Tyler Technologies to Settle California Class Action with Settlement?

In recent news, Tyler Technologies agrees to pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that they don’t properly pay their employees.

The Case: Aaron Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-07647

The Plaintiff: Aaron Kudatsky

Aaron Kudatsky, the plaintiff in the case, filed the federal class action in November 2019. Kudatsky worked for Tyler Technologies as an “implementation consultant” from July 2016 to March 2019. As a Tyler Technologies “Implementation Consultant,” Kudatsky would travel to courts showing clerks how to configure new case management software and assist them in learning how to use it on their computers. While training sessions were occurring, Kudatsky remained on site. In addition to on-site training sessions, he provided remote assistance to court clerks to help set up applications and troubleshoot any problems.

The Defendant: Tyler Technologies

The defendant in the case, Tyler Technologies, is a rapidly expanding software vendor. The Defendant, Tyler Technologies, faces claims that they did not pay overtime pay, and did not provide wage statements as required by law. The plaintiff claims that while working with the company, he regularly worked well over the full-time 40 hour work week and was not paid overtime pay. He also alleges that Tyler Technologies did not provide him with accurate itemized wage statements as required by law.

Summary of the Case: Aaron Kudatsky v. Tyler Technologies

U.S. District Judge William Alsup conditionally certified a class in May 2020. In 2021, after a couple of rounds of mediation, the two parties in the case announced that they agreed on a $3.15 million settlement. Last week, the judge approved the settlement. The settlement agreement does not specify any changes to Defendant’s employment practices but will deliver $2.4 million to 294 employees. Each employee in the class will receive from $200 to $10,000. The remainder of the settlement covers attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss how to file a California class action, 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.

Ruth’s Chris Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action

According to the class action lawsuit, Ruth’s Chris allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide their workers with the meal and rest periods they are required to provide by law.

The Case: Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

The Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: MSC21-02077

The Plaintiff: Amanda M. Patterson

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda M. Patterson, alleges that Ruth’s Chris required employees to perform off the clock work before and after their scheduled work shift, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. According to California employment law, employers must pay employees on their established payday for the stated pay period, the applicable minimum wage for all hours the employee worked in that pay period. Time worked is defined as the time during which the employee is under the employer’s control, and includes time an employee is allowed to work (even if they are not required to work). The Plaintiff claims Ruth’s Chris did not provide compensation to employees for time spent working off the clock, and still under the employer’s control. Therefore, Ruth’s Chris allegedly did not pay its employees a fair minimum wage for all the hours they worked during each specified pay period as required by law.

The Defendant: RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

The defendant in the case, RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth’s Chris), is a California corporation conducting business in the State of California, Contra Costa County, and owning/managing Ruth’s Chris Steak House restaurants. The defendant faces a number of allegations as outlined in the California class action including allegedly failing to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked, provide meal and rest periods required by law, pay workers minimum wage, provide overtime pay for overtime hours worked, provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and pay wages in a timely manner. The listed allegations violate California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 1198.5.

Details About the Case: Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris)

In Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris), The Amanda M. Patterson v. RCSH Operations, Inc. (Ruth's Chris) case (MSC21-02077) is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a class action 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.

Pacific Western Bank Faces Allegations of Failing to Pay Employees Proper Wages

According to a recent lawsuit, Pacific Western Bank allegedly failed to pay employees proper wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements as required by employment law.

The Case: Keelain Gonzalez v. Pacific Western Bank

The Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County

The Case No.: CIVSB2127696

The Plaintiff: Keelain Gonzalez

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit alleges that Pacific Western Bank violated labor law numerous times by:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime pay

• failing to provide legally mandated rest and meal periods

• failing to provide accurate wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• failing to provide wages when they are due

All the above are violations of the California Labor Code including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802 as well as the applicable Wage Order. In addition, the plaintiff claims their alleged behavior gives rise to civil penalties.

The Defendant: Pacific Western Bank

Pacific Western Bank, the Defendant in the case, provides comprehensive community banking, national lending, and venture banking services.

The Case: Keelain Gonzalez v. Pacific Western Bank

The class action lawsuit (Case No. CIVSB2127696) alleges that Pacific Western Bank violated California Labor Code. According to § 226, every employer must provide their employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing. Accurate itemized wage statements should include the correct gross and net wages earned, which the Defendant in this case allegedly failed to identify. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant failed to identify the accurate total hours worked in each pay period. The lawsuit is currently pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

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

PAGA-Only Action Lawsuit Against Renoir HM Alleges California Labor Code Violation

According to a PAGA-Only action lawsuit filed recently in San Francisco County Superior Court, Renoir HM allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with mandatory meal and rest periods or provide compensation for all hours worked by employees.

The Case: Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-21-595913

The Plaintiff: Alma Heyman

The plaintiff in the case is Alma Heymen. Allegedly the Plaintiff and other employees in similar situations completed required temperature checks and mandatory Covid-19 symptom questionnaires as part of a screening process prior to clocking in for their day of work.

The Defendant: Renoir HM, LLC

The lawsuit alleges that Renoir HM, LLC failed to pay employees for all the time under Defendant's control. However, the plaintiff argues that as they were not paid for their off-the-clock work (time spent completing mandatory screening for Covid-19), the company did provide their employees for all hours worked resulting in violations of minimum wage law.

The Case: Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC

San Francisco-based employment law attorneys, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed the PAGA-Only lawsuit against Renoir HM, LLC. The lawsuit alleges the company violated Labor Code § 2699, et seq. The suit seeks penalties for alleged violation of various California Labor Codes: §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alma Heyman vs. Renoir HM, LLC (Case No. CGC-21-595913) is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

What is PAGA?

Using the PAGA mechanism, the State of California can enforce labor laws through an employee suing under PAGA as the proxy agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agency. PAGA-Only Actions are essentially law enforcement actions and are not intended for recovering damages or obtaining restitution. Instead, the PAGA creates a deputized citizen able to enforce labor law as private attorneys general.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or off-the-clock work, 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.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Former Household Manager Claims Harassment & Discrimination

The former household manager for the Zuckerberg/Chan household claims he was groped and propositioned during his time on staff.

The Case: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, Central

The Case No.:CGC-21-595337

The Plaintiff: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

John Doe, as the plaintiff is referred to in the court documents, is the former household manager for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. Doe filed suit against the billionaire couple and a string of family-related corporate entities claiming employment law violations. Doe, an openly gay man, worked as the Household Operations Manager for the family from January 2017 to March 2019.

The Defendant: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

The defendants in the case are Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, along with numerous family-related corporate entities.

The Case: John Doe v. Zuckerberg, Chan, MPPR Associates LLC, et al

John Doe’s lawsuit makes similar allegations as those made in Mia King v. Zuckerberg, Chan, et al. Doe claims he was subjected to a repeated pattern of discrimination and harassment at the hands of his senior managers and senior personnel at MPPR. Discrimination and harassment were allegedly based on Doe’s sex, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, and medical condition. In his job as household operations manager, Doe was responsible for managing various properties for the family. Doe personalized each hotel, property and residence according to Zuckerberg's specified aesthetic and comfort preferences. In summary, his job duties included travel, cataloging furniture, performing various household tasks, and completing menial labor tasks on different Zuckerberg family properties. According to the lawsuit, Doe was often subjected to sexual harassment from those in supervisory positions. For example, according to the allegations, at an MPPR hosted event at a sushi venue, the man made an explicit gesture to Doe with his food, slapped Doe’s groin when he walked by, and ignored Doe’s requests to stop - instead responding by groping Doe. Other alleged harassing activities and communications are outlined in the court documents as well. While the harassment occurred regularly in front of other employees, managers, and agents of MPPR, the company did nothing to stop the negative behaviors, investigate the harassment or protect Doe from future incidents. Doe also claims that he was required to work as many as 17 hours a day with no overtime compensation, despite classification as an hourly employee, there were few or no breaks for rest periods or meals, and his epilepsy was not taken into consideration by supervisors when the long hours without breaks began to have a negative effect on the condition and Doe advised them of the situation. He also advised his supervisors that it was dangerous to require him to carry heavy loads or climb ladders considering his medical condition, but allegedly no compensation was made for his disabilities. When Doe took his complaints to HR he claims they were categorized as gossip and he was brought to task for insubordination.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a discrimination or harassment 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.

California Federal Jury Awards Former Walmart Pharmacist $27M in Wrongful Termination Suit

A federal jury in California awarded a former Walmart pharmacist $27 million in total damages, agreeing with the plaintiff in the case that the retail giant wrongfully terminated the employee after she voiced concerns about Medicare law violations.

The Case: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

The Case No.: e 8:15-cv-00202-JGB-JCG

The Plaintiff: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

Afrouz Nikmanesh, the plaintiff in the case, is a former pharmacist employed by Walmart Stores, Inc. According to court documents, Nikmanesh was fired after complaining that the company broke Medicare laws.

The Defendant: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

According to former Walmart pharmacist, Afrouz Nikmanesh, Walmart, the Defendant in the case, failed to report required data to the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES program). The database contains information on controlled substance prescriptions dispensed throughout the state of California, and pharmacists are required to file weekly reports with the California Department of Justice.

The Case: Afrouz Nikmanesh v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

Nikmanesh alleges she reported the violations to her supervisors between July 2013 and September 2014 and requested they be investigated and corrected to comply with the law. According to the plaintiff, Walmart’s response was to fire her in September of 2014. Nikmanesh claims the firing was solely in retaliation for her reporting and complaining about the company’s failure to comply with state law. According to the plaintiff, Walmart’s failure to report required data to the CURES program was not their only violation. She claims they also violated state law by charging Medicare beneficiaries more than the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate for prescriptions, and failing to offer eligible Medicare patients their discount. A jury of 8 unanimously found that Nikmanesh’s reporting of Walmart overcharging Medicare customers (over 65 and those under 65 who have disabilities) for prescriptions, and not complying with reporting requirements for controlled substance disbursements to the Department of Justice under the CURES system created a substantial motivating factor for Walmart’s decision to terminate her employment in retaliation for her actions. A federal judge awarded the former Walmart pharmacist with $27 million in total damages in agreement that Walmart wrongfully fired her for complaining about Medicare law violations ($40,000 for economic losses, $100,000 for non-economic losses, $60,000 for future non-economic losses, and $27.3 million in punitive damages).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.

Aspen Surgery Center Faces California Class Action Lawsuit

The Aspen Surgery Center in Walnut Creek, California faces a class action lawsuit alleging the facility violated California Labor Codes.

The Case: Kristina Murdock, Noel Hudson, and Alexandra Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court

The Case No.: C21-02047

The Plaintiff: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The plaintiffs, Kristina Murdock, Noel Hudson, and Alexandra Soto, filed a class action lawsuit against Aspen Surgery Center LLC on October 1, 2021 in Contra Costa California Court. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former employees alleging that the Walnut Creek, California facility violated California labor codes. Murdock was employed by the Defendant from December 2015 to April 2020. Hudson was employed by the Defendant from April 2016 to August 2020. Soto has been employed by the Defendant since September 2017 and is currently still employed. The company classified all three workers as non-exempt employees, paid them on an hourly basis, which means they were entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages required by state and federal law.

The Defendant: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc. are listed as joint employers holding joint responsibility for any California labor code violations. According to court documents, the Defendant provides surgical care in the state of California.

The Case: Murdock, Hudson, and Soto v. Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc.

The lawsuit against Aspen Surgery Center LLC and Surgery Partners Inc. (joint employers in the case) is currently pending in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. According to the lawsuit, the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, provide legally required meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for required business expenses (employees were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones and personal vehicles to fulfill job duties without reimbursement), and failed to provide wages when they were due. These allegations all constitute labor code violations. (Violation fall under the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and alleged violations could give rise to civil penalties).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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.