Depp’s children, was more often than not the primary caregiver for Depp’s minor child who loved on the Depp compound, but in a separate home. Sanchez was advised to give in to every whim of Depp’s children. He worried that if he didn’t, he would be terminated from his position.

If you are being forced to work in a toxic or dangerous work environment or if you are not being paid overtime as required by federal law, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Is Kellogg the First of Many to Exploit Supreme Court Arbitration Victory?

A group of former Kellogg employees are suing the cereal giant claiming that the company shouldn’t have sued them earlier in 2018. Kellogg sued the employees for suing the company. It’s a bit confusing.

Kellogg targeted the group of former employees for defying their arbitration agreements and in doing so, they announced a clear warning to all their employees: not to sue the company. The complicated case has hearings scheduled for February and will be watched by many as one of the first instances when U.S. employees with grievances seek justice after the recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent that is making waves.

Last year a Kellogg employee out of Nevada filed suit against the company in federal court. The suit was filed on behalf of co-workers who were not provided with federally mandated overtime pay. Kellogg denied the accusations and they were able to successfully petition the judge to move the case to arbitration by bringing up the arbitration agreement signed by the employee that required disputes to be handled in arbitration rather than court.

This type of arbitration agreement usually ends up limiting the rights of employees in comparison to the legal rights they would have in the court system. Arbitration also promotes quick and efficient dispute resolution and discourages litigious lawyers’ fighting for plaintiffs. Others claim that the arbitration process limits transparency and removes the right to sue as a class and takes leverage away from employees seeking resolution.

What arbitration means for employees and employees depends on who you ask, but no one can argue that arbitration agreements have become more and more common at U.S. companies in recent years. Thanks to a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that quashed attempts to curb them, companies are embracing them more and more actively.

This past May, in a 5-4 ruling, the high court’s Republican-appointed majority held that arbitration agreements that require workers to sign away rights to file a lawsuit as part of a class can be enforced for workplace disputes. Proponents of arbitration insist that this is extremely detrimental to the enforcement of both federal minimum wage and overtime laws. Months later, Kellogg began filing breach of contract claims against former employees that signed onto the overtime lawsuit alleging violations of continued employment agreements that included an agreement that delayed the firing of workers during corporate restructuring in exchange for arbitration of claims.

Kellogg filed suit alleging that the original plaintiff was in breach of contract because he filed an employment claim in court against the company. Kellogg seeks punitive damages and legal costs. Former employees were shocked by Kellogg’s response and their attorneys have sued the company in return alleging that Kellogg’s claims against their former workers are actually illegal because they constitute retaliation as described in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

If you are a victim of retaliation in the workplace or if you need help obtaining overtime pay from your employer, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

New Laws In the Workplace Effective January 1, 2019

Employers and employees alike should be aware that a number of new California laws went into effect on January 1, 2019. If you aren’t sure what they are, read on for a short summary of each new law for California workplaces.

1.     Criminal History and Applications for Employment: Senate Bill 1412

Senate Bill 1412 allows California employers to ask an applicant, or a separate source, about specific convictions if: a) the employer is required to obtain information on a specific conviction regardless of whether or not the conviction was expunged, sealed, eradicated, or dismissed, b) the applicant’s employment would require the use of a firearm on the job, c) applicants with particular convictions are prohibited from holding the job being filled regardless of whether or not the applicant’s conviction has been expunged, sealed, eradicated, or dismissed, d) employers are prohibited by law from hiring job applicants who have particular convictions regardless of whether or not they have been expunged, sealed, eradicated, or dismissed.

2.     Board of Directors Equality: Senate Bill 826

By December 31, 2019, publicly held corporations with executive offices in California must have a minimum of one female director on the board of directors.

3.     Overtime for Agricultural Workers: Assembly Bill 1066

Agricultural Workers must receive overtime pay in addition to their salaries. This law is intended to result in a slow increase of the wages for extra hours put in by agricultural employees over the course of the next four years. Changes effective Jan. 1, 2019 apply to employers who hire more than 25 employees.

4.     Street Vendors: Senate Bill 946

The activity of street vendors in California is protected; they are allowed to sell on the streets. This measure also provides local authorities the power to establish applicable regulations based on health, safety and public welfare.

5.     Breastfeeding in the Workplace: Assembly Bill 1976

Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations in order to provide breastfeeding employees with a location that is not a bathroom.

6.     Waiver of Legal Claims: Senate Bill 1300

Employers in California are prohibited after Jan. 1, 2019 from forcing employees to sign nondisparagement agreements that release the employer of claims, including sexual harassment, as a condition for obtaining a raise, bonus, or employment. There are exceptions allowing employees or job applicants to voluntarily sign a waiver of legal claims. This bill also strengthens requirements for sexual harassment training by including bystander intervention training.

7.     Protection Against Lawsuits/Harassment Complaints: Assembly Bill 2770

Designed as a protection from the threat of a defamation lawsuit, this bill protects those seeking to make a sexual harassment allegation based on credible evidence and without malice. This law was passed after California defamation laws were identified as a potential obstruction that sometimes deters victims and witnesses from making complaints or reporting information about harassment. It also protects companies who warn other potential employers of harassing activity from a defamation lawsuit.

8.     Confidentiality Agreements: Senate Bill 820

This bill, applicable to private and public employers in the state of California, prohibits secret settlements or nondisclosure agreements pertaining to facts in sexual assault, harassment or discrimination cases. It also offers sexual abuse or sex discrimination cases the option to keep names private.

If you have experienced violations of California employment law in the workplace and need help determining your best course of action, seek the counsel of an experienced California employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

The California Supreme Court’s Dynamex Decision Impacts Standards

The California Supreme Court’s decision on Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles is affecting legal standards determining whether a worker should be legally classified as an employee or an independent contractor. The company in the case, Dynamex, put a test in place as a standard determining classification that made it more difficult for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors.

For example, Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc. was a case heard before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. It was a closely watched case out of California federal court. The judge on the case noted in a new order that her decision on the case may have been different if the Dynamex opinion had already been recorded. While Judge Corley declined to vacate her earlier finding, it is likely the order will be reversed upon appeal.

In Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc. the plaintiff, Raef Lawson was a GrubHub driver who claimed he was misclassified as an independent contractor. When GrubHub moved to dismiss the suit in early 2018, the district court found the company did not “control” Lawson’s work – siding with the company. Lawson appealed. After the Dynamex decision, Lawson filed a motion. He sought relief from the judgment on record. Lawson argued that his case would have had a different outcome if the California Supreme Court had adopted a new legal standard for use when determining the classification of workers as employee or independent contractor. The court responded by allowing that a careful consideration of the issues and with the benefit of an oral argument, the motion raises substantial issue, but they declined to definitively rule on vacating the judgment. They court noted that deciding whether or not the Dynamex ruling should apply retroactively is a decision to be made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

If you have questions about misclassification or if you need to discuss how you can seek justice when your employer refuses to provide you with overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California’s Motion to Dismiss in Dynamex-Related Case

A California Supreme Court ruling that could upend years of law regarding the frequently litigated independent contractor vs. employee issue is fighting push back from trucking groups. A large part of the transportation industry workforce is made up of independent contractors. These independent contractors generating a significant portion of the transportation industry’s life force include thousands of California truck drivers/owner-operators.

The ruling under scrutiny was in the Dynamex class action lawsuit and came down on April 30th. The ruling adopted the ABC test.

Defining the ABC Test: The ABC Test assumes most workers are employees and are eligible for the protections offered by California wage laws (including overtime pay regulations, meal break requirements, and minimum wage guarantees). Part B of the ABC Test is vital. It states that a worker has to perform work outside the usual course of business of the hiring company in order to qualify as an independent contractor. This part of the ABC Test would rule out owner-operator truck drivers. They are most often doing the same type of work as their “client” companies.

The court’s decision in the Dynamex case throws the legality of the entire California trucking industry into question. In fact, the Western States Trucking Association filed a lawsuit earlier in 2018 against the state of California over the potential enforcement of the ruling. They argued that the Dynamex ruling is in violation of federal laws on interstate transportation preempting states from passing laws that affect prices, routes and services of interstate motor carriers.

Western States Trucking Association is not the only group pushing back against the ruling on the Dynamex case. The California Trucking Association filed its own lawsuit in October 2018 to try to prevent the state from applying and enforcing the ABC test categorically.

If you have questions about how to address wage disputes, wrongful termination claims, overtime violations or questions of misclassification, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Did You Sign an Arbitration Agreement?

Did you know that millions of US workers are currently “barred” from the court system? Did you know that you may be one of them and not even realize it? Approximately 60 million American workers have signed arbitration agreements or arbitration clauses and they may not have even realized they were doing so.

Close to 50% of all non-unionized workers employed at companies in the United States are subject to arbitration agreements (according to the Economic Policy Institute). This number has more than doubled since the early 2000s. Major employers across the nation have adopted them as standard, including: Uber, Google, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Walmart, Macy’s, and more.

The increase in the use of mandatory arbitration agreements is making it increasingly difficult/impossible for employees to seek justice when they are victims of wage theft, discrimination in the workplace, retaliation, harassment, overtime violations, etc. The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing employers to prohibit class-action claims from workers in arbitration only increased the incentive for companies to include arbitration clauses right in their employment contracts for new hires.

The practice was once limited to business to business contract disputes, but it is now extending to legal disputes with employees and consumers. This change occurred after a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2001 related to sexual harassment. In Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Adams, an associate working at a Circuit City store in California sued the company for sexual harassment. The associate’s name was Saint Clair Adams. He said he was harassed by his co-workers because he was gay. He, like all the other employees of Circuit City, had signed an arbitration agreement stating that all disputes with the company must be resolved through private arbitration. The company argued their case in federal court, insisting that Adams was required to move his claim to arbitration due to the agreement.

The judge on the case sided with the plaintiff, Adams, and cited the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act allows companies to resolve contract disputes through arbitration but includes a provision that excludes employment contracts. The judge’s ruling was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The argument didn’t die with the appellate court though. Circuit City took the case to the Supreme Court where the lower court’s ruling was overturned – extending the reach of arbitration clauses to nearly all employment contracts. The justices based their decision on a close reading of the employment exclusion in the Federal Arbitration Act, which reads, “but nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.” The justices interpreted this to mean that “transportation workers” were exempt from mandatory agreements; and that non-transportation workers would be required to take their claims to arbitration.

Another Supreme Court ruling in May 2018 made it even more difficult for workers to seek justice or force a company to change working conditions. The case was Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and the court decided that it is legal for employers in the United States to prohibit employees from joining together to file suit against the company claiming discrimination, wage theft, or other common workplace violations.

Do you have questions about how to deal with workplace violations when there is an arbitration agreement in place? Call one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.