Is Uber’s Battle to Avoid Class Action Trouble Over Driver Classification Finally Over?

In February 2022, a Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Settlement was filed with the Northern District of California Court. If the judge grants approval of the preliminary settlement agreement, Uber’s battle to avoid class action trouble over their classification of drivers could be over.

The Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-06462-EMC

Background of the Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

The years-long battle that began when the case was filed could finally be coming to a close with the proposed $8.4 million deal reached between Uber Technologies Inc. and more than 1,300 California drivers. (The Uber drivers in the case allege they were misclassified as contractors and therefore denied many rights they were due as California employees). The judge’s approval of the preliminary settlement would effectively put an end to one of the major court battles afflicting the gig economy that predate the passage of California’s Prop 22.

The Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

The proposed settlement award would be distributed amongst 1,322 drivers that both opted out of arbitration agreements and worked for Uber between Feb. 28, 2019, and Dec. 17, 2020 (the date Prop 22 was enacted). Prop 22 is a ballot initiative Uber helped to fund that was designed to legally define app-based drivers as independent contractors. In November, Uber and the drivers involved agreed to dismiss the case as they reached an agreement. The final approval hearing for the deal is scheduled for June in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. If approved, the $8.4 million settlement would follow the previously approved $20 million settlement that came through the same court in 2019 to resolve a case between Uber drivers dispersed throughout both California and Massachusetts.

More About the Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

While approval of the settlement would close the case and avoid further class action on the matter, the settlement does not answer the question of whether Uber drivers are employees entitled to benefits outlined by labor law like overtime pay, minimum wage, reimbursement of business expenses, etc. The debate on this issue continues. In fact, following a state judge striking down Prop 22 as unconstitutional, a California appellate court currently weighs the question.

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.

Did California Cannabis Factory Stiizy Fail to Provide Workers with Overtime Pay & Breaks?

Diaz-Rodriguez, a California worker, claims she was assigned a job at a Stiizy cannabis factory by RP Staffing, and that during her time employed at the company her employer violated California Labor Law multiple times.

The Case: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22STCV05143

The Plaintiff: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The plaintiff, Consuelo Diaz-Rodriguez, claims Stiiizy, Inc. and RP Staffing, Inc. denied their employees rest breaks and meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and did not reimburse employees for business expenses. Diaz-Rodriguez also claims that workers were subjected to “off the clock” work policies requiring them to arrive for their work shifts 5 minutes early to get in the appropriate attire without compensation for the time required to complete this task.

The Defendant: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The Defendants in the case, Stiiizy, Inc. and RP Staffing, Inc., are a California-based cannabis retail chain, and a staffing agency that supplies the company with workers.

The Case: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The plaintiff wishes to represent a class of nonexempt Stiizy workers employed at the California company during the last four years, as well as 21 subclasses of exempt employees. Diaz-Rodriguez alleges that the companies listed as Defendants are “joint employers” and that they failed to provide legally mandated 10-minute rest periods, and off-duty meal periods (at least 30 minutes for every five hours on the job). Diaz-Rodriguez also claims that the company purposefully failed to provide accurate wage statements to their workers clearly showing the total number of hours worked during a pay period. Diaz-Rodriguez demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages and statutory penalties for both herself and the other eligible class members.

If you have questions about overtime 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.

Barton & Associates, Inc. Face Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Barton & Associates, Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit alleging they failed to provide their workers with wages for all hours worked.

The Case: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21STCV43314

The Plaintiff: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case filed a class action complaint against Barton & Associates, Inc. for allegedly failing to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked.

The Defendant: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

According to the lawsuit, the defendant, Barton & Associates, Inc. violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 when they allegedly failed to pay overtime wages, pay minimum wage, provide mandated required meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and provide wages when they are due. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the company violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which means they may face civil penalties for their violations as well. (PAGA allows employees to file a lawsuit intended to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California based on Labor Code violations).

Details of the Case: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

In California Labor Code Section 226 it states that employers are required to furnish employees with accurate itemized wage statements (in writing showing). An itemized accurate wage statement must show an employee’s gross wages earned, their total hours worked during the pay period, the number of piece-rate units earned during the pay period and any applicable piece-rate, all deductions from the employee’s pay, all net wages earned, specific dates designating the time period for which the employee is receiving pay, the name of the employee and the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or employee identification number, the name and address of the employer (the legal entity), and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period with the corresponding total number of hours worked at each designated hourly rate. Allegedly, Barton & Associates, Inc. failed to fulfill this requirement of employment law. Plaintiffs claim they did not provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with all the requirements of California Labor Code Section 226.

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.

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.