Did General Atomics’ Wage Statements Violate Wage Statement Requirements?

In the General Atomics v. Superior Court case, the layout of the defendant’s wage statements are questioned in connection with mandatory wage statement requirements.

The Case: General Atomics v. Superior Court

The Court: California Court of Appeal

The Case No.: D07821l

The Plaintiff: General Atomics v. Superior Court

Plaintiff Tracy Green filed suit against General Atomics alleging that the company failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in accordance with employment law requirements (in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(9)).

The Defendant: General Atomics v. Superior Court

The defendant in the case is General Atomics. The company issued wage statements that included entries for regular rate of pay and overtime pay. The entries for regular rate hours and pay included all hours worked by an employee during the pay period, including overtime hours. The wage statements also identified the number of overtime hours, and calculated pay at a rate of 0.5 times the employee’s regular rate.

The Case: General Atomics v. Superior Court

The plaintiff in General Atomics v. Superior Court claims that the defendant failed to identify an accurate rate of pay for overtime wages. According to the plaintiff, the company showed .5 times the regular rate of pay instead of the required 1.5. The plaintiff did not claim that the employer incorrectly calculated overtime pay or that they failed to pay the accurate amount of pay. The Defendant moved for summary adjudication, arguing that their wage statements were compliant because they showed the applicable hourly rates; standard contractual hourly rate and overtime rate, as well as the hours worked at each rate. General Atomics’ motion was denied in trial court. The defendant responded by challenging the trial court’s order by petition for writ of mandate. The California Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate, so the trial court vacated the order and entered an order granting General Atomics’ summary adjudication motion. The court found that due to the complexities of determining overtime compensation in various contexts, the format used by the defendant was acceptable, and that format appropriately conveyed the information required by Section 226 and allowed employees to determine using simple math whether they were paid at an accurate rate.

If you need to discuss violations of California state law or if you need to file a California class action 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.

Jiffy Lube Employee Files Suit Claiming FEHA Violations

Jiffy Lube Employee Files Suit Claiming FEHA Violations.jpg

An African-American Jiffy Lube employee filed suit claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and Unruh Act violations. The claims were made against a non-employer company and the representative they sent to present a new product/service during a training session to Jiffy Lube employees.

The Case: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeal

The Case No.: E073174

The Plaintiff: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

African-American employee Plaintiff Robert Smith, an African-American employee at Jiffy Lube, attended a presentation for Jiffy Lube employees to learn about a new product by Defendant BP Lubricants USA, Inc. (“BP”). A BP company representative led the presentation.

The Incident: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The BP Lubricants USA Inc. representative allegedly made racially offensive comments to the plaintiff in front of his coworkers during the training presentation. Approximately 50 Jiffy Lube employees were in attendance (some at the supervisory level) when the BP representative allegedly made racially charged comments including comparing the plaintiff’s voice to Barry White, indicating the couldn’t see the plaintiff, and asking other attendees how they would feel if the plaintiff’s “big banana hands” were working on their vehicles. According to Smith, all the employees in attendance with the exception of other African-American employees laughed at the inappropriate comments (including three of the plaintiff’s own supervisors).

The Case: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

Smith sued BP and the individual company representative for harassment (in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) and racial discrimination (in violation of the Unruh Act). While BP is not the plaintiff’s employer, Smith argues that they violated FEHA’s prohibition on racial harassment in the workplace when they “aided and abetted” the Jiffy Lube employees and supervisors’ discriminatory and harassing behavior. Smith also sued the BP representative who allegedly made the offensive statements to the group for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The Defendant in the case demurred and the trial court sustained without leave to amend. Smith appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the order holding that Smith failed to allege any facts suggesting concerted activity between the named entities (BP, the BP representative, and Jiffy Lube) to violate FEHA, which is required for non-employer liability for “aiding and abetting” workplace discrimination under FEHA. However, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s orders in relation to the IIED and Unruh Act claims.

The Court’s Findings: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The court held that the BP representative’s actions were intentional and unreasonable and likely to result in illness through mental distress, which rendered the actions extreme and outrageous as an IIED claim requires. The appeals court also found that Smith plausibly alleged that the representative was acting as the business establishment while offering the training materials through the presentation since he was acting on behalf of BP Lubricants, a business generally open to the public. The court also allowed that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the BP representative treated Smith differently during the course of the presentation by targeting only him with racist comments, which violates the Unruh Act. This case is a reminder that businesses can be subject to Unruh Act liability in relation to training programs or presentations even if the presentation or training itself is not open to the public.

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.

Ladies Win Class Action Status in the Google Gender Pay Disparity Suit

Ladies Win Class Action Status in the Google Gender Pay Disparity Suit.jpg

In recent news, a class of 10,800 women win class action status in the gender pay disparity suit against Google.

The Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

The Case No.: CGC-17-561299

The Plaintiff: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, almost 11,000 women, filed the lawsuit claiming that Google pays men more than women for doing the same job. Four lead plaintiffs will represent the women in the class group over claims of gender-based pay discrimination. The plaintiffs allege violations of California’s Equal Pay Act, which is one of the strongest measures of its kind in the country.

The Defendant: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Alphabet Inc.’s Google failed to persuade the judge in the case to block class-action status for the gender-pay disparity lawsuit. Google claims that they conducted an analysis for the last several years designed to ensure pay, bonuses and equity awards are fair. The company claims that when they discover differences in pay, including gender-based disparities, they make adjustments; increasing pay to remove the disparities before new compensation goes into effect.

The History of the Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case seek more than $600 million in damages. Women at various tech companies have turned to the courts to seek equal pay and treatment at work, but have had difficulty gaining traction. Other gender disparity lawsuits on behalf of women workers in other industries (retail, finance, etc.) have seen similar results. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked 1.5 million women that worked at Walmart Inc. from pursuing discrimination clams as a class, which set the bar fairly high.

Similar Cases In a Number of Industries:

Oracle Corp. faced similar allegations last year and saw a similar ruling.

Twitter Inc. faced a lawsuit from their female engineers, but the plaintiffs were not granted class action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

Microsoft Corp. also faced claims of gender-bias, but the plaintiffs failed to win class-action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

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

Tennessee Titans Face Accusations of Firing Worker on Covid-19 Leave

Tennessee Titans Face Accusations of Firing Worker on Covid-19 Leave.jpg

In recent news, the Tennessee Titans are facing a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the NFL team violated the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (and other federal labor laws) when they terminated a field maintenance employee who took time off work when they contracted Covid-19.

The Case: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-00378

The Plaintiff: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

Paul Miller, plaintiff in the case, filed a lawsuit in Tennessee federal court against Tennessee Football, Inc. According to the suit, the NFL team terminated Miller’s employment when he tested positive for the coronavirus in November 2020 and took a couple weeks of sick leave to quarantine as recommended by the CDC. According to the lawsuit, the NFL team hired Miller as a sports field assistant in October 2019, and Miller consistently "met or exceeded" the employer’s performance expectations during his time on the job with the Titans during which his job duties included prepping the practice and game fields, helping special teams and running backs during team practices, and assisting with equipment issues.

The Defendant: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

Tennessee Football Inc. is the business entity that owns and operates the Titans, an NFL team. According to the plaintiff, he received a phone call from Daniel Werly, Titans’ General Counsel, and Allie Lessmiller, Human Resources Director, terminating him from his job on November 20th, 2020. Miller claims that the team violated the FFCRA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act and Fair Labor Standards Act.

History of the Case: Miller v. Tennessee Football Inc.

According to the plaintiff, the team fired him in violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The FFCRA was signed into law during the early days of the pandemic in March 2020. One of the protections the FFCRA offers employees is two weeks of paid emergency sick leave. The law prevents employers from firing, disciplining, or discriminating against employees that take paid sick leave under FFCRA. Miller seeks to be reinstated to his old position, seniority level and salary with the Titans. The suit also requests that the Titans take action to stop discrimination against employees due to disability. Miller seeks back pay and fringe benefits, liquidated damages (under the FLSA and FMLA), as well as attorney fees.

This is one of many lawsuits and other legal actions filed recently in response to the U.S. government adopting the first federal paid sick time mandate, the FCCRA.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or violations of FCCRA, 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.

Ex UPS Employee Files Suit Over Alleged Covid-19 Risk

Ex UPS Employee Files Suit Over Alleged Covid-19 Risk.jpg

UPS fights back against an ex employee alleging Covid-19 risk.

The Case: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

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

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-00093

The Plaintiff: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Hess, is a resident of Santa Barbara who started working as a UPS supervisor in October 2019 until May 2020 when she quit. Hess was employed at a Santa Maria UPS distribution center where she alleges “physical distancing” doesn’t exist. She filed a lawsuit in California state court in October 2020 that was later moved to federal court.

The Defendant: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

According to Hess, UPS poses a public nuisance, engages in unfair competition and does not reimburse employees for the necessary masks and other PPE equipment needed to ensure safety. Hess is seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages. UPS’s pandemic response has also been called into question by others. In fact, the company is already dealing with the Cal/OSHA regarding another California facility.

History of the Case: Desdnie Hess v. United Parcel Service Inc.

UPS requested that the California federal judge toss the proposed class action alleging that the company systematically endangered their employees’ health and safety. The plaintiff alleges that UPS left their staff vulnerable to exposure to Covid-19. UPS urged the judge to toss the proposed class action arguing that the ex-employees’ claims are better suited to be handled by a regulator rather than a judge. UPS insisted during the remote hearing that the plaintiff’s claims should be tossed and considered a workers’ comp issue and sent before a state regulator. However, Judge Alsup was concerned that referring the case to Cal/OSHA could mean Hess wouldn’t be able to recover damages for the alleged emotional distress due to lax safety protections against Covid-19 exposure in the UPS workplace. UPS continued their argument insisting that the workers’ compensation regime covers the alleged psychiatric injury in the case.

If you have questions about Covid-19 related 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.

Former Virgin Air Flight Attendants File Wage and Hour and Overtime Claims

Former Virgin Air Flight Attendants File Wage and Hour and Overtime Claims.jpg

In the case of Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc., the judge will need to consider the origin of the defendant’s policy regarding meal period and rest break provisions outside of California.

The Case: Julia Bernstein, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Virgin America, Inc., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California.

Case No.: 15–v–02277–JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case are current and former Virgin America flight attendants. The plaintiffs in the class action allege that Virgin failed to pay them for hours worked before their flights, after their flights, and between their flights, as well as time spent in mandatory training, time they were “on reserve,” time they were required to spend taking mandatory drug tests, and time spent filling out required incident reports. The plaintiffs also allege that the company did not allow them to take meal periods or rest breaks as required by law, did not pay appropriate overtime pay and minimum wage, and did not provide class members with accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Virgin American is an airline company. Headquartered in Burlingame, California, Virgin trains their flight attendants in California. In fact, the company has received millions of dollars from the to do just that. All flight attendant training for Virgin takes place in California. Many of the flights arrive or depart from a California airport, as well. The airline estimates that in the last ten years, the average number of daily flights departing California airport has never fallen below 88.6%

Background of the Case: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

In most recent news, the judge found that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption against extraterritorial application of meal and rest break requirements for breaks and rest periods that occur outside of California. This finding is based on the judge’s decision that the plaintiffs did not show that the Virgin airline company policy originated at the company’s California headquarters.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or overtime pay 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.

Does Olive Garden’s Tipping Policy Case Racial Discrimination & Harassment?

Does Olive Garden’s Tipping Policy Case Racial Discrimination Harassment.jpg

A recent lawsuit alleges that Olive Garden’s parent company, Darden Restaurants, has a tipping policy in place that causes racial discrimination, and sexual harassment.

The Case: One Fair Wage, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc., Defendant

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California Oakland Div.

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-2695

The Plaintiff: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

One Fair Wage, Inc. is an advocacy group suing Olive Garden parent Darden Restaurants. The plaintiffs allege that Darden’s company wide tipping policy encourages sexual harassment and racial discrimination towards the waitstaff in their restaurants.

The Defendant: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Darden Restaurants, Inc., was of the restaurants that actively opposed getting rid of the tipped wage. Darden Restaurants is the parent company for the popular, and well-known Olive Garden restaurant chain. Tipped minimum wage refers to the fact that in 43 states, employers are legally allowed to pay workers as little as $2.13 per hour as long as the hourly wage plus their tips add up to the local minimum wage. If it doesn’t, the employer is required to make up the difference.

Background for the Case: One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

The One Fair Wage, Inc. vs. Darden Restaurants, Inc. lawsuit alleges Olive Garden parent company’s tipping policy is the cause of racial discrimination, and sexual harassment on the job.The complaint was filed in California federal court and is the latest push in the battle against tipped minimum wage. The rate of tipped minimum wage was last raised in the early 1990s, but there was a push by Democrats to get rid of the tipped minimum wage earlier in 2021 as a part of their overall effort to raise the federal minimum wage.

If you have questions about California labor law or if you need 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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.