Publix Facss Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, Publix faces allegations of overtime violations, with more current and former employees coming forward with similar complaints after the suit was initially filed.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The Court: U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-C

The Plaintiff: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, Hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case are Christopher Roberts, Caitlin Throckmorton, Brandy Moore, Carter Hubbs, and Jessica Schafer. At the last check, approx. 20 past and current Publix managers (at varying management levels) were listed as plaintiffs in the potential overtime class action. The potential class action lawsuit was originally filed in October and included allegations that Publix did not pay their hourly employees for hundreds of overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, workers routinely worked before and after their shifts and on unpaid meal breaks. The class action applies to Publix store workers in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.

The Defendant: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The defendant in the case, Publix Supermarkets, Inc., operates over 1,300 stores in seven states, employing over 250,000 employees. Publix is headquartered in Lakeland. According to the allegations, Publix managers and assistant managers were paid hourly rates. Still, they worked before and after clocking out to complete mandatory job duties. Some of these mandatory job duties managers were allegedly expected to perform off the clock included:

• walking departments with supervisors

• organizing

• cleaning

• restocking

• assisting customers

According to the class action allegations, managers were also routinely interrupted while they were on unpaid breaks so they could handle work matters. They were also allegedly expected to handle work matters when they were not at work - they were simply contacted by call or text. They were not provided any compensation when they were expected to complete these tasks off the clock and while completely off duty.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case estimate that they worked an average of at least five unpaid overtime hours weekly without being provided with any means of recording their hours or receiving payment for the job duties they completed while outside the store or off the clock.

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.

Student Files Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit After a Pep Rally Stunt Escalates

In recent news, a a former student claims he suffered traumatic brain injuries after a pep rally gone wrong.

The Case: Carter v. Kern County School District

The Court: Superior Court of Kern County, Bakersfield

The Case No.: S1500CV275395

The Plaintiff: Carter v. Kern County School District

The plaintiff in the case, Bret Mitchell Carter, was student body president and a senior at Bakersfield High School who agreed to wear a chicken suit for a school pep rally before a championship game against Clovis West High School in the Valley Conference. The Clovis mascot was a gold eagle, and Carter dressed up in a chicken suit to mock the other school’s mascot at Bakersfield High School during the pre-game events. Before Carter approached the midcourt circle for a routine with the Bakersfield mascot as planned, he was attacked by several junior varsity football players who rushed from the crowd to “wrestle” with the giant chicken. The initial play fighting was quickly followed by additional students joining in from the crowd who started kicking and stomping Carter in the chicken suit. Other students eventually pulled the students attacking Carter off of him, and the attack allegedly lasted about 12 seconds. Following the incident, eleven students were suspended based on their involvement in the incident during which Carter sustained head injuries. Carter sued Kern High School District, the operator of Bakersfield High School.

The Defendant: Carter v. Kern County School District

The defendant in the case is Kern High School District, the operator of Bakersfield High School, where the plaintiff was a student at the time of the incident. According to court documents, the varsity players were told about the routine, but the junior varsity players were not. Carter argued that the school officials encouraged the stunt but failed to break up the attack quickly. The school claimed that security personnel on site delayed intervening in the incident because they were confused regarding the routine and what it entailed.

The Case: Carter v. Kern County School District

Due to the incident, Carter sustained multiple abrasions, and his face was severely swollen. He was taken to an urgent care facility after the incident for stitches and to check for a potential concussion. Three days after the incident, Carter was still struggling to recover. He was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury impacting his frontal lobes, containing most of the dopamine-sensitive neurons in the cerebral cortex. The dopamine system is associated with reward, attention, short-term memory tasks, planning, and motivation. As such, Carter claimed the injuries he sustained in the attack left him suffering migraine headaches, psychological issues, and a hormone deficiency that damaged his pituitary gland. According to the plaintiff’s legal counsel, Carter was a successful student before the incident, but he changed after the attack. The plaintiff’s counsel pointed out Carter’s near-failing college grades, his need for growth hormone therapy for the remainder of his life, his need for special education classes, and ongoing counseling. The plaintiff’s counsel requested $45 million in damages. The defense counsel argued that Carter didn’t file suit against the district until three years after the incident and that he wasn’t diagnosed with a brain injury until after he filed. They also argued that Carter was treated by doctors multiple times in the three years between the incident and the filing, but he didn’t display symptoms consistent with a head injury. On June 29, 2016, the jury returned a verdict, finding the school district 100 percent at fault for the incident while also rejecting any fault on the part of Carter or the other students. The school district agreed to tender its full $10.5 million insurance policy limits to settle the case.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Defective Swing Set on Playground Leads to Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit

In the case of Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association, the plaintiff was allegedly injured by a defective swing set on a playground.

The Case: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The Court: U.S. District Court of Nevada

The Case No.: 2:19-CV-1152 JCM (VCF)

The Plaintiff: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The plaintiff in the case, Carl Thompson, was allegedly injured by a defective swing set on a neighborhood playground. In March 2014, Thompson sued the swing set manufacturer, the installer, and Lamplight Homeowner’s Association.

The Defendant: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The defendant in the case, Lamplight Village @Centennial Springs Homeowners Association (“Lamplight), allegedly installed swing sets made with defective parts on their neighborhood playground. According to court documents, the top bar of the playground swing set repeatedly broke and fell. The homeowner’s association would repair the swing set only to have the same part on the swing set break again. Lamplight sought and received a replacement from the swing set manufacturer. When the replacement swing set’s top bar also broke, the swing set manufacturer sent a second replacement swing set. When the second replacement swing set’s top bar broke, the top cross bar swung down and allegedly struck the plaintiff, Thompson, in the head, crushing his skull and causing bleeding in his brain.

The Case: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The case, Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association, went to trial, where the court considered the case of a teenager who suffered a traumatic brain injury allegedly caused by a swing set when the top crossbar broke and hit him in the head as it fell. The court found in favor of the plaintiff awarding $20 million ($10 million compensatory and $10 million punitive).

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Tesla Retaliate Against Employees for Opposing Harassment?

In recent news, a federal lawsuit alleges black Tesla employees endured open hostility and racial discrimination.

The Case: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-04984

Background: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

In this widely publicized case, the complaint alleged that electric car maker Tesla, Inc. violated federal law when they tolerated the ongoing widespread racial harassment of their black employees. In addition, the lawsuit claims that Tesla retaliated against some workers for opposing the harassment. According to case documents, the harassment continued from at least 2015 through 2023, with the black employees at Tesla’s Fremont, California facilities enduring various racial slurs, pervasive stereotyping, racial abuse, and general hostility while fulfilling their jobs at the busy manufacturing plant. Incidents allegedly occurred casually in high-traffic areas and worker “hub” areas. Black employees also allegedly encountered graffiti (showing variations of the N-word, swastikas, nooses, threats, etc.) on their desks, office furniture, factory equipment, bathrooms, elevators, and new vehicles just rolling off the Tesla facility’s production line.

Workplace Retaliation Claims: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., also faces allegations of retaliation. During the EEOC investigation, evidence suggested that employees who objected to the discriminatory behavior and racial harassment at the Tesla facility suffered various forms of workplace retaliation, from a change in job duties to termination or transfer. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial harassment. It also requires employers who receive harassment complaints to respond promptly by investigating the claim and taking appropriate action to stop the retaliatory acts or harassment.

The Case: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

In EEOC v Tesla, Inc., the parties failed to reach a pre-litigation settlement. After the failed attempt to resolve the situation pre-litigation, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages and back pay for any affected Tesla employees. The suit also seeks injunctive relief to reform Tesla’s employment practices and prevent future acts of discrimination.

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.

Sysco San Francisco, Inc. Allegedly Failed to Reimburse Employees for Work Expenses

In recent news, employees filed a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging Sysco San Francisco, Inc. violated California labor law.

The Case: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23CV039442

The Plaintiff: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Williamson, filed a class action complaint alleging that Sysco San Francisco, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to offer employees itemized wage statements and reimbursement for work expenses. The plaintiffs also allege that the employer failed to pay sick wages. The allegations indicate violations of numerous California Labor Code Sections, including 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s).

The Defendant: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sysco San Francisco, Inc., allegedly failed to reimburse their workers even though the company allegedly required workers to use their cell phones for business purposes.

The Case: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

According to the complaint, Sysco San Francisco, Inc. allegedly did not reimburse employees for necessary work expenses like using their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. California Labor Code 2802 states that employers must “indemnify [an] employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties…” The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court of the State of California.

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 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.

Did Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center Violate Meal and Rest Break Law?

In recent news, a class action complaint alleges Twin Palms Healthcare Center violated wage and hour labor law by failing to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

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

The Case No.: 23STCV20411

The Plaintiff: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The plaintiff in the case, Mary Franklin, filed a class action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the complaint, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center's employees engaged in rigorous work schedules that prevented them from taking off-duty rest breaks. Plaintiffs also claim they were not fully relieved of duty during their rest periods. Plaintiffs in the case allege they were sometimes required to work through their work periods due to their overburdened work schedules. In addition to failing to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, allegations indicate that the employer did not provide employees who missed their breaks and meal periods with the one-hour wage required instead of a break.

The Defendant: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The defendant in the case, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center, faces several allegations in the class action complaint, including failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse employees for required business expenses. The alleged violations fall under numerous California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 and 2804.

When Do California Employees Get Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

In California, employees are entitled to rest breaks and meal periods under certain circumstances, depending on their work shifts and total hours worked.

Rest Breaks: Employees are entitled to a paid rest break of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked. Rest breaks are paid breaks; employees should receive their regular pay rate during this time.

Meal Periods: Employees are entitled to an unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes when they work more than five hours in a workday. Employees who work more than ten hours in a workday are entitled to a second unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes. Meal periods are unpaid, and employees are fully relieved of their duties.

The Case: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The case, Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. At the center of the case is the allegation that due to their allegedly rigorous work schedules and inadequate staffing, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center's employees were sometimes allegedly denied their rest periods by their employer without receiving additional payment in place of a break as employment law requires.

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.