Ardagh Metal Beverage USA Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In recent news, Ardagh Metal Beverage USA faces a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging California Labor Law violations.

The Case: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-at-00056

The Plaintiff: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

Diaz, the plaintiff in the case, filed the original complaint on Dec. 6, 2021. Diaz is a former non-exempt employee of Ardagh Metal Beverage USA. In the complaint, Diaz alleges Ardagh failed (and continues to fail) to pay all minimum and overtime wages to their non-exempt workers. In the complaint, Diaz argues that the defendant’s policy unfairly rounded time entries to the nearest quarter-hour and failed to incorporate all forms of compensation when they calculated employees’ overtime wages. Additionally, the complaint claims that Ardagh failed to comply with employment law mandates to provide meal breaks and rest periods. The complaint requests class certification of all non-exempt employees working for Ardagh Metal Beverage USA in the four years preceding the complaint filing.

The Defendant: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

According to the complaint, Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in Solano County, California as a manufacturer and supplier of beverage cans and other sustainable packaging. The Defendant removed the employment class-action lawsuit Grant Diaz filed in California state court to the Eastern District of California. The defendant argues that the Eastern District of California has jurisdiction over Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc. through the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); claiming that the case meets the original federal jurisdiction requirements under CAFA because 1) the class action has over 100 class members, 2) the matter in controversy in the aggregate is more than $5 million and 3) there is minimal diversity involved.

Summary of the Case: Grant Diaz v. Ardagh Metal Beverage USA, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that due to the policies noted above, Ardagh violated California’s Labor Code by failing to pay all minimum wages, failing to pay all overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods as required, failing to provide appropriate itemized wage statement violations, as well as waiting time penalties and unfair competition claims. Based on these violations, the plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential, general, and special damages. Additionally, plaintiffs seek statutory waiting time penalties, restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, and costs. Ardagh denies all claims and denies that class members have been damaged in the alleged amount. The defendant also argues that the plaintiff failed to identify a proper class of plaintiffs (along with 14 other affirmative defenses).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Legoland California Faces Class Action Alleging Meal Break Violations

In recent news, one of California’s most popular amusement parks, Legoland California, faces a class-action lawsuit alleging they failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Case: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The Court: San Diego Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2021-00052868-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Sierra Steele, was employed by Legoland California since March 2019. Steele was classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As such, she was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods as well as the payment of minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked. Steele alleges Legoland California, LLC violated employment law by failing to provide meal breaks, failing to offer rest periods, failing to pay minimum wage, and failing to provide accurate overtime wages.

The Defendant: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

Legoland California, LLC, the defendant in the case, owns and operates leisure facilities offering visitor attractions, theme parks featuring hotels, water parks, spas, holiday villages, conference venues, and golf courses.

Summary of the Case: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The plaintiff filed the Class Action on behalf of herself and a California class. The class is defined as all individuals currently or previously employed as non-exempt employees by Legoland California at any time during the period beginning four (4) years before the complaint filing (with end date determined by the court). Steele filed a class action complaint alleging that Legoland California, LLC violated the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges Legoland California, LLC failed to compensate the plaintiff and other employees for all the time they were under their employer’s control. Allegedly, Legoland California required employees to work longer than four hours without being provided their ten minute rest periods from time to time. Additionally, plaintiffs allege that Legoland employees were allegedly required to work for more than five hours without receiving their legally mandated off-duty meal break.

In Violation of California Labor Law: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

According to Cal. Lab. Code § 226, employers must provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." According to the lawsuit, Legoland California violated this California Labor Code when they allegedly failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements for their employees.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss meal break 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.

Are Waiting-Time Penalties Recoverable for Meal and Rest Period Violations?

A recent case leaves California courts considering whether waiting-time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest period violations.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct

The Case No.: BC372146

The Plaintiff: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case, Naranjo, (and a class of former and current employees) were a class of security guards. The group filed suit against Spectrum alleging meal break violations. They sought premium wages, along with derivative remedies, waiting time penalties, itemized wage statement penalties, and attorney fees.

The Defendant: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Spectrum, contracts exclusively with federal agencies. Its officers take temporary custody of federal prisoners and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detainees who must travel offsite for medical treatment or other appointments, and they provide continuous supervision until the individuals are returned to their custodial locations. Spectrum officers also guard witnesses awaiting court appearances.

Summary of the Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

On appeal, the court held that nonexempt employees (at-will, on-call, and hourly) who are paid for on-duty meal periods are also entitled to premium wages unless the employer has a written agreement that includes an on-duty meal period revocation clause. The court of appeals also held that unpaid premium wages for meal break violations accrue prejudgment interest at seven percent. However, unpaid premium wages for meal break violations do not entitle the employees to additional remedies (under sections 203 and 226) if the employee’s pay or their pay stubs during the course of the violations included the wages earned for their on-duty meal breaks, but not the unpaid premium wages. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in denying certification of the rest break class. The findings were affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court of appeals held that unpaid premium wages for meal-period violations didn’t entitle employees to pay stub penalties or waiting-time penalties. Many watch this case to see if it can resolve the long-standing debate about waiting-time penalties. Are they recoverable for meal and rest period violations? If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts, potential penalties for California meal and rest period violations will increase.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing 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.

California Retaliation Case Could Help Determine the Evidentiary Standard for Claims

In recent news, the Supreme Court will consider the question of which evidentiary standard should be used for certain retaliation claims.

The Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.: 19-55802

The Plaintiff: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Wallen Lawson, the plaintiff in the case, started working as a Territory Manager for PPG in June 2015. As a Territory Manager, Lawson’s duties include merchandising products in Lowe’s Home Improvement store displays were stocked, and displays were in good condition. While working as Territory Manager, Lawson reported directly to Clarence Moore, a Regional Sales Manager. Moore oversaw approximately a dozen Territory Managers, including Lawson. Territory Manager job performance was measured based on (1) his ability to meet sales goals each month, and(2) scores received during what PPG called “Market Walks.” The Market Walk involved the Territory Manager and Regional Sales Manager visiting various stores together so the Regional Sales Manager could ascertain if Territory Managers had successfully built a relationship with the retailer.

The Allegations: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The plaintiff claims he was directed by his supervisor to manage a product in a way that fraudulently pulled a slow-selling product from inventory. The plaintiff refused and reported the situation to the PPG ethics hotline (twice). The second time Lawson made a report to the ethics hotline, there was an investigation. During that same time, Lawson began receiving poor ratings for his performance, was given a performance improvement plan, and was eventually fired.

The Defendant: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (“PPG”), manufactures paints, stains, caulks, and other products for homeowners and professionals, and sells its products to retailers such as The Home Depot, Menards, and Lowe’s.

Details of the Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

After the plaintiff was fired, he filed a complaint against PPG alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower. After applying the McDonnell Douglas test, the trial court concluded the plaintiff failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact, and the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6 which would have transferred the burden of proof to the employer once the plaintiff demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliatory act. The Ninth Circuit approached the Supreme Court of California with the question of which takes precedence when retaliation claims are brought pursuant to section 1102.5 of California’s Labor Code: the evidentiary standard set forth in section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code or the McDonnell Douglas test? The Supreme Court will need to determine which should be used as the relevant evidentiary standard.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss retaliation 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.

California Nurse Filed Two Class Actions with the Same Claims: Against the Staffing Agency & a Medical Center

A California nurse successfully filed for the same set of claims against two joint employers in two separate class actions.

The Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The Court: Cal.App.5th

The Case No.: RIC1514281

The Plaintiff: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The plaintiff, Grande, was assigned to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center by FlexCare, LLC, a temporary staffing agency. During her time working at Eisenhower Medical Center, Grande alleges she did not receive required mail and rest periods, was not paid wages earned for certain periods she worked, and did not receive overtime wages.

The Defendant: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The defendant in the case, Eisenhower Medical Center, worked with FlexCare LLC, a temporary staffing agency.

Summary of the Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The plaintiff’s claims were based solely on the time she was assigned to work at Eisenhower Medical Center by the temporary staffing agency, FlexCare LLC. Initially, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. FlexCare settled with the class, requiring the plaintiff to execute a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment that incorporated the settlement agreement and release of claims. One year later, the plaintiff filed a second class-action citing Eisenhower Medical Center as the Defendant. FlexCare intervened, insisting that the plaintiff could not bring a separate lawsuit against Eisenhower as the claims were already settled in the previous class action. After a limited trial, the trial court ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the terms of the prior class action’s settlement agreement since Eisenhower was not named in the previous lawsuit. As such, Eisenhower Medical Center did not have a legal right to avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata; they were neither a party to the prior litigation nor privity with FlexCare, LLC. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. The ruling on this case could affect how staffing agencies and the employers who work with them need to manage litigation in order to avoid duplicate litigation that would result in them paying twice for the same claims.

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.

$150,000 National Car Dealers Settlement to Resolve EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit

National Car Dealers to pay $150,000 settlement after worker allegedly fired after disclosing a potential cancer diagnosis filed an EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit.

The Case: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN

The Allegations: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

According to the allegations in the case, the employers terminated one of their title clerks in a Sacramento dealership over a possible cancer diagnosis. The employee was suddenly ill and missed several days of work. Following the missed days, she informed management that she was hospitalized and diagnostic testing was being completed to search for signs of cancer. According to the suit, the company fired the title clerk one day before her planned return - despite a medical release that allowed her to continue working. In the termination letter the company stated that they advised her to “focus on her health,” and noted it was not a performance-related termination.

The Defendant: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

The alleged conduct on the part of the employer in the case violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on a disability or a perceived disability. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 10, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN). Before filling, the EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Case Details: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

Defendant will pay $150,000 as well as hire a consultant to assist in facilitating positive change to current policies and training practices. Doing so enables them to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit as per settlement negotiations. In the consent decree settling the disability discrimination lawsuit, the $150,000 is designated as lost wages and emotional distress damages for workers. The companies are required to put new policies and procedures (or updated, revised policies and procedures) in place to offer reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Doing so requires them to retain an ADA consultant. Additionally, leave-based terminations will now require secondary reviews, and the company will begin to offer annual training to management and human resources personnel. Finally, the company will also start submitting reports to the EEOC during the three-year term of the settlement decree.

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

Clarifying Premium Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Periods

The California Supreme Court held that an employee’s regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The decision was announced on July 15, 2021, while the court considered the implications of Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case No.: S259172

The Plaintiff: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The plaintiff in the case is a hotel bartender named Ferra. Ferra alleged that Loews improperly calculated her meal and rest period premium payments by excluding her non-discretionary quarterly incentive bonuses when they completed the premium pay calculations.

The Defendant: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

Loews argued (successfully) before a trial court as well as a court of appeal that Ferra’s ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is her base hourly rate of pay and that the regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is distinguishable from her overtime regular rate of pay. The California Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the decision from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that: “the ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay under California Labor Code section 226.7(c) is synonymous with the regular rate of pay for overtime as defined under California Labor Code section 501(a). Thus, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must include non-discretionary payments, meaning those that are paid pursuant to [a] prior contract, agreement, or promise . . . .”

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

When the California Supreme Court held that an employee’s ‘regular rate of compensation’ for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s ‘regular rate of pay’ for overtime pay, they clarified a common point of argument in California wage and hour lawsuits. When California employers pay their employees meal and rest period premiums, they must use the employee’s overtime regular rate of pay (including non-discretionary payments for any work performed). The California Supreme Court also ruled that the holding applies retroactively. As such, California employers should review and update their payroll policies and any related procedures associated with meal and rest period premiums to verify that premium payments are paid at the regular rate of pay, and include applicable non-discretionary payments.

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.