Determining the Burden of Proof in California Workplace Discrimination Lawsuits

On appeal, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s decision regarding the burden of proof in a California workplace discrimination lawsuit.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

Lopez, the plaintiff in the case, worked for La Casa between 2002 and 2017. In 2014, Lopez was placed in a shelter manager position at a residential shelter for domestic violence victims. Two years after becoming a shelter manager, Lopez experienced complications after giving birth and notified the defendant regarding the situation. In response, the plaintiff claims that La Casa sent her harassing communications and did not make a reasonable effort to determine if Lopez’s disability could be accommodated. According to the lawsuit, La Casa declined to provide accommodations suggested by Lopez’s doctor. Lopez claims in the lawsuit that her efforts to return to work were denied, and she was forced out of her position with the nonprofit. Lopez also alleges that due to the Defendant misrepresenting the reason for her termination, she was denied a job at a different workplace.

The Defendant: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

The defendant in the case, Casa de Las Madres, is a domestic violence shelter.

The Case: Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres

On appeal, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the Defendant. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12945(a)(3)(A), proof that 1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is required, 2) that accommodations were requested on the advice of a health care professional, 3) the employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation, and 4) the plaintiff could perform essential job functions if reasonable accommodations were provided. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was correct in applying these requirements with the burden properly placed on Lopez, the plaintiff, to prove the condition relating to pregnancy existed and that she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations provided.

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

Did Acadia Healthcare Fail to Pay Employees Accurate Wages & Overtime?

Acadia Healthcare Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with accurate wages for all the hours they worked, pay accurate overtime wages, and keep an accurate record of their employee's time worked.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of California

The Case No.: 22CV407143

The Plaintiff: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Rhonald Aranzaso, was a California employee of the defendant from June 2021 through September 2022. Aranzaso was an hourly, non-exempt employee at all times with the company, so federal and state labor law protected his right to minimum wage, accurate overtime pay, meal periods, and rest breaks. The plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action alleging and seeking compensation for their losses incurred during the class action period caused by the employer's policies and practices that allegedly violated labor law and failed to fully compensate the employees.

The Defendant: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The defendant in the case, Acadia Healthcare Inc., allegedly used standard practices and policies that violated employees' protections under state and federal labor law.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

According to the lawsuit filed, Acadia Healthcare Inc. allegedly violated labor law by including non-discretionary wage earnings that increased their regular pay rate in calculating sick pay wages, resulting in an alleged loss of income for employees who qualify as class members. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their rigorous work schedules prevented them from taking their thirty-minute off-duty meal breaks or being fully relieved of duty during their legally required meal periods. The plaintiffs also claim their employer failed to provide required second-off-duty meal breaks when necessary. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendant intentionally disregarded their obligation to comply with California Labor Codes and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

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.

Did Unifi Aviation, LLC Fail to Provide Employees with Mandatory Meal & Rest Breaks?

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, Unifi Aviation, LLC faces allegations of labor law violations, with plaintiffs specifically alleging that the company failed to provide the meal and rest breaks required to offer employees according to labor law.

The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00019287-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Leiv Berg, is an Unifi Aviation, LLC employee. Berg started work with the company in January 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Berg is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages for all hours worked. During this time with the company, Berg noticed practices that he alleges violate labor law and responded by filing a class action complaint representing himself and all other similarly situated employees (non-exempt workers previously employed by the defendant or staffed by a third party during the period beginning four years before the date the complaint was filed, and ending on the date determined by the court). They seek compensation for losses incurred during the California Class Period caused by Unifi Aviation’s policies and practices allegedly failing to compensate employees legally.

The Defendant: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant in the case, is an aviation services provider in California. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly engaged in several policies and practices that violated labor law, including:

• Interrupting employees during off-duty meal breaks to perform work tasks (without appropriate compensation) resulting in what is often referred to as “off-the-clock” work or unpaid time working.

• Using a payroll system that rounds down employees’ time (as a standard practice) resulting in employees receiving less pay than if the company paid them for all time worked without rounding the numbers.

• Requiring mandatory temperature checks and Covid symptom questionnaires (without pay)

• Calculating overpay rates without including bonuses earned from the company’s non-discretionary incentive program

• The Case: Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC

The court defines an off-duty rest period as the time when an employee is relieved of all work-related tasks. Employees must be free to engage in personal activities during rest periods and should not be subject to their employer’s control or restrictions. Employees should not be required to remain on-site, on call, or perform work-related tasks or duties during off-duty rest periods or meal breaks. In the case, Leiv Berg v. Unifi Aviation, LLC, the defendant faces wage and hour allegations, overtime allegations, failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay sick wages (in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s)).

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.

Breakfast Republic Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Breakfast Club faces a PAGA-only lawsuit alleging multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic Carmel Valley, LLC

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

The Case No.: 21SMCV01447

The Plaintiff: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The plaintiff in the case, Chanda Young, filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the popular breakfast eatery, Breakfast Republic, violated multiple California labor laws.

The Defendant: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The defendant in the case is the Breakfast Republic, a popular dining location. According to the class action, eight Breakfast Republic corporate entities violated California Labor Law, including their Ocean Beach location in Newport. Employees of the trendy eatery sued the restaurant claiming multiple California labor law violations, including:

• failure to pay minimum wage

• failure to pay overtime

• failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failure to provide wages when due

• failure to provide tips

• failure to provide required itemized wage statements

The Case: Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic

The case, Chanda Young v. Breakfast Republic, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

Warning Signs that Could Indicate California Labor Law Violations:

California employees should be aware of common warning signs that their employers are violating labor law, such as:

• Misclassification: Employers may misclassify employees as exempt from overtime pay when they should be classified as non-exempt.

• Off-the-Clock-Work: Employers may sometimes require workers to complete job duties or work-related tasks before or after their scheduled shifts, during their off-duty meal breaks, etc. Without compensation, doing so violates labor laws.

• Improper Overtime Rate Calculation: Employers may miscalculate the overtime rate by not including additional compensation such as commissions, bonuses, or certain types of incentive pay.

If you believe your rights regarding overtime pay have been violated, it's advisable to consult with an employment lawyer who can assess your specific circumstances and provide guidance accordingly.

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.

$1.6M Settlement in Verizon Overtime Lawsuit Receives Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the two parties in a Verizon overtime lawsuit received preliminary approval for a $1.6 million settlement to resolve California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit claims.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Antonio Hiram Santillan, filed a putative class action in May 2021 in San Diego County Superior Court alleging that Verizon Connect (a subsidiary of Verizon) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations for employees and failed to provide (or compensate workers for) mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. Santillan was a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020.

He worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al. is not the first overtime lawsuit Version has faced (and it’s not the only one currently). The class action lawsuit has a class of more than 500 employees, all claiming they were denied proper overtime pay, as well as meal and rest breaks and reimbursements for expenses.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Verizon Connect Inc., faces allegations of failing to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate, failing to provide employees with meal periods, failing to pay all the wages due their employees, failing to reimburse workers for business expenses, failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements (on time), and unfair business practices.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

In Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al., the defendant faces allegations of multiple California and federal labor law violations. In July 2023, the parties received preliminary approval of a $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California wage and hour class action claims.

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.

Amazon Faces Wrongful Death Allegations Over Snow Sled Sold Online

A wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon over a snow sled purchased through their online retail site was removed to California District Court. The plaintiff claims that the decedent suffered injuries and death after using a defective snow sled manufactured and sold by Amazon LLC.

The Case: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23A H CV 00 1 92

The Plaintiff: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and product liability on behalf of himself and the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy. The plaintiff alleges the decedent suffered injury and death from using a defective snow sled manufactured by Amazon LLC and sold on their online retail site. According to the complaint, the damages were caused by one product, the Weanas 47inch Snow Sled for Kids and Adults Heavy Dute Inflatable Sledding Tube with 2 Higher Handles and Detachable Tow Rope, Blue (also referred to as Weanas 47” Snow Sled).

The Defendant: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com, LLC, et al., listed and sold the Weanas 47” snow sled, advertising it as a snow sled safe for use. However, the plaintiff claims that the product was unsafe due to improper warnings, improper instructions on using the sled, a defective design, and defective manufacturing of the product or its parts. The plaintiff specifically claims that the snow tube’s poor design meant users could not steer, and the product was not safe for use by multiple adults (without proper warnings or instructions regarding these specific limitations/dangers).

The Case: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

In the case of Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al., the plaintiffs claim that due to their use of the dangerous snow sled, their property was destroyed, and both suffered injuries. Before her death, decedent Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy suffered special and general damages, including (but not limited to) medical expenses, personal property damage, lost wages (due to injuries), physical pain, mental suffering, disfigurement, etc.

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.

Allegedly Improper Wound Care Results in Wrongful Death Allegations

The children of a man who received at-home care filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming the treatment significantly increased the patient’s risk of infection and death.

The Case: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

The Court: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County

The Case No.: 230401540

The Plaintiff: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Barends, is the daughter of the deceased Mr. Weller and the executor of his estate. Barends filed a wrongful death lawsuit on April 17, 2023, in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, alleging malpractice. She brought the action for herself and her brother, Bruce Weller. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant was negligent in the care provided to their father, Richard Weller, resulting in additional injury and complications that caused or substantially increased his risk of harm, injury, infection, and death.

The Defendant: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

The defendants in the case, Accentcare Inc., Southeastern Health Services of Pennsylvania LLC, and others, face a wrongful death lawsuit filed in April 2023 in Pennsylvania Court. The plaintiff in the case accuses the defendant of medical malpractice leading to wrongful death. AccentCare owns and operates Southeastern Health Services of Pennsylvania LLC. The company provides on-site care to residents and home health, palliative, and hospice care to patients throughout Philadelphia County. Richard Weller was referred to the defendant for home health care services and supportive care in July 2021 for medical conditions and a pressure wound.

The Case: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

In Barends v. Accentcare, Inc., the plaintiff lays out the initial visit of the defendant’s health professional and the proposed care to be provided to Mr. Weller. The lawsuit outlines numerous claims of negligence in Mr. Weller’s care, including:

1. Failing to inform the patient of alternatives to the Foley catheter and failing to properly gain the patient’s consent to its use

2. Failing to make a reasonable effort to use less invasive methods before turning to the Foley catheter

3. Failing to accurately gauge the risk of the Foley catheter for a high-risk patient and failing to ensure the patient’s safety before placing the device

4. Failing to use the initially recommended and agreed upon external condom catheter for urinary control

5. Failing to obtain appropriate consultations/assistance in connection to the patient’s co-morbidities to ensure his safety

6. Improperly recommending and placing the Foley catheter

7. Misplacing/malpositioning the Foley catheter

8. Failing to maintain a sterile field during placement

9. Failing to properly insert and position the Foley catheter

10. Failing to use the proper technique to place and secure the catheter, fill the catheter balloon, check proper positioning, test the catheter’s function after insertion, secure the catheter in place to avoid dislodgment, monitor the catheter for proper function, inspect the catheter for malposition, provide proper training to home caregivers, keep proper records of placement and monitoring of catheter, and follow procedures and policies in place for patient safety

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.