Bloom Energy Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations: Employees Claim They Don’t Receive Breaks

Bloom Energy, the defendant in a recently filed California labor law class action, is facing allegations that employees were not paid a full wage for all their work hours due to the employer's failure to comply with meal and rest break laws.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV419599

The Plaintiff: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The plaintiff in the case, Alexander Gilmore, was an employee at a Bloom Energy facility in Santa Clara from October 2022 through December 2022. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Gilmore was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wages, and accurate overtime wages. In his complaint filed on July 25, 2023, Gilmore alleged the company violated his and other similarly situated workers' rights under state and federal employment law.

The Class Members: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The California class for the case is defined as anyone currently employed or formerly employed by Bloom Energy in California as a non-exempt employee during the period beginning four years before the filing of Gilmore's complaint and ending on the date to be determined by the court.

The Defendant: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The defendant in the case, Bloom Energy Corporation, is a Deleware company conducting significant business in California. The company provides renewable energy and electric power solutions. According to the plaintiff, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice failed to compensate employees lawfully. According to the class action, Bloom Energy allegedly failed to provide eligible employees with legally compliant meal breaks and rest periods and to compensate the employees for the missed meal breaks and rest periods as required by law. As a result of this uniform policy and practice, the workers were allegedly not compensated for all hours worked, which led to additional alleged minimum wage, overtime pay violations, and accurate itemized wage statement violations due to the off-the-clock work.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

In Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, including current and former employees. The class action seeks compensation for class members' losses due to alleged labor law violations during the class period. The plaintiff in the case describes instances when they were required to work while clocked out for off-duty meal breaks as a regular occurrence and also claims that there were days when they did not even receive a partial lunch break during the midst of their full-time schedule. As a result, Gilmore and other class members forfeited minimum wage and overtime pay by regularly putting in hours that were not accurately recorded or compensated at the required minimum wage and overtime pay rates. According to the complaint, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice resulting in the alleged violations is notable in the defendant's business records. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action meal and rest break 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.

Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Bluecrew Violated Labor Law

In a California class action lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the company failed to provide employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in inaccurate wages and overtime wages.  

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-602240

The Plaintiff: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Dela Cruz, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that as a result of rigorous work schedules, he and other employees who qualify as California class members were sometimes unable to take their thirty-minute meal breaks and that at other times they were not fully relieved of work duties during the meal breaks they did take. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that their employer sometimes failed to provide workers with their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours in one shift. 

When Do California Workers Get a Second Meal Break in One Work Shift? 

In California, workers are generally entitled to a second meal break if they work a certain number of hours in a single work shift. The specific rules for meal breaks in California are as follows: one meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work over 5 hours in one workday, and a second meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work more than 10 hours in one workday with the second meal break provided no later than the end of the worker’s tenth hour or work. There are certain exceptions for specific industries, and employees can waive their second meal break if their total hours in the day do not exceed 12 hours (as long as they did not already waive their first meal break). When an employer does not provide an employee with the required meal break, the employee is typically required to pay the employee an additional hour at the regular pay rate for each day a meal break was not provided. 

The Defendant: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The defendant in the case, Bluecrew, LLC, faced allegations of California labor law violations when an employee filed a class action complaint alleging that Bluecrew (and Bluecrew Staffing) allegedly:

1. Failed to pay minimum wage.

2. Failed to pay overtime wages.

3. Failed to provide legally mandated rest periods and meal breaks.

4. Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

5. Failed to reimburse their employees for necessary work expenses.

6. Failed to pay sick pay wages.

7. Failed to pay wages when due. 

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

Did Bluecrew violate California labor law? In the case Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC, California’s San Fransisco Superior Court had to consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the company’s standard practices violated California labor laws.

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.

Did SAS Retail Services Fail to Reimburse California Employees for Work Expenses?

According to court documents, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly violated California labor law when they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses to complete their duties.

The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action lawsuit against SAS Retail Services, LLC, alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. According to the plaintiffs in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for the required business expenses necessary to complete their required job duties. The plaintiffs claim that while employed at SAS, they and other class members in similar situations with the company were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties.

The Defendant: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to pay the minimum wage and overtime wages required under California labor law.

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

California Labor Code §2802 states that California employers "shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." Plaintiffs argue that SAS Retail Services, LLC's policy violated Section 2802.

The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

Overtime wage rates were allegedly calculated based on the employee's regular pay rate but failed to consider the non-discretionary bonus plaintiffs and other class members received as part of their pay. The incentive program that generated the non-discretionary bonuses was allegedly described to new and potential hires as part of an employee's compensation package. Due to the company's standard practice, the California employer allegedly violated minimum wage and overtime laws.

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.

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.

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.

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.

California Plaintiffs and Five Guys Fifth Agreement Nears Settlement

In recent news, California plaintiffs and Five Guys are near a settlement (based on their fifth agreement).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:17-cv-00762-JLT-EPG

The Plaintiff: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jeremy R. Lusk, was an hourly, non-exempt manager in training at one of the Five Guys California locations from August to November 2016. He filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated labor law when they denied their workers' overtime pay and legally mandated breaks and rest periods. Preliminary approval was granted in September 2022 for a settlement based on the fifth agreement between the two parties.

The Defendant: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., is faced with a number of allegations.

• Failed to provide paid meal breaks and rest breaks for workers because it was too busy.

• Failed to pay workers legally mandated overtime pay.

• Required workers to work off the clock (requiring workers to clock out and then continue to complete required work duties like counting money in the cash register, etc.)

• Failing to reimburse employees for the use of personal cars in the course of completing their job duties (like traveling to and from other restaurant locations for pick-ups, supply runs, etc.)

• Failed to pay workers for overtime work.

• Failed to provide workers with accurate wage statements.

• Obtained authorization to conduct background checks using a disclosure form that did not comply with the law (FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), CCRAA (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act), and ICRAA (Investigating Consumer Reporting Agency Act).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., reached a fifth proposed settlement of $1.2 million that would involve 2,206 class members. The two parties await final approval of the settlement.

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.