Byer California Faces Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Byer California faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

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

The Case No.: CGC-23-605878

The Plaintiff: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The plaintiff in the case, Jonathan Moore, was employed by Byer California from July 18, 2022 through November 16, 2022 as a nonexempt employee paid hourly. Moore claims that the company's standard policies and practices resulted in labor law violations during his time at the company. Moore filed a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers employed by Byer California during the class period (the period beginning four(4) years before the filing of Moore's complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court).

The Defendant: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The defendant in the case, Byer California, supplies junior, misses, and girls' fashion for retail department stores, online stores, and specialty stores throughout California and the nation. A substantial amount of their business is conducted in the state of California. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in the case, Jonathan Moore v. Byer California, failed to fully compensate their employees under labor laws.

The Case: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The case, Jonathan Moore v. Byer California, hinges on Moore's classification as a nonexempt hourly employee. As such, he is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked for his employer. According to the plaintiff, Jonathan Moore, the defendant regularly required workers to work during their off-duty meal breaks, allowed work assignments to interrupt employees' off-duty breaks, and employed a rounding system as a standard practice that benefitted the employer by rounding hours down, which allegedly resulted in employees receiving less pay than they would if the company paid their workers for actual time worked without the rounding system.

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

Fedex Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. faces allegations of California labor code violations in a recent PAGA-only action.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIV-SB-2305596

The Plaintiff: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that FedEx Ground failed to provide their employees with all the legally required meal and rest periods (or compensate them for missed meal and rest periods). Ortiz-Dixon filed the lawsuit alleging violations of numerous labor laws including: § 2699, et seq. §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California labow law suit seeks penalties for the defendants’ multiple alleged violations.

The Defendant: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The defendant in the case, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., allegedly failed to fully relieve their workers (plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees) of the legally required 30-minute meal breaks. In addition, from time to time, FedEx also allegedly required workers to work more than four hours without providing them with the legally required ten-minute rest periods. “Off duty” rest periods are defined by the California Supreme Court as when an employee is relieved from all their work-related duties and not under their employer’s control.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

In the case, Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a PAGA-only action. PAGA is a mechanism California workers can use to enforce state labor laws as a proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is essentially a law enforcement action designed to protect the public, not for the benefit of private parties. PAGA actions enforce Labor Code with citizens deputized as private attorneys general and not as a means of recovering damages or restitution for a private party.

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

Twitter Facing California Class Action Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violation

Another former Twitter employee recently filed a California labor complaint alleging that the social media platform giant violated labor law when they failed to give the required notice to employees before companywide layoffs.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01788

The Plaintiff: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eitan Adler, is a former Twitter employee. The software engineer's LinkedIn profile indicates he worked full-time at Twitter for over 7 ½ years. Adler was laid off on November 15, 2022. According to the complaint, Adler did not receive 60 days of advance written notice (required by the federal and California WARN Act). Adler also claims he did not receive pay in place of the legally required notice. On top of that, Adler brings another claim under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of California and other aggrieved California employees in similar situations. California's PAGA allows workers to sue on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the state for California labor law violations.

The Defendant: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Twitter, has dropped from approx. eight thousand employees to about 2,000 employees since the new owner, Musk, took over the business. According to Adler, Elon Musk's near-immediate mass layoff has affected more than half of Twitter's workforce. In addition, Twitter is facing five additional suits in the same San Francisco federal court with similar allegations that are currently pending, claiming Twitter targeted female workers in layoffs, discriminated against employees with disabilities, those who criticized the company, tried to organize strikes, etc.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

According to court documents, Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al., Twitter did not provide the necessary notice for companywide layoffs to Adler and other employees. However, Twitter did provide the required notice under federal and California WARN Acts to many employees affected by the mass layoffs. As of April 13, when Adler filed the complaint, 75% of Twitter's workforce had been laid off. While numerous other suits were filed, this lawsuit stands apart because Adler opted out of the arbitration agreement between Twitter and their workers, and he asserted PAGA claims.

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

Farmers Group Victorious Against Age Discrimination Claims

A California jury sided with Farmers Group stating that California employment laws do not apply because the insurance agents filing discrimination claims are independent contractors.

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are former California-based insurance agents claiming that they were discriminated against for their age. The plaintiffs allege that Farmers Group fired them based on their age so they could replace them with younger, “more productive” workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence showing Farmers Group saved 440% on commissions by replacing established agents.

The Defendant: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Farmers Group Inc., argued that the insurance agents were independent contractors, not employees and that labor law did not apply to independent contractors. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue that Farmers Group imposed performance standards, office requirements, etc., that effectively “controlled” as they would an employee, the defendant argued that the evidence showed they were independent contractors:

• Farmers Group argued that the agents could not state what Farmers Group does

• I couldn’t identify their “sales managers.”

• Filed their own taxes

• Declared themselves sole proprietors or independent contractors to the IRS

• And dedicated their office equipment, supplies, etc., on their taxes as a sole proprietor/independent contractor would

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

In the case, James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Farmers Group Inc. was cleared of discrimination and wrongful termination allegations. The eight-week trial was followed by two days of deliberations. Still, the former California-based insurance agents claiming the company discriminated against them for their age so they could replace them with younger workers had their claims dismissed when jurors determined the four plaintiffs were, in fact, independent contractors, so Farmers did not violate California labor law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination or age discrimination 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.

California Class Action Alleges Marriot Owes Banquet Servers Tips

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Schulman tentatively found that Marriot owed banquet servers close to $9M.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-16-550454

The Plaintiff: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are two former banquet servers for the hotel and conference space, Marriott. During their busy season, the largest ballroom seats up to 5,000 people. The class action focuses on the time between January 2012 and April 2017 when Marriott added a mandatory service charge to customers’ food/beverage bills. From January 2012, the service charge was 23%. Marriott increased the charge to 24% from November 2015 through April 2017. During this five-year period, Marriott distributed 70-72% of the mandatory service charge to their banquet staff. They retained the remainder. Plaintiffs in the case allege this standard practice equates to the employer skimming between 30 and 28% of the total. The plaintiffs filed as a class action, and considering normal turnover, the class of servers is likely to total about 150 people.

The Defendant: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The defendant in the case, Marriott International Inc., revised the billing format to break the mandatory charge into a “staff charge” and a “house charge” in April 2017. The Ordono case only focuses on the period prior to this change, but those arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs find this change telling.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

In the case, John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc., the judge tentatively found that the plaintiffs were entitled to $8.97 million because a reasonable customer may assume the mandatory service charge is a gratuity that goes to their server. California Labor Code 351 states that tips or gratuities belong to the employee, and employers may not take them or deduct any portion of them from the worker’s pay.

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.

Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s Face Allegations of Labor Law Violations in California Class Action

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, two major department stores face allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violations, multiple California labor law violations and a violation of California’s unlawful business practices statute.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-00768

The Plaintiff: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

Six plaintiffs filed the complaint on February 21, 2023, Ha Nguyen, Alex Bhagatram, Alicia Taylor, Soraya Lodin, Teyani Cisneros, and Michael Webster. The plaintiffs worked at Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s California locations as sales associates or inventory control specialists. The group filed a proposed class action in California federal court attempting to represent over 1,100 current and former hourly employees in similar situations at Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s locations in California throughout the past four years. The plaintiffs allege that the stores regularly require off-the-clock work, fail to provide off-duty meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s (Bloomingdale’s is a subsidiary of Macy’s), regularly deducted 30 minutes for meal breaks (even though employees often worked through their meal breaks), did not reimburse workers for necessary use of their personal cell phones, personal computers or internet to complete job duties.

Labor Law Requires Employers to Pay Minimum Wage and Provides Breaks:

As of January 1, 2023, the minimum wage is $15.50 per hour for all California employers. Some cities/counties have higher minimum wages than the state’s rate. California Labor Low also requires employers to offer their nonexempt employees working more than five hours an off-duty 30-minute lunch break, plus 10-minute breaks every four hours, and a second 30-minute off-duty meal break if the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

According to the court documents in Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC et al., workers were not paid for all hours worked because they were not compensated for the meal breaks the company failed to provide. The company also allegedly calculated overtime pay rates incorrectly (using the employee’s lower hourly base rates instead of the higher rate, including their sales commission). The stores also allegedly failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the hourly employees, so the employees’ wage statements didn’t reflect the correct amount of gross/net wages.

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

AT&T’s $575K California Class Action Settlement

After facing allegations of labor law violations, AT&T agreed to resolve the California class action with a $575K settlement.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiff in the case, Razo, filed suit claiming that AT&T violated labor law. California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. California businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal actions and potential consequences under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that allows California workers to seek penalties on behalf of the state’s labor regulator.

The Defendant: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T Mobility, is a phone company providing cell service to California residents, as well as internet service and TV plans. According to a class action lawsuit against AT&T, the company wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt. As a result, these employees were allegedly denied benefits such as minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. AT&T agreed to pay the $575,000 as part of a settlement to resolve the California class action claims alleging they failed to pay California workers minimum wage and overtime wages for all their hours worked in in violation of labor laws.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The case, Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility, is settled. The settlement goes to eligible class members who worked for AT&T Mobility in the state of California as non-exempt employees from November 2nd, 2021 through September 21st, 2022. AT&T agreed to the $575,000 class action settlement, but the company did not admit any wrongdoing. However, the settlement does resolve the allegations. The $575,000 settlement includes a $7,500 payment to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA.

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