October 19, 2022

WinCo Foods Faces Allegations of Violating Overtime Pay Law

October 19, 2022/ Blog Author

A non-exempt WinCo employee filed a complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees alleging that WinCo violated California employment law.

The Case: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01354-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. March 28, 2022)

The Plaintiff: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

Everardo Garza, the plaintiff in the case, was a non-exempt employee at WinCo. On August 21, 2020, he filed the original complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated at WinCo, alleging that the company failed to pay wages due to the employees. Garza's class action suit seeks to hold the company liable for the employment law violations.

The Allegations: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

Garza asserts seven causes of action arising under California state law in the complaint.

1. Failure to pay overtime wages

2. Failure to pay minimum wages

3. Rest period violations

4. Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

5. Waiting time penalties

6. Unfair competition

7. Civil penalties under the PAGA

The Defendant: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

WinCo Holdings, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an operator of grocery stores and a distribution and transportation network across California. According to Garza's allegations, WinCo utilized a rounding policy when counting their employees' work hours, resulting in unpaid regular hours and overtime hours. When WinCo did account for overtime hours worked, Garza alleges the company improperly calculated the overtime rate of pay. Additionally, Garza claims WinCo failed to pay non-exempt employees non-discretionary bonus payments connected to their overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, WinCo also failed to provide required rest breaks (uninterrupted, duty-free rest breaks), and rest periods were not authorized.

Details of the Case: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

In September 2020, WinCo removed the case to federal court. In October 2020, WinCo moved to dismiss all claims arguing a failure to state a claim under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. They also argued that Garza's first cause of action was preempted and subject to dismissal under the LMRA because Garza's employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). WinCo also argued that the complaint was not sufficiently argued. Garza disagreed and filed a motion to remand to state court. The court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

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

October 17, 2022

$480,000 Settlement Approved for Inmate After Jail Staff Stops at Starbucks En Route to Hospital

October 17, 2022/ Blog Author

Recently, an Orange County inmate’s wrongful death lawsuit received approval for a $480,000 settlement.

The Case: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

The Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California

The Case No.: 20-56177

The Plaintiff: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

When the plaintiff in the case, Sandra Quinones, was an inmate of Orange County she was six months pregnant. She was in the midst of a 70-day sentence for violating probation in Central Jail in Orange County, California. In March 2016, her water broke. According to court documents, she allegedly pushed the call button in her cell for help repeatedly. Jail staff responded two hours later. According to Quinones, when staff responded, they transported her to the hospital on a “non-emergency” status and even stopped at Starbucks en route. When the transport arrived at the hospital, Quinones was admitted, and she gave birth, but the baby died. Quinones later filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Defendant: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

The defendant in the case, Orange County, faced allegations that their training policies to prepare staff to deal with the medical needs of inmates were not suitable and that Quinones’s experience resulted in “severe and extreme” post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Quinones has been homeless since the incident. The plaintiff claims her residential status and her inability to function and care for herself and her affairs since the incident resulted from a combination of mental impairments and the severe emotional harm she experienced.

Details of the Case: Sandra Quinones v. County of Orange

Orange County initially argued that Quinone’s federal lawsuit be thrown out based on the statute of limitations. In October 2020, the case was dismissed when a district judge agreed with the defendant, but an appeals court reversed that ruling in December, sending the case back to the lower level of the justice system. In August 2022, parties in the case received approval for a $480,000 settlement to resolve the matter.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

October 13, 2022

Glenhaven Healthcare Requests the Supreme Court Consider PREP Act Case

October 13, 2022/ Blog Author

Will the U.S. Supreme Court decide to hear a nursing home Covid-19 wrongful death case involving the PREP Act as requested by Glenhaven Healthcare? If so, this could be the first time the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the federal statute.

The Case: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-56194

The Plaintiff: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

Ricardo Saldana, the listed plaintiff in the case, died from COVID-19 at a Glenhaven nursing home. Saldana's relatives sued the facility in California state court in May 2020, citing wrongful death. The family alleges that the nursing home facility did not provide its employees with appropriate protective equipment. They also claim the facility did not identify and isolate workers and residents with COVID-19 (or suspected COVID-19 exposure) before others in the facility were exposed. The defendant, Glenhaven, removed the case to federal court, but the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California disagreed with the defendant's arguments. The case was sent back to state court in October 2020.

The Defendant: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

The defendant in the case, Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC, is a California-based nursing home operator. In late August 2022, Glenhaven Healthcare asked the Supreme Court to consider taking the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to keep the case in state court. Glenhaven argues that the claims in Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC are preempted by the federal PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness), so the case should continue in federal court. Similar cases have popped up all across the country. And while some have made it to the federal appeals court, there have yet to be any federal rulings that the PREP Act supersedes state law actions.

Details of the Case: Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare, LLC

The PREP Act provides immunity from suit if the HHS Secretary determines that a threat to health constitutes a public health emergency. Still, it also provides an exception for an exclusive federal cause of action for willful misconduct. A March 2020 declaration under the Act provided "liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19." The PREP Act was initially designed in 2005 to ensure that the concern or threat of litigation would not prevent the private sector or other necessary entities from developing and administering essential countermeasures. According to court documents, Glenhaven claims they complied with mandatory directives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could be the first time they issue a federal ruling regarding these arguments.

October 11, 2022

Tesla Inc. Facing Allegations of Fostering Racial Discrimination and Harassment

October 11, 2022/ Blog Author

In recent news, Tesla Inc. couldn't escape a California racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit alleging they fostered a hostile work environment in a Tesla factory in San Francisco Bay, California.

The Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, Alameda County

The Case No.: 22CV006830

The Allegations: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc., Tesla allegedly fostered a workplace environment that supported discrimination and harassment. According to the case, black workers at Tesla claimed they heard racial slurs at work as often as 50 to 100 times a day. In addition, they also regularly saw racist graffiti in the factory's bathrooms, on workstations, at lunch tables, etc. On top of that, black Tesla workers were allegedly paid less than their non-Black co-workers for substantially similar work.

The Defendant: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., attempted to avoid the lawsuit requesting the court throw out the complaint. However, the court tentatively denied Tesla's request to dismiss the complaint in late August 2022. According to Tesla spokespeople, the company strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and feels the lawsuit is misguided.

Details of the Case: Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Tesla Inc.

Citing claims of hundreds of Black workers with evidence supporting their claims of general racially based mistreatment, harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation at Tesla's Fremont plant, the lawsuit is set to move forward. The original lawsuit was filed in February 2022, and Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo will consider the case. The defendant, Tesla Inc., is also defending against similar claims in a proposed class action on behalf of California factory workers in state court. Last year, a judge rejected Tesla's similar request to dismiss the claims made in the class action. Tesla denies any wrongdoing in relation to employment law violations and hostile workplace allegations and states they've implemented several policies in the last few years to prevent racial discrimination and harassment and establish consequences when they occur in their workplaces. In a case citing similar accusations, a former Tesla contractor was awarded a $137 million jury verdict due to racial abuse at the factory. A judge later said the award should be reduced to $15 million and that former contractor disagreed with the adjustment, so the case is headed for a retrial.

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.

October 07, 2022

Capital Ready Mix, Inc. Faces Allegations of Failing to Pay Accurate Sick Pay

October 07, 2022/ Blog Author

A concrete company, Capital Ready Mix, Inc., faces allegations of employment law violations in a class action lawsuit.

The Case: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2022-00325517

The Plaintiff: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

Margarita Delgado, the plaintiff in the case, was employed by Capital Ready Mix, Inc. in California since August 2020. Classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly, Delgado was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Delgado filed a class action lawsuit alleging the company violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Capital Ready Mix, Inc., is a California corporation that conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in California, providing ready-mix concrete.

Details of the Case: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

According to the class action lawsuit, Capital Ready Mix, Inc. allegedly failed to fully relieve Delgado for her legally required thirty (30) minute meal breaks. According to the plaintiff's claims, employees were also allegedly sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without being provided the legally required ten (10) minute rest periods. According to the California Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are when employees are relieved from "all work-related duties and free from employer control." According to allegations included in the class action, Capital Ready Mix, Inc. also allegedly failed to pay their employees accurate sick pay wages, violating California Labor Code Section 246. Employees routinely earned non-discretionary incentive wages, increasing their regular pay rate. However, when those employees were paid their sick pay wages, the company allegedly used the base pay rate instead of the higher regular pay rate (including the non-discretionary incentive pay).

October 05, 2022

SmartTalent Staffing Agency Allegedly Refused to Place Women per Client Requests

October 05, 2022/ Blog Author

SmartTalent, a Gig Harbor, Washington-based staffing agency, faces allegations that they complied with client demands to refuse to place females.

The Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01102-RSM

The Allegations: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

According to the lawsuit, EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC, SmartTalent staffing agency made a practice of honoring requests some of their business clients made to fill positions with strictly male applicants. Allegedly, the staffing agency violated employment law by refusing to place females in open positions per client demands. The lawsuit alleges that SmartTalent managers trained recruiters to fill gender-based recruitment requests to keep their company's clientele satisfied. As a result of this standard practice at the agency, SmartTalent specifically advised female workers that specific jobs were not available or that certain jobs would not be a good fit based on their sex. Specifically, SmartTalent told women that warehouse jobs were mainly for men, labor-intensive jobs were too hard, and that women didn't belong in these types of positions.

The Defendant: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

The defendant in the case, SmartTalent, LLC, is a staffing agency based out of Gig Harbor, Washington. Their contingent and temp workers are part of a large group of workers vulnerable to losing employment opportunities, which frequently occurs due to client preferences regarding long-standing stereotypes of men's or women's work.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC

SmartTalent, LLC's alleged conduct on behalf of its clients violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids using gender-based criteria in employment practices. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the women workers affected by SmartTalent's alleged discriminatory practices, and the lawsuit seeks lost wages and monetary damages (including compensation for emotional distress). The suit also seeks punitive damages and injunctive relief (like a permanent injunction and ongoing monitoring procedures to ensure that SmartTalent policies and practices comply in the future). Lawsuits like EEOC v. SmartTalent, LLC assist in removing unnecessary barriers to employment and remedying class-wide sex discrimination by staffing agencies and employers, which is critical for the health of the workforce.

October 03, 2022

BaronHR and Radiant Services Face Discriminatory Recruitment and Hiring Lawsuit

October 03, 2022/ Blog Author

In recent news, BaronHR and Radiant Services have been accused of discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices.

The Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06517

Staffing Agencies & Employers in a Dual-Employer Relationship: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

In EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, two entities are accused of violating employment law due to a dual-employer relationship. When staffing agencies and employers work together in a dual-employer relationship, they are both responsible for complying with employment law. A discrimination-free workplace is required by employment law, and preferential hiring has no place in the workforce. When a staffing agency agrees to discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices requested by an employer, the liability for the employment law violation extends from the employer to the staffing agency.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, the defendants in EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC, face allegations of employment law violations as dual employers. BaronHR is a national staffing agency that works with Radiant Services Corporation, a commercial laundry facility that provides services in Southern California’s hospitality industry. The two face accusations of discriminatory denial of work based on race, national origin, and sex. According to the case documents, BaronHR and Radiant have avoided recruiting, referring, and hiring Black, Asian, and White applicants for low-skill jobs since 2015. The company allegedly requested women applicants for particular “light” jobs and only men for other “heavy” jobs. According to the lawsuit, BaronHR fulfilled the company’s request to recruit new hires based on sex. In addition to recruiting applicants based on sex, the company also required applicants to have no medical conditions or past injuries, which excluded qualified individuals with disabilities (perceived disabilities or past disabilities) from any open positions at the company.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Radiant Services Corp. and BaronHR, LLC

Federal law prohibits screening qualified job applicants to exclude individuals or groups based on sex, race, national origin, or disability. A policy that supports the practice violates employment law and creates an unhealthy, likely hostile work environment.

California Labor Laws