California Caterers Sue LA Airport for Unpaid Overtime

Caterers working at Los Angeles International Airport airlines filed suit against Sky Chefs in December 2019. The California workers claim they are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime.  Sky Chef workers allege they were shortchanged wages earned from January 1, 2019, throughout the entire year. The plaintiffs seek class-action certification. Sky Chef responded by advising those seeking information that they do not comment on pending litigation.

The employees filing suit claim that Sky Chefs uses a standard practice to calculate overtime for workers at LAX that bases overtime pay rates on a wage below the legally required minimum wage. The practice is described as “systematic, widespread, and flagrant” in the lawsuit. If the allegations are true, the employment law violations were both widespread and flagrant.

Examples of Alleged Employment Law Violations:

One plaintiff included in the lawsuit alleges that Sky Chefs failed to provide him full payment for overtime, underpaying him by $3.74 per hour for all overtime hours worked. The plaintiffs’ legal counsel estimates the number of affected Sky Chefs employees to be between 500 and 900 workers assigned to various facilities adjacent to LAX. Plaintiffs seek damages equal to their underpaid overtime hours plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. It is estimated to total at least a few million dollars.

The California Overtime Lawsuit Follows Living Wage and Affordable Health Care Protest:

The Sky Chefs California overtime lawsuit followed the protest staged by Sky Chef workers the month prior at the Los Angeles airport. The protest called for a living wage and affordable health care.

If you need to discuss how to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. 

California Workers File a Class Action Lawsuit Against Cannabis Companies

Casey Denning and Natalia Cole filed a California lawsuit suing Cannabis harvesting company Loud Buddha LLC and Pura Cali Management Corp, a cultivation contractor associated with Loud Buddha. The companies allegedly violated provisions of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the companies forced workers to work long hours in an oppressive workplace with no overtime pay or meal breaks. They also allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements. The plaintiffs filed on their own behalf as well as others in similarly situated positions with the cannabis companies.

According to Plaintiffs: Workers’ Duties Were Dangerous & Included:

• Cultivating marijuana plants

• Harvesting marijuana plants

• Bucking marijuana plants (removing buds and stems)

• Hanging marijuana plants

• Placing marijuana plants in large commercial freezers to be transported

According to the lawsuit, over 50 workers completed these job duties to total multiple tons of cannabis each year from the Pura Cali marijuana farm.

The Complaint Against Loud Buddha & Pura Cali: What Were the Alleged Violations?

1. Employees forced to work 12-hour days every day of the week.

2. Workers were expected to stay on the job site in a remote location, sleeping on cots. Workers were threatened with discipline if they failed to comply.

3. Employers failed to keep track of workers’ time accurately.

4. Employers failed to provide required meal breaks and rest breaks.

5. Workers were not reimbursed for work expenses (i.e., meals, travel, etc.)

6. Employers allegedly failed to provide overtime pay, paying workers $15/hour in cash.

7. Time records kept by the employer were allegedly unreliable and inaccurate – depriving workers of earned wages and failing to comply with FLSA record-keeping requirements.

Workers employed by the cannabis company are often referred to as “trimmigrants.” The trimmigrants are typically young and often undocumented seasonal workers. The abusive, arguably dangerous conditions endured by the trimmigrants working in Northern California’s Emerald Triangle have been going on for years. The chronicles of their situation include tales of murder, sexual assault, and disappearances.

If you have questions about how to identify employment law violations or if you need to file a California class-action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

The Fight Over California’s Gig Economy Law Escalates: Drivers Sue Uber for Back Pay

A group of Uber drivers recently filed a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit filed against Uber at the end of 2019 seeks retroactive pay, benefits, and overtime for Uber drivers. Pay, benefits, and overtime would be retroactive to April 2018, the time at which the Dynamex ruling was issued by the California Supreme Court that set new standards for when companies are expected to provide benefits to workers.

Uber Drivers Alleged Violations of Labor Law:

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the suit, plaintiffs argue that Uber improperly classifies drivers as independent contractors instead of employees with access to employee benefits and employee protections. The legislation was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September 2019 and codified the Supreme Court ruling into law. Assembly Bill 5 creates an ABC test for contractor-employee distinction based on three factors.

Uber Claims Their Practices Do Not Violate Labor Law:

When asked for a comment on the suit, Uber did not immediately respond, but later stated that they do not plan to make changes to their practices to comply with the law because they maintain their driver classifications are correct. Together with other gig economy powerhouses (Lyft, Doordash, etc.) Uber is also floating a ballot measure that could allow them to continue the practice of classifying drivers as independent contractors.

The suit names three dozen Uber drivers as representatives for current and former Uber employees. Class size is an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 drivers that opted out of arbitration clauses. The plaintiffs claim that drivers should be classified as employees and be eligible for minimum wage, overtime pay, mileage reimbursement, cell phone usage, and additional reimbursement for expenses.

AB 5 Increases Misclassification Lawsuits:

With AB 5 taking effect as of January 1, 2020, more lawsuits are expected throughout the year as workers learn about their newly granted rights. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, championed AB 5 and also encouraged California attorneys to file lawsuits over misclassified employees.

In response to the drivers’ fight against the gig economy’s practice of classifying them as independent contractors, two other groups have sued in a challenge to the legal claims insisting that it would dramatically decrease their ability to earn a living.

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

New California Labor Laws: Are Changes Coming to Your Workplace?

Are new California labor laws bringing changes to your workplace? Have you already seen the new laws take effect at your place of employment? 2020 is said to be a year of reckoning for California businesses with sweeping new California labor laws going into effect to curb longtime employment practices that generate economic inequality and keep the power in the hands of employers.  

Many California companies will be forced to reclassify hundreds of thousands of independent contractors as employees in 2020. Doing so will leave the workers with access to broad labor law protections. Another new California labor law should prevent employers from forcing workers to sign closed-door arbitration proceedings to protect the employer from potentially expensive lawsuits and court proceedings. 

Other notable employment law changes California workplaces will need to embrace in 2020 include: 

A law requiring employers to offer workers a place for mothers to pump breast milk (other than.a bathroom). 

A law designed to make it easier for first responders to obtain workers’ compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

A statute banning discrimination in the workplace based on a hairstyle. For example, Afros, dreadlocks, cornrows, etc. 

A statute that grants organ donors additional guaranteed leave. 

An extension of whistleblower rights and protections to patient rights advocates assigned to county mental health centers. 

The changes to California’s employment law intend to improve job quality for the state’s workforce by addressing day-to-day issues on the job. Look for additional changes to California’s minimum wage law, corporate diversity, and discrimination labor law standards. California leads the way in labor law and is working to prevent employers from going around the set standard.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how new changes to California labor law may affect you, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Truck Drivers Challenge California’s New Gig-Economy Law, Assembly Bill 5

In November 2019, the California Trucking Association filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the new California state law attempting to force gig-economy companies to treat their drivers and workers as employees. In doing so, the workers would be entitled to benefits and protections under labor law like overtime pay and sick leave.

California’s new law was based on the 2018 California Supreme Court ruling setting higher standards for when a company can classify a worker as an independent contractor. Assembly Bill 5 is scheduled to go into effect in 2020. (Governor Gavin Newsom signed it in September 2019).

The California Trucking Association argues that the law will deny a lot of truckers the opportunity to work as independent drivers in the state of California. By driving as independent contractors, truckers are able to profit from their own vehicles and set their own schedules. The new bill threatens cover 70,000 truckers’ livelihoods and according to the California Trucking Association, also violates federal law.

Truckers working as independent contractors are frequently experienced drivers who have already worked as employees and actively chose to strike out on their own instead. The California Trucking Association feels they should not be deprived of this lifestyle and career choice. A spokesman for the association explained their stance by indicating that the law can protect workers from misclassification without taking away the rights of independent truckers to actively seek a living on the road in California outside of the traditional employment model.

Supporters of Assembly Bill 5 insist that the law only strengthens the rights of workers and makes sure that employers do not deny their workers benefits they have earned (like minimum wage, paid family leave, and overtime). Some professional classifications receive broad exemptions from the new rules under the law (i.e. lawyers, real estate agents, etc.) But truckers were not offered similar treatment, although the lawmakers did offer delayed implementation to some offering construction related services.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. Southern District Court. The complaint challenges both Assembly Bill 5 and the underlying California Supreme Court ruling commonly referred to as Dynamex.

If you need to discuss Assembly Bill 5 or if you are misclassified as an independent contractor, please don’t hesitate. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$2.75 Million Goes to Temp Nurses in Overtime Case Settlement

In recent news, a group of temporary healthcare providers alleged overtime violations. After filing suit (Dalchau et al v. Fastaff, LLC, N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-01584), and gaining class certification, the overtime class action lawsuit was settled. The class members will split about $1.6 million.

The nursing staff company that allegedly violated overtime regulations, will pay $2.75 million to settle the case. The collective action settlement won final approval from a California federal court. The class members include more than 2,750 nurses and technicians across the nation. The members allege that Fastaff LLC did not include housing stipends in their overtime calculations, which is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor law.

Defining Overtime Pay: Overtime pay is compensation paid to an employee who works more than “full time” hours as defined by federal labor law. The rate of overtime pay is calculated by multiplying the regular hourly rate of pay by 1.5. The amount of overtime pay provided to an employee is the overtime pay rate (as previously calculated) multiplied by the number of hours worked over 40 in one week or over 8 in one day.

$1.7 million of the settlement will be split amongst class and collective members, after necessary deductions. Each of the members will receive a payout of approximately $624.  

Lead plaintiffs in the case, Stephanie Dalchau and Michael Goodwin, will receive $10,000 service awards. Counsel will receive $916,000 in attorneys’ fees and $27,700 for reimbursed litigation costs. The hybrid settlement is seen as fair, reasonable, and adequate by Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The settlement was granted preliminary approval May 12th, 2019. Orrick determined that appropriate notice was issued to putative class members and no objections were made to the terms of the settlement.

If you are not being paid overtime or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Delta Overtime Lawsuit Settled for $3.5 Million

In recent news, Delta Airlines agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit including approximately 3,300 former and current Delta employees (Fan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.). The settlement agreement settles a number of claims made against the airlines including overtime pay violations.

 According to the class action lawsuit, Delta Airlines failed to provide employees with overtime payment as required by California labor law. The employees’ claims were focused around a complicated pay formula that included profit-sharing payments, shift differential pay, non-discretionary bonuses, and the fair market value of employee travel passes.

The Delta overtime lawsuit is a good example of two types of California overtime cases/disputes that have been common recently: 1) claims focused on how hours are counted, and 2) claims focused on how the “regular rate of pay” is determined. The suit also serves as a reminder to employees to check their overtime calculations. Workers should periodically check both elements to ensure they are receiving all the overtime pay they are due. 

Howard Fan, plaintiff, worked customer service for Delta Airlines at the Los Angeles International Airport from September 2010 to August 2018. During his employment with Delta customer service, he regularly paid shift differentials to employees for each hour worked during afternoon and evening shifts. Delta Airlines also provided additional compensation through the company’s incentive program called Shared Rewards. The Shared Rewards program allowed workers to earn cash bonuses if company-wide operations met or exceeded agreed upon goals and metrics in various areas: baggage handling, percentage of scheduled flights that were successfully completed each month, and on-time arrivals. Cash bonuses through Shared Rewards were distributed to employees monthly and were included on wage statements in the pay period during which they were paid. Class members also received compensation from Delta through the profit-sharing plan, and additional compensation in the form of travel pass privileges (Travel Companion Passes for free or reduced-fare travel).

However, shift differentials, incentive program payments, profit-sharing contributions, and the taxable value of any travel passes, were not included when calculating the employees’ regular rate of pay that was used as the basis for overtime pay calculations. According to California law mirroring the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the “regular rate of pay” includes “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, and employee.” Employees in the case argued that Delta was violating labor law by failing to include all compensation provided to employees into their regular rate of pay.

If you need to discuss violations of overtime pay requirements or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.