Employee Back Pay Lawsuit Settled by Los Robles Regional Medical Center

Thousand Oaks, California’s Los Robles Regional Medical Center agreed to pay $2.95 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that they shortchanged their employees’ hourly pay. The settlement agreement addresses litigation due to a 2014 filing by plaintiff, Jeanette Munden, a former nurse at the medical center. Munden alleged her hourly pay was routinely rounded in a way that short-changed her paycheck.

Judge Kevin DeNoce of Ventura County Superior Court approved the settlement against Los Robles, ruling that the center would pay $2.95 million over a lawsuit alleging that it shortchanged hourly pay of employees and prevented them from taking lunch breaks (as well as other labor code violations). The settlement includes 3,000 current and former employees who split close to $1.9 million. The average payout for workers included in the suit will total around $618. The hospital will also be covering attorney fees ($973,500) and state labor code penalties for alleged violations ($10,000).

The company settled on a no-fault basis and does not admit any wrongdoing, although this is not the first time they have faced this type of employment law violation allegation.

Timeline of the Case:

2005: A federal judge approved a $4.75 million settlement for a lawsuit against Low Robles Medical Center claiming over 1,000 employees were owed wages for missed breaks and overtime.

2014: Jeanette Munden, former Los Robles nurse, alleged her hourly pay was regularly rounded to short her paycheck. She claimed Los Robles owed her overtime and that she was also consistently denied lunch breaks and rest periods during her employment at the facility.

2015: Munden resigned from her position at Los Robles to take another job but was not paid compensation she was owed by the company.

2017: Nurses negotiating contracts with the facility in September 2017 claimed that staffing was so limited that they could not take breaks or even, sometimes, go to the bathroom.

As the lead plaintiff in the case, Munden will receive a $15,000 award. Only one of the current and former employees included in the suit objected to the settlement.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime lawsuit or if you need to discuss when employers are required to provide overtime pay, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Tender Heart Home Care Agency Overtime Wage Suit Sees Decision Reversal

Many have heard the story of the California caregiver who alleged she was not paid overtime. Followers of the story will be interested to know that the case has been remanded back to a lower court by a state appellate court. Judge Mark Simons, on the bench of California’s 1st District Court of Appeals, issued the ruling on January 11th, 2019. His reversal of the Contra Costa County Superior Court’s decision in the Duffey v. Tender Heart Home Care Agency LLC has the story back in the news.

In the ruling, the judge stated that the trial court was in error when they exclusively applied the so-called “common law” test and that there is a dispute of fact as to whether or not Duffey was an employee of Tender Heart Home Care Agency LLC.  

Duffey filed suit against Tender Heart alleging that the health care company was in violation of the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights or DWBR. This California state law requires domestic workers to receive overtime pay if they work more than nine hours in a day or more than 45 hours in a week.

Case documents indicate that the plaintiff signed a form contract with the company, Tender Heart, in 2011 that was titled “Professional Caregiver Agreement.” The agreement stated that Tender Heart is a “caregiver placement agency whose business is to obtain contracts for caregivers in dwellings and to refer by subcontract such contracts to professional independent caregivers.” It also stated that Duffey was an “independent domestic worker…in the business of providing care giving services in dwellings and hereby solicits such contract for services from [the company].”

Once DWBR was put in place in 2014, Duffey did not receive pay for her overtime hours. She filed suit against Tender Heart in December 2015. The lower court, Contra Costa County Superior Court, decided in favor of the health care agency, considering that Duffey was an independent contractor and not an employee of Tender Heart.

If you need help obtaining overtime compensation or if you need to talk to an experienced California employment law attorney about whether or not you are eligible for overtime wages in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP as soon as possible.

Gordo Taqueria Employee Lawsuit Results in $690,000 Settlement

Gordo Taqueria has agreed to pay a $690,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by employees alleging the restaurants’ owners engaged in wage theft and other employment law violations. Gordo Taqueria owns five restaurants in San Francisco, Berkeley and Albany.

The settlement received preliminary approval from Alameda Superior Court judge Brad Seligman in December 2018. The settlement is scheduled to receive final approval on April 2nd, 2019. Within the settlement, the Defendant notes that they do not accept the facts as presented in the case by the plaintiffs and they admit no wrongdoing.

The lawsuit was brought by former dishwasher and prep cook Jose Martinez. Martinez worked at the College Avenue location in Berkeley from 2013 to 2015. The suit includes 240 Gordo employees, some current and some former. In the December 2016 complaint, Martinez alleged that Gordo did not pay him and other workers in similar positions as required by law. Workers regularly completed 10-12 hour days and were not provided with overtime wages. Tips were distributed only once or a few times per year and were given to employees based on hours they worked and their rate of pay, which is also in violation of labor law. Employees were allegedly not provided with required meal breaks or rest periods when completing long shifts (10+ hours/day).

Industry practice and state law both stipulate that cash tips are distributed at the end of each work day. California law specifically stipulates that tips are the sole property of the employee and that credit card tips should be distributed at the end of each pay period. Allegations were also included that the employees did not receive their full wages or back pay once their employment with the company ended and the company did not maintain accurate payroll records to calculate hours worked and wages owed.

During the discovery process, it came to light that Gordo did not use a time clock until 2015. Before that, the company relied on manual record keeping and the pre-2015 records were not kept on file by the company (another violation, this time of state record-keeping requirements).

Gordo owners dispute all the allegations made by the plaintiffs and state that they have done nothing unlawful.

If you are dealing with issues of wage theft and you aren’t sure how to seek justice for the wages you have lost, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$4M Settlement in Rangoon Ruby Chain Restaurant Wage Theft Suit

Workers at Rangoon Ruby chain restaurant who claimed they were on call but denied overtime wages will receive a settlement. The Burmese restaurant agreed to pay $4 million to about 300 workers to settle the California wage theft lawsuit. The settlement amount represents the money owed in unpaid wages plus penalties to workers.

What is Overtime? The federal overtime provisions are included in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless an employee is exempt, they are covered by the Act and employers should provide them with overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rate of pay.

The workers who filed suit against Rangoon Ruby described their unpaid overtime work as being “on call.” The restaurant chain owners, Max Lee and John Lee, operates in San Francisco, San Carlos, Burlingame, Belmont, and Palo Alto (where the same management team also runs Burma Ruby Burmese Cuisine). The workers alleged the work requirements left them frustrated and tired and working extra hours without extra pay.

Another plaintiff in the case claimed that the working conditions at Rangoon Ruby left her feeling ill. When she sought time off to see a doctor, Rangoon Ruby management denied her time off request. When she went to the doctor anyway, the restaurant docked her pay even though state law requires employers to provide workers with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Other workers claimed they were summoned for unscheduled shifts without overtime pay in order to cover delivery orders. Since many of the workers were housed in dormitories by Rangoon Ruby, the situation was particularly sensitive because they relied on the restaurant not only for work, but for housing as well.

This settlement agreement is one in a string of victories for restaurant workers in the Bay Area. If you are not being paid overtime wages or if you need to discuss what your rights are in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Overtime Issues: Defining Compensable Time

More and more overtime cases are appearing on the scene based on off the clock work or employees who are contacted by their employer regarding work when they are not at work. It’s just too easy with cell phones in everyone’s pockets. This leaves the court with the job of analyzing and defining compensable time.

When analyzing compensable time, courts examine whether the employee is: waiting to be engaged or engaged to wait. If they are waiting to be engaged, they are not working, but if they are engaged to wait, they are being paid to be at the ready. In some cases, the managers on duty carry the majority of the blame for requiring or allowing contact with employees who are off the clock without knowledge of the limitations presented by the compensable time issue. They aren’t aware of where the compensable time “line” in the sand is and they unwittingly step over it regularly. This situation can leave the Employer facing employment law violations allegations.  

Most agree that the majority of employers are not purposefully attempting to get work out of their employees for no payment. They aren’t deliberately trying to violate employment law. The statutes are simply hard to comply with from a technological perspective. This makes it very important that employers provide their management and supervisory staff with training regarding compensable time and what that means for overtime-eligible workers.

To protect against potential litigation, employers should track off-track hours. If the work can be tracked and therefore quantified, it probably wouldn’t qualify as “de minimis” and should result in the required compensation. As California has more state level laws regarding wage and hour issues and particularly enforcement of these laws, the issue is seen even more regularly in California courts.

If you have questions about compensable time or if you are not being paid overtime wages for hours you work while off the clock, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP today.

Do After Hours Phone Calls Qualify for Overtime Pay?

The fact that the majority of workers carry a cell phone 24/7means that employers have the ability to reach workers at any time on any day. The problem is that some employers actually expect workers to respond at any time on any day (or night) as well. So, what about that random 1am phone call from the manager on duty? Does that count towards overtime hours?

24/7 access to their employee workforce is going to come at a cost to employers as they will need to pay for the time or risk potential class litigation regarding unpaid wages. Starbucks Corp. and Evolution Fresh (a Starbucks subsidiary) recently settled an overtime suit that delivery drivers brought against the company claiming that they were not compensated for company calls they took outside of their scheduled shifts. Another major corporation, ABM Industries, is facing similar problems. It looks like ABM will probably be settling (to the tune of $5.4M) to resolve claims that they failed to reimburse cleaners for data and cell phone costs. ABM employees claim they were required to use their cell phones for clocking in, clocking out, and other work necessities and job duties.

So, when do employers need to pay workers for after hour calls? What about after-hours emails? How is “compensable time” determined?

Determining compensable time depends on which law is at play: the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or an equivalent state law. Once this is determined, the question becomes whether or not the employees are covered by the law. If the employee is covered by the law, is their work considered “de minimis” or too infrequent or insignificant to require payment?

This type of overtime case depends heavily on the facts and details of the specific case. How the details are presented can be crucial and the court’s decision has been known to fall on both ends of the spectrum. Nearly everyone has a cell phone and this makes it easy to reach an employee with a phone call, text message or email during a break or after they are off work and off the clock. Some employees feel pressured to respond to employer contacts even though they aren’t clocked in – others may be required by company policy or expectations to respond.

If you have questions about why you aren’t paid overtime or if you need to talk about what constitutes off the clock work, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP today.

Gender Pay Discrimination Allegations Made Against Hewlett-Packard Enterprises

In the fourth quarter of 2018, R. Ross and C. Rogus of Santa Clara, California, filed a class action California unpaid wages lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE). The lawsuit describes a discriminatory pattern demonstrating gender-based pay discrepancies at the company. We’ve seen tech giants in the news before for similar practices and facing similar allegations, but this case does present a few interesting issues.

1.     Wage history perpetrating discrimination.

2.     Employer policies discouraging employees from talking about their salary as prevention of discovery of discrimination under California’s Equal Pay Act

3.     Using Secret Wage Classification and Promotion Systems to easily avoid meaningful reform.

In this California unpaid wages lawsuit, Hewlett Packard is accused of systematically paying female employees less than their similarly situated male co-workers and failing to advance them at the same rate as male employees performing similar work at a similar skill level. The business practices are apparently in place throughout all of California and are built on preexisting practices at Hewlett-Packard.

As of January 1st, 2018, employers in California are prohibited from asking job applicants about their salary history or using a salary history to determine what salary to offer a new employee. This was an effort to decrease the long-term effects of past salary discrimination. This law, however, does not offer protection to workers hired prior to that date or current employees who are seeking an internal promotion. Long-term workers who are seeking to make a career with a single employer will not find assistance for past pay discrimination in the law that went into effect January 1st, 2018. In the complaint against HPE, it is alleged that long-term employees tend to stay at the lower-paid job level 1 or 2. In comparison, new hires start at or quickly rise to a higher paid level 3.

Raises at the company are based on a percentage of the employees’ existing HPE salary, so they not only support the gender pay gap, but widen it. The longer a female is employed by HPE, the less she will be paid in comparison to her male counterparts even when fulfilling similar job duties at an equal or better rate. Gender discrimination paired with age discrimination combine to leave older female employees double affected.

Pay secrecy policies are still a common practice, particularly in the tech industry. Policies requiring silence about pay have been prohibited in most industries since 1935 by the National Labor Relations Act. Pay secrecy policies are also banned by California Labor Code section 232. Since 1985, the law has specifically prohibited the requirement of any employee to refrain from disclosing their wage or requiring an employee to waive the right to discuss their wage, or to discipline an employee for discussing their wage. Yet many employees are unaware of their rights and many employers still discourage (officially or unofficially) pay secrecy.

Similarly, when wage and promotion structures are not transparent, workers are prevented from acting on discriminatory behavior. Many employees are reluctant to act or share information with co-workers but find themselves suffering from vague or opaque employer pay scales and promotion structures.

If you are suffering from the effects of gender-based pay discrimination or you need help seeking equal pay in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.