Former Yield Monitor Claims Foster Poultry Farms Violated Labor Law

A former yield monitor for Foster Poultry Farms LLC claims the company violated labor law by engaging in discriminatory practices and failing to accommodate a disability.

The Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District

The Case No.: 17CECG03360

The Plaintiff: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur, the plaintiff in the case, was employed as a yield monitor at Foster Poultry Farms LLC, a chicken processing facility. In 2013, she slipped on the job while wearing company-issued rubber boots. The incident left her with a broken left wrist. In May 2016, Foster Farms announced a restructuring. The following month, the labor relations manager told Kaur she was losing her job because Foster Poultry Farms was eliminating several positions. In July 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, claiming labor code violations.

The Allegations: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Kaur’s 2017 complaint alleged the following claims:

• Discrimination (based on race/nationality and disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA))

• Failure to provide reasonable accommodation (under FEHA)

• Failure to engage in an interactive process (under FEHA)

• Failure to take all appropriate measures to prevent discrimination (under FEHA)

• Retaliation for asserting FEHA rights

• Retaliation under section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code

The History of the Case: Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

The plaintiff, Kaur, is of Indian origin. She testified that three company employees discriminated against her: one supply room worker and two supervisors. In 2019, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge denied the WCAB petition under section 132a. Kaur’s former employer filed a motion for summary judgment citing legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barring the plaintiff’s claims in light of the WCAB’s decision and the statute of limitations barring the discrimination claim based on race/national origin. The trial court agreed with the company’s arguments and granted summary judgment in its favor, but the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was reversed in connection with the plaintiff’s FEHA claims of disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in an interactive process. The court of appeal found that the WCAB’s decision denying the disability discrimination claim under section 132a had no preclusive effect under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace discrimination 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.

California Uber Case May Revive California Law Weakened by Supreme Court

A U.S. Supreme Court decision recently weakened a unique California law allowing workers to join and sue their employer over labor law violations. However, the California State Supreme Court is considering reviving the law in a suit by another Uber driver in Adolph v. Uber Technologies.

The Case: Adolph v. Uber Technologies

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: S274671

What is the PAGA:

The PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) was enacted in 2004 to allow employees to sue their employers, individually or collectively, in the state's name for violating employment laws like those governing minimum wages, overtime, and meal and rest breaks. Successful PAGA suits result in the employees collecting 25% of the penalties provided by labor law, with the rest going to the state. Previously, PAGA allowed workers to sidestep standard provisions in employment contracts requiring all disputes to be heard individually by private arbitrators instead of the court. Limiting employee disputes to private arbitrators severely limits their opportunity for resolution, as arbitrators' decisions are virtually unappealable. According to studies, arbitrators usually favor employers, who are their regular customers.

How Was the PAGA Weakened by the U.S. Supreme Court?

On June 15th, however, the nation's high court, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that California's PAGA violates employers' right under federal law to take disputes to arbitration when doing so is a requirement included in the work contract. The nation's high court argued that when the contract is signed by both the employer and the employee, allowing an employee to take the issue to court circumscribes the freedom of parties to determine which issues are subject to arbitration and what rules apply to the arbitration.

How the California Supreme Court Could Restore the PAGA's Power:

However, the California Supreme Court is the highest authority on the meaning of California state law. And the California State Court will decide whether PAGA allows workers who have consented to take their disputes to arbitration, to file labor-law claims for other workers in the name of California state. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the alternative in a separate opinion in the same Supreme Court case). Proponents of PAGA are confident the court will allow workers forced into arbitration to maintain PAGA claims for their coworkers, turning to California court's unanimous 2020 ruling allowing an employee to proceed with a PAGA suit even after his employer had settled his individual claims as a basis for their argument. However, as a backup, state lawmakers are discussing a potential amendment to PAGA to authorize employees to sue on behalf of other workers. Uber and others who do not support PAGA insist that the court will surely consider the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and require the dismissal of any suit of this type that reaches the court.

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.

The JetBlue California Wage Case Gets Early Approval

In recent news, JetBlue Airways agreed to a $3.6 million settlement to resolve flight attendants' class-action claims alleging that the carrier violated California labor law. The proposed settlement received preliminary approval from a federal judge.

The Case: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 4:15-cv-01203

The Plaintiffs: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

Plaintiffs in Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp is a proposed class action filed in 2015 amidst a flurry of litigation over whether California's strict and detailed wage laws apply to flight attendants. The element creating difficulty is that flight attendants, by the nature of their jobs, are based in the state but spend most of their time on the job - in the air. The complaint accused JetBlue of requiring flight attendants to miss their rest periods and meal breaks and not paying them for the time as California law requires. The plaintiffs also claim JetBlue failed to issue accurate wage statements reflecting their pay, hours, etc.

The Defendant: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

Other airlines and trade groups faced similar allegations questioning if a federal law regulating airlines and railroads preempted state laws and arguing that a ruling to the contrary would result in costly regulatory patchwork requiring airlines to eliminate services and increase prices. The defendant in the case, JetBlue Airways Corp, presented similar arguments in this case.

Details of the Case: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

The California Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers the state) ruled in recent years that state employment law generally applies and does not specify airlines, so the industry must comply with them. In 2016 and 2017, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed many of the claims but then stayed the case pending appeals in several similar lawsuits. White vacated his earlier decisions and revived several claims against JetBlue in 2020 after the court issued plaintiff-friendly rulings. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to look at the issue after receiving encouragement from the Biden administration to allow the lower court rulings to stand. Legal counsel for the plaintiff filed the proposed settlement in San Francisco federal court. The terms designate California flight attendants employed since 2011 as benefits of the settlement. While JetBlue Airways Corp agrees to pay $3.6 million to be distributed to more than 500 flight attendants to settle the long-running lawsuit, they deny any wrongdoing. The parties agree that the settlement would resolve the claims accusing JetBlue of failing to pay their workers for missed rest breaks or meal periods, violating California labor law.

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.

Lawsuit Settled for $46.5 Million: Did Instacart Misclassify their Workers?

In recent news, Instacart settled a worker classification lawsuit for $46.5 million.

The Case: District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. D/B/A Instacart

The Court: California Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

The Case No.: CV-496 June 2015

The Plaintiff: District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. D/B/A Instacart

In September 2019, a California misclassification lawsuit alleged that Instacart improperly assigned delivery personnel as independent contractors. According to the complaint, Instacart failed to fully pay its grocery delivery crew due to the alleged misclassification. The lawsuit stated that Instacart employees were responsible for paying for COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) and were also required to use their personal phones and maintain and fuel their personal cars. These are some expenses that the parties considered when negotiating the settlement amount.

The Defendant: District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. D/B/A Instacart

The defendant in the case, San Francisco-baed Instacart, is the country's largest third-party grocery delivery service. Throughout the case, Instacart claimed they correctly classified their California personal shoppers. Instacart's personal shoppers picked, packed, and delivered grocery orders for Instacart customers, and they did so as independent contractors. Allegedly, Instacart failed to give employees adequate pay and breaks.

Details of the Case: District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. D/B/A Instacart

The parties in the case, District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. D/B/A Instacart, agreed to a $46.4 million settlement to resolve allegations that Instacart's California workers were wrongfully classified as independent contractors instead of employees. The proposed judgment submitted to San Diego Superior Court affects approximately 308,000 workers. The workers affected by the settlement worked for Instacart between September 2015 and December 2020. Settlement distribution will be based on how many hours workers put in during their time with the company. The settlement includes more than $6 million in civil fines to be deposited into a trust fund for consumer protection. The funds in the trust are designated for enforcing consumer protection laws. Individual restitution payments for the busiest workers will range from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars, depending on the number of hours worked. Instacart debuted its service in the city and county of San Diego in the middle of 2016 and has a significant market share, according to the city attorney's office. Also of note, Instacart made it clear that their agreement to the settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt.

The Issue in the Case: District of Columbia v. Maplebear, Inc. D/B/A Instacart

The issues, in this case, underscore the ongoing discussion of how companies should classify their workers, particularly gig economy workers like drivers for ride-hail services (Uber, Lyft, etc.) and delivery services for apps like Instacart, UberEats, DoorDash, etc. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties in the case dropped their appeal to the California Supreme Court.

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.

Is a Worker Making Over $200,000 per Year Entitled to Overtime Pay?

Is a worker making more than $200,000 a year entitled to overtime compensation? A recent employment law case prompts questions regarding the federal wage law and whether its protections cover highly paid employees.

The Case: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

The Court: Supreme Court of the United States

The Case No.: 21-984

The Case: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Former oil rig worker, Michael Hewitt, makes over $200,000 per year. In a recent appeals court ruling, the court found that Hewitt was not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirement for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek because he was paid by a day rate, which does not constitute a guaranteed weekly salary.

The Dispute: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc., the defendant in the case, is fighting to overturn the appeals court ruling. Many are waiting to hear the impending U.S. Supreme Court decision as the case asks them to consider whether a worker making over $200,000 a year is entitled to overtime compensation. The case prompts questions over whether a supervisor making more than $200,000 annually is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption (29 C.F.R. § 541.601) remains subject to detailed requirements (29 C.F.R. § 541.604) to determine if highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. The case turns on technicalities in FLSA regulations. It has the court justices wrestling with the nuances of the FLSA’s implementing regulations regarding professional, administrative, and executive employees who are exempt from overtime.

The Arguments: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Hewitt’s daily rate of a minimum of $963 is well above the required minimum weekly amount for salaried employees, and Helix claims that, as such, it could be considered a salary. However, the regulations were intended to make sure workers receive predetermined payments regardless of the quality or quantity of work completed in a work week. Others argue that the FLSA was created to protect low-wage employees working long hours for insufficient pay and wasn’t designed to offer similar protections to professionals bringing home six-figure salaries. Still, others respond that such arguments are based on common sense - not the regulations or the way the statute works, which is the matter being considered. Hewitt was paid a daily rate - not a salary, and a salary is required for a worker to be exempt from overtime pay.

The Impact: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

The energy industry and the nursing field are likely to see an impact from the decision in this case. The energy industry’s use of a day rate pay structure to compensate workers, including highly paid employees on their oil field and offshore jobs, could mean a major impact and significant overhaul of payment procedures. The nursing industry would also see repercussions as registered nurses currently earn pay based on an hourly basis, even if they reach six figures.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

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.