Did Veni-Express, Inc. Fail to Pay Employees All Wages Due?

In recent news, an employee claims that Veni-Express, Inc. failed to pay employees all the wages they were due for hours worked.

The Case: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2022-00047732-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Yesenia Medina, is a mobile phlebotomist employed in California from January 2022 through June 2022 by Veni-Express, Inc. According to the complaint, the plaintiff did not receive minimum wage or legally required rest breaks. During her employment, the company allegedly put a piece rate pay system in place for conducting the visits assigned by the company (that the plaintiff describes as illegal). Under the piece rate system, Medina claims the company failed to pay minimum wage and also failed to pay for all hours worked, including time spent traveling to and from visits, time spent filling out charts and paperwork before and after completing the assigned visits, and time the company required Medina be on call.

Alleged Violations of Employment Law: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

• Unfair competition (violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq; 2)

• Failure to pay minimum wage (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; 3)

• Failure to pay overtime wages (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510 et seq; 4)

• Failure to provide required meal periods and rest periods (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512 and the applicable wage order)

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226; 7)

• Failure to provide wages when due (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 AND 203. 8)

• Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act

The Defendant: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Veni-Express, Inc., offers mobile phlebotomy, specimen collection, onsite drug testing, and DNA collection services throughout California, including San Diego County, where the plaintiff, Medina, worked.

The Case: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The case, Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc., is brought on behalf of current and former California employees of Veni-Express who received payment for their work using the piece rate basis from November 28, 2018, to the time of the filing. The plaintiff alleges that some of the employees receiving piece rate payment were entitled to separate hourly compensation for the time they spent performing other, non-production related job duties as instructed by Veni-Express during their work shifts. Medina also claims the employees are entitled to one hour of compensation pay for their missed rest periods.

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.

Did Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Engage in Meal and Rest Break Violations?

In recent news, a California worker alleges that Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC violated California Labor Law by failing to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks.

The Case: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The Court: San Mateo County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22-CIV-05061

The Plaintiff: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Vinicius De Oliveira, started working for Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC in August 2021 as a non-exempt hourly employee. Oliveira claims the company violated multiple California labor laws during his time at the company. Oliveira filed a PAGA-only complaint in San Mateo County Superior Court on December 1, 2022.

What is PAGA-Only?

California allows an “aggrieved employee” to act as a private attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. In a (“PAGA”) only suit, a plaintiff brings an action against the defendant seeking to recover PAGA civil penalties but does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699.

The Defendant: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The defendant in the case, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, is an American telecommunications company and division of Comcast Corporation that markets consumer cable television, internet, phone, and wireless services for Comcast.

The Case: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Vinicius De Oliveira, filed the PAGA-only suit seeking civil penalties under Labor Code §2699, et seq. citing violations of various California Labor Codes, including §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 218,221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512,558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198,2802, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s).

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.

Is a Personal Cell Phone a Reimburseable Work Expense for California Employees?

A recent complaint filed in Madera County Superior Court raises the question of cell phones as a reimbursable work expense. Allegedly, Paleowest, LLC failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone usage and home office usage even though both were required to complete their job duties.

The Case: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The Court: Madera County Superior Court

The Case No.: MCV088135

The Plaintiff: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Brandy Hale, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees. In the class action, Hale claims that the defendant, Paleowest, LLC, violated California Labor Code. During her employment from January 2018 through May 2022, the company allegedly failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone usage and home office usage, even though she claims both were required to complete job duties. The company classified Hale as a non-exempt hourly employee. However, Hale claims that she (and other employees) were not paid for all their hours, were required to work while clocked out, did not receive required off-duty meal breaks, were required to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screening without pay, and were also shorted pay due to the company’s policy to “round” employee hours.

The Defendant: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The defendant in the case, Paleowest, LLC, offers cultural, prehistoric, architectural, ethnographic heritage, and paleontological resource management services.

The Case: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Paleowest, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary expenses needed to complete their job duties (like their cell phone and home office) and failed to comply with multiple California Labor Codes. As a result, Hale, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that she and others similarly situated at the company were required to forfeit minimum wage, overtime pay, and off-duty meal breaks (without appropriate compensation). Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Paleowest, LLC’s practice, and policy not to provide payment to employees for all time worked can be seen in their own records. Failing to include employee incentive pay earned through the company’s rewards program as part of the “regular rate of pay” for overtime pay calculations shorted employees on overtime pay compensation. Hale argues that incentive pay would be included as part of the regular rate of pay since management and supervisors both describe the incentive program as part of the compensation package when outlining the benefits of employment for new employees.

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.

Allegations Indicate that Epic Healthcare Violated Meal & Rest Period Requirements

In recent news, Epic Healthcare faces employment law violation allegations with a former employee’s class action alleging that they failed to provide meal and rest periods required by employment law.

The Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV38980

The Plaintiff: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The plaintiff in the case, Tina Charnett, was employed by Epic Healthcare in California from January 2022 through May 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Charnett was entitled to the protections offered by state and federal employment laws regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal break and rest period requirements. Charnett alleges that while employed by Epic Healthcare, she was required to perform off-the-clock work, complete job duties during “off-duty” meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The defendant in the lawsuit, Epic Healthcare, allegedly used a non-discretionary incentive program that provided hourly employees with additional compensation or “incentive wages” based on performance. Hourly employees could earn incentive pay if they met designated performance goals created by the employer. However, when Epic Healthcare calculated the “regular rate of pay” used to determine overtime pay wages, they allegedly failed to include the incentive pay in the calculations, which resulted in alleged overtime pay violations.

Details of the Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

In addition to allegations that the defendant failed to provide off-duty meal breaks and failed to include incentive pay in overtime pay calculations, the plaintiff claims that the business practice and policies in use at Epic Healthcare and their affiliates incorporated a rounding system instead of paying employees for all the hours they worked. They also required that employees submit to a Covid-19 screening process (as a condition of employment), which required them to submit to temperature checks and system questionnaires before clocking in for their shift. Due to the company policies in place during her time at Epic Healthcare, Charnett claims she and other similarly situated employees forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation.

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.

Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants Face Allegations they Failed to Pay Workers

In recent news, Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants face allegations that they violated California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

The Court: San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22-CIV-04939

The Plaintiff: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Ricci, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations. The defendant employed Ricci from February 2020 through July 2021. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ricci was entitled to the protections provided by federal and state employment law for employees, including required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages. Ricci filed the class action seeking compensation for losses incurred due to the defendant's alleged employment law violations for herself and on behalf of eligible class members.

The Defendant: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises are defined as joint employers of the plaintiff according to the arguments presented in the complaint. Tomatina Restaurants are a popular Italian dining location with multiple locations in California.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

According to Ricci, the plaintiff in the California class action, the staff's rigorous work schedule inhibited them from taking off-duty meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of duty for their required meal periods, and from time to time, they were interrupted during their off-duty meal periods to fulfill job duties "off the clock" for Tomatina restaurants and Syufy Enterprises. According to the plaintiff, employees were required to work shifts longer than five hours without receiving off-duty meal breaks, and the defendant failed to with second off-duty meal breaks when they worked more than ten hours in one workday. The company allegedly required that their employees stay on call (and essentially on duty) during what was supposed to be "off duty" meal periods. The standard business practice caused employees to forfeit meal breaks, and the company did not provide additional compensation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action 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.

1st-Time Right LLC Faces a Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, 1st-Time Right LLC faces a California class action. The class action complaint alleges that the company violated California Labor Code by failing to comply with meal and rest break requirements and pay their employees for all the hours they worked.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22STCV36533

The Plaintiff: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jermaine Ford, a California resident, was employed by the Defendant from October 2021 through December 202. Categorized as a non-exempt employee paid hourly, Ford was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.

The Defendant: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The defendant in the case, 1st-Time Right, LLC, operates a staffing company throughout California, with operations in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff, Ford, was employed.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

Ford brings the class action on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees in the California class (current or former employees of 1st-Time Right, LLC in California classified as non-exempt employees at any time within the four years preceding the filing of the complaint (with an end date to be determined by the court). The plaintiff seeks compensation for losses incurred due to employment law violations during the class period. According to the complaint, the losses were incurred due to the defendant’s practices and policies that created a failure to fully compensate employees for their work. The plaintiff also alleges that 1st-Time Right, LLC illegally retained employee wages.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Freenome Holdings, Inc. faces a PAGA-Only action alleging multiple California labor code violations.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-22-603540

The Plaintiff: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel De La Torre, as an “aggrieved employee,” acted as a private attorney general (under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) to file suit against Freenome Holdings. The PAGA-only action seeks to obtain PAGA civil penalties for himself and other aggrieved employees in similar situations with the company. California’s PAGA permits an individual to bring an action on behalf of himself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only; this is the precise and sole nature of this action.

The Defendant: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Freenome Holdings, Inc., is a corporation that provides clinical research services, as well as the development and creation of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of age-associated clinical conditions.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. employed Torre from September 2021 through August 2022. During his time at the company, Torre was classified as a non-exempt employee and earned wages on an hourly basis. As such, Torre was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due according to employment law. According to the PAGA-only action, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff (and other similarly aggrieved employees that qualify under the class definition) wages due, engaged in practices that required employees to complete “off the clock” work, failed to provide mandatory off-duty meal breaks, required mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening before employees could clock in for shifts, engaged in an established company policy that rounded employee hours rather than providing payment for the actual hours employees worked, etc.

If you have questions about how to file a California PAGA-only 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.