Helzberg's Diamond Shops Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops face a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging they failed to pay wages to their employees.

The Case: Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The Court: Superior Court of California County of Alameda

The Case No.: 21CV003531

The Plaintiff: Eduardo Ybarra

Eduardo Ybarra, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that his employer, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC failed to provide meal and rest breaks required by law. The rigorous work schedules of Helzberg’s Diamond Shop employees apparently left them unable to take their off-duty meal breaks, and when they did take a break, they were not fully relieved from work duties. According to the plaintiff, employees were sometimes interrupted during their off-duty meal periods in order to complete work duties.

The Defendant: Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The defendant in the case, Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC, opened their first Helzberg Diamonds over a century ago in Kansas, and now has more than 200 jewelry stores across the nation.

Summary of the Case: Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC

The Eduardo Ybarra v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops LLC lawsuit alleges that employees were required to perform their job duties for shifts lasting over 5 hours without receiving an off-duty meal break or rest period. Additionally, the class action claims that the employer failed to offer employees their second off-duty meal period each working day they completed shifts lasting longer than ten hours. Due to the policy in place at Helzberg’s Diamonds Shops, employees claim they needed to remain on call and on duty even during what was considered their “off-duty” meal periods and breaks. Since “off-duty” meal periods and breaks are defined as not being under the company’s control, employees claim they were regularly forfeiting their meal breaks, but the company did not provide them with the necessary added compensation.

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.

Former Farmers Insurance Attorney Awarded $155 Million by Jury in California Retaliation Suit

A jury awarded a former Farmers Insurance Attorney that sued for wrongful termination and retaliation $155 million.

The Case: Andrew Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Group

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District

The Case No.: BC630158

The Plaintiff: Andrew Rudnicki

The plaintiff in the case, Andrew Rudnicki, ran Farmers Insurance’s in-house branch legal offices. He claims he was wrongfully terminated and that other civil rights of his were also violated. Rudnicki describes the decision to terminate his employment as discriminatory or retaliatory. According to the lawsuit, Rudnicki was with Farmers for 37 years before he was fired. He started as a trial attorney in 1979 and rose from supervising attorney to senior vice president.

The Defendant: Farmers Insurance & Farmers Insurance Group

When Rudnicki was being prepared to offer deposition testimony in another case, Coates v. Farmers Insruance Group Inc., the trouble started. Rudnicki was aware of certain pay data that the company withheld that probably instigated the Coates case, an equal pay case in California federal court. Rudnicki had information regarding sex bias occurring in the companies’ legal departments, as well. The Coates was eventually settled, and Rudnicki pointed out that he played a part in significantly increasing the number of women in management jobs during his tenure as vice president.

Details About the Case: Andrew Rudnicki v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Farmers Insurance Group

According to the jury, Rudnicki’s role as a witness (or a potential witness) in the sex bias case was a substantial motivating factor behind his termination from Farmer’s. The jury’s verdict came down in favor of Rudnick including $150 million in punitive damages. It’s been said the $150 million award is the third-largest of its kind in the state and the largest ever seen in Los Angeles County.

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.

Magic Mile LLC Faces Class Action for Allegedly Violating California Labor Code

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Magic Mile LLC allegedly failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Alessandro Dirienzo vs. Magic Mile LLC

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00050292-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Alessandro Dirienzo

The plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit alleges that Magic Mike LLC engaged in various California Labor Code violations:

all in violation of 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 thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to provide overtime payment

• failing to provide rest and meal periods employees are legally required to offer

• failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• failing to provide wages when they are due

For more information regarding how these practices and procedures allegedly violate the California Labor Code, see: Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802 as well as the applicable Wage Order. According to the lawsuit, the alleged violations give rise to civil penalties. The plaintiff in the case was employed from May 2021through June 2021. During his time with the company, he was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly, and entitled to both legally required meal and rest periods as well as payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendant: Magic Mile LLC

Magic Mile LLC, the Defendant in the case, is a California company providing freight shipment services.

The Case: Alessandro Dirienzo vs. Magic Mile LLC

According to the lawsuit, Magic Mile LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve Plaintiff and other California Class Members of their work duties during their meal breaks. According to the suit, employees were also sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without their legally required ten (10) minute rest period. In order to fulfill labor code requirements, employers must not only offer meal and rest periods in accordance with the law, but they must also relieve workers of their work duties during this time. For a rest period to qualify as “off duty” the employee must be free from their employer’s control.

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.

Performance Foodservice Allegedly Owes Tens of Thousands of Employees Unpaid Wages and Overtime

A Performance Foodservice employee filed a California overtime lawsuit seeking retribution for labor violations.

The Case: Alvarez v. Performance Foodservice et al

The Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2021mc80299

The Plaintiff: Gerardo Alvarez

The plaintiff, Gerardo Alvarez, sued the company citing a number of labor law violations including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, denied meal and rest periods, and waiting time penalties. Alvarez claims he experienced the violations firsthand during his years working for the food distributor.

The Defendant: Performance Foodservice and Performance Food Group, Inc.

Defendant in the case, Performance Foodservice, is a wholly-owned division of Performance Food Group, Inc., a Colorado-based corporation that engages in business in various California locations (Gilroy, Livermore, and City of Industry).

The Case: Alvarez v. Performance Foodservice et al

In the December 2021 lawsuit, Alvarez claims that the company provided non-compliant, non-itemized salary documentation, did not pay required compensatory premiums, and regularly rounded down when calculating employee hours worked. The class includes non-exempt hourly Performance Foodservice California employees that worked for the company during the last four years. The plaintiff believes that the putative class in the case could include as many as “tens of thousands” of employees. According to Alvarez, the company required employees to work off the clock by mandating that they answer work-related questions before and after their shifts. Alvarez also claims that the company required employees to work more than eight hours and did not provide full compensation for hours worked. the company is also facing allegations that they refuse to pay wages in a timely manner and deny employees their mandatory rest and meal breaks. The practices that allegedly violate employment law were also allegedly a widespread standard throughout all of the company’s California locations.

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.

Another Chance for LinkedIn ERISA Suit Plaintiffs

After finding deficiencies in plaintiffs’ claims of impudence and disloyalty in connection to specific investments and plan fees, Judge Edward J. Davila offers LinkedIn ERISA suit plaintiffs time to correct the issues.

The Case: Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson v. LinkedIn

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

The Case No.: 5:20-cv-05704-EJD

The Plaintiff: Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson

One current and two former participants of the LinkedIn Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust filed an ERISA lawsuit claiming that LinkedIn, its 401(k) committee for breaches of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) fiduciary duties, and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties. According to the plaintiffs’ claims, the LinkedIn plan maintained over $164 million in assets over the course of the class period (and over $817 million in 2018), which qualifies the plan as a large plan in the DC plan marketplace with substantial bargaining power regarding the fees charged against participants’ investments. The plaintiffs allege that the fiduciaries did not leverage their bargaining power to attempt to reduce plan expenses or carefully consider each investment option offered in the plan to ensure it was a good option.

The Defendant: LinkedIn

The Defendant in the case, LinkedIn, argued that the plaintiffs did not claim to have actually invested in any of the challenged funds, and therefore did not establish that they suffered a concrete injury (according to the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A.) However, the judge did indicate that claims based on excessive management fees would not require plaintiffs to plead their individual investment in specific funds if management fees are charged to all plan participants regardless of their chosen investments in the plan.

Summary of the Case: Douglas G. Bailey, Jason J. Hayes, and Marianne Robinson v. LinkedIn

The Defendants’ motions to dismiss the lawsuit alleging fiduciaries of the LinkedIn Corp. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allowing the plan to pay excessive fees have been granted in part and denied in part. Judge Edward J. Davila gave the plaintiffs time to file another complaint addressing “deficiencies” he found in the original complaint. While the judge indicated that exorbitant plan fee claims of this nature could be based on an injury to a plan’s assets unrelated to specific funds if the plan participants were all assessed a portion of the injury, the plaintiffs need to amend their claim to expressly state such in the complaint.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Olin Corp. ERISA Lawsuit Claims Resemble Prior Suits

The ERISA lawsuit filed against Olin Corp. includes claims similar to those included in prior lawsuits.

The Case: Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford v. Olin Corp., the Board of Directors of Olin Corp., the Olin Corp. Investment Committee, etc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

The Case No.: 4:21-cv-01328-SRC

The Plaintiff: Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford

The plaintiffs in the case, Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford, allege that the fiduciary defendants failed to appropriately monitor and control the plan’s recordkeeping fees and failed to adequately review the investment portfolio with the necessary care to make sure investment options were prudent (regarding both cost and performance of each investment). The plaintiffs allege that the plan fiduciaries maintained specific (allegedly underperforming) funds in the plan despite the availability of options with lower costs and better returns.

The Defendant: Olin Corporation

Olin Corporation, Defendant in the case, is a manufacturer producing ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide based in Clayton, Missouri. The corporation traces its roots to two different companies, both founded in 1892: Franklin W. Olin's Equitable Powder Company and the Mathieson Alkali Works. According to the allegations in the complaint, the corporation’s mismanagement of the plan was to the detriment of plan participants and their beneficiaries and thus constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty of prudence. Plaintiffs in the case allege that Olin Corporation plan fiduciaries’ actions were unreasonable and cost the plan and Olin Corporation plan participants millions of dollars. Defendant faces claims for breach of fiduciary duties of prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries. Numerous other mid to large-sized businesses across the nation face (or have recently faced) similar claims that met with varying degrees of success over the past several years.

Summary of the Case: Malika Riley and Takeeya S. Reliford v. Olin Corporation

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and included substantially similar allegations to various other lawsuits filed against American employers alleging fiduciary breaches connected to the management and operation of the company’s defined contribution (DC) retirement plans. Plaintiffs allege that Olin Corporation’s use of revenue sharing to pay for recordkeeping saddled the plan and its participants with excessive fees for both recordkeeping and administration. Some authorities have recognized “reasonable” annual rates for similarly sized retirement plans to average around $35 per participant (with costs for these services generally dropping daily). According to the complaint, there were times during the class period when the plan fiduciaries agreed to recordkeeping fees over $100 per participant. As the plan stayed with the same service provider over the entire course of the class period, the plaintiffs also allege that there is little to indicate that the plan fiduciaries attempted to do their duty with any request for proposals (RFP), which should be conducted regularly. The complaint questions whether the fiduciaries’ actions constituted adequately monitoring the plan’s investments. While changes have been made in recent years pulling funds out of mutual funds and turning to collective investment trusts (CITs), plaintiffs argue the changes were made too late to avoid significant participant losses.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA suit, 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.

Veterinary Hospital Faces Allegations in Recent ERISA Lawsuit

Plaintiffs filed an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) lawsuit naming a veterinary hospital network (VCA, Inc.) and a number of retirement plan administrators and compensation committees in the company’s leadership as defendants.

The Case: Brain Smith, Jacqueline Mooney, Angela Bakanas, and Matthew Colon v. VCA Inc., and the plan committee for the VCA, INC. Salary Savings Plan, etc.

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

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-09140-CAS-AGR

The Plaintiff: Smith, Mooney, & Colon

The plaintiffs in the case claim that the fiduciaries of VCA’s retirement savings plan failed to adequately monitor the retirement plan service fees and as a result, authorized the plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees relative to the services received.

The Defendant: VCA Inc. and plan committee for their Salary Savings Plan

The retirement plan at issue is VCA, Inc.’s Salary Savings Plan. According to the suit, the specified retirement plan has close to 12,000 participants. Participants hold over $563 million in net assets as of the end of 2019. The plaintiffs claim that the plan fiduciaries failed to leverage the plan’s significant bargaining power to benefit the plan participants and their designated beneficiaries.

Summary of the Case: Brain Smith, Jacqueline Mooney, Angela Bakanas, and Matthew Colon v. VCA Inc., and the planning committee for the VCA, INC. Salary Savings Plan, etc.

According to the lawsuit, the plan paid as much as $105 per participant each year for retirement plan recordkeeping and administration services. The plaintiffs argue that a reasonable retirement plan service fee for a plan of this magnitude averages closer to $38 per plan participant annually. Similar claims have been filed against other midsize to large employers across the United States throughout the last several years. Similar claims have met with varying degrees of success - each depending on the details and facts of the particular case. In a general sense, the success of an ERISA suit is tied to the plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate that the payment of excessive fees or inclusion of underperforming investments was likely due to fiduciary breaches. Simply stating that the service fees paid by a plan are higher than average or showing that investments underperformed other investment options that were overlooked is not enough to establish an ERISA claim in court.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help establishing an ERISA claim, 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.