Fresenius USA Manufacturing Moves for Summary Judgment in Overtime Suit

Fresenius USA Manufacturing allegedly violated California's labor laws governing meal periods, rest breaks, and overtime compensation. In a March 14, 2022 order, the court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Case: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

The Court: United States District Court, Southern District of California

The Case No.: 18cv1163-LAB

The Plaintiff: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Sergio Cota, worked for the Defendant, Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. as a truck driver from May 21, 2008 through April 19, 2017. During his time employed at the company, Cota claims the company violated California's labor laws relating to meal periods, rest breaks, and overtime pay. He also filed derivative claims for failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by law, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The Defendant: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

The defendant in the case (FUSA Manufacturing, plus parent company and co-defendant Fresenius USA, Inc.) employed Cota as a driver. In December 2018, after Cota filed his claims, the Secretary of Transportation declared that the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 preempted California's meal and rest break rules for commercial drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration then stated that the declaration applied to any future enforcement of the specified statutes, even those connected with alleged conduct that occurred before the declaration.

Details of the Case: Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc.

When the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court took up another action involving the FMCSA's preemption decision (Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA, Case No. 19-73488), the parties in Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc. jointly moved to stay the case and await the court's decision. Since it was reasonable to expect the other case's ruling to be "controlling" in the Cota v. Fresenius U.S., Inc. case, the Court granted the motion to stay. In Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. FMCSA, the Ninth Circuit upheld FMCSA's preemption determination but found that FMCSA's opinion on retroactivity was not a reviewable final agency action. In a March 14, 2022 order, the court determined that Cota's wage and rest period claims relied on unenforceable California state law and that his overtime allegations overlooked that he was exempt from the overtime protections used as the basis for the claim. The other wage-related claims Cota filed were derivative of the first three failed claims, and the attached UCL and PAGA claims cannot stand on their own without another claimed violation as support. Based on these arguments, the court granted Fresenius U.S.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in Defendant's favor.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action suit, 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.

A Common Nucleus of Fact in Two Recent Employment Law Suits

In recent news, the court sides with Walmart in two different but connected wage statement violations lawsuits.

The Case: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 18-cv-04598-JSC

The Plaintiff: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The plaintiff in the case, Anguiano-Tamayo, filed a putative class action in 2018 bringing claims under California Labor Code §§ 226 and 2698 against her employer, Walmart Assocs.

The Defendant: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

The defendant in the case, Walmart Assocs., moved to dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss but stayed the case saying it was duplicative of an earlier-filed case pending at that time in the Northern District of California. The duplicative case concluded in 2021.

The Duplicitous Case: Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Roderick Magadia filed the duplicative putative class action in 2016 against his former employer Wal-Mart. (Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK, Dkt. No. 1-1.) Magadia alleged three violations of the California Labor Code:

• wage statement violations (adjusted overtime pay rates allegedly did not include hourly rates or hours worked),

• failure to list pay-period start and end dates on statements of final pay,

• and meal break violations.

In June 2018, Wal-Mart attempted to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting partial summary judgment based on Canales (No. 5:17-cv-00062-LHK, Dkt. No. 129 at 3), a recent California Court of Appeals decision. The court denied "any motion for reconsideration" based on Canales. At the same time, Magadia attempted to amend the original complaint to add a new theory of liability based on Walmart's attempt to raise a new defense. The district court denied the request based on the advanced state of litigation combined with their denial of the defendant's request to raise a new defense. In response, the plaintiff's counsel filed the instant action on behalf of Ana Anguiano-Tamayo, a different employee, and filed an administrative motion to consider whether the two cases were related, arguing that they shared overlapping factual allegations regarding Wal-Mart's wage statements. Wal-Mart opposed claiming that the cases are based on unique theories of liability (Anguiano-Tamayo calls into question how certain wage statements reflect pay periods, and Magadia calls into question how wage statements reflect hourly rates and hours worked. The court denied the request to relate the two cases and stayed the more recently filed case, Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

A Common Nucleus of Fact: Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs.

After the conclusion of Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc, the Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs. case proceeded. While the theories behind the two cases were determined to be unique, in considering Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs., the court decided that they did both arise out of the same transactional nucleus of fact. The court found that Magadia precludes the plaintiff's claim in Anguiano-Tamayo v. Wal-Mart Assocs. The court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment.

If you have questions about wage statement violations or need to file an employment law claim, 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.

Plaintiffs Move for Class Certification in Wage and Hour Misclassification Action

The plaintiffs moved for class certification in the wage and hour misclassification action against Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l.

The Case: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: C 16-05961 WHA

The Plaintiff: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The plaintiff in the case, Gloria Roman, Gerardo Vazquez, and Juan Aguilar, worked for the defendant providing janitorial services. The plaintiffs claim the defendant misclassified them and other putative class members as independent contractors rather than employees who would benefit from the protections offered by employment law. By allegedly misclassifying the plaintiffs, Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l violated California minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursement, and unlawful deduction laws. The plaintiffs seek compensation on behalf of the putative class.

The Defendant: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The defendant in the case, Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, is an international janitorial cleaning business that uses a franchising model with three tiers. The top tier consists of the defendant, Jan-Pro International, Inc. The middle tier consists of "master franchisees" or "master owners" who are regional, third-party entities that purchased exclusive rights to use the trademarked "Jan-Pro" logo. (There were 91 master franchisees in the United States as of 2009). The third tier or bottom tier consists of "unit franchisees" contracted with master franchisees to clean for commercial accounts. Unit franchisees do not contract with the defendant, Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l. A given unit franchisee can be an individual or a few partners who can hire additional workers to help them clean. The plaintiffs purchased unit franchises from two different master franchisees. (The master franchisees in question are not parties herein.) The plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: all unit franchisees who signed franchise agreements with master franchisees in California and performed cleaning services for the defendant since December 12, 2004.

Details of the Case: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The August 2, 2022 order grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to:

• Failure to pay minimum wage for mandatory training

• Failure to reimburse for expenses incurred for required uniforms, necessary cleaning supplies/equipment

• Unlawful deductions of management fees, sales fees, and marketing fees

And the order denies class certification for the remaining labor code claims and issues. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for all the certified matters.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action suit, 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.

Dyncorp Faces Allegations of Employment Law Violations

Dyncorp International LLC faced claims that its wage statements violated labor law, failing to allow employees to easily and quickly identify the number of hours they worked and the rate of pay applicable for hours worked during that pay period.

The Case: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The Court: United States District Court, Central District of California

The Case No.: CV 19-07091DDP

The Plaintiff: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Fierro, worked for Dyncorp International LLC ("Dyncorp) at the Point Mugu Naval Air Station ("Point Mugu") from December 2016 to July 2019. Fierro alleged that Dyncorp violated California labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements showing applicable pay rates and hours worked for specific shift premiums.

The Defendant: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The defendant in the case, Dyncorp, contends that, notwithstanding the omissions, the plaintiff did not demonstrate injury as required by law. Under Labor Code Section 226(a)(9), wage statements must accurately itemize "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee . . . ." Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(9). However, only an "employee suffering injury" due to a deficient wage statement is entitled to recover statutory penalties. Dyncorp argued that the missing info from the wage statements could be identified using "grade school math," so there was no injury. On this basis, the defendant moved for summary judgment.

Details of the Case: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

In an order dated Jan 31, 2022, the court denied Defendant Dyncorp International LLC ("Dyncorp") 's Motion for Summary Judgment. While Dyncorp's argument had precedent, the court found the claim that the missing info could be derived using "grade school math" inaccurate. After examining two example wage statements, there was insufficient information to determine specific pay rates. Dyncorp argued that the "missing fact that dispels this seeming discrepancy" was available in other discovery documents (two collective bargaining agreements) that indicated a "shift differential premium" applicable to specific types of paid time off (i.e., vacation, holidays, jury duty, and personal paid leave). Dyncorp argued that considering that additional information and understanding, the wage statements can then be used to calculate the number of "Shft $2.05" hours worked in the given pay period and the pay allocated for them. Ignoring that the calculations needed to determine the necessary info were, once again, not as simple as Dyncorp claimed, the wage statements were still insufficient. The law requires wage statements employees can use to "promptly and easily determine" the number of hours worked at each applicable rate "from the wage statement alone." (Section 226, Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(2)(B)(I)). The court denied Dyncorp's move for summary judgment.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime pay 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.

Amazon Manager Loses Misclassification Suit Seeking Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Work

A former Amazon Level 4 Shift Manager recently lost a case in which he claimed Amazon misclassified him as exempt when he spent most of his time completing nonexempt work.

The Case: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 17-cv-03820-JSW

The Plaintiff: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

Ortiz, a former Level 4 Shift Manager, handled logistics for the night shift (aka the "Night Sort") at three different Amazon delivery stations from February 1, 2016, until he was terminated on December 11, 2016. Mr. Ortiz alleged that Amazon failed to pay him overtime and provide mandatory rest and meal breaks, violating California's Labor Code.

The Defendant: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The defendant in the case, Amazon, classifies Level 4 Shift Managers as exempt employees. On December 11, 2016, Amazon terminated Mr. Ortiz for violating safety protocols. (According to court documents, Mr. Ortiz was injured after falling off a conveyor belt. During the litigation, Mr. Ortiz admitted that he asked Mr. Lopes (an associate) to lie about the accident and report that the fall occurred on the stairs rather than the conveyor belt, as standing on the conveyor belt in the first place was against Amazon's safety protocols. Mr. Ortiz defended this request claiming he requested it in a "moment of panic." Amazon asserts that the plaintiff is subject to the executive exemption (Labor Code section 515(a) and Wage Order 7-2001).

Details of the Case: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The main question before the court was how much time Mr. Ortiz spent doing nonexempt work. Mr. Ortiz claimed he spent the majority of his time completing nonexempt duties. However, the Court concluded that Mr. Ortiz's credibility on this issue was undermined by witnesses that directly contradicted his testimony (Mr. Lopez and Mr. Abdelaziz). Witnesses corroborating Mr. Ortiz's claim indicated they performed nonexempt tasks for less than 50% of their shifts. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's allegation was undermined by some of the representations on his own resume and social media posts that did not accurately reflect when and why he left his job at Amazon. The court concluded that Amazon met its burden to show that the plaintiff was subject to the executive exemption and not entitled to overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks as mandated for nonexempt employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime pay 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.

$30M Apple Employee Bag Search Lawsuit Settlement Receives Approval

In 2021, Apple agreed to pay retail workers in California $30 million to settle claims that their bag check policy caused violations of California employment law.

The Case: Amanda Frlekin, Aaron Gregoroff, Seth Dowling, Debra Speicher; and Taylor Kalin v. Apple Inc.

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 15-17382

The Plaintiff: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

In an incredibly long, drawn-out lawsuit that Apple employees first filed in 2013, plaintiffs claimed that Apple forced their retail workers to a mandatory search before leaving their job each shift. The mandatory search allegedly included their purses, bags, backpacks, briefcases, and personal Apple smart devices. The plaintiffs estimated that time spent waiting for the search and allowing search ranged from around five to twenty minutes. According to the plaintiffs, some employees even waited up to 45 minutes. Apple allegedly provided no compensation for this time as employees were required to clock out before their exit search according to Apple policy.

The Defendant: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Apple, Inc., is well known and needs no definition. Apple claimed the exit searches were necessary to prevent theft. On the other hand, employees brought up the amount of time spent waiting and enduring the mandatory searches with no pay.

Details of the Case: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

In July 2015, the district court certified the class defined as "all Apple California non-exempt employees who were subject to the bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present." This case asked the question, "Is time spent on the employer's premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as "hours worked" within the meaning of Wage Order 7?" A California judge dismissed the class action suit in 2015, but the plaintiffs appealed. When the appeals court was asked the same question, they turned to the California Supreme Court to clarify the law. In February 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled that Apple must pay their retail workers for their time spent for mandatory exit searches. In November 2021, Apple agreed to a $30 million settlement to resolve the matter, and U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup approved the settlement in summer 2022. The class members total approximately 12,000 current and former California Apple store employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action suit, 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.

Jet Blue and California Flight Attendants Agree to Settle Claims

In recent news, JetBlue is working toward a settlement to resolve litigation brought by California flight attendants alleging noncompliance with California work rules.

The Case: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 15-cv-01203

The Plaintiff: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The two lead plaintiffs were JetBlue flight attendants. The workers alleged that JetBlue did not grant them overtime pay or provide accurate wage statements of hours worked as flight attendants. Court documents show the plaintiffs filed suit in 2015.

The Defendant: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The defendant in the case, JetBlue, found itself facing litigation, including allegations it violated California work rules requiring meal breaks and rest periods for California employees working for companies in California. In addition, the plaintiffs accuse the major airline of failing to pay them overtime pay for hours they worked over 8 hours in one workday. After several different rulings in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, the two parties decided on a settlement during private mediation on June 2, 2022.

Details of the Case: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

If approved, the proposed settlement motion would require JetBlue to pay “$3.6 million for claims from 568 different class members. The amounts distributed to each class member are established based on:

• the time employed with JetBlue and

• the category of harm that applies to each situation (harm from not receiving a proper pay statement, not receiving proper overtime pay, and receiving appropriate pay for work late upon termination from the company).

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