Goodyear Faces Allegations of Missed Breaks for California Workers

A former Goodyear Tire employee alleges the company did not provide proper meal and rest breaks or payment in lieu of the mandatory rest periods and meal breaks.

The Case: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The Court: California’s Northern District Court

The Case No.: 5:22-CV-01320

The Plaintiff: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The plaintiff in the case is a former employee, Franco, who worked as a Goodyear service advisor at two different Goodyear service locations in San Jose, California. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was paid at an hourly rate of $16 to $19 with an added bonus referred to as SPIFF.

The Defendant: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The defendants in the case, The Goodyear Tire, and Rubber Company, allegedly denied their employees opportunities to take their 30-minute, uninterrupted meal breaks (required by California law). Goodyear paid the employees a meal break premium at their base hourly rate in lieu of the meal breaks. However, according to the lawsuit, the meal break premiums, which are to be paid at an employee’s regular rate of pay (including all forms of compensation), did not include the plaintiff’s SPIFF bonus as part of the regular pay rate. As a result, employees were allegedly underpaid for their missed meal breaks. Plaintiffs claim the same treatment was given to missed rest periods.

More Details of the Case: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The case was initially filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on January 8, 2022. On March 2, 2022, the case was removed to California’s Northern District Court. In addition to the alleged unlawful pay practices, the plaintiffs claim Goodyear failed to provide accurate wage statements, and pay workers for time worked at the time of termination. Goodyear’s wage statements allegedly failed to show accurate gross and net wages earned (due to leaving out time worked during “off the clock” rest periods and meal breaks). The lawsuit seeks to cover those who worked for Goodyear at a California location as non-exempt, hourly employees sometime during the last four years (prior to the date of the lawsuit filing).

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.

Former Peloton Employee Files California Wage and Hour Lawsuit

A former Peloton employee based out of California claims the company violated wage and hour law.

The Case: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The Court: Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01425

The Plaintiff: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case is a Los Angeles resident who worked for Peloton as an hourly employee in the sales department. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff worked for Peloton Interactive from November 2016 through December 2021. He claims that he and other similarly situated employees at the company were deprived of meal and rest breaks, wages owed for working through breaks and rest periods, and were not reimbursed for phone and vehicle expenses required to perform their jobs. He also alleged that when the company paid overtime wages, it was not issued at the correct overtime pay rate (not considering commissions, bonuses, etc. when calculating their time and a half wage). Plaintiffs also claim the company failed to pay employees for accrued vacation and paid time off wages when employees were terminated from their positions.

The Defendant: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Peloton Interactive, Inc., is a fitness equipment and media company. According to the lawsuit filed by the former Peloton employee, the company failed to pay appropriate minimum wage, failed to provide accurate overtime pay, and did not provide employees with their mandatory rest periods and meal breaks (among other alleged wage and hour violations).

Case Details: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The complaint was initially filed by the ex-Peloton Interactive employee in Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 2, 2022. On March 3rd, the case was removed to California’s Central District Court. The proposed class action seeks to cover current and former non-exempt employees that worked for Peloton Interactive at any point during the last 4 years.

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.

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.