Real Time Staffing Services, Employbridge and Lakeshore Learning Materials Face Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In a recently filed wage and hour lawsuit, California employees claim that Real Time Staffing Services, Employbridge, and Lakeshore Learning Materials violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods required by law.

The Case: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 23STCV01037

The Plaintiff: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Zelaya, was an employee of Real Time Staffing Services (or another listed defendant) from March 2022 through May 2022. During his time employed with the company, Zelaya was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Zelaya was entitled to employment law protections, including minimum wage, overtime pay, etc. Zelaya was assigned to work at a Defendant Lakeshore Learning facility. The plaintiff brought a Class Action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a California class of other employees and former employees of the defendant as non-exempt employees in California who were assigned to work at the Defendant’s Lakeshore Learning location during the specified period.

The Defendant: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al., employed the plaintiff as an hourly employee with non-exempt status in California (or acted on behalf of their employer) who either paid or caused to be paid a rate less than minimum wage allegedly in violation of employment law.

The Case: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

According to the California class action allegations, the defendants failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. The California employer allegedly violated numerous California Labor Code Sections, including §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198. The alleged employment law violations included:

● Failed to pay minimum wage

● Failed to pay overtime wages

● Failed to provide required meal and rest periods

● Failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

● Failed to provide employees with wages when they were due

In addition, the class action claims that the defendants violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), giving rise to civil penalties. Under PAGA, aggrieved employees can file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties on their own behalf, on behalf of other employees, and on behalf of the State of California due to Labor Code violations. Under PAGA, an aggrieved employee can become a deputized private attorney general to enforce Labor Code.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Allegedly Failed to Pay Sick Wages

In recent news, The Permanente Medical Group faces allegations they violated employment law when they failed to pay sick wages to employees.

The Case: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2022-00332012

The Plaintiff: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

The plaintiff in the case, Erica Morris, was employed by The Permanente Medical Group in 2008. Morris was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly during her employment. As such, she was entitled to legally required meal breaks, rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime pay due for all hours worked. The plaintiff brought the class action wage and hour lawsuit on behalf of herself and other employees and former employees in similar situations during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint (with an end date for qualification as determined by the court). The plaintiff seeks losses incurred by employees due to their employer’s policies and practices on wage payment.

The Defendant: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

The defendant in the case, The Permanente Medical Group, is a California Corporation providing medical services to clients throughout California. The group is headquartered in Oakland, California.

The Case: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

According to the plaintiff in the case, the employer required employees to work off the clock, did not provide required off-duty meal breaks, did not pay employees for all hours worked due to a practice of rounding employee hours, required employees to submit to mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires off the clock, etc. As a result of these standard practices, the plaintiff claims their employer violated labor law by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime pay, and failing to provide off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the employer’s failure to incorporate incentive pay into their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime violated their rights under employment law. The Complaint also alleges that The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. did not pay employees accurate sick pay wages (in violation of California Labor Code Section 246). When the company paid sick pay wages, they allegedly paid them at a base pay rate that did not include the higher pay rate generated by earned non-discretionary incentive wages employees routinely earned.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can Earned Wages Due on Weekends Be Paid the Next Weekday?

In recent news, the court held that earned wages due on weekends can generally be paid the next weekday.

The Case: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

The Court: Sacramento Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2018-00247176-CU-OE-GDS

The Plaintiff: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

The plaintiff in the case, Mr. Parsons, received pay through the company’s weekly pay period running from Sunday through the following Saturday. Parsons alleged that the delay between the end of the pay period and when the employer issued payment to employees violated Labor Code section 204, subdivision (d).

The Defendant: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

The defendant in the case, Estenson Logistics, had a standard practice to pay their employees on the second Monday after the pay period (aka typically nine calendar days after the pay period). Parsons v. Estenson Logistics clarifies a gray area and provides California employers with common sense flexibility for paying earned wages when a payday falls on a weekend.

The Case: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

When the Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the delay in payment was a legal violation, they reasoned that California Code of Civil Procedure section 12a (Section 12a) governed the employer’s timely payment obligations (under Labor Code § 204); and that since Section 12a extends deadlines falling on holidays to the following non-holiday, Estenson’s practice of paying their employees on Monday after the weekend deadline for payment was a legal practice. In Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, the court held that when weekly-paid wages are due on a weekend or a holiday, they can legally be paid on the next day that is not a holiday. In essence, the Court set forth a common-sense “exception” to the seemingly inflexible rules about the timely payment of employee wages in 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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Court of Appeal Holds that “Percentage Bonuses” Based on Regular and Overtime Hours Comply with Employment Law

In recent news, the California Court of Appeal held that percentage bonuses provided by employers that are based on a combination of regular and overtime hours comply with employment law.

 The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.:  B312232

The Background: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for EcoLab as a non-exempt sales manager. Lemm was given a specific route and regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours in one week. EcoLab used a pay system with certain multipliers triggered when employees met specific metrics with the employee’s hourly rate of pay used as the base pay ((base wage + overtime wages + double-time wages) x 5%). EcoLab’s policy to pay 1.5x and 2.0x his hourly rate for qualifying overtime and double time hours was not disputed. This type of payment policy is typically referred to as a percentage bonus. Percentage bonus payment systems are authorized under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations.

Progression of the Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff, Lemm, argued that EcoLab should have used an overtime calculation method applicable to flat rate bonuses under California law. In contrast, EcoLab argued that their percentage bonus plan complied with California and federal law. The trial court sided with EcoLab, rejecting an alternate interpretation of California law requiring employers to pay overtime on overtime when using percentage bonus plans. Using this interpretation would have left California employers with percentage bonus plan systems in place significantly exposed. Lemm appealed.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

On appeal, the court held that EcoLab’s percentage bonus plan complied with California employment law. The appellate court pointed out that the Ninth Circuit and several other California District Courts previously held that percentage bonuses were lawful methods to calculate additional overtime wages due to contingent compensation in California. The court also noted that paying a federal “percentage bonus” generated the same overtime pay as the “true-ups” generated by a formula published in the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual or DLSE Manual (not a binding authority, but a type of underground regulation without the weight given to IWC wage orders). The formula Lemm argued should be used to calculate his pay is also in the same manual. It is the standard the California Supreme Court adopted as proper for flat sum bonus calculations. Requiring EcoLab to apply this formula on top of their existing percentage bonus would result in overtime on overtime contravening Labor Code section 510 and the Wage Orders. The findings in this case set forth a standard or roadmap for approaching sales-based compensation for California employees.

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

Home Depot Brain Injury Lawsuit Settlement Reached After Opening Statements

In 2017, Home Depot agreed to settle a brain injury lawsuit after completing the opening statements.

The Case: Jaime Beltran v. The Home Depot Inc.

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: S-1500-CV-283696

The Plaintiff: Jaime Beltran v. The Home Depot Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jaime Beltran, a 54-year-old, was injured when metal boxes fell on him as he shopped at a Home Depot store. His attorney argued that the incident caused a traumatic brain injury that resulted in $8 million in medical expenses alone. Additionally, Beltran claimed he suffered from pain, anxiety, depression, memory loss, and decreased executive function abilities daily. Before the incident, Beltran managed a cement design company. However, in 2013, he claims he was shopping when a Home Depot employee on a ladder accidentally knocked two laptop-sized metal boxes containing re-keying supplies off a shelf onto Beltran’s head. The boxes allegedly fell from a height of about eight feet. Initially, Beltran told the Home Depot employees that he was just dazed, but he went to the emergency room due to nausea and pain within hours. Once there, he was diagnosed with a concussion. The plaintiff’s attorney claimed the accident was caught on video and reviewed by Home Depot management, but the video was no longer available. The absence of the video was not explained.

The Defendant: Jaime Beltran v. The Home Depot Inc.

The defendant in the case, Home Depot, admitted to liability for the accident. However, they maintained that the plaintiff suffered a less severe injury than the industry described in the lawsuit and that some symptoms resulted from untreated psychological issues. The defendant initially argued the plaintiff would be fairly compensated with a $1.3 million award.

The Case: Jaime Beltran v. The Home Depot Inc.

Since the incident in Home Depot in 2013, Beltran has undergone 60 neurological tests. The plaintiff’s attorney explained that Beltran had abandoned his cement design business (out of necessity), can only drive short distances, mainly avoids social engagements and situations, and is home-bound with few reasonable prospects for employment. Due to this future impact, and the already sizeable medical bills, the plaintiff’s attorney argued that the jury should award between $30 and $50 million to provide justice.

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.

Defendants & Plaintiffs Reach Settlement in Sandra Harmon Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, the defendants and plaintiffs agreed on a settlement in the wrongful death lawsuit of Sandra Harmon.

The Case: Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon, et al., v. County of San Mateo, et al.

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 21-cv-01463-VC

The Plaintiff: Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon, et al., v. County of San Mateo, et al.

Sandra Harmon, a 56-year-old woman suffering from mental health issues, was shot by San Mateo County Sheriff's deputies in Half Moon Bay in May 2020. The plaintiff in the case is the Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon. Sarah Gatliff, Harmon's daughter, filed the wrongful death lawsuit in March 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit listed nine complaints:

• Excessive force

• Loss of familial association

• Spoliation of evidence

• Conspiracy

• Supervisory liability

• Municipal liability

• Wrongful death

• Negligence

• Negligent supervision, training & retention

The Defendant: Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon, et al., v. County of San Mateo, et al.

The lawsuit initially named nine defendants (including three deputies in the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, the city of Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County). The lawsuit also named Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe, and their respective offices. However, according to court documents, Gatliff and her legal counsel amended the complaint in August 2021, removing claims against Bolanos, Wagstaffe, and Sgt. James Goulart and their respective offices.

Details of the Case: Estate of Sandra Lee Harmon, et al., v. County of San Mateo, et al.

According to court documents, Dominguez was the first of two deputies to shoot Harmon. According to witnesses, on the night she was shot, Harmon was walking downtown holding a rifle and some alcohol while talking about a pending "race war." The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office claims Harmon fired the rifle on Officer Dominguez. Twenty seconds later, Baba arrived on the scene and ordered Harmon to get on the ground. According to the Sheriff's Office, Harmon reached for her weapon instead of getting on the ground, so the deputies fired. After lengthy court proceedings, the two parties in the case agreed to a settlement on Nov. 10th. According to the settlement agreement, San Mateo County will pay $170,000 to Gatliff and Harmon's estate.

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.

Evansville Police Face Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Fatal Shooting

The Evansville Police face a wrongful death lawsuit concerning a November 2020 shooting.

The Case: Earnise Pam and Sasha Boyd v. City of Evansville, Indiana, Evansville Police Department, etc.

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

The Case No.: 3:22-cv-00172-RLY-MPB

The Plaintiffs: Earnise Pam and Sasha Boyd v. City of Evansville, Indiana, Evansville Police Department, etc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Earnise Pam and Sasha Boyd, are the family of Rodriquez Pam, the 33-year-old who died after a police-involved shooting in Evansville, Indiana in November 2020.

The Defendants: Earnise Pam and Sasha Boyd v. City of Evansville, Indiana, Evansville Police Department, etc.

The defendants in the case are the City of Evansville, Indiana, the Evansville Police Department, and Police Chief Billy Bolin. On November 8, 2020, officers were dispatched to the 1100 block of Cherry Street after a 911 caller reported a man was pointing a gun at her and her dog. Evansville Police Sergeant Nick Winsett said once they arrived on the scene, Pam pointed a gun at officers, and then two officers shot him. Rodriquez Pam was declared dead at the scene. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Pam was complying with the officer’s commands and did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot.

Additional Allegations: Earnise Pam and Sasha Boyd v. City of Evansville, Indiana, Evansville Police Department, etc.

Additionally, they allege that the crime scene was altered for crime scene photos to make it look like Rodriguez Pam was holding a gun. A handgun was found at the scene, but the plaintiffs allege that the gun was not loaded. Pam’s family claims he had a BAC level of 0.310 at the time of death, so he likely had trouble understanding the officer’s command. The plaintiffs claim that the officers responding to the 911 call failed to recognize that Pam was intoxicated or in a mental health crisis and therefore did not respond appropriately.

Details of the Case: Earnise Pam and Sasha Boyd v. City of Evansville, Indiana, Evansville Police Department, etc.

The family did not include a dollar amount in the wrongful death lawsuit. Pam is survived by five children and his parents. The family seeks judgment against the defendants for compensatory, special, and punitive damages and other and further relief as the Court finds just and equitable. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial.

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.