Nurses Brought in to Provide Treatment at Lompoc Facility File Class Action Against VXL

Two nurses claim VXL Enterprises misclassified them as independent contractors, and violated labor law by failing to pay overtime wages.

The Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

The Court: California North District Court

The Case No.: 4:22-CV-01579

Plaintiffs in the Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

Plaintiffs in the case claim they were hired by VXL in May 2020 to work as medical support staff at Lompoc Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California. The plaintiffs claim that while VXL required 12-hour shifts, but failed to pay nurses time-and-a-half overtime wages even though they were allegedly working more than eight hours per day or more than 40 hours per week.

More About the Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

The defendant in the case, VXL Enterprises LLC, classified the nurses as independent contractors. However, due to the alleged amount of control the company exerted over their nurses, plaintiffs argued they were misclassified. Nurses involved in the case claim that the company micromanaged their work, and even controlled transportation and lodging. The relationship described by plaintiffs in the case resembled an employer/employee relationship.

The Case: Duff et al. v. VXL Enterprises LLC

Plaintiffs also claim they were not provided with appropriate meal breaks and rest periods, and their pay stubs did not accurately list their hours worked. The lawsuit was transferred from California’s Central District Court to the state’s Northern District Court, and the class action seeks to represent workers employed by VXL in California who were misclassified as independent contractors, and not paid overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

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.

Bed Bath & Beyond’s Online Gift Platform Ends Finger Scan Case with $4.5M

Class members in the Illinois finger scan case against the online gift platform owned by popular Bed, Bath & Beyond agreed to a $4.5 settlement to end the litigation.

The Case: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-00025

The Plaintiff: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The plaintiff, Williams, along with other class members, claim that Personalizationmall.com LLC violated Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to obtain informed consent from their workers before mandated they scan themselves in and out of work using their fingerprints. The plaintiffs claim the company did not inform them in writing (as required by law), and that the fingerprint scanning system captured, collected, stored, and used the employees’ biometric info even though signed releases were not obtained.

The Defendant: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The Defendant in the case, Personalizationmall.com LLC, is an online gift platform owned by Bed, Bath & Beyond. In order to resolve the fingerprint scan fight, the defendant struck a deal with the plaintiffs in the case. Class members signaled to the Illinois federal judge that they agree to accept the $4.5 million deal to end litigation over the online gift platform’s allegedly illegal fingerprint scanning and collection practice.

The Case: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The class members requested preliminary approval of the settlement noting that the deal would provide compensation for more than 20,000 people allegedly required to use the company’s vein-scanning time clock without consent; which constitutes an alleged employment law violation. The $4.5 million settlement agreement was reached during the 11-hour mediation the two parties engaged in during October 2021.

If you have questions about corporate fingerprint scanning practices or other employment law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced Illinois employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside.

California’s Day Management Company Allegedly Failed to Accurately Record Employee’s Hours

Andrew King, a former employee of Day Wireless Systems, makes allegations that the company violated labor law.

The Case: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV01620

The Plaintiff: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The plaintiff in the case, Andrew King, was allegedly employed by DBA Wireless Systems from December 2015 through May 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The plaintiff claims that during his time with the company, Day Management Systems policies and standard business practices resulted in employees not receiving full payment for all hours worked. The plaintiff and other members of the California class seek an injunction preventing similar future conduct, as well as relief for those economically injured by Defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

The Defendant: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The Defendant in the case, Day Management Systems DBA Day Wireless Systems, is a part of California’s Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance Industry.

More About the Case: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

Day Management Corporation (or Day Wireless Systems) allegedly violated the California Labor Code when they failed to accurately record employee hours, failed to accurately pay employees' wages, etc. The full list of allegations included in the complaint includes six violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages due, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide legally mandated wage statements (accurate and itemized), failure to reimburse employees for work expenses, and failure to provide wages when they are due. The plaintiffs also point out that the company failed to pay their employees for all the time they were under their employer’s control (including mandatory Covid-19 screening required before clocking in for their shift). Failure to include off-the-clock time in employee hours resulted in a failure to pay minimum wage, and a failure to pay overtime wages when due.

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.

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.