$7.5M Settles Ikea Class Action Wage and Hour Suit

In recent news, Ikea agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California labor laws. 

All the Details on the Case: Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

Case Number: 19-cv-01182

The Plaintiff in the Case: Cahilig

Defendant: Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The History of the Case: Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The class action lawsuit alleged that Ikea violated California labor laws by failing to provide employees with paid rest breaks. Plaintiffs in the case also claimed that Ikea’s written rest period policy violated California labor law because the policy required that Ikea employees stay on site during their paid rest periods. Ikea employees were also allegedly required to take their breaks in the Staff Cafe or other specified non-work areas on site. 

What Determines the Rest Break Violation in Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC

The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that to fulfill labor law requirements, California employers must relinquish control over how their employees spend their time during rest breaks and meal periods. 

Plaintiff in the Case Made Additional Allegations: 

In addition to citing rest period violations, plaintiffs in the case claim that Ikea failed to provide wages owed to their employees in a timely manner along with accurate wage statements. 

Judge Gives Settlement Preliminary Approval: 

On June 17, 2020, a federal judge gave the proposed settlement agreement preliminary approval. Ikea agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the class action lawsuit. 

The Class Action and the Settlement: 

In Cahilig et al v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, 6.400 class members will receive 75% of the full settlement amount. The remaining funds will go toward attorneys’ fees and associated costs. 

If you need to discuss California labor law violations in the workplace or if you need to file a California 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.

Rideshare App Drivers File Suit to Overturn California Prop 22 Measure

Some drivers for rideshare app drivers and delivery services filed a lawsuit to overturn a California Proposition 22, a ballot initiative making rideshare app drivers independent contractors rather than employees. The employee classification determines worker eligibility for benefits, and job protections applicable to common issues like overtime pay, minimum wage, etc. 

Rideshare App Drivers Wish to Overturn California Prop 22 Ballot Measure

The drivers filed the lawsuit with the California Supreme Court claiming that the ballot measure is unconstitutional since it limits the Legislature’s power to grant workers the right to organize and exclude drivers from workers’ compensation eligibility. 

The Ballot Measure: California Prop 22

Voters approved the ballot measure in November 2020 (with almost 60% of the vote). California Prop 22 received heavy financial support from major rideshare app companies like Uber and Lyft, amounting up to $200 million. Drivers opposing the proposition were joined by labor unions that spent approximately $20 million to challenge the proposition. 

California’s Prop 22: Challenged in Court

The proposition is the most expensive one in California history. Once Prop. 22 was certified, opposing groups could challenge it in court. Prop. 22 supporters insist voters spoke clearly when they passed the ballot measure in a landslide. The fate of Prop. 22 will be left to the state Supreme Court. 

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.

Del Taco Sexual Harassment Suit Ending with $1.25M Settlement?

In recent news, Del Taco agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged sexual harassment and retaliation against female employees. 

Allegations of Sexual Harassment Cited in Lawsuit: 

According to the lawsuit (EEOC v. Del Taco, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-1978 CAS (SPX)), a Del Taco general manager and shift leader at the Rancho Cucamonga, California location sexually harassed young female employees daily. The alleged harassment included unwelcome physical contact, vulgar comments, and sexual propositions. According to the plaintiffs’ claims, the rampant harassing behavior on the part of the shift leader and general manager led other male employees to engage in similar behavior. The young female employees claim they complained to human resources, but that the company failed to respond to the complaints. Some of the workers claim they had no other choice but to quit. 

Sexual Harassment Allegations Led to 2018 Lawsuit:

Del Taco was initially sued in connection to these sexual harassment allegations in 2018. However, in the years since, sexual harassment is still a common issue in restaurant work spaces - particularly in the fast food industry. Del Taco is not the only major fast food chain facing similar allegations. McDonald’s is also facing a class action lawsuit citing allegations of pervasive sexual harassment of female employees (filed in April 2020). The Del Taco $1.25M settlement is one of the largest financial settlements for a sexual harassment case in 2020. 

Additional Requirements Included in the Sexual Harassment Settlement: 

In addition to the financial settlement, Del Taco agreed to make some changes to their policy, and training practices. The company agreed to a three-year consent decree including company-wide injunctive relief with the purpose of preventing workplace harassment and retaliation. Del Taco will retain an EEO to monitor, review, and revise applicable policies and procedures related to discrimination, harassment and retaliation. A new structure will be created for employees to use when reporting discrimination or harassment. Del Taco will also need to provide all employees with training on anti-discrinination laws emphasizing sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Projections Regarding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: 

Updated training is helpful and will likely improve the situation for many, but it will not solve the problem. This won’t be the last sexual harassment case or sexual harassment case settlement. 

If you need to discuss sexual harassment in the workplace or if you need to file a California sexual harassment 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’s New Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law Effective Jan. 1, 2021

California employers are preparing to implement new policies and procedures to comply with California’s new Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law going into effect January 1, 2021, California A.B. 685. 

What is California A.B. 685: California’s New Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law

The new law creates reporting obligations requiring California employers to provide their employees, local public health officials, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) with written notice of Covid-19 cases. The law is in place effective January 1, 2021 through January 1, 2023. Failing to comply with the new law leaves California employers open to civil penalties and citations. 

Summary of California’s New Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law: 

California A.B. 685, California’s new Covid-19 Exposure and Notification Law, is codified under California Labor Code section 6409.6 (and sections 6325 and 6432). Applicable sections define new requirements for California employers regarding the notification of employees, their subcontracted workers’ employees, union representatives, etc. of any suspected or confirmed cases of Covid-19. The new law also stipulates requirements regarding California employers’ obligation to report workplace “outbreaks” of Covid-19 to local health departments, and the appropriate agencies. Notification should occur within one business day of the possible exposure based on any confirmed positive case of Covid-19 in the workplace. 

Written Notice Requirements for California Employers:

When a California provides “written notice” of a potential Covid-19 exposure, the written notice may include any delivery method (hand delivery, email or text), as long as the delivery method allows the employee to receive the notice within one day of it being sent. The notice must be provided in both English and the language used/understood by the majority of the employees in the workforce. Notices of potential exposure should not include the name of the employee who tested positive for Covid-19 in order to protect the employee’s privacy. Employers are required to maintain a record of any written notice of possible Covid-19 exposure sent to employees for a minimum of three years. Employers must report any “Covid-19 outbreaks” to their local public health agency within 48 hours of learning of the situation. As of Dec. 3, 2002, a Covid-19 outbreak in a non-healthcare workplace is defined by the CDPH as having at least three probable or lab confirmed Covid-19 cases among workers at the same worksite within a 14-day period. 

California Employers Should Take Action to Comply with New Standards Now:

California employers should take action right away in order to coordinate documentation and tracking procedures, in addition to necessary safety processes and notification methods, to keep their workforce safe and comply with new requirements. California employers’ efforts to comply should involve: 

• Creating and implementing safe, effective procedures to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19 in the workplace. 

• Documenting and implementing disinfectant procedures for confirmed Covid-19 exposures in the workplace. 

• Developing an effective employee notification process for any potential Covid-19 exposures. 

• Developing applicable documentation and a process for notifying employees regarding Covid-19 benefits. 

If you need to discuss Covid-19 dangers in the workplace or if you need to file a California employment law class action, 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.

Did 7 Eleven Fail to Provide California Employees with Wages and a Place to Sit?

7‑Eleven® is a well known gas station and convenience store throughout the nation. The company started out as Southland Ice Company in Oak Cliff, Texas in 1927. In 1946, the store’s operating hours were a standard 7am to 11pm, and the company changed their name to 7 Eleven. In recent news, this popular convenience store with locations nationwide is making the news for alleged employment law violations. 

The Case: The 7 Eleven, Inc., class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2020-00043637-CU-OE-CTL

7-Eleven faces a class action lawsuit alleging wrongful termination.

The Allegations Made Against 7 Eleven: 

In recent news, a class action wrongful termination lawsuit was filed alleging that 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to provide their California employees with accurate wages or suitable seating conditions on the job. The 7 Eleven class action lawsuit is pending in the San Diego Superior Court of the State of California. 

California Employers are Required to Compensate Employees for All Time Worked: 

According to the complaint, 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to compensate their California employees for the time they worked. Time worked, when referring to employment law violations, is defined as time an employee was under their employer’s control. For example, from time to time, 7 Eleven employees were allegedly interrupted during their meal breaks or rest periods by work assignments. As a result, employees were performing job duties “off the clock.” When an employee performs work off the clock, they are not being paid for time spent working, which is a violation of California labor law. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant was allegedly aware (or should have been aware) that the plaintiff in the case (and other similarly situated California employees) were working off the clock. And if an employer is aware that their employees are working off the clock, the employer is also aware that they are not providing payment to their employees for all hours worked. If allegations are true, 7 Eleven California employees were not being paid accurate minimum wage and overtime pay. 

Additional Allegations Made Against 7 Eleven in the Class Action: 

The 7 Eleven lawsuit also includes allegations of wrongful termination, and an allegation that the company failed to provide seating for employees who spent the majority of their time on the clock behind a counter. According to the lawsuit, the vast majority of work duties performed behind the counter can be reasonably accomplished while using a stool or other seat.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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 Wage and Hour Laws: Do They Extend to Offshore Workers?

A recent case, Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, brings to light an interesting question for employees stationed off the shore of California. Which state’s wage and hour laws apply to an employee? Is it the state the employer is located? Is it the state in which they applied and interviewed for the job? Is it the state in which they acknowledged receipt of employment documentation and contracts? Is it the state in which they live while they work offshore? These are the questions being asked in this case. 

The Case: Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County

Case Info: Case number B298318, in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District

In Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, three employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming their employers violated California laws pertaining to minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest periods, providing accurate wage statements, and maintaining accurate wage statement records. The employers moved for summary judgment arguing that California labor laws do not apply, but the trial court denied the motion. 

The Employment Situation of Gulf Offshore Logistics Employees Stationed Offshore:

According to lawsuit documents, employees of Gulf Offshore Logistics provided maintenance service for offshore oil platforms located outside California’s boundaries. The vessel transporting the employees to the oil platforms so they could perform their job duties docked in a California port. Employees reached the California port by flying in and out of Los Angeles, California. The vessel sailed through the Santa Barbara channel (located within California’s state law boundaries), but then sailed out of California waters to reach oil platforms in need of service. 

The Court of Appeals Found that California Labor Law Did Not Apply: 

Due to a number of notable facts, the Court of Appeals found that California Labor did not apply. Notable facts that were considered prior to the Court of Appeal’s decision included: 

• The employer, Gulf Offshore Logistics, were LLCs formed under Louisiana law. 

• Members were all Louisiana residents. 

• Employees applied for and interviewed for their jobs in Louisiana. 

• Employees acknowledged receipt of employment documents in Louisiana. 

• Employees did not reside in California. 

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals decided that Louisiana had more significant contacts with the parties involved and a greater interest in regulating this particular employer/employee relationship than the state of California. 

The California Supreme Court on Related Cases: 

The California Supreme Court decided two related cases - both concerning the application of California wage and hour law to employees performing work for employers (both in and out of California). The first is Ward v. United Airlines (2020) 9 Cal.5th 732. The second is Oman v. Delta Air Lines (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762. In Ward v. United Airlines, the Court considered the application of California’s wage settlement requirement and held that workers are “covered...if they perform the majority of their work in California.” The court also found that if they do not perform the majority of their work in any one state, they will be covered if they are based “for work purposes in California.” In Oman v. Delta Air Lines, the California Supreme Court extended the holding to Section 204 governing timing of wage payments. The court found that requirements regarding wage statements in this section apply only during those pay periods when the employee was based in California or performed work primarily in California. In both cases, the California Supreme Court stated it would not be appropriate to adopt a single test to determine application of California wage and hour law to multistate workers since it would vary depending on the statute and the situation. 

In Light of California Supreme Court Decisions, the Court of Appeals Adjusted their Findings: 

After the California Supreme Court decision on both the Ward and Oman cases, the Court of Appeals adjusted their stance on Gulf Offshore Logistics, LLC et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County. The Court of Appeals’ new decision was that the most relevant issue was where the work was performed. Gulf Offshore Logistics could seek further review from the California Supreme Court.                          

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it applies to multi-state employment arrangements, 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.

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.