Shipt Same Day Delivery Service Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations

In recent news, Shipt faces wage and hour law violation allegations in Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Court: Dist. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist. Minn.

The Case No.: 27-cv-22-15991

The Plaintiff: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Ellison, claims alleged violations of Minnesota wage and hour laws due to Shipt, Inc.’s misclassification of workers as independent contractors. In his complaint against Shipt, the Attorney General alleges that Shipt shoppers must comply with detailed instructions provided by the company and rules on the performance of every aspect of their job duties. Shoppers are also allegedly required to offer shopping services personally, with Shipt prohibiting them from hiring an assistant. According to the complaint, shoppers are also subject to performance reviews and have an ongoing but indefinite relationship with the company. Shoppers must complete both onboarding and corrective training (as necessary), usually need to schedule their work hours in advance and are reimbursed for certain expenses connected to customer orders.

The Defendant: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Shipt, Inc., is a same-day delivery service. Shipt is a wholly owned subsidiary of Target, the popular big box store. It offers an app designed to make online grocery delivery easy by connecting Shipt shoppers with nearby stores with the things they need. The company has “shoppers” that they classify as independent contractors that provide same-day delivery of groceries and other household items purchased by users of the Shipt app online platform. The same-day delivery service provider was sued for independent contractor misclassification in Minnesota. Shipt faces allegations of violating the state wage and hour laws due to the misclassification of workers.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

According to the Attorney General, additional factors considered in the case included:

• Shipt can also discharge their shoppers at any time for any reason

• Shopper services are only available to the public through the app

• Shoppers are unable to generate a profit or a loss based on job performance

• Shoppers are not required to make a significant investment in the business

• Shoppers are an essential element of the company’s day-to-day business.

Most expect Shipt to deny the allegations of employment law violations.

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.

Instacart Agrees to $46M Settlement to Resolve Misclassification Lawsuit

In recent news, Instacart agreed to a $46 million settlement to resolve a misclassification lawsuit.

The Case: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The Court: Super. Court of California, San Diego County.

The Case No.: 37-2019-00048731

The Plaintiffs: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc., claim that Instacart violated state labor law and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Instacart workers, referred to as "shoppers," were required to maintain and fuel their own personal vehicles, use their own smart devices, and pay for other equipment (like PPE gear necessary for protection against COVID-19). The plaintiffs filed a misclassification lawsuit based on the situation Instacart created for their shoppers.

The Defendant: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The defendant in the case, Maplebear Inc. (also known as Instacart), is a San Francisco-based online platform or gig shopping company offering same-day grocery delivery.

Details of the Case: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

Instacart agreed to pay $46 million to settle the misclassification lawsuit the City of San Diego filed. The $46 million settlement covers about 308,000 shoppers. The settlement funds will be distributed based on the number of hours worked by each of the shoppers during the time period specified in the suit. According to court documents, the agreed settlement amount means Instacart will pay a minimum of $37 million direction to shoppers, which equates to approximately $120 per eligible shopper.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Papa, Inc. Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Violation Claims Due To Alleged Misclassification

A California federal district court granted conditional collective certification of claims brought under the federal FLSA for minimum wage and overtime violations arising from the alleged misclassification of Pals employed by Papa, Inc.

The Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The Court: California Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

The Case No.: CV-496 June 2015

The Plaintiff: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim the company misclassified the Pals, assistants who provide daily living tasks and companionship to seniors, as independent contractors. According to the collective action complaint, Papa Inc.’s Pals were misclassified based on the following:

1. The company conducted background checks before allowing the workers to connect with customers.

2. Providing the workers with training and strict policies.

3. Setting the pay structure for the Pals.

4. Tracking the location and productivity of Pals workers.

5. Retaining the right to terminate Pal workers without cause or for violating rules imposed in the Papa Inc. contract.

The Defendant: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The defendant in the lawsuit, Papa, Inc., operates an app allowing seniors and their families to access the services of “Papa Pals.” Pals assist with chores and offer companionship services. The company contends that the Pals are independent contractors because they choose how often they use the app. They also operate primarily at the direction of the seniors or the seniors’ families who access the app, and they do so free from the direct supervision of the company. The company argued that the court should deny the plaintiff’s certification motion because the plaintiffs failed to establish they suffered any failure to receive overtime wages or minimum wage because they worked so few hours. The court disagreed, finding that the arguments were related to the merits of the claims, which were not appropriate to consider at that time.

Details of the Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The court concluded that the plaintiff adequately showed that Pal workers are treated as independent contractors, which creates the potential of not receiving overtime pay and minimum wages required by employment law for those legally classified as employees. This court’s decision seems to contradict past case decisions. For instance, in 2021, the Fifth Circuit decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC required district courts to scrutinize similarly situated workers from the outset of the case instead of issuing a lenient conditional certification in the early stages of the suit. The case brings attention to the continuing discussion of how companies should classify their workers.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Is Federal Court Barred from Hearing Collective Action Claims by Employees in Another State?

Fischer v. Federal Express Corp. asks whether a federal court in one state is barred from hearing collection action claims by employees in another state.

The Case: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

The Court: Supreme Court of the United States

The Case No.: 22-396

The Plaintiff: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

Christina Fischer, the plaintiff in the case, worked as a FedEx security specialist in Pennsylvania. Fischer worked at FedEx for ten years. Security specialists like Fischer regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but FedEx classifies them as salaried employees. Under the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938, salaried employees are exempt from overtime pay. Fischer filed an FLSA collective action in federal district court in Pennsylvania seeking unpaid overtime from FedEx. In the complaint, Fischer argued that she was ineligible for the Act's overtime exemption. Two security specialists in other states "opted in" to the collective action Fischer filed.

The Defendant: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

The defendant in the case, Federal Express Corp. (also known as FedEx Corporation, FDX Corporation, FedEx, etc.), is an American multinational conglomerate holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce, and business services. FedEx is based out of Memphis, Tennessee.

The Case: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

In 2017, the justices' decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California limited certain personal-injury lawsuits against businesses to residents of a single state. The decision allowed companies to convince state courts to question the validity of lawsuits brought by out-of-state plaintiffs over out-of-state actions. In Fischer v. Federal Express Corp., the court considered whether Bristol-Myers Squibb also barred a federal court in one state from hearing collective-action claims against FedEx by employees in another state. The 3rd Circuit court concluded that it does. The employees argue that the 3rd Circuit's decision contradicts longstanding federalism and due-process doctrines, investing state courts with a narrower personal jurisdiction than federal courts and cutting the power of collective actions off at the knees. Based on these arguments, the employees urged the court to reinstate their collective action against the massive shipment and transportation company.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Ramos Family to Receive $2.8M Settlement to Resolve Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, the City of Vallejo settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the family of Angel Ramos. Vallejo police fatally shot Ramos in January 2017.

The Case: Evans v. City of Vallejo

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

The Case No.: 2:17-cv-01619-TLN-AC

The Plaintiff: Evans v. City of Vallejo

The plaintiff in the case is the family of Angel Ramos. Ramos was shot and killed by a Vallejo police officer during a family fight in January 2017. At the time, he was 21 years old. The Vallejo police officers stated that Ramos was holding a knife over another person on the ground, but the Ramos family claimed he did not have a knife.

The Defendant: Evans v. City of Vallejo

The City of Vallejo police responded to a call to the Ramos family’s Sacramento Street home in Vallejo on January 23, 2017, after receiving a call about a fight. Officer Zachary Jacobsen and his partner, Officer Matt Samida, responded to the scene. Jacobsen later said he saw two people fighting on the home’s second-story balcony before he saw Ramos run into the house, get on top of another man on the ground, and make stabbing motions. While the officers claim they fired in response to the perceived danger to the individual on the ground under Ramos, no knife was ever found in the area. Samida later testified that he only saw Ramos punching the man on the ground.

The Case: Evans v. City of Vallejo

The family’s case was bolstered when a federal judge denied the city’s motion for summary judgment in December 2021. Five years after the family filed the original wrongful death lawsuit, the City of Vallejo agreed to a $2.8 million settlement.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, 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.

USC Player’s Widow Seeks a Minimum of $1.8M in California Wrongful Death Case

Alana Gee filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association on behalf of the Estate of Matthew Gee.

The Case: Gee v. NCAA

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 20 STCV 43627

The Plaintiff: Gee v. NCAA

The plaintiff in the case, Gee, alleges her decedent was a college football player who developed Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy due to repeated blows to the head sustained during his time playing on the University of Southern California team. Gee filed a complaint for Negligence (Survival Action) and Negligence (Wrongful Death) in Nov. 2020.

The Defendant: Gee v. NCAA

The defendant in the case, NCAA, argued that the plaintiff’s negligence claim failed for four reasons.

1) the plaintiff didn’t establish a special relationship existed with Gee or with the coaching staff at the University of Southern California

2) the plaintiff can’t establish that the NCAA owed a duty to Gee

3) the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars the claim

4) the plaintiff can’t establish that the NCAA caused Gee’s injuries.

The Case: Gee v. NCAA

The trial started in October 2022. The plaintiff’s legal counsel argued that the repeated head trauma Matthew Gee endured as a linebacker at the University of Southern California caused him to develop CTE — and that CTE ultimately led to his premature death at only 49 years old. The plaintiff in the case seeks a minimum of $1.8 million in damages from the NCAA for allegedly causing the death of Matthew Gee, a former linebacker for USC. Alana Gee, Matthew’s widow and the plaintiff in the case, also asked that the defendant, NCAA, return all the funds the organization earned due to its negligence. If Gee wins, the court could force the defendant to pay $100 million or more in addition to the $1.8 million in damages.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit or 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.

Bright Horizons Childcare Center Faces Wrongful Termination Allegations

A teacher in a Christian childcare center alleges discrimination and wrongful termination. Parisenkova claims her former employer fired her for refusing to read LGBT books to the children in her care.

The Case: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Courts

The Case No.: …0756 (pending)

The Plaintiff: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

The plaintiff in the case, Nelli Parisenkova, is a Christian childcare teacher formerly employed by Bright Horizons. Parisenkova claims she was mistreated at work and terminated because religious objections led her to refuse to read books to children that featured same-sex couples. The plaintiff claims she was aware that the reading material was in the classroom for years but wasn't required to read them to the children. However, the situation changed in April. According to the plaintiff, Katy Callas, the director at the Bright Horizons Studio City location, became aware of Parisenkova's religious objections to the books and refused the plaintiff's request for a religious accommodation. According to the plaintiff, the situation escalated into a hostile work environment that led to her wrongful termination. Parisenkova filed a wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in the Superior Court of California.

The Defendant: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

Bright Horizons Children's Center, founded in 1986, is the largest childcare company in the nation, with hundreds of locations worldwide and more than 26,000 employees. The plaintiff, Nelli Parisenkova, worked at their Studio City location for four years caring for children aged five and younger. When Parisenkova requested an accommodation in response to the situation, the defendant allegedly denied the request, issued a counseling memo with false statements, terminated Parisenkova's life insurance benefits, assigned her mandatory diversity training, and encouraged her to resign. Bright Horizons faces unlawful retaliation, discrimination, harassment, religious harassment, wrongful termination, failure to accommodate, unlawful constructive discharge, and disparate treatment charges.

Details of the Case: Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons

The Bright Horizons childcare company is known as an outspoken supporter of the LGBT community, publicly sharing their support efforts, including their childcare centers' celebrations of LGBT History Month, Pride parades, and reading LGBT-themed books in their classrooms. Bright Horizons endorsed the Equality Act in 2019, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the federal anti-discrimination policy. Parisenovka claims that while her behavior on the job did not change during the years she worked at Bright Horizons, upper management's treatment of her abruptly changed when they received her formal accommodation request. She claims the company responded by leveling the full force of their allegedly anti-religious and uninclusive diversity policy at her trying to get her to quit through harassment and discrimination. According to the complaint, they fired her when they couldn't intimidate her into quitting.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination 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.