$1.5 Million Settles Timeshare Company’s Wage Class Action

In recent news, a timeshare company agrees to settle a California wage and hour class action for $1.5 million.

Details of the Case: Anders Pagh v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.

Court: United States District Court Central District of California

Case No.: 8:19-cv-00812

California Federal Judge Approves $1.5M Settlement:

A California federal judge approved the $1.5 million settlement to resolve two consolidated wage and hour class actions. The class actions were brought by sales workers claiming a timeshare company, Wyndham Destinations Inc. and their subsidiary shorted them earned wages and mandatory paid rest periods. U.S. District Judge John Holcomb issued the final judgment approving the settlement between the two parties. The court found that the proposed settlement offered notable monetary recovery for class members and that the suggested amount was fair, adequate, and reasonable in comparison to continued litigation and the associated costs for both parties.

The Plaintiffs:

The plaintiffs in the case were sales representatives of Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. and Wyndham Destinations Inc. who alleged that the commission pay system used by the giant timeshare company cheated them out of fair wages, violated minimum wage law, and violated mandatory rest break laws. Originally, the plaintiffs, Pagh and Lee Forney, filed two separate wage and hour class actions against the Wyndham brands. However, the two plaintiffs entered a joint prosecution agreement in summer of 2019.

Allegations in the Case:

The plaintiffs in the case claim they worked under commission or a commission-draw system. Under this system, employees were effectively paid an advance on their projected future sales. Based on this pay system, workers claimed they didn’t receive payment for non-sales-related work time. They also claim they didn't get paid 10-minute rest breaks while working for Wyndham on commission. In a motion for preliminary settlement approval, Wyndham brands argued that their pay system was not commission-draw based.

The Results of the Settlement:

The approved $1.5 million settlement will cover plaintiffs’ attorney fees, costs, and settlement administration costs, as well as $10,000 service awards for two lead plaintiffs, Anders Pagh and Jerry Lee Forney. Class members include current and former California sales force employees employed by Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. and Wyndham Destinations Inc. as long as they were paid on commission between July of 2017 and April of 2020.

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 various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SpaceX Faces Claims of Hiring Discrimination Based on Citizenship Status

SpaceX, the well known space exploration company owned by Elon Musk, faces claims of hiring discrimination. Allegedly, the rocket company discriminated against applicants due to citizenship status by refusing to hire non-U.S. citizens.

Details of the Case: U.S. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

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

Case No.: 2:21-mc-00043

The Defendant in the Case:

The Defendant in the case, SpaceX, is owned by Elon Musk. In May of 2020, Fabian Hunter, a dual citizen of both Australia and Canada, filed a discrimination complaint against SpaceX regarding their hiring practices. An investigation ensued to discover whether or not SpaceX engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on applicants’ citizenship status. In particular, it’s alleged that SpaceX refused to hire non-U.S. citizens.

Allegations Made Against SpaceX:

The DOJ filed suit against SpaceX in January alleging that the company failed to comply with an October subpoena requiring the release of information regarding their standard hiring process. The court was asked to enforce compliance of the subpoena. For the purposes of the investigation, SpaceX was asked to provide company-wide I-9 data and documentation for newly hired employees. They did so, but only for approximately 3,500 employees, and without the appropriate supporting documentation (social security cards, driver’s licenses, green cards, etc.)

The U.S. Magistrate’s Recommendation:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner recommended the request to enforce the subpoena against Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, be granted after determining the scope was not overly broad and did not create an undue burden for the company. As such, the California magistrate recommended SpaceX be made to comply with the investigations into discriminatory hiring procedures, including alleged unfair documentary practices in their employment eligibility verification.

If you have questions about California labor law and how it protects you during the hiring process, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Are Recycling Sorters Owed a Prevailing Wage?

When the California Supreme Court affirmed an appellate decision in late March 2021, California Justices confirmed that recycling sorters are owed a prevailing wage. 

Details of the Case: David Kaanaana et al. v. Barrett Business Services Inc. et al.

Court: California Supreme Court

Case No.: S253458

The Defendant in the Case: 

The Defendant in the case is a company supplying sorters at a sanitation district-owned Los Angeles recycling facility. The Defendant argued that the governing Depression-era statute was only applicable to construction work and that the law did not expand the type of work the prevailing wages requirement covered (as found in Section 1720(a)(2). 

The Plaintiff in the Class Action: 

The plaintiffs in the case were California workers that filed suit against Barrett and their former manager on behalf of belt sorters in general that were employed at two different locations of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2 between April of 2011 and September of 2013. The class of workers insisted they were owed a prevailing wage per the state Legislature’s 1937 enactment of the Labor Code.  The Code incorporated provisions of a 1931 Public Wage Rate Act in the newly codified Public Works Chapter. And workers, in direct opposition to Barrett’s argument, insisted that the law covers more than construction work. 

An Overview of the Case:

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Carol Corrigan, the high court pronounced that Barrett Business Services Inc.’s interpretation of the state statute wasn’t adequate, and that the law (in effect since the late 1930’s) intended to include additional types of work outside of construction and installation work (as in the 1931 uncodified version). At trial, the court granted Barrett’s motion to strike the prevailing wage allegations. However, the state court of appeal reversed the ruling. Justice Corrigan disagreed with Barrett’s arguments that the law applied only to construction work, instead stating that the covered district provision provides a definition depending on the governmental district for which work is performed rather than the type of tasks performed on the job.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Northrop Faces ERISA Class Action In Response to Pension Cuts

Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. faced allegations of ERISA violations in a recent California class action.  

Details of the Case: Baleja v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan et al.

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

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00235

Getting to Know the Case: The Allegations

In Baleja v. Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan et al., Northrop Grumman Corp faces ERISA class action. The ERISA class action includes allegations that the group improperly slashed from 1,000 to 2,000 retiree pensions. A California federal judge that heard the original claims, trimmed the suit but allowed it to continue to trial with the core claims intact. 

Getting to Know the Case: The Case Progresses

U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal dismissed the retirees’ claim that a pension plan document they unearthed flouted the ERISA disclosure requirement. However, the same judge preserved accusations that the defendant improperly cut retirees’ pensions, and that in doing so, violated federal law. Judge Bernal felt it was too soon to grant the motion for summary judgement for either party. Before doing so, he could need answers to key questions about the pension cuts. 

The Retiree Pension Cuts: Brought On by an Amendment

The cuts referenced in the case refer to retiree pension cuts brought about by a pension plan amendment. The amendment, called the ESL offset provision, was added decades ago in the 1980s. The court will seek answers to these key questions during the trial phase. 

Questions About the ESL Offset Provision: 

The court will need to determine the appropriate interpretation of the ESL offset provision, as well as the 1986 TRW plan as the case moves forward. The ERISA class action was launched years ago in February of 2017. The claims were originally filed by John Baleja, a retiree who was an employee of subsidiary of the aerospace and automotive company TRW Inc.(this company was an acquisition of Northrop in 2002). 

The Pension Plan Termination: 

The subsidiary’s pension plan was terminated in the mid 80’s. Baleja and other ESL Inc. employees and retirees became part of the TRW pension plan. When terminated, the old plan made payments to those transitioning into the new plan (TRW’s pension plan). According to court documents related to the case, Baleja received payments totaling $4,078. An offset was applied when Northrup acquired TRW. The amount was based on the termination payment. According to Baleja, Northrup significantly overcalculated the offset amount. Baleja alleged that the company cut his approximate $1,000 pension by close to 50% based on the fact that he received a payout of a few thousand dollars in the 1980s. 

The Class Members: 

Class members include plan members who had their accrued pension benefits cut due to the ESL offset since the end of 1984. Class certification was granted in March 2020, and estimates of class numbers are between 1180 and 2000. 

If you have questions about ERISA violations or the law protects you, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Chef Claims Wrongful Termination After Injury

A posh California hotel and marina is facing claims of wrongful termination from a former executive chef. The former executive chef, Eric Sauber, filed a suit against Westgroup Portofino LLC and The Portofino Hotel & Marina of Redondo Beach in Los Angeles County claiming the company fired him claiming business was slow due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but that they quickly hired another person without Sauber’s medical disabilities to fill his executive chef position at the resort and marina.

All the Details of the Case: Eric Sauber v. Westgroup Portofino LLC et al

Case No.: 21STCV08200

Court: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles

Plaintiff, Former Head Chef, Alleges California Hotel Wrongly Fired Him Over Injury

Eric Sauber, former executive chef for a high-end California hotel and marina, filed his complaint in the Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit includes allegations that the resort wrongfully terminated him after he sustained a work-related injury and took legally protected medical leave. Soon after Sauber provided his work-related restrictions to the company, the company allegedly terminated him claiming his position (executive chef) was being eliminated due to inadequate business. According to the complaint, this occurred while the plaintiff was on protected medical leave.

The Plaintiff’s History with the Company:

According to the complaint, Sauber took the job at Portofino in 2019. He worked at the beachside hotel’s restaurant through February 2020. In February of 2020, Sauber sustained a work injury and an orthopedic surgeon placed him on sedentary work restrictions for about a month. After learning of the restrictions, the resort’s human resources director contacted Sauber and let him know he was terminated from his position, and advised him that if business improved he would be reinstated. Contrary to HR’s claims, Sauber soon learned that another employee at the resort was promoted to Sauber’s former position as top chef. The new executive chef’s name was even promoted publicly on the company’s website - advertising a “chef’s table” overseen by chef Hung Quan at BaleenKitchen in the Portofino hotel.

The Basics of the Case: Eric Sauber v. Westgroup Portofino LLC et al

Sauber sustained a slip-and-fall injury in the bathroom while at work. The injuries were serious enough to require arthroscopic knee surgery. After surgery, Sauber took protected medical leave in order to fulfill restrictions prescribed by a doctor. While he was on medical leave, the company told him they were forced to lay him off due to the negative effect of Covid-19 on the hotel’s business. Another hotel employee was quickly given Sauber’s former title and position at the hotel’s restaurant, and was even advertised as the head chef in online advertisements for the restaurant. Sauber’s counsel attempted to settle the matter out of court, but negotiations failed, and Sauber filed suit against Portofino under California's Private Attorneys General Act and the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Sauber cites various violations including: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate his disabilities, retaliation and wrongful termination.

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

Can Geico Employees Keep their Wage Suit Alive?

In recent news, Geico attempted to have an overtime pay lawsuit tossed, but in this instance, auto claim adjusters alleging the company forced workers to work off the clock, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods as required by law.

Details of the Case: Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc.

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

Case No.: 2:20-cv-11722

Workers Filed a Collective and Class Action:

In December 2020, workers filed a collective and class action alleging Geico employees were required to work off the clock, and work through breaks without appropriate compensation. The push to work through breaks and off the clock was allegedly a company effort to meet inspection quotas and employees claim they feared refusing could result in poor performance evaluations. Plaintiffs Alexander Rieske and Saul Gonzalez filed the suit alleging violations of California and New York state laws, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the motion, thirteen other adjusters have already joined the plaintiffs.

Defendant Files a Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Jurisdiction:

In March 2021, Geico filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that there was no practical reason to litigate out-of-state claims in California and indicating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims in the case. In their opposition filing, plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court decision the insurer relied on to push for dismissal of the nationwide collective action (and the New York state class action) doesn’t apply because unlike the Supreme Court case, Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. involves federal claims brought in federal court.

Does the 2017 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Decision Apply?

When filing for dismissal, Geico cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. However, plaintiffs in the suit claim this decision does not apply to the current case since Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court pertained to state jurisdiction finding that California state courts could not adjudicate mass tort claims when plaintiffs were not from California. The Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. action is different because it concerns federal claims in federal court. Plaintiffs further argued that if the court accepted the position presented by Geico that federal courts cannot hear out-of-state claims brought under FLSA, it would effectively eliminate the collective nature of the FLSA.

California Federal Court Finds Bristol-Myers Decision Does Not Apply:

In October 2020, the California federal court’s decision stated that the Bristol-Meyers decision does not apply to FLSA claims brought in federal court (including the current action).

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file FLSA claims, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Aldi Agrees to Pay $2M in California Overtime Pay Lawsuit

Aldi, a discount grocery store chain, recently agreed to a $2 million settlement to end a California overtime lawsuit.

The Details of the Case: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

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

Case No.: 2:19-cv-03109

Overview of the Suit: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Thousands of California employees claim that Aldi, the discount grocery store chain, cheated them out of overtime wages. In summer 2020, the discount grocery store chain negotiated a settlement to shut down the overtime pay dispute. This is not the only time the Illinois-based company negotiated to resolve an overtime pay violation claim.

Other Overtime Pay Suits this Defendant Faced:

Aldi, the discount grocery store chain that faced allegations of overtime pay violations from California workers in 2020, previously settled claims with a group of New York store managers alleging they were ot paid for all hours they worked for $10 million. It was just a year after this $10 million wage and hour settlement that a pair of California employees for the same company unveiled their suit including similar allegations.

The Settlement: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

The two California workers involved in the California wage and hour lawsuit, filed the settlement in federal court on March 29, 2021. They seek settlement approval from U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt. Initially, the two (Grant and Lacey-Salas) filed two separate suits in 2020, but the court granted approval to consolidate the two cases in March 2021. Both plaintiffs alleged that the discount grocery store where they were employed did not provide California employees with full compensation for the hours they worked.

Seeking Settlement Approval in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit Against Aldi:

The plaintiffs are seeking settlement approval and hope to have payouts approved ranging from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand for themselves and for the 2,050+ workers in 70 different Aldi’s locations throughout California employed during the past 5 years.

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.