U.S. Supreme Court Sends Domino’s Wage Lawsuit Back to 9th Circuit

In recent news, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the Domino’s wage lawsuit back to the 9th Circuit.

The Case: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The Court: Supreme Court of United States

The Case No.: 21-1572

The Previous Ruling: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

Domino’s Pizza LLC employed the ingredient delivery drivers that filed the wage and hour lawsuit. The previous ruling in the case, Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona, was issued in December 2021 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The 9th Circuit found that the drivers qualify for a federal law carveout from arbitration agreements because they deliver out-of-state products from Domino’s centralized California depot to various franchise stores throughout California.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the California wage and hour lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza LLC solely to send the case back to the lower court. The ingredient delivery drivers filed suit seeking to clarify which workers are exempt from mandatory arbitration based on their engagement in interstate commerce. The drivers delivered out-of-state products from Domino’s centralized California depot to franchise stores across the state. The Ninth Circuit found that this qualified them for a federal law carveout from arbitration agreements. However, the U.S. Supreme Court justices’ decision vacated the December 2021 ruling suggesting the appeals court reconsider the case in light of the recent decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon.

The Dispute: Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona

The Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Carmona case is falling amid a surge of litigation over transportation workers’ attempts to avoid mandatory arbitration of various employment disputes. Domino’s argued that the appeals court misinterpreted the Federal Arbitration Act and urged the high court to determine which class of transportation workers are covered by the exemption. Saxon did not offer a decision on the issue. In Saxon, the justices unanimously concluded that a former Southwest ramp supervisor qualified for the named exemption because she was involved in transporting goods across state or international borders, which fell inside the Act’s parameters. The finding allowed the ramp supervisor to pursue her overtime dispute in court rather than arbitration. However, in Saxon, the court specified that the exemption does not cover all transportation workers. Domino’s suggested the appeal is the ideal opportunity to settle the question resulting in a split among the Eleventh, Night, and Seventh Circuit Courts. In opposition, the drivers argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is in line with Saxon because the high court’s finding indicated the arbitration carveout applies when there is movement of goods in interstate commerce (even if the worker completing the transportation does not cross a state line themselves).

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.

Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Case Results in $8.1M Settlement

In recent news, a woman who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury after being sideswiped at a stoplight by a negligent driver received an $8.1 million verdict.

The Case: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: BCV-19-101566-JEB

The Plaintiff: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

In 2017, the plaintiffs (two Rosamond, California residents) drove their Ford Flex in their local area. Another driver ran a red light and t-boned the plaintiff during a left-hand turn. In the time leading up to the trial, the plaintiff repeatedly requested that State Farm, the defendant's insurance carrier, pay the defendant's $100,000 policy limits. However, State Farm refused. After years of litigation, just two months before trial, State Farm offered just $30,000 to settle the mild traumatic brain injury case.

The Defendant: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

During litigation and throughout the trial, State Farm's attorneys attempted to minimize the severity of the incident, arguing that, at most, the plaintiff suffered a concussion that should have been resolved within months. Still, the jury also heard testimony from the plaintiff and physicians claiming that significant residual problems resulted from the car crash requiring substantial future medical treatment.

The Case: Plaintiffs v. Alyse Williams and Does

The car accident victim in the Bakersfield case first (and repeatedly) attempted to get State Farm to agree to pay out the defendant's $100,000 policy limits. When State Farm refused to do so throughout the years of litigation, the case went to trial. After hearing the case details and considering testimony defending both parties' arguments, the Bakersfield jury awarded the car accident victim $8.1 million for mild traumatic brain injury. The jury verdict includes $5,243,725.04 in future medical expenses, along with $250,000 in past non-economic losses, and $1,600,000 in future non-economic losses. It also includes $1 million in damages awarded to the car accident victim's husband.

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

Female Workers at California Winery Claim Employer Allowed Sexual Harassment

Women at a California winery claim they were sexually harassed daily on the job, and the company failed to investigate their complaints.

The Case: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 2:22-cv-06039

The Plaintiff: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated federal law by allegedly allowing a class of female employees to be subjected to sexual harassment. According to court documents, the harassment began as early as 2017. Male managers at Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC’s production and restaurant locations in Paso Robles, California were allegedly allowed to sexually harass female employees daily. The sexual harassment was described as widely varied, including unwanted, repeated sexual advances, sexual comments, general sexually offensive conduct, and even unwelcome physical contact. The women allegedly complained to Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC and The Wonderful Company LLC about the situation. Still, they claim the company did not attempt to properly investigate the complaints or take any appropriate steps to stop the ongoing sexual harassment. After complaining of sexual harassment, some female employees claim they faced workplace retaliation or were forced out of their jobs.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery

The defendants in the case are Justin Vineyards & Winery, a wine production company headquartered in Paso Robles, California, and its parent company, The Wonderful Company LLC, headquartered in LA.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery

The court documents for the case, EEOC v. Justin Vineyards & Winery, allege actions violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a hostile environment based on sex (including sexual harassment), as well as retaliation against anyone who complains about sexual harassment. After pre-litigation settlement negotiations failed, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit seeks monetary damages for the claimants, including compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief against the company to prevent similar unlawful conduct against employees.

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.

Lowe’s Settles Sexual Harassment Claims with $700,000 Settlement

In recent news, Lowe's settled sexual harassment claims spanning a decade with a $700,000 settlement.

The Case: EEOC v. Lowe's

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

The Case No.: Case No. 22-08152-PCT-SPL

The Plaintiff: EEOC v. Lowe's

The plaintiffs in the case claim that Lowe's allowed sexual harassment of female employees at their Lake Havasu City location for approximately ten years in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a year's worth of attempts to reach a prelitigation settlement failed, the sexual harassment lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on August 30th, 2022. The three women who filed suit allege more than a decade of "open, notorious, and frequent" sexual harassment and abuse by a male co-worker at Lowe's.

The Defendant: EEOC v. Lowe's

The defendant in the case, Lowe's, is a nationwide hardware and home improvement giant based out of Mooresville, North Carolina. One of the three women who filed the lawsuit alleging sexual harassment at Lowe's stated that she asked the male co-worker to stop and reported the harassment to her supervisors for ten years. After ten years, the 59-year-old Lowe's customer service employee filed a grievance through Lowe's telephone hotline in 2018. After reporting the on-the-job harassment, the woman went on short-term disability. According to court documents, she could no longer handle the stress and anxiety caused by the daily sexual harassment at work. In response, Lowe's allegedly forced the woman to choose between returning to the office with the same people who harassed her (or failed to protect her from harassment for a decade) or quitting her job.

Details of the Case: EEOC v. Lowe's

The defendant settled the lawsuit on September 16th, 2022. Lowe's will pay the $700,000 settlement and provide other relief to settle the sexual harassment discrimination lawsuit. The additional relief specified in the three-year consent decree required the Lowe's Lake Havasu City location to:

•Revise anti-discrimination policies

•Respond to sexual harassment complaints promptly

•Conduct thorough investigations of any complaints of sexual harassment

•Provide employee training on sexual harassment

•Offer the three women who filed the sexual harassment lawsuit letters of reference

• Provide reports on their revised training, future complaints of discrimination, and revisions to Lowe's policies or procedures to the EEOC

If you have questions about how to file a California sexual harassment 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.

WinCo Foods Faces Allegations of Violating Overtime Pay Law

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.

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

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.

Glenhaven Healthcare Requests the Supreme Court Consider PREP Act Case

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.

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.