UPS Employees Allege Employment Law Violations in Recent California Class Action

UPS employees cite various employment law violations in a recent lawsuit. Not the first, but the latest class-action lawsuit filed against UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., this suit claims employees were not paid overtime, did not meet minimum wage requirements, failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, etc. The lawsuit (Case 3:19-CV-07551-RS) is pending in Riverside County Superior Court. The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of California but was moved to the Northern District of California in November 2019.

California State Labor Law Provides Employees with Protection:

California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked, including all the time that a worker is under the “company’s control.” UPS faces allegations that they failed to compensate their workers in a California warehouse for time spent on mandatory security checks.  

Did Mandatory Security Checks Violate Employment Law?

According to claims in the class action, UPS required warehouse employees to complete security checks on their way into the premises and again on their way out. This occurred when they arrived for the shift, as well as when they came and went for lunch or rest breaks. To complete the security checks, workers had to wait in line for their turn to undergo security screenings. Time spent waiting in line, completing the security screening, and walking to and from the screening area to the time clock was not counted as hours worked, so workers were not compensated for any of the time.

Are Workers Under Employer’s Control During Security Checks?

Class members in the suit argue that the time spent going to and from and completing security checks constitute a type of control the employer held over the workers, and the time should, therefore, be compensated. Lawsuit documents argue that the UPS workers are owed minimum wage (and overtime when applicable) for any hours they spend complying with the UPS security check requirements. As the workers were also under the company’s control for part of their lunch breaks and rest periods, the class members argue that UPS did not comply with the law by relieving employees of “all duties” during their legally mandated breaks. Due to time spent completing the mandatory security checks, employees’ meal breaks were shortened to less than the legally required 30-minute meal break and 10 minute rest periods defined by state law. The lawsuit seeks an hour’s worth of pay at the employees’ regular rates of pay for each non-compliant meal break or rest period. 

Is UPS Violating Federal and State Labor Laws?

Seasonal workers on the east coast accused UPS Inc. of federal and state labor law violations in a suit filed in New York federal court. The temporary or seasonal workers, Lalynda Hedges and Zyaire Simmons, worked at New York UPS facilities during the peak season, October 2018 – January 2019. They allege UPS violated labor law by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an overtime or wage and hour 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.

Class Action Spotify Lawsuit Alleging Violations of Employment Law

Matthew Elias, of California, filed a class-action lawsuit against Spotify alleging misclassification and failure to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods. Elias filed suit on his behalf and on behalf of others in similar situations who are allegedly “aggrieved.” According to the lawsuit, Elias, a nonexempt employee of Spotify from July 2016 through July 2018, was reportedly misclassified as an independent contractor approximately one year into his tenure.  

Elias Seeks Compensation for Loss of Benefits:

As a result, Elias sought counsel to help him seek compensation for Spotify’s failure to provide him with the same benefits other nonexempt employees receive under FLSA (the Fair Labor Standards Act). Worker protections offered under FLSA include overtime pay requirements (workers must be paid one and half times their hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in one week or 8 in one day), legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, etc. Elias alleges that the company forced him to use personal funds to purchase cellular data services and streaming services. He claims the expenses were business expenses, and the company should have covered the costs.

Moving the Case From State Court to Federal Court:

Elias filed the lawsuit in the District Court for the Central District of California. Spotify did not immediately make a public comment on the filing, but they did file a request to move the case from state court to federal court since the streaming giant is registered in Delaware. The federal venue will likely be more favorable for Spotify than California state since California passed stringent worker classification laws under AB5 effective January 1, 2020. Legal counsel for Spotify also argued that the case move to a federal courtroom because potential damages could be more than $75,000 (including a minimum of $110,086.40 in allegedly owed overtime wages alone).

California’s Worker Classification Laws Under AB5:

Effective January 1st, California’s AB5 is designed to decrease the abuse of the independent contractor classification by employers. The legislation was inspired to address the massive issue in the ride-share industry, but while Uber and Lyft openly refuse to comply, many other sectors are feeling the effect of change as it ripples across the state. Thousands (or hundreds of thousands, we can’t be sure) of contract workers have been released from work without replacement jobs as many are merely turning to different states or overseas job markets where independent contracting is entirely legal. AB5 currently faces significant backlash from various industries like the trucking industry that are being hard hit by the legislation.

AB5 and California State’s Music Industry:

The new law may be disastrous to the state’s music industry as music productions often involve various hired musicians, assistants, etc. most of which are traditionally hired as independent contractors for the event, performance, gig, etc. While dozens of industries successfully crafted agreements defining needed exemptions to AB5, the RIAA was not able to do so for musicians, labels, and other music industry groups. Some suspect the failure to obtain exemptions for the music industry successfully was likely due to in-fighting amidst musician unions.

If you need to file a misclassification lawsuit or if you need to discuss other employment law violations, don’t hesitate to 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.

LA’s Genwa Korean BBQ Faces $2.1 Million in Files for Labor Violations

Popular LA Korean barbecue restaurant, Genwa, faces $2.1 million in fines due to labor law violations like failing to keep proper time records, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide mandatory meal breaks. 

LA’s Popular Genwa Korean Barbecue Restaurant Allegedly Violated Numerous Labor Laws:

Alleged violations at Genwa affected 325 dishwashers, servers, and cooks at two different restaurant locations in Los Angeles, one in Beverly Hills and the other in Mid-Wilshire. The owners of Genwa Korean BBQ were cited for violations by the California Labor Commissioner’s Office in late January and fined $2.1 million. The company allegedly failed to pay workers minimum wage, provide overtime pay, and provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. 

Other Genwa Locations Not Included in the Lawsuit:

Genwa, an upscale Korean BBQ restaurant with numerous locations, caters to a mix of Korean and non-Korean clientele. All three locations are distinctly outside of Koreatown, but only two of the three sites were listed in the lawsuit. The Downtown South Park location was not included. Typical for a Korean barbecue restaurant, a lot of the cooking takes place on a tabletop grill in front of the customers, a practice that puts more labor focus on service-oriented staff. Similar issues seem to riddle the Korean barbecue world as a whole, as illustrated by the wage theft and labor issue-focused feature in a Los Angeles Times article published in 2019.

Investigations Uncovered Multiple Labor Law Violations: 

After an investigation based on Genwa worker complaints, numerous violations were discovered. 

• Genwa required their full-time staff to clock out multiple times a day (during an 11-hour shift).

• Genwa refused to allow workers to take legally mandated rest and meal breaks.

• More than 50% of Genwa workers were paid less than minimum wage.

• 50% of Genwa workers were not provided full overtime pay or required itemized wage statements.

• Genwa servers were required to attend quarterly meetings without compensation, regardless of scheduled days off.

Fines, Damages, and Penalties for Labor Law Violations:

Due to the numerous labor law violations, J.B.K. Wilshire Corporation, Genwa, Inc. and Genwa’s corporate officers, Jay and Jin Kwon are required to pay $1,428,759. The payment is intended to cover unpaid wages, missed meal periods and rest breaks, split shift premiums, overtime, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties for any affected Genwa employees. The corporation, the restaurant, and its officers were fined an additional $633,800 in civil penalties. Genwa workers affected by the labor law violations will receive damages, missing wages, and interest. The employers have appealed.

If you need to discuss employment law violations 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.

$1.1M Settlement for Western Express California Driver Wage Lawsuit

Western Express agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by allegedly underpaid California drivers. The lawsuit also claimed the company violated labor law by failing to provide rest and meal breaks. 

Plaintiffs Requested Preliminary Approval:

The plaintiffs requested a California federal judge grant preliminary approval of the settlement on February 26, 2020. The settlement agreement with Tennessee based Western Express results in about 2,000 California drivers that worked approximately 20,000 weeks receiving a portion of the $1.1 million. The California Western Express truck drivers filed a civil complaint in May 2018 alleging their per-mile rate of pay fell below the state and federal minimum wage rate. Western Express allegedly failed to provide mandated meal and rest periods and also failed to pay for “other time” the drivers spent working.

California Drivers Allege Wage and Hour Violations:

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Western Express paid their drivers by mileage without consideration for all the required pre-trip and post-trip inspection job duties, waiting time (subject to employer control), and additional time performing work duties outside of drive time. Drivers argue that failing to pay for the job duties outside of drive time is a violation of California labor law. In addition to failing to pay for hours worked outside of drive time, the drivers claim the company failed to pay for 10-minute rest periods, which is a violation of California labor law. Truckers were required to remain under company control without pay, which caused low wages that allegedly fall well below the minimum required by law. Truckers are expected to stay on assignment for over 24 hours at a time. And at times, California truckers were confined to the general vicinity of their vehicle for over 24 hours consecutively.

Western Express Has Faced Similar Allegations in the Past:

This isn’t the first time drivers have sued Western Express to protect their rights as employees. And it’s not the first time Western Express settled with a group of drivers filing a trucker wage lawsuit. Last year the company settled a suit in Tennessee federal court for $4 million after five years of litigation. More than 4,000 drivers joined the 2014 lawsuit making several claims including:

• Failure to compensate new drivers for required hours spent in orientation

• Failure to pay drivers for travel time during normal business hours

• Failure to pay new hires for all hours worked while completing the required over-the-road training program

• Failure to pay drivers for all hours worked

Past Western Express Settlement Amount and Distribution:

Each class member in the 2014 Western Express wage and hour suit received a flat $50 payment plus an additional payment amount dependent on weeks worked. On average, drivers received $450 each after fees, costs, and administrative charges were covered. The payment included about 30% of potential damages related to per diem and sleeper berth claims. One-third of the 2014 Western Express settlement amount paid for attorney fees.

The Latest Western Express Settlement Amount and Distribution:

If approved, the latest Western Express driver wage suit settlement of $1.1 million will see about $636,000 distributed to class members. About 30% will cover attorney’s fees. The Labor Workforce and Development Agency will receive $37,500. Expenses related to the administration of the settlement total $30,000. Named plaintiffs will each receive an additional payment of $10,000. The preliminary approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for March 30, 2020.

If you need to discuss how to file a wage and hour 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.

Reclassification of Part-Time Professors Cause Increase of Wage Lawsuits

As California film schools reclassify part-time professors, the number of wage lawsuits is increasing. Numerous universities with strong ties to Hollywood have adjunct professors now classified as hourly workers. Some insist the change short-changes students and undercuts the staffers who are underpaid and, in some instances, underused.

Vetoed Bill Results in Reclassification of California Adjunct Professors:

In late fall 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aiming to make most California adjunct professors salaried employees. In response, many part-time or “adjunct” professors in California’s universities became hourly workers effective January 1, 2020. The change keeps the universities compliant with California labor law and, in theory, provides adjunct professors with pay for all the hours they work. The reclassification to hourly wage also came with a bit of a pay bump for many, seen as an incentive while part-time professors dealt with the annoyance of logging their in and out-of-class work hours.

Reclassification for Many Adjunct Professors is Problematic:

In practice, adjunct professors see some problems with the reclassification. For instance, some part-professors saw their hours decrease for the upcoming interterm (the 4-week, short term between fall and spring semesters). They would need to teach their interterm class in half the time and for about 2/3 the pay (including the new “pay increase”). Before the reclassification, the professors would make an entire semester’s salary during interterm, but with the new pay scenario, this was no longer the case.

Problems Quantifying the Work of Professors:

Reclassifying adjunct professors has brought issues with quantifying the work of instructors (especially instructors handling creative projects) into the light. The current solution of reclassifying part-time professors as hourly employees is not a perfect fit for the adjunct professors or the school administration. Adjunct professors have cited poor pay and long hours for years, but recent reclassifications led to a series of wage and hour lawsuits alleging failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, etc.

As More Private California Universities Face Wage and Hour Lawsuits:

California Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin introduced bill AB 1466 in response to the volume of lawsuits against universities across California. The bill intended to make many part-time faculty members salaried positions with a minimum salary. The bill passed, but the Governor later vetoed it, claiming there would be unintended consequences for a large number of workers and may create a substandard wage rate for teachers. Irwin and supporters of the bill disagree and plan to introduce a modified version later this year, bill AB 736.

In the meantime, part-time professors at various California universities are left in a tough spot struggling to follow strict guidelines limiting their hours, attendance at extracurricular school events, and a less than worthy pay structure. For example, payment for curriculum planning in the current pay schedule is limited to 1 week before the start of class.

If you have questions about misclassification or if you need to file a California 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.

Kim. V. Reins International California, Inc. Decision & Settling PAGA Claims

What does the California Supreme Court decision in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (Case No. S246911) indicate about settling PAGA claims? The critical decision was given on March 12, 2020, but before discussing the decision and what it says about settling PAGA claims, consider the details of the case. 

In Kim v. Reins International California, Inc.:

The Plaintiff in the case, Justin Kim, settled his individual claims against his employer and then attempted to move forward with his PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) against his employer (Reins). Reins employed Kim as a training manager classified as exempt. Kim filed suit against Reins in a putative class action alleging that Reins, the employer, misclassified training managers. Kim alleged multiple employment law violations including:

• Failure to pay wages and overtime

• Failure to provide meal and rest breaks

• Failure to provide accurate wage statements

• Waiting time penalties

• Unfair competition

• Civil penalties under the PAGA 

Reins Immediate Response to Allegations of Employment Law Violations:

Reins moved to compel arbitration of the individual claims and dismissed the class claims. Their action was based on an arbitration agreement and class action waiver that Kim signed at the time of hiring. The trial court ordered arbitration of all claims, except for the PAGA claim. The court also ordered the injunctive relief portion of the unfair competition claim and stayed the PAGA litigation until individual claims litigation was finished. When individual claims were settled, Reins moved for summary adjudication in the PAGA action based on the settlement agreement that resolved Kim’s individual claims, which meant Kim was no longer an “aggrieved employee” under the PAGA.

Does Settling Individual Claims Mean Kim is No Longer an Aggrieved Employee?

The trial court agreed that Kim was longer an “aggrieved employee” eligible under the PAGA, ruling that Kim’s decision to settle his individual claims with the employer precluded him from continuing forward with PAGA claims. (Under the PAGA statute, an individual must be an “aggrieved employee” to qualify.) Kim took the issue to the appeals court, where they agreed with the previous ruling of the trial court found that by accepting the settlement and dismissing his individual claims, Kim acknowledged he no longer maintained Labor-Code-based claims against the company.

The Supreme Court’s Decision & PAGA Claims:

But the California Supreme Court ruled that Kim, a PAGA plaintiff, can continue litigation of a PAGA action after settling individual claims. The case and the Supreme Court’s decision have some employers worried about how future allegations may be handled.

If you need to talk to someone about employment law violations 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.

Former Amazon Manager Claims She Searched Social Media of Job Applicants to Determine Race and Gender

Lisa McCarrick, former Amazon Manager, sued the massive online retailer, alleging Amazon fired her because she raised concerns about scouring job applicants' social media to determine their race and gender during the application process. McCarrick, 38-year-old, claims that her supervisor required her to search applicants' social media, and when she complained about the practice, she was fired from her position at the company.

Former Amazon Manager Files Suit for Various Employment Law Violations:

McCarrick is a resident of Rocklin, which is located about 20 miles outside of Sacramento. McCarrick's California wrongful termination lawsuit against Amazon was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. McCarrick alleges retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to prevent discrimination in the workplace, and violations of California's labor code.

Allegations of California's Equal Pay Act Violations:

McCarrick is also suing Amazon for violating California's Equal Pay Act, claiming that she was paid significantly less than male co-workers who performed similar job duties. Amazon hired McCarrick as a Loss Prevention Manager in July 2018. Five months later, she was promoted to a regional manager position. According to the lawsuit, McCarrick's new supervisor told her she needed to search social media profiles of any prospective new hires with the express purpose of determining "race/ethnicity and gender."

Amazon Previously Faced Lack of Diversity Claims:

McCarrick was aware of previous criticism of Amazon due to lack of diversity in the workplace, and she thought the requirement to search out race and gender based on job applicants' social media was unlawful. Her concerns led her to submit a written complaint in September. In the written complaint, she also noted the gender-based pay disparity.

McCarrick Claims She was Wrongfully Terminated from Her Job:

Within two months of submitting the written complaint, McCarrick was called into a meeting with human resources and the Director of Loss Prevention. She was informed that she was terminated from her position with the company. During the same meeting, her direct supervisor admitted to using social media to determine the race and ethnicity of prospective new hires. The Loss Prevention Director allegedly attending the meeting advised McCarrick that while her male co-workers did make more money than her…" that happens all the time at Amazon." During her time at the company, McCarrick always received positive performance evaluations. Still, at the time of her termination, the reason cited for her firing was that she did not meet expectations.                                                         

If you need to talk to someone about workplace discrimination or you need to file a wrongful termination 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.