Former Employee Alleges Autonomous Labs Violated California Labor Law

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Autonomous Labs Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide California workers with overtime wages, minimum wage, and meal and rest periods required by law.

The Case: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

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

The Case No.: CIVSB220474

The Plaintiff: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Autonomous Labs Inc from March 2017 to September 2021 and was classified as a non-exempt employee paid through an hourly wage, commission-based compensation, and non-discretionary bonuses. Plaintiff claims that the company violated the law by failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages for hours worked. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Autonomous Labs’ conduct violated PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA enables aggrieved employees to act on behalf of themself, other workers, and California state in filing to recover civil penalties. Under PAGA, aggrieved employees are essentially deputized as private attorneys to enforce the employment law. An aggrieved employee is defined as an employee of the alleged violator against whom one or more of the alleged labor law violations was committed (refer to California Labor Code Section 2699(c)).

The Defendant: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The defendant in the case, Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc., faces a class-action lawsuit. (Autonomous, Inc. operates its business in California under the name Autonomous Labs Inc. or Autonomous Labs). While Autonomous, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, the company operates under the name Autonomous Labs Inc in California - and conducts (and continues to conduct) a significant amount of business in California.

Case Details: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The complaint is currently pending in San Bernadino County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Autonomous Labs allegedly violated California Labor Code numerous times. The allegations of labor code violations are based on the plaintiff’s claims that the company failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide employees with minimum wages, failed to provide employees with rest periods and meal breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for business expenses, made unlawful deductions, and failed to provide wages due in a timely manner.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a California class-action 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.

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.

Performance Foodservice Allegedly Owes Tens of Thousands of Employees Unpaid Wages and Overtime

A Performance Foodservice employee filed a California overtime lawsuit seeking retribution for labor violations.

The Case: Alvarez v. Performance Foodservice et al

The Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2021mc80299

The Plaintiff: Gerardo Alvarez

The plaintiff, Gerardo Alvarez, sued the company citing a number of labor law violations including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, denied meal and rest periods, and waiting time penalties. Alvarez claims he experienced the violations firsthand during his years working for the food distributor.

The Defendant: Performance Foodservice and Performance Food Group, Inc.

Defendant in the case, Performance Foodservice, is a wholly-owned division of Performance Food Group, Inc., a Colorado-based corporation that engages in business in various California locations (Gilroy, Livermore, and City of Industry).

The Case: Alvarez v. Performance Foodservice et al

In the December 2021 lawsuit, Alvarez claims that the company provided non-compliant, non-itemized salary documentation, did not pay required compensatory premiums, and regularly rounded down when calculating employee hours worked. The class includes non-exempt hourly Performance Foodservice California employees that worked for the company during the last four years. The plaintiff believes that the putative class in the case could include as many as “tens of thousands” of employees. According to Alvarez, the company required employees to work off the clock by mandating that they answer work-related questions before and after their shifts. Alvarez also claims that the company required employees to work more than eight hours and did not provide full compensation for hours worked. the company is also facing allegations that they refuse to pay wages in a timely manner and deny employees their mandatory rest and meal breaks. The practices that allegedly violate employment law were also allegedly a widespread standard throughout all of the company’s California locations.

If you have questions about meal breaks 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.

Accurate Delivery Systems Facing PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

A PAGA-Only Action alleges that Accurate Delivery Systems failed to compensate employees for missed meal and rest breaks as required by employment law.

The Case: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2125174

The Plaintiff: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

According to the PAGA-Only action filed, Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. allegedly failed to fully release Marquez, plaintiff, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for the thirty minute meal breaks required by employment law. Plaintiff also claims that the employer sometimes required employees to work in excess of four hours without being provided ten minute rest periods as required by law. According to the Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are defined as time during which employees are relieved from their work duties and free from their employer’s control.

The Defendant: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

The defendant in the case is Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. The case is currently pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

The Case: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. is a PAGE-Only action. An employee can sue under PAGA as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor enforcement agencies. This mechanism was designed to allow the State of California itself to enforce state labor laws through employees. PAGA-Only actions are designed to recover civil penalties, and act as a law enforcement action. Designed to protect the people of California, PAGA-Only actions are not to benefit private parties. The purpose of PAGA actions is not to recover damages or obtain restitution. Rather the PAGA-Only action seeks to create a way to "deputize" citizens as private attorneys general as an additional means of enforcing the Labor Code.

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

Court Allows Los Angeles Airport Mechanic to Move Forward With Meal Break Suit

In recent news, a California Appeals court allows a Los Angeles airport mechanic to proceed with his lawsuit claiming his employer did not provide meal breaks required by state law.

The Case: Medina v. United Airlines

The Court: Calif. Ct. App.

The Case No.: B293677 (Aug. 24, 2021

The Plaintiff: Medina v. United Airlines

The plaintiff, a mechanic for United Airlines at the Los Angeles International Airport, filed a claim that United Airlines, Inc. did not provide meal breaks as required by California State Law. United Airlines mechanics working at LAX are subdivided into different categories. The plaintiff, as a Line technician, performed maintenance on aircrafts currently in service (arriving/departing from a United station). As a Line technician, the plaintiff responded to mechanical concerns raised by the flight crew and made sure equipment was in working order prior to takeoff. The plaintiff filed a representative action under PAGA raising only one claim—that United is violating California's meal break law by failing to provide employees with a 2nd meal break (when mechanics work shifts longer than 10 hours). The plaintiff seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of California’s meal break requirements.

The Defendant: Medina v. United Airlines

The defendant in the case, United Airlines, argued that the terms and conditions of employment are governed by a CBA that was negotiated and approved under the RLA. The CBA defines a normal workday as eight hours with a 30 minute unpaid meal break and two 10-minute rest breaks. Under the agreement, when a mechanic such as the plaintiff works 2+ hours of overtime, they are entitled to an extra 30 minute paid meal period. Under California Labor Code, employers are prohibited from requiring employees to work during mandated meal and rest periods. Under California law, employers should provide a second meal period of at least 30 minutes for any employee that works over 10 hours in one workday. When the trial court dismissed the action before trial, on the basis that the lawsuit was preempted by the RLA since considering the claim would mean interpreting provisions of the plaintiff’s CBA. The employee filed an appeal.

About the Case: Medina v. United Airlines

Trial court found that the action was preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) deciding that they would have to interpret the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the two parties, but the appeals court did not agree. After hearing the arguments presented in the case, the California appeals court ruled that since meal break requirements under state law are not preempted by federal labor law, the United Airline mechanic filing the suit can proceed with the lawsuit.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or if you’ve experienced other California labor law 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.

Flight Attendants File California Meal Break Lawsuit

In recent news, flight attendants for Skywest Airlines file a California meal break lawsuit.

The Case: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

The Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

The Case No.: 15-v-02277-JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

The plaintiffs in the proposed class action are two former flight attendants of Defendant Virgin America, Inc. and Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. ("Virgin") in California. The plaintiffs allege that Virgin did not pay them for hours they worked before, after, and between scheduled flights, time they spent completing incident reports, time spent in required training, and time spent completing mandatory drug testing. The plaintiffs also allege that the airline did not allow them to take meal periods earlier than one hour before landing, did not allow rest breaks, did not pay overtime and minimum wages, and did not provide accurate wage statements as required by law. The plaintiffs filed for summary judgment.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

The defendant in the case, Virgin American Inc. is headquartered in Burlingame, California. According to company policy:

• Crew leaders provide rest and meal periods for flight attendants.

• Flight attendants have the opportunity to take breaks, they are still on duty throughout the entirety of a flight.

• However, many flight attendants claim they are not able to take breaks on their flights, and approximately one-third of Virgin America’s daily flights since 2011 were more than five hours long.

The Case: Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc

Virgin America argued that federal regulations governing the airline (Airline Deregulation Act, federal aviation safety regulations, and the dormant commerce clause) preempt the plaintiffs’ claims based on wage and hour law, but the California judge hearing the case, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, rejected the argument citing Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc., ruling that flight crews could be subject to California meal period and rest break laws. The judge cited California law stating an employer's ability to seek an exemption from rest breaks when compliance would materially affect the welfare or comfort of the employees and create an undue hardship for the employer. The judge even noted that flight attendants seemed to be a prime example of a qualifying situation for this exemption. The judge further noted that California law allows on duty meal breaks when "the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty" as long as the parties involved agree to an on-duty meal break. (The agreement to an on duty meal break must be written). By noting these exceptions to California law, the judge offered the airline a significant amount of wiggle room.

However, the airline argued that neither of the specified provisions actually helps reduce the burden compliance with California state law would impose. The airline does not argue that they complied with California meal and rest break law. Plaintiffs submitted evidence that they were not provided required breaks and were not compensated with extra pay. In response, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment regarding the airline’s liability on meal and rest break claims.

If you need to discuss California state law or if you need to file a class action 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.