Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC Faces California PAGA-Only Action

In recent news, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC faces a California PAGA-only action.

The Case: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

The Court: Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

The plaintiff in the case filed a PAGA-only action, California enacted the PAGA to allow an individual to bring an action on behalf of herself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only. This is the precise and sole nature of this action. In accordance with the intended purpose of the PAGA-only action, the plaintiff seeks to obtain all applicable relief for the Defendant’s violations under PAGA and solely for the relief as permitted by PAGA (specifically penalties and other relief the Court deems appropriate under PAGA). Nothing in this PAGA complaint should be construed as trying to seek any relief that would not be available in a PAGA-only action.

The Defendant: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

According to the lawsuit, the defendant, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, is a limited liability company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as Ritz-Carlton, and a significant amount of their business is conducted in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

According to the lawsuit, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC allegedly failed to accurately record Plaintiff’s time worked (as well as other similarly situated workers). Employees were required to submit to mandatory drug testing, among other testing, as a condition of continued employment. While submitting to the mandatory testing, employees were working off the clock. Additionally, the Plaintiff's off-duty meal breaks were, on occasion, interrupted by work assignments. As labor law defines mandatory rest breaks and meal periods as times during which employees should be relieved of all job tasks and responsibilities, this is another alleged employment law violation.

Under PAGA an employee can sue as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public. It’s not designed to benefit private parties in any way. The purpose of PAGA is not to recover damages or restitution but to “deputize” citizens to help enforce the Labor Code.

If you have questions about California employment 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 can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Judge Gives Early Approval of McDonald’s $2M Wage Deal

The revised $2 million settlement between the class of 5,500 current and former workers and McDonald’s of California, was given early approval by the judge.

The Case: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01175-HBK

The Plaintiff: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gennifer Manzo, worked as a shift manager at McDonald’s in Clovis, California. Manzo filed the lawsuit in 2020 on behalf of other similarly situated employees under California’s Labor Code and PAGA. Manzo alleged McDonald’s failed to provide employees with accurate wage statements reflecting their correct pay rates and total hours worked. Gennifer Manzo was joined by a class of 5,500-plus employees in California who allegedly received inaccurate wage statements.

Early Approval of Settlement: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

While Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta offered early approval of the settlement deal; she did voice multiple concerns regarding the details of the settlement. The judge made sure to voice concerns that the attorneys’ fees requested were one-third the total amount of the settlement. She was also concerned that the proposed service fee award of $1,000 for the case’s lead plaintiff, was also higher than typical in a class action case. In fact, she specified that it was 46 times the average class member’s payout. According to the proposed settlement deal, class members receive roughly $1.88 million; which would mean approximately $216 per class member on average.

More About Settlement Details: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

The judge also questioned the hourly rates of the attorneys; they failed to articulate if their rates were within the normal range for the Bay Area/Los Angeles. She noted that no details were provided about legal work completed for the case. The settlement deal also included $100,000 for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act and $30,000 for settlement administration costs.

If you have questions about California employment 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.

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.