Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association Face Allegations They Failed to Pay Employee Wages

In recent news, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association face allegations they failed to provide their employees wages for all hours worked.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

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

The Case No.: 23STCV02200

The Plaintiff: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The plaintiff in the case, Devonte Rojo, worked for Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association in Los Angeles from January 2019 through February 2022. Rojo was a non-exempt employee paid hourly and entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and rest period/meal break protections provided by federal and state labor laws. Rojo filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant violated the labor code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked, failing to provide legally required rest periods, failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for eligible business expenses, and failing to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Defendant: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

According to the complaint, the defendant in the case, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association (Forest Lawn), were joint employers of Devonte Rojo, the plaintiff. Forest Lawn operates funeral businesses in Los Angeles and throughout California.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The case documents in Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association allege that rigorous work schedules left Forest Lawn employees unable to take off-duty meal breaks and that the employees were not fully relieved from their job duties when they did take a break or meal break. Instead, the plaintiff claims employees were interrupted during off-duty breaks and meal periods to complete tasks for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to work more than five hours a shift without being provided their off-duty meal break as required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims Forest Lawn failed to offer a second off-duty meal period when employees were required to work 10 hours in one shift. Forest Lawn policy allegedly required employees to remain on call/duty during rest periods and meal breaks. Due to this uniform policy and practice at the company, employees were required to forfeit their meal breaks without receiving additional compensation as required by law.

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

Kelly Services Global, LLC Facing a PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, aggrieved employees claim Kelly Services Global, LLC violated California Labor Code when failing to fully relieve employees for their rest periods and meal breaks, resulting in off-the-clock work.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01304927-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Yuri Fischer, was employed by the defendant, Kelly Services Gobal, LLC in California from June 2021 through June 2022 as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Fischer was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum wage and overtime wages due for all his time worked.

The Defendant: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The defendant in the case, Kelly Services Global, LLC, is a limited liability company operating in California, providing management solutions and staffing services to top companies across numerous industries. According to the complaint, Kelly Services Global, LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and regularly required employees to work more than four hours without providing the legally required rest period (10 minutes). According to California state law, the off-duty rest periods must be free of work-related duties and employer control.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

In the case Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, the plaintiff files seeking only to recover PAGA civil penalties for himself and current and class members. He does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699. The State of California can enforce state labor laws through employees suing under the PAGA as a proxy or agent of California state labor law enforcement agencies. Actions to recover civil penalties under PAGA are essentially law enforcement actions intended to protect the public and do not benefit private parties involved. PAGA-only actions do not seek to recover damages but seek to enforce Labor Code. The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendant violated numerous labor laws. The case is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

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.

DCH Torrance Imports Inc. Faces Class Action Alleging Labor Code Violations

In recent news, a lawsuit alleges that DCH Torrance Imports Inc. violated the labor code by failing to provide their employees with timely rest breaks and meal periods.

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. ("DCH Toyota of Torrance")

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

The Case No.: 23STCV02400,

The Plaintiff: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiff in the case, Aaron Castro, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, DCH Torrance Imports Inc (DCH Toyota of Torrance). Castro was employed by the defendant in the case since December 2012 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses. As a non-exempt employee, Castro is entitled to labor law protection, including minimum wages, overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks, as determined by federal and state labor laws. Allegedly the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods and engaged in uniform practices and policies that failed to fully compensate employees for their time and, in doing so, violated California State Labor Law.

The Defendant: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The defendant in the case, DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (Toyota of Torrance), is a California corporation that owns, operates, or manages auto dealerships throughout California, including the location in Los Angeles county where the plaintiff, Aaron Castro, worked. California law requires all employers to pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period, to provide employees no less than the established minimum wage for hours worked, and to calculate hours worked as the time during which an employee is "subject to the control of an employer" including the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. Allegedly, DCH Toyota of Torrance required employees to perform off-the-clock work before and after their scheduled shifts and during their meal breaks and rest periods. The company also allegedly failed to compensate employees for the time spent under the employer's control when performing off-the-clock work. This alleged uniform practice at the company resulted in the claimed violations of minimum wage and overtime law.

The Allegations: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

According to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, DCH Toyota of Torrance, allegedly violated numerous labor laws (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802) when they engaged in the following business practices and activities:

Failing to pay minimum wages

Failing to pay overtime wages

Failing to provide required meal and rest periods

Failing to pay wages when due

Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

Failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiffs and class members seek an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future repeat labor law violations and relief for economic injuries incurred due to DCH Toyota of Torrance's allegedly illegal business practices and policies. The case, Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Ecolab Faces Allegations their Overtime Calculations Violate Labor Law

In recent news, Ecolab faces allegations that its standard overtime pay calculations violate the labor code.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior

The Case No.: 19STCV21322

The Plaintiff: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for Ecolab for several years before being promoted to route sales manager on April l5, 2018. As an Ecolab route sales manager, Lemm was the primary contact with customers on his. He visited them regularly to install, repair, and maintain Ecolab equipment, provide continuous training and customer service, and sell additional or supportive Ecolab products and parts. Route sales managers are nonexempt employees who are entitled to overtime compensation. Lemm regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours weekly in 2018 and 2019. Lemm's payment was calculated according to an annual Incentive Compensation Plan with compensation comprised of hourly wages and a nondiscretionary monthly bonus earned by meeting specific metrics. On June 19, 2019, Lemm filed a PAGA suit, alleging Ecolab improperly calculated the overtime due on the nondiscretionary bonus paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

The Defendant: Lemm v. Ecolab

The defendant in the case, Ecolab, provides sanitation and pest control services and supplies, commercial kitchen equipment and appliance maintenance, and food safety services. On July 25, 2019, Ecolab responded, denying Lemm's allegations.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

About two months later, on October 2, 2019, Lemm filed an amended PAGA notice, asserting additional claims for civil penalties associated with Ecolab's failure to pay all required wages, including reporting time and split shift wages. However, Ecolab successfully moved for summary judgment because its formulation of the overtime payment comported with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). On appeal, Lemm argued that the method by which Ecolab calculated overtime compensation owed on the monthly bonuses failed to comply with California law and that state law supersedes federal law because Lemm's claim was a state claim, and California provides greater protection for employees. However, the Second Appellate District confirmed the trial court's decision, explaining they weren't required to use the exact formula set down in Section 49 2.4 when using the nondiscretionary bonus for overtime calculations. Ecolab demonstrated to the court that as long as the overtime calculations did not include overtime on overtime, the amount of overtime pay was the same regardless of which overtime calculation option they used: the section 49.2.4 formula or the CFR 778.210 formula.

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.

ADP Facing Fired Manager’s Disability Bias and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former manager filed a mental disability discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit alleging ADP violated labor law.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The Court: U.S. District Court Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2022cv00898

The Plaintiff: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff in the case, Nathaniel Rutledge, was a manager for ADP from March 2019 until the company terminated his employment on August 27, 2021. After the death of his brother, Rutledge was instructed to join a video call with ADP’s Director of Associates, Sonya Everett, and Lead Investigative Security Agent, Michael Paulhus. Everett told Rutledge they were conducting a wellness check because there were indications Rutledge was “struggling.” According to the plaintiff, they did not indicate what prompted the situation. They immediately began asking a series of questions that felt like an interrogation, repeatedly demanding the plaintiff turn on the camera even though he wasn’t feeling well and was uncomfortable doing so. After Rutledge said he didn’t want to continue the call without being told what the meeting was about, the company placed him on leave and advised him he was required to obtain clearance from their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider before returning to work. Rutledge assured the EAP counselor he had no mental issues that affected his work, but the counselor recommended Rutledge see a therapist anyway. He did not, and two days later, the counselor sent a letter to the defendant notifying them of Rutledge’s non-compliance. When Rutledge was again invited to a video call the same day, he declined, stating that the last one made him very uncomfortable. Rutledge was fired the next day. The company claimed his refusal to take the video call was insubordinate. The company claimed they terminated his employment because he refused to participate in ongoing psychological treatment.

The Defendant: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff Rutledge filed disability harassment, wrongful termination, and emotional distress claims. The defendant in the case, ADP, is a payroll services company.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

FEHA explicitly prohibits an employer from harassing an employee because of a mental disability. To successfully argue a disability harassment claim, the plaintiff must show the following:

(1) they are a member of a protected class

(2) they were subject to unwelcome harassment

(3) the unwelcome harassment was based on their protected status

(4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with their work performance (by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment); and

(5) the defendants in the case are liable for the harassment

However, for the case to move forward, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant regarded them as disabled, thus creating a protected class and making them a part of the protected class. The defendant’s immediate motions to dismiss were denied.

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.

Did a Translation Firm Fail to Pay Its Interpreters Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay?

According to a recent California wage and hour lawsuit, a translation firm allegedly failed to pay its interpreters the minimum wage and overtime pay they earned and to provide proper meal and rest breaks.

The Case: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

The Court: Eastern District Court of Northern Carolina

The Case No.: 5:22-cv-08076

The Plaintiff: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce, was hired in March 2020 as an interpreter for Langugae Line Services Inc. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant violated labor law by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime pay as required, and violating meal and rest time break requirements. Boyce filed the wage and hour lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Northern Carolina, and the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen but was reassigned to a US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman, outside the San Jose Division under the Caseload Rebalancing Pilot Program.

The Defendant: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

The defendant in the case, Language Line Services Inc and On Line Translation Inc. share an address in Monterey, California. According to court documents, they allegedly failed to give workers accurate wage statements, reimburse necessary and reasonable business expenses, pay minimum wages earned by workers, and pay overtime wages due for overtime hours worked.

The Case: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

According to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce alleges. Language Line Services Inc. engaged in multiple labor law violations, 29 USC § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act.

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.

Job Candidate Claims Discrimination: Is Workday’s AI Job Screening Tool Biased?

In recent news, Workday faces a lawsuit claiming that their AI job screening tool discriminates against certain job applicants.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 23-cv-00770

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Derek Mobley, is a black man over 40 years old who suffers from anxiety and depression. Mobley claims he has applied to 80-100 job openings for companies using Workday's AI job screening tool since 2018. While Mosey holds a bachelor's degree in finance from Morehouse College and an associate's degree in network systems administration from ITT Technical Institute, his application was declined for every job. Mosley filed a class action complaint seeking to represent others who have also been affected by the screening tool's algorithm.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an HR and payroll SaaS firm. Workday's software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform is designed to help organizations manage their workforce and financial operations. One of the critical features of Workday's platform is its user interface, which is designed to be intuitive and user-friendly. The platform also uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to help automate routine tasks and provide insights into data. Workday's customers range from small and medium-sized businesses to large enterprises across various industries. The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. In the California discrimination lawsuit, Workday is accused of building algorithms for their AI job applicant screening tool that result in discrimination against Black applicants in their 40s.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc. alleges that Workday unlawfully uses an algorithm-based job applicant screening system to determine if an employer should accept an application for employment with the decision based on the applicant's age, race, or disability.

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.