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.

DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Allegedly Violated Meal and Rest Break Law

In recent news, DWWH, Inc., dba Weir Canyon Honda, faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, started working for Weir Canyon Honda in July 2022. Ureno an hourly wage plus commission-based bonuses and non-discretionary bonuses. His employment status meant he was entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and compliance with meal and rest time break laws.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, owns and operates car dealerships in Orange County, California, and other locations throughout the state. Weir Canyon Honda faces a class action California lawsuit alleging they violated labor law. The defendant faces several labor law violation allegations:

(1) failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked

(2) failing to pay overtime wages when due

(3) failing to provide the legally required meal breaks and rest periods

(4) failing to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement

(5) failing to pay wages on time; and

(6) failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a class action complaint alleging the company failed to provide workers with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods as required by law. The case is currently pending in the California's Orange County Superior Court.

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

Public Health Institute Allegedly Violated Meal & Rest Break Labor Laws

In recent news, allegations indicate that Public Health Institute may have violated labor law by failing to adhere to meal and rest break requirements.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV028034

The Plaintiff: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiff in the case, Anysia Taylor, worked for Public Health Institute from January 2021 to April 2022. Taylor was employed as a non-exempt hourly worker entitled to the protections offered by federal and state labor law, including meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages for all time worked. The plaintiff brings the class action wage and hour suit on behalf of herself and other eligible class members seeking losses that resulted from the employer’s policies and practices that violated labor law and failed to compensate non-exempt hourly employees lawfully. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant retained wages due to the plaintiff and other class members.

The Defendant: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The defendant in the case, Public Health Institute, operates programs throughout California intended to improve overall health, equity, and wellness through new research, strengthening partnerships and programs already in place, and supporting and advancing specific public health policies.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiffs and eligible class members seek an injunction preventing similar unlawful conduct in the future and relief for economic injuries resulting from Public Health Institute’s allegedly illegal practices and policies.

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 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.

Allegations Indicate that Epic Healthcare Violated Meal & Rest Period Requirements

In recent news, Epic Healthcare faces employment law violation allegations with a former employee’s class action alleging that they failed to provide meal and rest periods required by employment law.

The Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV38980

The Plaintiff: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The plaintiff in the case, Tina Charnett, was employed by Epic Healthcare in California from January 2022 through May 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Charnett was entitled to the protections offered by state and federal employment laws regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal break and rest period requirements. Charnett alleges that while employed by Epic Healthcare, she was required to perform off-the-clock work, complete job duties during “off-duty” meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The defendant in the lawsuit, Epic Healthcare, allegedly used a non-discretionary incentive program that provided hourly employees with additional compensation or “incentive wages” based on performance. Hourly employees could earn incentive pay if they met designated performance goals created by the employer. However, when Epic Healthcare calculated the “regular rate of pay” used to determine overtime pay wages, they allegedly failed to include the incentive pay in the calculations, which resulted in alleged overtime pay violations.

Details of the Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

In addition to allegations that the defendant failed to provide off-duty meal breaks and failed to include incentive pay in overtime pay calculations, the plaintiff claims that the business practice and policies in use at Epic Healthcare and their affiliates incorporated a rounding system instead of paying employees for all the hours they worked. They also required that employees submit to a Covid-19 screening process (as a condition of employment), which required them to submit to temperature checks and system questionnaires before clocking in for their shift. Due to the company policies in place during her time at Epic Healthcare, Charnett claims she and other similarly situated employees forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation.

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.

1st-Time Right LLC Faces a Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, 1st-Time Right LLC faces a California class action. The class action complaint alleges that the company violated California Labor Code by failing to comply with meal and rest break requirements and pay their employees for all the hours they worked.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

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

The Case No.: 22STCV36533

The Plaintiff: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jermaine Ford, a California resident, was employed by the Defendant from October 2021 through December 202. Categorized as a non-exempt employee paid hourly, Ford was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.

The Defendant: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The defendant in the case, 1st-Time Right, LLC, operates a staffing company throughout California, with operations in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff, Ford, was employed.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

Ford brings the class action on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees in the California class (current or former employees of 1st-Time Right, LLC in California classified as non-exempt employees at any time within the four years preceding the filing of the complaint (with an end date to be determined by the court). The plaintiff seeks compensation for losses incurred due to employment law violations during the class period. According to the complaint, the losses were incurred due to the defendant’s practices and policies that created a failure to fully compensate employees for their work. The plaintiff also alleges that 1st-Time Right, LLC illegally retained employee wages.

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.

Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC Faces Allegations of Meal Break Violations

In a recent California employment law case, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC is accused of violating California labor law by failing to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods, among other violations.

The Case: Violena Perez Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The Court: California Superior Court, County of San Diego

The Case No.: 37-2022-00017063-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Violena Perez Martinez, filed a PAGA-only action citing violations by the defendant, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC. Martinez was employed by Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC in California from July 2019 to December 2021. At all times during Martinez's employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, received pay on an hourly basis, and was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wage requirements.

The Defendant: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The defendant in the case, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC, operates a business that sells, develops, and commercializes packaged foods. According to the court documents, the defendant allegedly violated several California and federal labor codes, including furnishing employees with a written, accurate itemized wage statement showing: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned, and any applicable piece-rate, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates for which the pay period provided the employee with payment, the employee's name and only the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number, the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, all applicable hourly rate in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Olli Salumeria allegedly failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage statements that complied with California state law.

The Case: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The representative class action complaint is pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. According to the lawsuit, Olli Salumeria allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). PAGA violations can give rise to civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties for themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. An "aggrieved employee" is defined as someone "employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." See California Labor Code section 2699(c) for more. PAGA actions allow aggrieved employees to become "deputized" as private attorneys general so they can enforce the Labor Code on behalf of the state of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Texas Roadhouse Fail to Provide Employees with Legally Required Breaks and Meal Periods?

In recent news, employees of popular steak restaurant, Texas Roadhouse, claim the company violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Case: Porsche Barrett v. Armadillo Holdings, LLC Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., and Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, "Texas Roadhouse")

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

The Case No.: CV-22-001986,

The Plaintiff: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Porsche Barrett, alleges that Texas Roadhouse failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by labor law. According to court documents, Barrett was employed by Texas Roadhouse at one of their California locations since 2015. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and as such, was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages due.

The Defendant: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The defendant in the case, the Texas Roadhouse, allegedly failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods, failed to pay employees for all time worked, failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work, failed to pay employees overtime at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to compensate employees for meal rest premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, and failed to issue employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. Additionally, plaintiffs in the case allege that Texas Roadhouse’s uniform policies and practices are intended to purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California law (allegedly allowing the restaurant to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors who are in compliance with the law).

Summary of the Case: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The class-action lawsuit, Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse, is currently pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California law, employers must pay each employee, on the established payday for the specified period, no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in that payroll period. Hours worked are defined in the applicable Wage Order as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” According to the plaintiffs in the case, Texas Roadhouse allegedly required their employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts (off-the-clock work), as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit further alleges that the popular steakhouse restaurant failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. Not providing payment for off-the-clock work and time spent working during meal breaks and rest periods resulted in Texas Roadhouse allegedly failing to pay employees the applicable minimum wage.

If you have questions about California employment law, wage and hour violations, or need help filing 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.