Options for Youth-California, Inc. Facing California Labor Code Violation Allegations

In recent news, Options for Youth-California, Inc. is facing allegations of multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2132685

The Plaintiff: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

Anthony Gutierrez, the plaintiff in the case, filed the PAGA only complaint seeking civil penalties on behalf of himself and all current and former aggrieved employees of Options for Youth-California. Under PAGA, California workers are allowed to bring an action on behalf of themself or on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only.

The Defendant: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

According to the complaint, Options for Youth-California, Inc. is a California corporation offering students a personalized, flexible approach to their education.

What is a PAGA Action?

PAGA creates the opportunity for individuals to act on behalf of California state to enforce state labor laws through the legal system. Under PAGA, an employee can file a lawsuit as the proxy of the California State Labor Law Enforcement Agency. For all intents and purposes, a PAGA-only action is fundamentally a law enforcement action intended to protect the public and not intended to benefit any private party. Under PAGA actions, the plaintiff seeks not to recover damages or restitution, but to act as a “deputy” private attorney to enforce California State Labor Code.

Summary of the Case: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

According to the complaint, Options for Youth-California, Inc. allegedly failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest breaks, which resulted in underpaying employees' wages. The company has multiple locations throughout the state of California. The employer allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks. The plaintiff also claims that employees were required (now and then) to work more than four (4) hours without being offered the legally required ten-minute rest period (as outlined by employment law). According to the California Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are defined as the time during which employees are relieved from all their work-related tasks and responsibilities, and are also free from their employer’s control.

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

California Supreme Court Determines Method for Evaluating Whistleblower Retaliation Claims

In recent news, the California Supreme Court considered the question of how best to evaluate whistleblower retaliation claims.

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

The Court: Ninth Circuit Central District of California

The Case No.: 8:18-cv-00705-AG-JPR

The Ruling: Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court decided that California courts should adhere to California law when considering claims of workplace retaliation instead of what is referred to as the “well-worn” framework the U.S. Supreme Court established. The framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court puts the final burden to prove intentional discrimination on the worker. The new ruling by the California Supreme Court states that a California employee only needs to prove that an act of whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” to the employer’s decision to terminate their job, demote them or take disciplinary action.

What the Ruling Means: Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Under the new standard, the whistleblowing only needs to be one reason - it could be the only reason, but it could be one of many reasons - that an employee is fired from their job. Under the previously accepted standard, the whistleblowing act needed to be shown to be the sole reason or the “real” reason for the adverse action. The California Supreme Court’s ruling essentially made it easier for California whistleblowers to win when they file a wrongful termination lawsuit or other California retaliation lawsuit after they “blow the whistle” on their employer for illegal acts, practices, or policies.

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

The California Supreme Court’s opinion was penned by Justice Leondra Kruger in response to a question posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding which evidentiary standard should apply when they evaluate whistleblower retaliation claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was, at the time they posed the question, considering a workplace retaliation claim brought by Walen Lawson, a territory manager for Lowe’s home improvement stores in Southern California.

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

Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., Faces Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Provide Meal Breaks

A recent case brings allegations against Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. Plaintiffs in the case allege that the California employer failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Case: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

The Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2022-552

The Plaintiff: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

The Plaintiff in the case, Rolletta Mangaron, was employed by Doctors Hospital of Manteca from March 2019 through February 2021. The defendant classified her as a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis. As such, Mangaron was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all her time worked.

The Defendant: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

The Defendant in the case, Doctors Hospital of Manteca, provides medical services primarily in the state of California.

Summary of the Case: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

According to the plaintiff in the case, Doctor Hospital of Manteca violated a number of California labor laws including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failing to provide wages when due. All of the alleged actions represent a violation of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements. By definition, an accurate, itemized wage statement should (at a minimum) show clearly the employee’s gross wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the specified pay period. According to the lawsuit, this California medical provider failed to provide the required accurate itemized wage statement for their workers.

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.

Did THC-Orange County Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Meal Breaks?

In recent news, another California employer faces allegations of Labor Law violations.

The Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-597887

The Plaintiff: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Arva Anderson, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that THC - Orange County, LLC violated California Labor Code. Anderson was employed by the Defendant from July 2021 through October 2021 and the company classified Anderson as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. As such, Anderson was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Allegations: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

According to the complaint, THC-Orange County, LLC, the Defendant, failed to pay workers minimum wage, failed to provide workers with overtime pay, failed to provide legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks, failed to offer workers accurate and itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse workers for necessary expenses, and failed to pay worker’s wages when they were due.

The Defendant: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Defendant in the case, THC-Orange County, LLC, provides healthcare services (including both medical and surgical care services) in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

All the allegations represent violations of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements that show the worker’s "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." in addition to other data. The lawsuit alleges that THC-Orange County, LLC allegedly violated California Labor Law by failing to fulfill this requirement for accurate and itemized wage statements.

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

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.