Zero Motorcycles Settles Wage and Hour Claims with $425K Class Action Settlement

To resolve wage and hour claims that the company failed to provide workers with proper wages, Zero Motorcycles agreed to pay a $425,000 settlement.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Cruz

The Case No.: 19-CV-03725

The Plaintiff: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are employees of Zero Motorcycles. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the company violated California law by failing to calculate correct regular pay rates and forcing employees to perform off-the-clock work. Allegedly, these labor law violations resulted in the company paying their employees less than minimum wage and inaccurate overtime wages. The plaintiffs also claim that the company denied them rest and meal breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, separation wages, and related penalties (all of which constitute labor law violations).

The Defendant: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The defendant in the case, Zero Motorcycles, manufactures and sells various motorcycles. The models they offer vary from street bikes to dual sport bikes. According to Zero Motorcycle's website, the California-based company specializes in high-performance electric technology. However, in the plaintiff's class action lawsuit, the company is accused of failing to pay its employees properly.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The wage-and-hour class action lawsuit, Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc., listed several alleged labor law violations: paying their employees less than minimum wage, paying inaccurate overtime wages, denying employees their rest and meal breaks, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to offer separation wages promptly, etc. The class action also included claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Zero Motorcycles did not admit to any wrongdoing, but they did agree to pay the $425,000 settlement to resolve the alleged California labor law violations. The wage and hour settlement benefits those who worked for Zero Motorcycles in California between Dec. 16th, 2015, and June 13th, 2021. The settlement terms allow class members to collect a payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period, so workers who completed a more significant number of workweeks during the class period will be eligible for a higher settlement payment. The proposed settlement agreement also includes a $30,000 payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency for PAGA violations. The court scheduled a final approval hearing for the settlement for July 26th, 2022.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$100M Riot Games Workplace Gender Discrimination Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the court granted preliminary approval to the proposed $100 million settlement to resolve workplace gender discrimination claims against Riot Games.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 18STCV03957

The Plaintiff: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

In 2018, the plaintiffs in the case, Melanie McCracken and Jess Negrón, filed a class action lawsuit against Riot Games in California federal court, arguing their former employer violated the California Equal Pay Act due to the allegedly hostile workplace. The female employees claimed Riot Games fostered a workplace culture of gender discrimination and harassment.

The Defendant: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The defendant in the case, Riot Games, was founded in 2006. The company develops, publishes, and supports player-focused games worldwide. In 2009, the company released its debut title, League of Legends, which received worldwide recognition. League has since become the most-played PC game in the world and a significant component in the explosive growth of esports.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

Previously, McCracken and Negrón agreed to a $10 million settlement with Riot Games. However, California's Department of Fair Employment Housing (DFEH) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement halted the settlement after determining the amount inadequate for the case. The new settlement agreement calls for Riot Games to pay at least $80 million of the settlement in compensation to current and former female employees and contractors (employed by Riot Games between November 6th, 2014 to the present). According to the agreement, Riot Games will also put $6 million in a cash reserve for the next three years to fund programs designed to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. The settlement agreement also requires Riot Games to hire third-party experts to ensure it improves its workplace culture by incorporating compliance audits and gender-equity analyses for the company. Judge Elihu M. Berle, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, approved the $100 million settlement on July 22nd, 2022. The settlement resolves claims that Riot Games' workplace was filled with systemic gender discrimination and harassment against female employees and temp workers. Under the agreement, approximately 1,065 female Riot employees and about 1,300 temp contract workers will receive a minimum of $80 million (with an additional $20 million paid in attorneys fees).

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss workplace discrimination 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.8M Settlement Could Resolve Background Checks FCRA Class Action Claims

G4S Secure Solutions recently agreed to a settlement totaling almost $1.8 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming they violated federal law with unfair background checks.

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The Court: Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida

The Case No.: 21-ca-005587

The Plaintiff: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Lonita Johnson, claims G4S Secure Solutions violated federal law with its employee applicant background checks. According to the court documents, the plaintiff alleges that while the company used a background check form when obtaining background checks, it did not comply with disclosures and other requirements under the federal FCRA.

The Defendant: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The defendant, G4S Secure Solutions, is a part of G4S Global. The company offers security services, cash solutions, consulting services, and care and justice services around the globe. Consider a few examples of the type of professional services the company provides:

• Estonia border security

• A Turkish bank's security upgrade

• Creating a safety standard for a European car manufacturer

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

Under FCRA, employees and job applicants are guaranteed certain rights. The FCRA holds employers to several standards when requesting, running, or taking employment action based on background checks. Employers must obtain written permission before running a background check and include disclosures in compliance with FCRA requirements. Employers/prospective employers are also limited in what they can ask about a job applicant or employee's background. According to the lawsuit, Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., G4S Secure Solutions violated these and other FCRA requirements when they requested and ran background checks on employees and applicants. G4S Secure Solutions did not admit any wrongdoing, but they did agree to resolve the allegations with a class action lawsuit settlement of $1,758,625. The settlement benefits G4S Secure Solutions employees and applicants to whom the company provided an FCRA disclosure and authorization fund since July 21st, 2019. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for the proposed settlement for Sept. 28th, 2022.

If you have questions about FCRA background check violations or need help filing a California employment law complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Costco $3.2M ERISA Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval

On July 18th, 2022, the court granted final approval to the $3.2 million settlement agreement parties reached in March 2022 to resolve class action allegations. The class action alleged that Costco mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-00937

The Plaintiff: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Soulek, filed the class action on behalf of plan participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees of the Costco 401(k) Retirement Plan. Eligible class members are retirement plan account participants as of the class certification date or participants who had a plan account on or after the last business day of a month on or after May 30th, 2014, with an account balance of $1,000 or more for at least 12 months beginning during the class period. The class period is from May 30th, 2014, through March 17th, 2022. The plaintiff's class action accused Costco of mismanagement resulting in the 401(k) plan incurring administrative and investment management fees that were higher than necessary.

The Defendant: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The defendant in the case, Costco, is a sizeable membership-based chain of wholesale stores that sell various products (groceries, electronics, pet products, household goods, basic office supplies, and more). According to the company's website, the chain's membership is currently at more than a million members (or shoppers).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

In March 2022, the parties involved in the case, Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., reached a $3.2 million class action lawsuit settlement agreement to resolve claims that the company mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Costco denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to the settlement to resolve the class action ERISA claims. The Court granted the settlement final approval on July 18th, 2022. Under the terms of the Costco 401(k) settlement agreement, the company agreed that current plan participants would be eligible for an administrative fee reduction, with a maximum total value of $3.2 million. Former plan participants and current eligible participants (those who cease having a plan account by the settlement's effective date) can claim payment through the settlement agreement. Settlement payments to former plan participants are calculated on the number of quarters their plan account balance exceeded $1,000 during the class period. The amount is determined based on an allocation plan included in the settlement agreement.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an ERISA lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Lawsuit Alleged Merrill Lynch Violated Wage & Hour and Overtime Pay Laws

Did you know Merril Lynch resolved unpaid wage and overtime pay claims in a 2020 class action lawsuit with a settlement deal?

The Case: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Incorporated

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

The Case No.: CIV 2001671

The Plaintiff: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Scrooc, made allegations under various California laws: the state's labor laws, the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Private Attorneys General Act or PAGA (a law that allows California workers to bring labor claims on behalf of the state's labor authority). The plaintiff filed a class action alleging Merrill Lynch underpaid their California financial advisors.

The Defendant: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

Merrill Lynch is an investment management company. The investment management company employs financial advisors and associates who work with customers to guide them in creating personalized investment plans and retirement plans. According to the Merrill Lynch website, the company employs more than 13,000 financial advisors.

Summary of the Case: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

Did Merrill Lynch take advantage of its California advisors by failing to pay wages properly? While Merrill Lynch did not admit any wrongdoing and continues to contend that its company complied with California wage-and-hour laws, it agreed to a $1.375 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the wage and hour and overtime pay claims. A $100,000 portion of the settlement fund was allocated for PAGA claims, including some payments to eligible class members and a sizeable financial penalty paid to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members include Merrill Lynch employees who worked in California as Client Associates between Aug. 26th, 2016, and May 12th, 2022, and had one of the following job titles: Registered Client Associate, Registered Senior Client Associate, Investment Associate, Private Wealth Associate, Sales Assistant, Sales Associate, Account Associate, Brokerage Associate or any other non-exempt administrative support position.

If you have questions about California employment law, wage and hour violations, or need help filing a California class-action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

First Advantage Agrees to a Settlement to Resolve Class Action Alleging Unauthorized Background Checks

First Advantage recently agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement. The settlement will resolve claims that First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)).

The Case: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty

The Case No.: CGC-17-560531

The Plaintiff: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks without obtaining prior authorization from consumers (which is required by law). Class members in the case include any consumers with a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization that was offered to a prospective employer between Aug. 17th, 2012, and Nov. 20th, 2020. According to the plaintiffs in the case, the background check company failed to secure prior consumer authorization as required by the FCRA.

The Defendant: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The Defendant in the case, First Advantage, is a background check company that provides services to employers when guiding job applicants through their hiring process. Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. is the second legal action First Advantage faces claiming the company routinely flouted federal law by running background checks on job applicants without first obtaining consent as required by law.

Details of the Case: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The FCRA was created to protect consumers by regulating the information collected (and distributed) by credit reporting bureaus. When companies request or run a background check on an employee or job applicant, the FCRA requires that they first provide "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" that "consists solely of the disclosure" so individuals are adequately notified of the background check and how the information will be used. Before running the reports, employers or prospective employers must obtain written authorization from consumers. First Advantage allegedly violated the FCRA on both counts: 1) failing to inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and 2) failing to get written authorization before running the report. While First Advantage did not admit to any wrongdoing, they did agree to resolve the class action claims with a settlement. The settlement benefits individuals with a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage without prior authorization between Aug. 17th, 2012, and Nov. 20th, 2020. As part of the settlement agreement, First Advantage agreed to change its terms and policies to ensure consumers receive prior authorization before a potential employer runs their background check.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Misclassified Driver Files Appeal After District Court Dismisses All Claims

Brant, an allegedly misclassified driver, appealed after the U.S. District Court dismissed all claims in his FLSA lawsuit.

The Case: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

The Case No.: 21-2122

The Plaintiff: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eric R. Brant, hauled freight for the defendant in the case. Brant was classified as an independent contractor in 2018 and 2019. Brant sued Schneider in July 2020, claiming federal and state law violations and alleging Schneider National Inc. was willfully misclassifying workers as independent contractors. Brant claims Schneider engaged in several employment law violations, including minimum wage requirements (FLSA and Wisconsin Law), unjustly enriching itself (Wisconsin law), and Truth-in-Leasing regulations (federal law). When the case was before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge William C. Griesbach granted Schneider's motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings (No. 20-cv-01049-WCG). Brant appealed the decision.

The Defendant: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case is Schneider National, Inc., a significant motor carrier. In 2019, Schneider oversaw thousands of trucks in its freight business. Most of Schneider's drivers are employees, but in 2020 it designated more than a quarter of its drivers as independent contractors. At this time, Schneider recruited drivers interested in being "owner-operators" who had not independently invested in purchasing a truck by leasing Schneider's trucks out to drivers who would then drive for Schneider under contract. Under this contract, Brant became an "owner-operator" and hauled freight for Schneider from December 2018 to August 2019. While Brant claims the company misclassified him and violated multiple employment laws, the company claims they were engaged in a business deal with Brant, relying on two written contracts. The Lease allowed Brant to lease a Freightliner truck from Schneider, and an Operating Agreement allowed Brant to lease the truck back to Schneider and receive 65% of the gross revenue for the shipments he hauled for Schneider.

Details of the Case: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

While the U.S. District Court granted Schneider's motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Appeals Court found that the district court erred in basing its decision on the terms of Schneider's contracts because the economic reality of the working relationship is the critical factor when determining whether a person is an employee under the FLSA, not the terms of a written contract. Instead of basing the decision on the terms of the written agreement, the decision should be based on the behaviors, practices, and job requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that Brant had alleged legal, viable claims for relief under the FLSA, Wisconsin minimum-wage law, Wisconsin law of unjust enrichment, and the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations. TheU.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

If you have questions about how to file a misclassification 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.