February 11, 2021

Will the CRST Trainee Wage Lawsuit Be Resolved with $12.5M Settlement?

February 11, 2021/ Blog Author

The five-year old wage lawsuit against CRST may soon be resolved. A proposed $12.5 settlement could resolve the trainee wage claims. However, a former CRST driver involved in a separate lawsuit wants the federal court to oppose the settlement.

All the Details on the Case: Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Case Number: 16-10095-PBS

Court: District Court District of Massachusetts

Date Filed: January 2016

The Plaintiff in the Case: Juan Carlos Montoya

Defendant: CRST Expedited, Inc.

Allegations Made by the Plaintiff:

The Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Montoya, filed the lawsuit in January 2016, alleging that CRST Expedited, Inc. and CRST International, Inc. underpaid their long-haul truck drivers, misled long-haul trucker drivers about the costs of driver training, and assessed excessive fees to recoup costs in violation of FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act), and state law. The Plaintiff also sought class certification for a collective action.

Alleged Unpaid Training Leads to Wage and Hour Lawsuit:

According to court documents, drivers in the CRST training program were not compensated for hours worked while training. The court documents described the training program as being conducted in four phases: Driver training school (minimum of one week), Orientation (3.5 days), Training with assigned “lead” driver (28 days), and continuation training (6 months or more).

Preliminary Settlement Agreement: Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

Juan Carlos Montoya reached a preliminary settlement agreement on December 15, 2020. If granted approval, the preliminary settlement agreement would be on behalf of a class of thousands of other former CRST driver trainees. The preliminary settlement agreement with the mega carrier totals $12.5 million, and the case is being heard by Massachusetts federal court.

Wage and Hour & Off the Clock Work Claims:

The Plaintiff’s complaint claims that trainees were not paid for mandatory training in Phases 1 or 2, but rather trainees in the program accumulate “debt” owed to the company to reimburse the company for training costs like advances for tuition, lodging, drug tests, etc. According to the complaint, trainees in the last two phases of CRST’s long-haul driver training program are paid a rate per mile for any on-duty drive time, but they are not paid for any time spent loading or unloading, or any time the truck is not in transit. When considering the off the clock work, payment during the last two phases of training, is less than minimum wage.

Former California CRST Driver Opposes Settlement:

Only one day after the preliminary settlement agreement was filed, a former CRST driver involved in a California lawsuit filed an objection to the settlement (Markson v. CRST). Plaintiffs in the separate lawsuit oppose the preliminary settlement arguing that the agreement is too broad because the settlement agreement terms require plaintiffs in the Montoya case not bring any further action against CRST. This claim could disqualify class members in the Marson case with overlapping claims.

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.

February 09, 2021

Did California Farm Retaliate Against Cannabis Workers that Voiced Virus Concerns?

February 09, 2021/ Blog Author

Three sisters (Rachel, Alejandra, and Andrea Montelongo) allege that Valley Harvest LLC and Nug Farms, fired them because they raised concerns about working conditions at the cannabis farm.

All the Details on the Case: Montelongo et al. v. Valley Harvest LLC et al.

Case Number: 5:21-cv-00235

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Date Filed: Jan. 11, 2021

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Rachel Montelongo, Alejandra Montelongo, and Andrea Montelongo

Defendant: Valley Harvest LLC

The Plaintiffs in the Case: The Three Montelongo Sisters

The Plaintiffs in the case, the Montelongo sisters, are former marijuana farm workers who allege their former employer fired them for voicing complaints about working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic.

Background of the Case: Montelongo et al. v. Valley Harvest LLC et al

The sisters claim they voiced their concerns to a company executive during their short time on working on the farm. According to court documents, Rachel Montelongo needed to leave work one day citing mental health reasons, and her two sisters accompanied her. One day later, the three women were fired. Based on the sisters’ claims that the complaints they made to the Nug Farms executive concerned violations of health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, family rights protections, and disability accommodations, responding by firing the workers who complained violates employment law.

The Montelongo Sisters Work History at Nug Farms:

Valley Harvest LLC, farm labor contractor, hired the Montelongo sisters, and they started work at Nug Farms in June 2020. During their time employed on the cannabis farm, the sisters raised concerns to a company executive about the lack of compensation for time spent waiting in line for mandatory temperature checks before shifts started, and a lack of social distancing in the workplace. According to the complaint, dozens of people were required to work in cramped conditions at Nug Farms. The plaintiffs also allege that they were not provided with appropriate personal protective equipment when instructed to directly handle bleach on the job. According to the complaint, later that month Rachel Montelongo left work to obtain treatment for her postpartum depression. Her sisters left work with her. The next day, human resources called to advise one of the sisters that all three of the Montelongo sisters were fired. The company claimed that Andrea and Rachel were fired for working too slowly and tardiness. The company claimed Alejandra was fired for overwatering certain plants.

Additional Claims Made by the Plaintiffs in Montelongo et al. v. Valley Harvest LLC et al.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs also brought employment discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, multiple retaliation claims, as well as Califonia labor law violations. The Plaintiffs seek damages to compensate lost wages (both back pay and front pay), and additional lost benefits.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from workplace retaliation, 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.

February 05, 2021

Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation at Pinterest Lead to Fiduciary Breach Lawsuit

February 05, 2021/ Blog Author

After agreeing to a settlement in a recent discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, Pinterest is facing more legal trouble. Another lawsuit is making its way through the courts claiming breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and violation of 14(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the allegations in the lawsuit arise from an alleged systemic culture, policy, and practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

All the Details on the Case: Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island v. Silbermann, Sharp, Jordan, Levine, Rajaram, Reynolds, Wilson, Kilgore, Morgenfeld, and Pinterest, Inc. (Nominal Defendant)

Case Number: 3:20-cv-08438

Filed: Nov. 30, 2020

Court: Northern District of California San Francisco Division

The Plaintiffs in the Case: The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, derivatively on behalf of Pinterest, Inc.

Defendant: Benjamin Silbermann, Evan Sharp, Jeffrey Jordan, Jeremy Levine, Gokul Rajaram, Fredric Reynolds, Michelle Wilson, Leslie Kilgore, and Todd Morgenfeld, Defendants, and Pinterest, Inc., Nominal Defendant.

Pinterest’s Alleged Discrimination and Retaliation in the Workplace:

The shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in November 2020 in the Northern District of California against Pinterest, Inc. The social media platform is a visual discovery search engine used to collect ideas that went public in April 2019. The cited complaint alleges that the platform executives breached their fiduciary duties to the company by ignoring a systemic (and long-standing) culture of retaliation and discrimination. Allegedly, the company provided unequal salaries to females and racial minorities, and also failed to provide equal promotional opportunities for women based on experience and skill.

Complaint Alleges Four Causes of Action Against Defendants:

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Waste of Corporate Assets
Abuse of Control
Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14A-9

Plaintiffs claim that Pinterest’s top executives boardmembers engaged in, facilitated or knowingly ignored discrimination and retaliation against Pinterest employees who spoke up or attempted to challenge the White, male leadership clique.

Revised Version of the Complaint Filed December 31, 2020:

After the district judge assigned ordered the parties involved to revise the “copious redactions” in the original complaint, a revised version was filed on December 31, 2020. In the revised complaint, certain allegations are now public including the claim that the Pinterest Compensation Committee was aware of the inconsistent pay practices in place at Pinterest, but did not take action to oversee any discriminatory pay complaints.

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.

February 03, 2021

California Supreme Court Rules Independent Worker Test Ruling Retroactive

February 03, 2021/ Blog Author

On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled the ABC test retroactive. The test is used to determine worker classification (independent contractor or employee) under the AB 5 law. The ABC test was originally clarified in the 2018 Dynamex ruling.

Clarification of the ABC Test in the 2018 Dynamex Ruling:

In 2018, the ABC test (under AB 5) was clarified. To be classified as an independent contractor, workers must fulfill three standards:

free from the hiring entity’s control and direction of their work performance
complete work that is not typical in the business
have an independently established job done under the work done for the business

Workers who do not meet all three of the above standards (A, B, and C) should be classified as employees, making them eligible for benefits and certain protections under employment law not available to independent contractors.

The ABC Test Received a Blow from Proposition 22:

In 2020, the ABC test came under fire. First, AB 5 was weakened when many businesses covered under the law qualified as “exempt.” The second blow came in November 2020 when California voters passed Proposition 22 leaving all rideshare companies exempt from AB 5. Since the proposition passed (in a landslide), many groups have actively been attempting to overturn the proposition in court.

The Controversy Over the ABC Test Continued in the California Supreme Court:

Despite worker classification being an undeniably major issue, the controversy over the ABC test continued on to the California Supreme Court. Jan-Pro Franchising International workers brought their case to the California Supreme Court, where the court found in the workers’ favor despite the weakening of AB 5 following the passage of Proposition 22. Workers can continue filing suit against companies in violation of the ABC Test retroactively through 2018. Companies remain liable for any AB 5 violations from 2018 through the present. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye argued that there was no compelling justification to deny workers the benefit set forth by the Dynamex case.

February 01, 2021

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: 1st Light Energy Inc. Faces Lawsuit

February 01, 2021/ Blog Author

In recent news, 1st Light Energy Inc., is facing a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide workers with accurate wages, as well as other claims.

All the Details on the Case: Landin v. 1st Light Energy Inc.

Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2020-9700

Filed: Nov. 19, 2020

Court:San Joaquin County Superior Court

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Sammy Landin

Defendant: 1st Light Energy Inc.

The Lawsuit Against 1st Light Energy Inc.:

The lawsuit against 1st Light Energy Inc. is currently pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The lawsuit lists several allegations.

Failure to provide minimum wage
Failure to pay overtime pay
Failure to provide required meal and rest periods
Failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements
Failure to provide wages promptly when due
Failure to reimburse employees for necessary job-related expenses

Other Claims Made in the 1st Light Energy Lawsuit:

In addition to the claims already listed, the lawsuit alleges that the company committed acts of unfair competition violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 with a company policy failing to correctly calculate and record accurate overtime pay rates for overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff in the case and others in similar situations with the company. According to the lawsuit, the company’s failure to meet this burden was ongoing and intentional. Failing to properly calculate and pay the legally required compensation for work completed violates California Labor Code.

California Overtime Requirements: What is Overtime Pay?

Most non-exempt California employees have the legal right to payment for overtime hours worked. When the California employee works more than a certain number of hours in one day or in one work week, they are due an overtime wage as payment. Overtime pay is a type of increased payment employees earn when they work “overtime hours.” Overtime hours accrue once an employee works more than a certain number of hours in one workday or one workweek. The overtime pay rate is determined using a specific calculation based on the employee’s regular rate of pay.

January 28, 2021

Vail Resorts Faces Lawsuit Alleging Labor Law Violations

January 28, 2021/ Blog Author

On Dec. 3, 2020, three employees filed a lawsuit against Vail Resorts alleging the company violated federal and California state labor law, and multiple other states’ labor laws. Plaintiffs in the case seek class action status.

All the Details on the Case: Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

Case No.: 1:2020cv03569

Filed: December 3, 2020

Court:United States District Court for the District of Colorado

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Randy Dean Quint, Mark Molina and John Linn

Defendant: Vail Resorts Inc.

Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status for Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in early December 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of R. Quint, J. Linn, and M. Molina seeks class action status. If granted, class action status would include eligible current and former employees of Vail Resorts for the last three years. Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Defendant exploited seasonal employees and violated both federal and state labor laws. The lawsuit seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for alleged violations and fairly compensate plaintiffs and others in similar circumstances for damages some estimate at over $100 million.

The Plaintiffs Seek Others to Join the Class Action:

Plaintiffs in the case seek others in similar situations to join the proposed class action against Vail Resorts. According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts broadcasts above-market hourly wages for their workers, but they allegedly did not pay hourly employees for all hours worked at the rate agreed upon in employment contracts. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant’s employment law violations applied to ski instructors, snowboard instructors, ticket scanners, lift operators, etc. All are allegedly not fully paid for their entire shift, according to the lawsuit. “Off the clock” work that was allegedly left unpaid included some training, travel time, dressing time, use, purchase or maintenance of ski/snowboard equipment, and use, purchase or maintenance of cell phones.

Workers Allegedly Not Paid for All Hours Worked:

According to the lawsuit, Quint was employed as a seasonal Vail Resorts employee and full-time snow sport instructor at Beaver Creek Resort for seven years. The Plaintiff claims during that time he worked 470 hours for which he did not receive payment, as well as 422 hours of allegedly unpaid overtime.

According to the lawsuit, Linn was a part-time employee and full-time snow sports instructor at Beaver Creek. The Plaintiff claims he worked 213 hours that were not paid, as well as 130 hours of unpaid overtime during his years with the company.

January 26, 2021

$7.5M Settles Ikea Class Action Wage and Hour Suit

January 26, 2021/ Blog Author

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.

California Labor Laws