Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Pending 2021 Cases for the California Supreme Court

With several potentially significant pending cases scheduled to go before the California Supreme Court in 2021, California employers and employees should consider the possible implications. 

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872, Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC676917, Second Appellate District, April 7, 2020). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case, Ducksworth and Pollock, allege race discrimination, and one of the Plaintiffs, Pollock, also alleges sexual harassment. 

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

According to the lawsuit documents, the Plaintiffs in this case were long-time customer service representatives at Tri-Modal Distribution Services or Tri-Modal. Neither of the two plaintiffs was promoted, but other customer service representatives were promoted. The Plaintiffs claim they were looked over for promotions because of discriminatory practices against African Americans, and filed suit citing the same allegation against Tri-Modal and two staffing agencies, Scotts Labor Leasing Company, and Pacific Leasing. 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The trial court granted summary judgment for Scotts and Pacific since they were not involved in Tri-Modal’s decision to promote or not promote any specific employee. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s summary judgment finding both staffing agencies free of liability for any discrimination claims based on promotion or failure to promote due to uninvolvement in staffing decisions at Tri-Modal. The district court also granted summary judgement for Tri-Modal’s Executive Vice President, overruling Pollock’s hearsay objection to a declaration. The district court concluded Pollock’s claims are barred because no administrative complaint was filed within one year of the incident (per Government Code Section 12960). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grants of summary judgment and held that the trial court concluded correctly regarding Government Code Section 12960. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts’ decisions, their decision could significantly increase liability for any discrimination allegations, particularly discrimination claims filed against joint employers like staffing agencies. Staffing agencies are typically not involved in day-to-day decisions regarding staffers they place at various clients’ operations, however, a dissenting opinion from the California Supreme Court on this case could mean more claims against California employers. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International: 2021 Sees Several Key Cases Heading to the California Supreme Court

While activity in the California courts was slow in 2020, there are several potentially significant cases on the horizon for 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state of California, including NVazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International. 

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. (No. 17-16096 (9th Cir. 2019)). 

According to lawsuit documents, the Defendant in the case, Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. or Jan-Pro, licenses a system for marketing cleaning services to “regional master franchisees.” The corporation operates in multiple countries, including the USA. Regional master franchisees purchase a franchise that comes with exclusive operating rights in the designated “region.” Jan-Pro regional master franchisees are franchisors to “unit franchisees.” Jan-Pro has no contract in place with unit franchisees. Jan-Pro’s contracts are with master franchisors. Contracts with unit franchisees are between the unit franchisee and the master franchisor. Unit franchisees hire their own employees, and act according to their own devices. The Plaintiffs in this case, Vazquez, are former unit franchisees. Vazquez alleged that Jan-Pro’s three-tier business model was designed to misclassify janitors as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff, Vazquez, Claims Jan-Pro Violated California Labor Law: 

The Plaintiff in the case, Vazquez, claims Jan-Pro violated employment law. The Plaintiff alleges that Jan Pro’s sophisticated three-tier franchising model was designed to misclassify workers. The district court dismissed the putative class of plaintiffs’ suit against the international business. The Ninth Circuit court vacated the district court’s dismissal, holding that Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018), which resulted in the adoption of the now standard ABC test to determine classification of California employees per California wage order laws, applied retroactively. The Ninth Circuit court remanded the case to district court for consideration on the merits in light of Dynamex. Two additional orders were published in connection to the original order from the Ninth Circuit Court. The panel certified to the California Supreme Court the issue of retroactive application of Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

The question the California Supreme Court will need to decide when hearing Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. is whether Dynamex v. Superior Court, the case that set forth the ABC test for classification of independent contractors, is applicable retroactively. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.: 

If the California Supreme Court finds that Dynamex is found to apply retroactively, it’s possible that California misclassification claims could be reopened all the way back to before the 2018 Dyamex resolution. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: One of 2021’s Key California Employment Law Cases

California courts didn’t see a lot of activity in 2020, but that seems to be changing in 2021. The California Supreme Court has several pending cases that could make waves throughout the state, including Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services. 

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, S258966. (B256232; 40

Cal.App.5th 444; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC372146). 

In 2021, Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The cases present two different issues. Does the violation of Labor Code 226.7 give rise to employment law claims under Labor Code sections 203 and 226 if the employer doesn’t include premium wages in the employee’s wage statements, but the wage statement does include the wages the employee earned for meal breaks? What prejudgment interest rate applies to unpaid premium wages owed due to Section 226.7? 

The Plaintiff, Naranjo, Claims Spectrum Security Services Violated California Labor Law: 

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, a class of security guards allege meal break violations and seek premium wages, as well as penalties for waiting times, and inaccurate wage statements, as well as attorney’s fees. When the Court of Appeals considered the case, they found that unpaid premium wages for meal periods violations do not entitle employees to penalties for inaccurate pay stubs or waiting time.

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

When the case appears before the California Supreme Court in 2021, the court will be expected to resolve a long-standing debate on recoverability of waiting time penalties for meal break and rest period violations. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: 

If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the findings of the lower courts, potential penalties for California meal break and rest period violations would increase since violations could be compounded by any alleged pay stub penalties or any waiting time penalties. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood: Another Key 2021 California Employment Law Case

Most would agree that the California courts were pretty quiet throughout 2020, but that appears to be changing in 2021. As of now, the California Supreme Court is scheduled to see several significant employment law cases that could affect how employment law affects employers and employees throughout California. 

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood, Nos. B283218, Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct. No. BC586176

In 2021, Ferra v. Loews Hollywood is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The Plaintiff in the case appealed to the Supreme Court of California asking for clarification of Labor Code 226.7’s phrasing “regular rate of compensation” and what it means in a context where the employee in question receives numerous forms of wages for work performed on the job. 

The Plaintiff, Ferra, Claims Loews Hollywood Hotel Violated California Labor Law: 

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and three alleged classes of hourly employees working at Loews Hollywood Hotels, filed a class action. The Plaintiff alleges that the employer’s calculation of the premium payment was inaccurate because the company did not provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods as required by California labor law (Labor Code section 226.7). Based on the alleged miscalculations, the Plaintiff also alleges that Loews did not provide full payment for all hours worked due to shaving and rounding time from employee hours. The Court of Appeal found in favor of  Loew’s holding that the statute’s plain language, federal case precedent, and the statutory history all indicate a difference between the “regular rate of compensation” and the “regular rate of pay.” The court held that Loew’s “rounding policy” did not result in systematic undercompensation of Loew’s employees over time. 

What Question Does the California Supreme Court Need to Decide? 

Discussion of the case has concerned parties pointing out (and urging the California Supreme Court to hold) that “regular rate of compensation” as pertaining to meal and rest breaks is in reference to the employee’s base hourly wage. This definition provides distinction between the two oft-confused phrases, since the term “regular rate of pay” generally includes non hourly compensation. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Ferra v. Loews Hollywood:

California employers and employees should watch the Ferra v. Loews Hollywood case since the California Supreme Court’s decision could affect how wages earned based on meal period penalties are calculated. The regular rate used to calculate overtime seems cumbersome for meal period penalty calculations since the regular rate of pay could include annual or quarterly bonuses (some of which could occur after the missed meal period for which the penalty is being calculated). However, “regular rate of compensation” does sound very similar to “regular rate of pay” and federal district courts have ruled both ways on the issue, so many are interested to see which way the California Supreme Court will lean on this issue.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Key 2021 California Employment Law Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

Activity in California courts in 2020 was fairly quiet, but there are several potentially significant cases coming to the California Supreme Court in 2021 that could have a significant impact on California’s employers and employees. 

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center, Nos. E068730, E068751

In 2021, Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center is scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court. The case addresses the question of whether an employee’s settlement agreement with a staffing agency on a wage and hour claim precludes the same employee from suing the staffing agency’s client, for whom the employee provided services, citing the exact same wage and hour claims. 

The Plaintiff, Grande, Claims Eisenhower Medical Center Violated California Labor Law: 

FlexCare, LLC (FlexCare) is a temporary staffing agency. According to the plaintiff in the case, FlexCare provided an assignment for Grande to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (Eisenhower). The Plaintiff claims Eisenhower did not provide her with the required meal and rest periods, wages for hours worked, and overtime wages according to California labor law. Grande, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action lawsuit. The class action was filed on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to various positions at numerous California hospitals. The Plaintiff’s claims were based on her work on assignment at Eisenhower, and FlexCare settled with the class. A release of claims was executed by The Plaintiff. The trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement. A year later, Grande filed a second class action lawsuit alleging the same labor law violations. Grande filed the second class action lawsuit against Eisenhower, who was not listed in the prior class action. 

Can Grande File a Second Class Action Against a Different Defendant Citing the Same Labor Law Violations? 

FlexCare argued that the Plaintiff could not bring a separate lawsuit against Eisenhower based on claims settled in the prior class action. During a trial limited to questions of whether or not the Plaintiff could file the second class action, the trial court held that Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement, so the doctrine of res judicata did not apply since the hospital was not a party to the prior litigation or in privity with the staffing agency, FlexCare. The Court of Appeals agreed. 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center:

California employers and employees should watch the Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center case since the California Supreme Court’s decision could affect staffing agencies and how they approach settlement of claims when their clients are not also named as Defendants in the case. The issue could have a notable impact for California staffing agencies as duplicative litigation could mean they have to pay settlement costs twice due to indemnity clauses. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Key 2021 California Employment Law Case: Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC

Throughout 2020, the California courts were fairly quiet. However, there are a few significant employment law cases scheduled to appear before the California Supreme Court in 2021. 

Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC: Scheduled to Appear before California Supreme Court in 2021

Case Info: #19-31 Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, S253677. (D071865; 29 Cal.App.5th 1968; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00012605-CU-OE-CTL.) 

In 2021, Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC will appear before the California Supreme Court. The case addresses the question of whether employers can use overtime pay practices and policies to round employees’ time to shorten or delay meal periods?

The Plaintiff, Donohue, Claims AMN Violated California Labor Law: 

According to the lawsuit, AMN Services (AMN) used a computer-based system. According to the plaintiff, employees clicked on an icon to open the program each day so they could clock in and out for the start of their shift, their meal periods, and the end of their shift. According to the suit, the employee’s on the clock time (recorded in 10 minute increments) was rounded to the nearest hundredth. The Plaintiff claims there were no predetermined meal and rest  breaks, but that there was a written AMN policy that workers were to take their meal and rest breaks as mandated under California law. The plaintiff claims that AMN’s timekeeping program had a drop-down question allowing employees to indicate why they did not record a mandatory meal period, and that if they indicated they voluntarily chose not to take their 30 minute meal period, no penalty payment was provided. 

Did AMN Violate Labor Law? 

When the trial court considered the issue presented in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, they found no evidence of a uniform policy to deny employee meal periods. In the original complaint, the Plaintiff did not claim that AMN’s rounding practice was a labor law violation resulting in denial of employee meal periods. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the rounding of employee hours should not be applied to meal period time punches. The Court of Appeals argued that the California standard based on past court decisions about rounding does apply to meal periods, so the court would only need to consider how frequently the company’s rounding policy resulted in rounding up and down, rather than the number of meal period violations assessed (or circumvented). 

The California Supreme Court’s Decision on Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC

When Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC comes before the California Supreme Court in 2021, their decision could have a significant impact on related cases throughout the state. If the court agrees with the Court of Appeals the California Supreme Court decision would lend further support to the argument that rounding policies are typically acceptable for California employers. The California Supreme Court’s decision, regardless of which argument they support, will provide additional guidance on how California employers should implement any timekeeping rounding policies (including rounding policies for employee meal periods and breaks). 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, 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.

Sticker Mule, Popular Sticker and Merchandising Company, Faces Overtime Lawsuit

Tierra Bonefort, former Sticker Mule LLC and Print Bear LLC employee, filed a federal overtime lawsuit alleging the sticker-making companies violated labor law when they failed to pay overtime wages.

California Sticker Mule Employee Files Suit and Seeks Class Action Status:

Bonefort’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on October 5th. Bonefort’s suit seeks back pay, attorneys fees, and class action status. If class action status is granted, the lawsuit would allow approximately 40 other former and current Sticker Mule and Print Bear employees and workers to join the suit.

Allegations Included in the Overtime Lawsuit:

Bonefort alleges that Sticker Mule and Print Bear (mutually owned sticker making companies) did not pay appropriate overtime wages in accordance with the law (both federal and state labor law) from Sept. 12, 2018 through Jan. 31, 2020. During this time period, Bonefort often worked more than 40 hours per week at the two companies located at 49 Elk Street and 336 Forest Avenue respectively. Allegedly the companies have three shifts for workers and they offer a pay differential for late/overnight work shifts. However, they do not include the pay increase for late/overnight shifts when they calculate overtime pay rates.

In Addition to Miscalculating Overtime Pay, Defendant Failed to Issue Accurate Pay Statements

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant did not provide their employees with accurate wage statements as required by law. By law, wage statements were required to include the employer’s phone number, and the base rate for the employee’s pay. Class members allegedly did not receive pay statements with the required information. The number of overtime hours Bonefort worked during the time period in question is not listed in the lawsuit. However, the plaintiff does require class certification and to notify other potential litigants of their right to join the class.

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California 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.