Halsey Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Multiple Employment Law Violations

A recently filed lawsuit alleges that Halsey engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Ashley D. Frangipane aka Halsey, Leaving Things Behind Touring, Halsey Music LLC (hereafter referred to as Halsey)

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 22STCV18905

The Plaintiff: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The plaintiff in the case, Ashley Funches, is the former nanny for Halsey, the “Without Me” singer. Funches claims Halsey forced her to work “around the clock on consecutive days with little to no day of rest” and failed to pay overtime – and then fired her when she sought time off for medical care. According to Funches, she sent Halsey a text message informing Halsey that she might need to have a medical procedure completed that would require her to take a leave of absence from work. Allegedly, the only response Funches received to the message came days later, and instead of responding to the request for time off, Halsey fired Funches with no warning. Funches filed her complaint on June 9th, 2022 in Los Angeles court.

The Defendant: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The defendant in the case, Halsey, is the “Without Me” singer facing a new lawsuit claiming she fired her nanny after she requested time off to have a medical procedure completed. The well-known star describes the claims as “baseless.”

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The case, Ashley Funches v. Halsey, will consider various claims of California labor law violations including failure to pay overtime wages, and alleged discrimination based on disability.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an overtime 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.

Did Texas Roadhouse Fail to Provide Employees with Legally Required Breaks and Meal Periods?

In recent news, employees of popular steak restaurant, Texas Roadhouse, claim the company violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Case: Porsche Barrett v. Armadillo Holdings, LLC Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., and Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, "Texas Roadhouse")

The Court: Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CV-22-001986,

The Plaintiff: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Porsche Barrett, alleges that Texas Roadhouse failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by labor law. According to court documents, Barrett was employed by Texas Roadhouse at one of their California locations since 2015. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and as such, was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages due.

The Defendant: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The defendant in the case, the Texas Roadhouse, allegedly failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods, failed to pay employees for all time worked, failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work, failed to pay employees overtime at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to compensate employees for meal rest premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, and failed to issue employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. Additionally, plaintiffs in the case allege that Texas Roadhouse’s uniform policies and practices are intended to purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California law (allegedly allowing the restaurant to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors who are in compliance with the law).

Summary of the Case: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The class-action lawsuit, Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse, is currently pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California law, employers must pay each employee, on the established payday for the specified period, no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in that payroll period. Hours worked are defined in the applicable Wage Order as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” According to the plaintiffs in the case, Texas Roadhouse allegedly required their employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts (off-the-clock work), as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit further alleges that the popular steakhouse restaurant failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. Not providing payment for off-the-clock work and time spent working during meal breaks and rest periods resulted in Texas Roadhouse allegedly failing to pay employees the applicable minimum wage.

If you have questions about California employment law, wage and hour violations, or need help filing 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.

First Advantage Settles Class Actions Claiming they Ran Illegal Background Checks

In recent news, First Advantage settles class-action suits claiming they ran illegal background checks on employees.

The Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct.

The Case No.: CIV-535083

The Plaintiff: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks on consumers without securing prior authorization to do so, which is required by the FCRA. Class members in the case include any consumers who had a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization and provided to a prospective employer between the dates August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020.

The Defendant: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Defendant in the case is First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. First Advantage is a background check company specializing in providing services to employers during their hiring processes.

Details of the Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. is one of two class-action lawsuits claiming First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)). The settlement, which was granted final approval on Dec. 8, 2021, resolves both class actions and benefits individuals who had a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage anytime between August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020 without prior authorization as required by law. Allegedly, First Advantage violated the FCRA by failing to clearly inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and failed to get written authorization. However, First Advantage hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing. But as part of the settlement agreement, they did agree to change their terms and policies ensuring consumers provide prior authorization before any background checks are run on them for the benefit of their potential employers.

If you have questions about California employment law or 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.

Original Mike’s Settles Wage and Hour Class Action with $974k Settlement

In recent news, Original Mike’s is set to settle a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a $974k settlement.

The Case: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2016-00893360-CU-BT-CXC

The Plaintiff: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

According to the plaintiffs in the case, Original Mike’s business actions violated California labor laws. The state of California has some of the strictest protections for employees in the entire country, which can result in steep penalties for employers found in violation of labor law.

The Defendant: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case is Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al. Original Mike’s is a restaurant with locations in various locations in California. According to the 2016 class-action lawsuit filed against Original Mike’s, the company violated California labor law by failing to pay their workers the overtime and regular wages they were due in accordance with state and federal labor laws. In addition to wage violations, the plaintiffs claim Original Mike’s failed to provide employees with mandated meal and rest periods, legal compensation for missed breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, and complete final payment upon termination for all hours worked.

More Details of the Case: Segui v. Original Mike’s Enterprises LLC, et al.

In response to the allegations, Original Mike’s agreed to pay more than $974,000 to resolve the claims that their policies and business practices violated California labor law and denied workers overtime pay and other standard benefits employers are required to provide their employees by law. The $974k settlement benefits California Original Mike’s employees who filled non-overtime-exempt positions at any point between December 26th, 2012, and December 16th, 2016.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how 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, and Riverside.

Can a California Trial Court Stay a Later-Filed PAGA Action Due to Overlapping Claims?

Does a trial court have the discretion to apply the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction to stay a later-filed PAGA action if it has claims that overlap with a PAGA action filed earlier?

The Case: Shaw v. Superior Court

The Court: Cal. App. 5th

The Case: 78 Cal. App. 5th 245 (2022)

The Plaintiff: Shaw v. Superior Court

The plaintiffs in the case conceded that their PAGA-only action arose from facts and theories that already existed in a second PAGA action filed earlier, and pending in Los Angelus County. The trial court granted a motion to stay the legal action until a decision could be made on a petition for judicial coordination with the Los Angeles PAGA lawsuit. When the petition for judicial coordination was denied, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. The court felt it was warranted according to the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction that states when 2 or more courts have subject matter jurisdiction, the first court that asserts jurisdiction usually retains it (to the exclusion of the other courts).

The Court’s Decision: Shaw v. Superior Court

When the California Court of Appeal denied the petition for judicial coordination holding that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction warranted a stay of the action, and the trial court did not err in applying the doctrine. The language and purpose of PAGE left the court disagreeing with the Plaintiffs’ arguments that PAGA repudiated the judge-made exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine. In addition, the court rejected the argument regarding applying the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine to PAGA claims promoting reverse auctions. Instead, the court believes the doctrine stays following suits and prevents defendants from picking and choosing between plaintiffs. The court also pointed out that anytime there are multiple plaintiffs authorized to bring a PAGA claim, the possibility of a reverse auction exists, so the application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine would not increase the likelihood of a reverse auction.

The Conclusion: Shaw v. Superior Court

The court in the case concluded that the Plaintiffs argument that staying duplicative PAGA suits leads to frivolous filings was not convincing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the trial court acted outside their bounds of reason when determining that the countervailing policies raised by the plaintiffs did not outweigh the policies that support the application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine in the case.

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.

Will Sundance Face Morgain in Court Regarding Arbitration Agreement?

Does the FAA require a party resisting arbitration on the grounds of waiver to show they suffered prejudice from a failure to compel arbitration sooner?

The Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court

The Case No.: 142 S.Ct. 1708

Plaintiff in the Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Plaintiff Robyn Morgan, worked at a Taco Bell franchise owned by Sundance Inc. Morgan signed an agreement stating any employment dispute would be argued direction with the defendant. However, Morgan later filed a nationwide collective action alleging that Sundance violated federal overtime pay laws.

Defendant in the Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sundance, Inc., ran the Taco Bell franchise where Morgan worked. When Morgan filed suit, the defendant initially defended against the suit, filing a motion to dismiss, and cooperating with mediation. After eight months, Defendant moved to stay litigation and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Plaintiff argued that Defendant waived the right to arbitration by engaging in litigation. The court denied the defendant’s motion. However, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the finding because the plaintiff did not show prejudice, so the defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration.

The Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

To resolve a circuit split, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari regarding whether federal courts may adopt an arbitration-specific waiver rule demanding a showing of prejudice (similar to the Eighth Circuit, and a number of other circuits). When considered by the United States Supreme Court, the case was vacated and remanded with the court noting that outside the arbitration context, federal courts assessing waivers generally do not consider prejudice. While the FAA’s policy favors arbitration, it does not go so far as to allow federal courts to create arbitration-specific variants of federal laws and procedural rules (like the procedural rules regarding the waiver). The court held that the federal policy being considered intends to treat arbitration contracts like all other contracts - not foster arbitration. The case was remanded to the California court so they could decide if the Defendant waived their right to seek arbitration.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime class action or PAGA lawsuit, please contact 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.

Security Employees Allege Unpaid Meal & Rest Breaks

In recent news, unpaid meal- and rest-break premiums may serve as the basis for waiting-time penalties and inaccurate wage statement claims for a group of California security workers.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Court: Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four

The Case No.: S258966

The Plaintiff: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case allege that their employer violated labor law, specifically citing violations of California Labor Code § 226 which [sets] forth the requirement for employers to furnish accurate wage statements; and California Labor Code § 203 which [sets] forth the requirements for the timely distribution of all wages earned upon an employee’s departure from a job.

The Defendant: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Spectrum Security Services, Inc. provides security services (and related services) to clients on a contract basis, including a variety of federal departments and agencies.

The Case: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

The Second Appellate District Court of Appeal originally held that under Labor Code section 226.7, missed-break premium pay is not a “wage” for purposes of Labor Code sections 203 and 226. Finding that the failure to timely pay or report such payments can never support penalties under either section 203 or 226.However, in May 2022, the California Supreme Court reversed the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal’s finding, making clear that meal and rest period premiums are a type of “wage” and must therefore be accurately reflected on wage statements as well as being accurately paid out when the employee leaves the job (or is fired from the job). The California Supreme Court remanded Naranjo back to the Court of Appeal to determine if any missed-break “premium pay” supported any derivative Section 203 waiting time penalties or Section 226 wage statement penalties where the relevant conditions are met. In order to meet this standard for accurately reporting premium pay on all wage statements, both employers and employees will need to be diligent.

If you have questions about inaccurate overtime pay calculations, inaccurate wage statements, or other employment law violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced California 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.