Sheraton Hotel Faces a Class Action Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

Sheraton Hotel workers filed a class action alleging The Sheraton, LLC and NFNY Hotel Management LLC violated state labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to meet minimum wage pay requirements, and not handing over tips to their workers.

The Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court Western District of New York

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00046

The Plaintiff: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

Doris Green and Christina Casero filed the original lawsuit against The Sheraton Hotel. The two are former hourly workers for the Sheraton Niagara Falls Hotel. The former employees cited both the hotel and NFNY Hotel Management, the company that runs that particular hotel location, as defendants in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the companies violated labor law by failing to comply with minimum wage, and wage statement requirements as well as failing to hand over tips earned by their workers.

The Defendant: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The defendants in the case, The Sheraton, LLC, and NFNY Hotel Management are both facing allegations of labor law violations. The Sheraton is a popular and well-known hotel chain with many locations throughout the nation. NFNY Hotel Management is the company that ran The Sheraton Niagara Falls location at the time the plaintiffs were employed. The plaintiffs, Casero and Green, claim the companies' wage notices fail to accurately and timely show employees their true rates of pay and proper tip credits to be taken into consideration against the minimum wage. The wage notices allegedly failed to include names, addresses, and phone numbers for the joint employers. According to the plaintiffs, affected workers included waiters, bartenders, servers, room service attendants, and nonmanagerial service workers.

More Details of the Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The two former Sheraton Niagara Falls employees accuse the hotel owners and hotel management of depriving them of minimum wage and their earned tips. The allegations are made in a class action lawsuit with class members including a variety of different Sheraton employees paid at an hourly rate. One of the plaintiffs, Casero, was employed as a server at the Sheraton Niagara Falls from May 2016 through August 2020. Casero’s hourly rate of $8.25 did not meet New York’s state minimum wage (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during her time of employment). Green, another plaintiff, worked as a Sheraton Niagara Falls bartender, front desk associate, and other roles at the hotel from May 2019 through August 2020. Green’s hourly pay rate of $12 also did not meet the state minimum wage requirements (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during the time of employment). The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of current and former hourly workers at the Sheraton Niagara Falls location. The group seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, legal fees, and costs. The plaintiffs also seek a jury trial, and the case is pending.

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.

Did Krispy Kreme & Insomnia Cookies Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, a worker filed a suit alleging Krispy Kreme Inc. violated labor law.

The Case: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

The Case No.: 6:22-cv-06075

The Plaintiff: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The Plaintiff in the case, Taylor Rae Hine, claims Krispy Kreme and Insomnia Cookies both failed to pay their workers both minimum wage for their hours worked and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in one week. Both minimum wage and overtime pay are required by law.

The Defendant: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The plaintiff argues that Krispy Kreme’s and Insomnia Cookies both exhibited willful and intentional policies and employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as state labor laws.

Case Details: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

Hine, the plaintiff, wishes to represent a class of non-exempt workers who were employed by either Krispy Kreme or Insomnia Cookies over the past six years. The plaintiff, Hine, worked as a delivery driver for both companies for about two years between 2019 and 2021. According to Hine, she was paid a flat compensation and the company did not inform her of her hourly rate or potential tip deductions made by the employer towards the minimum wage. Additionally, Hine claims she spent over 20% of her workday engaging in non-tipped job tasks and was required to pay out-of-pocket for car expenses related to delivery services without appropriate reimbursement. Hines demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief as well as unpaid wages and liquidated/punitive damages for both herself and the qualified class members.

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

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.