Is Failing to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses a Labor Law Violation?

In recent news, Logical Innovations, Inc. faces allegations of Labor Law violations after an employee's lawsuit claims they failed to reimburse for required business expenses.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV31929

The Plaintiff: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Atya Tarkington, was employed in California by the defendant from January 2020 to March 2022 as a non-exempt employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages. Tarkington filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the company failed to provide employees with off-duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by employment law. In addition, the plaintiff claims the company failed to provide appropriate overtime pay for the missed meal breaks, which resulted in lost wages for Tarkington and other eligible class members.

The Defendant: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The defendant in the case, Logical Innovations, Inc., and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, were joint employers of Atya Tarkington, the plaintiff. The defendants provide business development services for the federal government and clients in the commercial sector. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses that enabled the employees to complete their job duties.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The case, Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for business expenses required to complete their job duties. According to California Labor Code §2802, "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to court documents, Tarkington and other class members were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties. The company did not fully compensate them for the business expenses.

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

Dreamfields Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

Allegations in a California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed on September 9, 2022, accuse Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California, LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc. of California Labor Code violations when they allegedly failed to pay their workers for all of the time worked.

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The Court: Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CVRI2203871

The Plaintiff: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Adriana Marquez, was employed by the defendant from May 2021 through November 2021 as a non-exempt hourly employee at Dreamfields in Riverside. Marquez filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit alleging that the defendant, her joint employer, violated labor law when they failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., produce, harvest, and retail cannabis products throughout California, including Riverside. According to the lawsuit, the defendant employed the plaintiff at their Riverside, California location.

The Allegations: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The allegations in the class action lawsuit violate numerous sections of the California Labor Code, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. Consider the allegations listed in the class action:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The case, Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., is currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Employees Claim Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC Violated Employment Law

A class action lawsuit alleges Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC failed to provide their employees with required meal breaks and rest periods. Based on the missed meal breaks and rest periods, the employer also failed to provide employees with the total wages due, violating labor law.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The Court: Alameda Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22CV018596

The Plaintiff: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jileea Jordan, was employed by the defendant in California from February 18th,2022 to April 26th, 2022. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly wages, which entitled her to the legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, accurate wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The defendant in the case, Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, offers waxing services and other skin care solutions from certified wax specialists. According to the plaintiff in the case, the defendant regularly required employees to work during their off-duty meal breaks, stay available during their rest periods, and complete other “off the clock” work like mandatory drug testing, Covid-19 testing, temperature checks, etc. as a condition of employment.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiff also claims that employees were required to work over four hours without a 10-minute rest period. In addition to violating meal and rest period laws, minimum wage, and overtime pay laws, Defendant allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete, accurate, and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages earned. California Labor Code requires employers to issue each employee an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing gross wages earned, hourly rates used during the pay period, and time worked at each applicable hourly rate used to calculate the employee’s total pay. The case, Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, is currently pending in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California.

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

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Face Allegations of Failing to Pay Employee Wages

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are facing allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Tatiana Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The Court: Solano County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: FCS059079

The Plaintiffs: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The plaintiff in the case, Tatiana Armstrong, filed a class action lawsuit on October 10, 2022. In the lawsuit, Armstrong alleged that the companies violated several labor laws:

• Unfair competition

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal periods

• Failure to provide mandatory rest periods

• Failure to pay wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Defendant: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The defendants in the case, JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are both California corporations. According to the lawsuit, the two defendants were joint employers of Tatiana Armstrong. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory provide inventory services such as item level and financial auditing. The plaintiff was employed at their Solano, California location from April 2021 to October 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.

Details of the Case: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

Due to their busy work schedules, JBPerry Holdings' and Valley Inventory Service's workers allegedly had to miss their off-duty meal breaks. The plaintiff claims they were not fully relieved of work duties for their rest periods for the same reason. The plaintiff describes off-duty meal breaks as being interrupted from time to time to fulfill work tasks for the company. Additionally, the company required employees to work shifts over five hours without providing a legally required off-duty meal break. On top of that, the plaintiff alleges that JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Service violated labor law by failing to give the employees a second off-duty meal period during their workday (when employees were completing ten (10) hours shifts). Employees allege they had to remain on-call and on duty during their "off-duty" meal breaks. While the employees were required to forfeit meal breaks, the company did not provide additional compensation. Armstrong seeks compensation for her losses and the losses of other class members caused by the company's uniform policy. According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, this business practice resulted in the company retaining wages due to their employees and failing to fully compensate them as required by law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour 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.

Did Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County Retaliate Against an Employee

In recent news, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County allegedly retaliated against one of their employees. According to reports, the retaliation followed the employee's report of alleged safety issues in the company's workspace.

The Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The Court: California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: CIVSB2218158

The Plaintiff: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The plaintiffs in the case, Madison and Marable, claim that the defendant failed to properly maintain standard safety measures in the office where employees were required to work. Beginning in March 2022, the plaintiff repeatedly reported the alleged safety issues to the company. According to the plaintiff, the company did not take the necessary action to protect the safety of its workers. The plaintiff alleges that the company retaliated against her as a direct consequence of the complaints by continuing to expose employees to ill co-workers and leaving employees unprotected in the office workspace.

The Defendant: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

The defendant in the lawsuit, Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County, is a nonprofit agency whose work benefits San Bernardino County residents. The organization is part of a National Community Action Network established under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, known as President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" movement. The group is also part of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (CAPSBC). The group dedicates its efforts to minimizing and eliminating homelessness and poverty.

Details of the Case: Madison and Marable v. Community Action Partnership of San Bernardino County

In addition to allegations that the defendant supported an unsafe work environment and allegedly retaliated against the plaintiff when she engaged in a protected act (reporting a hazardous work environment), the lawsuit includes claims that the defendant violated other labor laws. On top of creating an unsafe work environment and retaliation, the lawsuit alleges the company failed to relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and provide employees with ten-minute rest periods (when they work more than four hours).

If you have questions about how to file a California retaliation 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.

SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses

In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.

The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.

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.

Sweet Widow Agreed to Settle Wrongful Death Lawsuit for $8 Million

In recent news, the widow of Daniel Shaver, Laney Sweet, agreed to settle her wrongful death lawsuit for $8 million.

The Case: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The Court: United States District Court, District of Arizona

The Case No.: CV-17-00152-PHX-GMS

The Plaintiff: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The plaintiff in the case, Laney Sweet, is the widow of Daniel Shaver. Sweet filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her husband, Shaver, was shot and killed by the police when he was unarmed, standing outside his suburban hotel room in Arizona. The police officer involved in the shooting, former Mesa, Ariz., Police Officer Philip Brailsford, was charged with murder in the fatal 2016 shooting of the unarmed Shaver. However, the jury acquitted him of the murder charge. Sweet filed a lawsuit in 2017 against both parties seeking $75 million in damages. Last year, the city of Mesa settled a similar case with Shaver’s parents for an undisclosed amount.

The Defendant: Sweet v. City of Mesa

The City of Mesa police responded to a call in January 2016 stating that someone at the hotel was pointing a gun out a window. Once on the scene, the police ordered 26-year-old Shaver to exit his hotel room, lie face down in the hallway, and not make any sudden movements, or he could risk being shot. Former Officer Brailsford shot Shaver as he lay on the ground outside his hotel room. No gun was found on Shaver’s body, but two pellet rifles (related to his pest control job) were in his hotel room. The detective investigating the shooting of Shaver noted that while Shaver lay on the ground outside his room, the officers ordered him to crawl toward them. The detective concluded that while the movement Shaver made was similar to reaching for a pistol, it appeared that he was pulling up his loose-fitting basketball shorts that fell when he was ordered to crawl forward.

The Case: Sweet v. City of Mesa

A settlement notice was filed in Arizona’s federal court, showing that Laney Sweet and the couple’s two children will receive $8 million from the City of Mesa. The probate court approved the settlement’s terms and appointed a temporary conservator. All of Sweet’s legal claims are dismissed without prejudice in exchange for the settlement.

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.