Former Best Practice Medicine, LLC Employee Alleges Wrongful Termination

A former Best Practice Medicine, LLC employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the company fired him after he engaged in the protected activity of reporting alleged California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: BCV-22-102688

The Plaintiff: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jon Riley, was employed by Best Practice Medicine, LLC in California from April 2022 to August 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee. While at the company, Riley reported labor law violations, citing off-the-clock work leading to minimum wage and overtime violations, missed meal and rest periods, etc. According to the plaintiff, his reporting of the alleged violations resulted in his termination (even though reporting this type of employment law violation is a protected act). Riley responded by filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Defendant: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The defendant in the case, Best Practice Medicine, LLC, specializes in emergency medical education, mobile high-fidelity medical simulation, and clinical staffing.

Details of the Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

As a nonexempt, hourly employee, Jon Riley was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Best Practice Medicine, LLC allegedly failed to pay employees like Jon Riley for all the time they were under the company's control, including submitting to mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and temperature checks before workers were allowed to clock in for their shifts. The off-the-clock work didn't qualify for overtime premium payment, which allegedly resulted in minimum wage and overtime violations. According to the lawsuit, shortly after Riley complained to his supervisor about the alleged unlawful employment practices at the company, Best Practice Medicine, LLC terminated his employment. Based on this, there is an alleged causal link between the protected activity (reporting labor law violations) and the company's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The case, Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC, is currently pending in the Kern County Superior Court.

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.

Wingstop Faces Class Action Allegations of Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Violations

In recent news, Wingstop faces allegations of California wage and hour and overtime pay violations.

The Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22CV02669

The Plaintiff: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jamal Shabazz, worked at one of the Wingstop franchise locations owned by the defendant from February 2022 to March 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As a worker at a Wingstop franchise owned by the defendant, the plaintiff claims employees could not take off-duty meal breaks and that the company did not entirely remove them from responsibility for job duties during their off-duty meal periods. Shabazz alleges that employees on their off-duty meal breaks were regularly interrupted to perform work duties for the company. Employees were also required to work shifts longer than 5 hours without being provided an off-duty meal break and weren’t provided a second meal break period if they worked shifts longer than 10 hours. According to the lawsuit, employees were expected to be on call and available even when they were “off duty” for meal breaks. This business practice left employees forfeiting their meal breaks without additional compensation.

The Defendant: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Mann & Company, Inc., owns, operates, and manages a chain of Wingstop franchised restaurants in California, including in the county of Butte, where Jamal Shabazz, the plaintiff, worked.

Details of the Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Jamal Shabazz was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all hours worked. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant engaged in several labor law violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to issue employees their wages when they are due. These alleged activities would constitute violations of several California Labor Codes, including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. The case, Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. dba Wingstop, is currently pending in the Butte County Superior Court of the State of California.

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.

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.