Quick Dispense, Inc. Faces Allegations of PAGA Violations

A Los Angeles employment lawsuit alleges that Quick Dispense, Inc. violated California labor law by failing to pay non-exempt California employees overtime wages as well as failing to offer legally required rest and meal breaks. Employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP filed the class action lawsuit in September 2019. The class action lawsuit alleges PAGA violations and failure to accurately calculate overtime wages. The lawsuit is pending in LA County Superior Court (Case No. 19STCV29405).

According to the California class action, Quick Dispense, Inc. violated numerous labor laws by:

1.    Failing to provide non-exempt employees with fair payment for all hours worked

2.    Failing to provide non-exempt employees with accurate overtime wages

3.    Failing to provide legally required meal and rest breaks

4.    Failing to provide employees itemized wage statements with accurate listings of hours and wages

5.    Failing to provide payment of wages in a timely manner

6.    Failing to pay minimum wage

7.    Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

PAGA (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act) authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to seek recovery of civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state in response to Labor Code violations. PAGA enables California to enforce state labor laws by allowing the employee experiencing the violation to file suit to recover civil penalties as an act of protecting the public from companies and entities in violation of employment law.

If you need more information about filing a class action lawsuit in California or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

California’s Expanded Definition of “Employee”

As of September 18, 2019, AB-5 codified the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex v. Superior Court decision in which the California Supreme Court adopted the “ABC” test for use when determining coverage under the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Under the new California law, the application of the ABC test is expanded to the entire California Labor Code. It takes effect in 2020.

According to the ABC test, the law assumes that any individual who is performing a service for someone else is an employee. The hiring individual or the one receiving the benefit of the service must prove that the worker is an independent contractor if they want to rebut the basic assumption of employment. To be successful, the “hiring” entity would need to meet each one of three different ABC test requirements:

1.    The “worker” must have freedom in connection to the performance of their job duties; the hirer must not maintain control/direction of the worker while they are on the job.

2.    The worker must perform work that falls outside of the hirer’s usual or typical business.

3.    The worker must be shown to be engaged in independent and established trade or business of the same nature as the work they are performing for the hirer.

Determining if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor carries great significance. If the worker is classified as an employee the employer bears responsibility for paying numerous taxes, providing worker’s compensation insurance, and complying with the various state and federal statutes governing employment issues like overtime pay, minimum wage, working conditions, etc. When an employee is misclassified on the job, the hirer can be sued for unpaid wages and overtime, etc.  

The second part of the ABC test is particularly troublesome for employers in the gig economy. It can be taken as a direct challenge to the fundamental business model on which the gig economy thrives. Companies will need to look to the court to determine what is and is not “outside” their usual course of business. Some companies may be able to persuade the judge to make a favorable distinction, but many fear the effect of the new law. Some companies are actively lobbying California legislators for statutory exemptions under AB-5. Occupational and industry exemptions will remain subject to traditional common law definitions of employment.

If you need more information about misclassification in the workplace and what it means to be denied an overtime wage, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP at one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

Adventist Health System/West Faces California Overtime Lawsuit

According to the class action lawsuit filed in Sacramento, California in September 2019, the Adventist Health System/West violated various California Labor Code provisions when they did not provide their non-exempt employees with the required amount of overtime pay. Class members in the case are represented by Sacramento employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. The class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendant not only failed to provide non-exempt employees with the required overtime wages, but that they also failed to provide legally required rest and meal breaks. The overtime class action lawsuit is currently pending (Case No. SCV0043607).

According to the complaint filed by the Sacramento employment law attorneys, the company is still in violation of overtime wage requirements for non-exempt employee who are working overtime hours, above and beyond the 40 hour/8 hour “full time” definition provided by law. The lawsuit also includes allegations that the company acted on both company policy and standard operating procedure when they knowingly failed to provide the accurate rate of pay for overtime hours that their employees completed on the job. Adventist Health System/West is also accused of failing to provide non-exempt employees with legally mandated off-duty thirty-minute meal breaks without interruption as well as legally mandated on-the-clock rest periods.

The class action lawsuit was filed seeking one hour of pay for every workday during which the employee missed their off-duty meal period (required for every 5 hours worked), and one hour of pay for each workday during which a second meal period was not provided when an employee completed ten hours on the job.

Please get in touch if you would like to know more about addressing overtime violations in the workplace or if you need assistance filing an employment related lawsuit. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assist you in one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Finds Success After 2 Investigates Coverage

In recent news, a KTVU 2 Investigates report helped a woman’s wrongful termination lawsuit meet with success. The KTVU 2 Investigates report ended up being the spark necessary to lead the case to an award of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The woman in the case, Ivania Centeno, was allegedly wrongfully terminated over a family-leave discrepancy.

Centeno, a 13-year employee at South San Francisco’s Bon Appetit café, claimed she was let go in 2017 after she took time off to provide her dying mother-in-law with necessary care. Centeno fought for resolution in the case for over a year without much progress.

After the 2 Investigates coverage aired in February 2019 highlighting the situation and bringing to light the legal loophole in California preventing in-laws from qualifying employees for leave under family-leave laws, the case saw movement. According to California’s paid leave law, care of in-laws is covered, but under the California Family Rights Act, care of in-laws is not covered. The question becomes which law takes precedent and the answer is not quite clear. The problem will require legislative changes.

Centeno claims that Bon Appetit gave her permission to fly to Nicaragua to provide care when her mother-in-law became deathly ill. Her mother-in-law later passed away and Centeno headed back to return to the job at the restaurant. When she arrived, the restaurant fired her. They insisted both that she missed too many days of work and that her mother-in-law did not qualify under the family leave policy.

Company records show management blaming computer software at the company for the decision to terminate Centeno based on the trip to care for her mother-in-law combined with circumstances surrounding her recent and previous absences from work due to a work-related injury. The 2 Investigates team requested to interview the company to get some answers about the lawsuit, but they did not receive a response. In April, the case was finally resolved. Centeno was offered an undisclosed amount of backpay, unemployment benefits, and attorney fees plus court costs.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or denied family-leave time you are eligible for under employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

Wage and Hour Law: Chef Sues Raiders Star Antonio Brown for Unpaid Bill

Stefano Tedeschi, “The Sports Chef,” is suing Raiders star Antonio Brown for $40,000 of unpaid bills. Brown allegedly hired The Sports Chef to cater an event at a mansion the Raiders star rented leading up to the Pro Bowl in 2018. Brown’s attorney responded to allegations that they would be filing a motion to dismiss.

According to Tedeschi’s lawsuit, Brown allegedly wrongfully terminated the agreement and wouldn’t allow the chef to get the food or equipment. Tedeschi claims Brown did not provide him with a reason for the termination. The chef declined Brown’s later offer to provide payment in the form of social media advertising. Tedeschi was also advised by one of Brown’s associates not to “make eye contact” with the Raiders star as he left.

Just four months prior to the lawsuit filed by Chef Tedeschi, Brown settled another lawsuit including allegations that he threw items off a South Florida apartment balcony that came close to hitting a two-year-old boy. The boy’s guardian sued Brown for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. A second suit was filed in connection to the same incident by the owner of the apartment building. That lawsuit is ongoing.

Brown returned to practice with the team in September after not practicing since the end of July. His agent went on record denying that Brown left the Raiders and thought about retiring after his grievance to wear his preferred helmet did not meet with success. The helmet Brown prefers, the Schutt Air Advantage, is the same helmet Brown has used throughout his career, but it is no longer approved for use in the league.

If you have not been paid for hours you have worked or if you have experienced other employment law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

Court Awards Plaintiff $1.58M in Racial Harassment Lawsuit Naming UC Regents

Nicole Birden, a 48-year-old African American and former UCLA Health phlebotomist, was awarded $1.58 million in her wrongful termination and racial harassment lawsuit against the UC Regents. Birden filed the discrimination lawsuit in 2017 citing the University of California Board of Regents for wrongful termination and discrimination.

Birden started working at UCLA in 2015 and claims she experienced a hostile work environment filled with co-workers calling her derogatory names, bullying on the job and even tampering with her work. Allegedly, Birden’s co-workers took the harassment so far that they tampered with blood samples in order to sabotage her work. In response to the escalating harassment and discrimination, Birden complained to her supervisor. She was fired in 2016. Birden was allegedly referred to as the “black girl with the attitude” by a number of co-workers while she was employed at UCLA.

UCLA’s legal representation argued that Birden was terminated due to a pattern or poor performance. He also made it clear to the jurors that the plaintiff never claimed she was treated differently because she was African American in her original complaints. UCLA is disappointed with the verdict and claim to be reviewing their options.

UCLA also claims that they consider ensuring a respectful and inclusive work environment to be essential to the university’s overall mission. They feel they encourage their employees to report any concerns in order to allow the issues to be reviewed and then appropriately addressed by management and administration at the university. They also restated their belief that UCLA Health is dedicated to maintaining a positive workplace without discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.

Immigrant Laborers File Wage Theft Lawsuit to Reclaim Years of Backpay

In an attempt to reclaim years of backpay they claim they are owed by their employer, immigrant workers in New Jersey filed a wage theft lawsuit just a week after the state imposed stricter penalties. The group of eight immigrants filed a class action lawsuit suing the car wash where they worked alleging they were not receiving minimum wage or overtime payment they were due.

The wage and hour and overtime class action lawsuit alleged that the car wash, Caribbean Car Wash Inc., and the carwash owners were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA and the state wage and hour law. Plaintiffs allege that it was standard policy at the carwash to allow managers to take the tips of their workers and that the company failed to comply with record-keeping requirements with proper and complete time sheets or records.

The exploitation of immigrant workers in the car wash industry is a widespread issue that happens all too frequently. Many immigrant workers are unaware of their employment rights and are afraid that they will lose their job if they speak up. It is important for immigrant workers to know that the law protects them regardless of their immigration status. Plaintiffs in the suit are Rigoberto Andux Mirabal, Gabriel Cano Arango, Yoan Aquino Martinez, Lucas Alberto Pedronzo Toledo, Julio Cesar Ochoa, Nelson Batista Corbo, William Ricardo Antunez Valdez, and the estate of Carlos Alberto. The plaintiffs listed the Caribbean Car Wash, Oscar Ulpiano, and Roberto Ulpiano (both manage employees and operate the business) as Defendants.

According to plaintiffs in the case, the owner (who owns around 100 car washes and gas stations) employs mostly Latino immigrants and regularly orders them to arrive at work early for their shifts but does not allow them to clock in until customers arrive. Workers also allege that when business is slow, they are required to clock out but remain on duty until more customers arrive. This causes workers to put in many hours without pay.

If you are required to work off the clock or your employer is in violation of employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik and DeBlouw LLP today.