Did Navy Federal Credit Union Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, the Navy Federal Credit Union faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00034395-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Maureen Coffey, filed a class action complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union. Coffey alleged the defendant failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of labor law in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802.

The Defendant: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

The defendant in the case, Navy Federal Credit Union, faces allegations that they failed to pay minimum wages, pay accurate overtime wages, provide employees with required meal and rest periods, provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse employees for required business expenses. The credit union’s standard policy left workers on-call and on-duty during their off-duty meal periods, so employees regularly forfeited their breaks without receiving the legally required additional compensation.

The Case: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Due to rigorous work schedules, Navy Federal Credit Union employees were allegedly unable to take their off-duty meal breaks. They were also, at times, not fully relieved of their job duties during their meal periods. The case, Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the complaint, employees were regularly interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks so they could complete tasks for the credit union. The plaintiffs also claim they were not provided off-duty meal breaks during shifts of more than five hours. Employees further claimed that when working shifts of ten hours, the credit union did not provide a second off-duty meal break.

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.

Employees Allege Matrix Providers Failed to Pay for Time Worked

In recent news, employees allege that Matrix Providers failed to pay workers for all the time worked.

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00036339-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia, filed a class action complaint alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Matrix Providers, Inc., allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alleged violations include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses

• failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• failed to pay wages when they were due

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California labor law, employers must pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period. Labor law also requires that employers pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all the hours worked in each payroll period (no matter how their payment is calculated (time, piece rate, commission, etc.)).

How Does California Labor Law Define “Hours Worked?”

California defines "hours worked" as when an employee is subject to the control of an employer and is required to be on the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace. This definition includes all time an employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not the work is done voluntarily. In essence, hours worked in California encompass not only the time spent actively performing job duties but also time when an employee is under the employer's control or direction, even if they are not actively engaged in work. Matrix Providers allegedly required workers to complete tasks before clocking in and after their scheduled shifts were completed, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The class action claims Matrix Providers failed to compensate workers for time spent “working” under the employer's control while they were technically off-the-clock. In doing so, Matrix Providers allegedly failed to pay its workers minimum wage for all hours worked.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

California Class Action Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

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, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

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

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

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

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

• Meal and Rest Period Violations

• Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

• Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

• Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

• Unreimbursed Business Expenses

• Wage Statement Violations

• Failure to Pay Wages on Time

• Unlawful Deductions

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

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

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.

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.

Kelly Services Global Faced Allegations of California Labor Law Violations in PAGA-Only Lawsuit

In a PAGA-Only action filed in Orange County Superior Court, Kelly Services Global faced allegations of multiple California labor law violations. 

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, filed a lawsuit against Kelly Services Global, LLC, alleging they violated multiple California labor laws and seeking penalties for the alleged violations. According to the plaintiff, Kelly Services Global, LLC allegedly failed to provide off-duty thirty-minute meal breaks (as required by employment law when an employee works a certain number of hours). Employees were allegedly not fully relieved from their job duties during their breaks. The plaintiff also claimed that employees were sometimes required to work more than four hours in one shift with their ten-minute rest period (also required by employment law).

What Is An “Off Duty Rest Period?”

According to the California Supreme Court, an off-duty rest period is when a worker is relieved from all their job duties and work-related duties and during which they are outside their employer’s control.

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

The defendant in the case is Kelly Services Global, LLC. According to court documents, the defendant allegedly failed to provide their workers with all the legally required meal breaks and rest periods required by law. Additionally, the employer allegedly failed to compensate for the missed meal breaks and rest periods. The allegations constitute violations of multiple California Labor Codes: §§ 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 Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The case, Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, was originally filed in Orange County Superior Court. California’s PAGA action is a mechanism that allows employees to sue as the proxy or agent of California’s state labor law enforcement agencies to enforce labor law. When a PAGA-only action is filed, it acts as a law enforcement action on a fundamental level to protect the public. The PAGA-only action was not designed to benefit private parties. Rather than seeking to recover damages or restitution, its purpose is to create an opportunity to deputize regular citizens as private attorneys general to enforce California labor law.

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.

Did Ashley Home Store Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, Ashley Home Store employees questioned whether or not the popular furniture store violated California labor laws.

The Case: Ricardo Brito v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (which does business as Ashley Home Store)

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

The Case No.: 23STCV14586

The Plaintiff: Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store

The plaintiff in the case, Ricardo Brito, filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to compensate employees for all the hours they worked. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of Ashely Home Store employees and former employees who worked at a California Ashley Home Store location and were paid on commission (either in whole or in part) or on a piece rate basis between June 22, 2019, through the present. According to the plaintiffs, some workers should have also received hourly compensation for the time they spent completing non-production-related duties. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that Ashely Home Store did not compensate employees for missed meal breaks.

The Defendant: Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store

According to their website, the defendant in the case, Ashley Home Store, employs more than 35,000 team members across the globe. The popular furniture store has locations around the globe, including California.

The Case: Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store

The Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Ashley Home Store engaged in unfair compensation violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802. The specific violations listed in the complaint include failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods or appropriate compensation for missed meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to provide wages when due, and failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

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.

Sea West Services Faces Allegations of Wage and Hour Violations

A lawsuit filed recently claims Sea West Services violated California’s Labor Code when they allegedly failed to provide their workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

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

The Case No.: 23CV038585

The Plaintiff: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jose Ruelas, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, Sea West Services, faces allegations that they violated numerous employment laws, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the company violated employment law by

(1) failing to pay minimum wages;

(2) failing to pay overtime wages;

(3) failing to provide required meal and rest periods;

(4) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

(5) failing to pay wages when due;

(6) failing to reimburse employees for required expenses; and

(7) failing to pay sick pay.

The Case: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

In the case Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC, the court will consider the application of state and federal labor codes. In California, employers must pay their employees on the established payday for each pay period, no less than minimum wage, for all hours worked during the pay period. According to the plaintiff, Sea West Services, LLC failed to compensate workers for work they needed to complete before and after their scheduled shifts and off-duty breaks. The off-the-clock work went uncompensated.

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.