PAGA-Only Action Claims Golden 1 Credit Union Engaged in Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Golden 1 Credit Union faces allegations they violated the labor code. According to the PAGA-Only action, the company failed to provide employees with the required meal and rest breaks outlined by employment law, which resulted in alleged wage loss for their affected workers.

The Case: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV001448

The Plaintiff: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Freyja Monday, was employed by Golden 1 Credit Union from March 7, 2022 through August 24, 2023. Monday was paid hourly plus incentive pay based on employee performance. Monday claims the incentive pay was not considered part of regular pay when calculating overtime rates, even though management and supervisors described the incentive pay as part of the compensation package when recruiting new employees. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the credit union allegedly sometimes required the plaintiff (and other similarly situated workers) to work without the rest periods and meal breaks employers must provide under labor law. Monday filed a lawsuit against The Golden 1 Credit Union, citing multiple allegations of labor code violations.

Under the California Wage Order, employers must provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The Supreme Court defined "off-duty" rest periods as time during which the worker is relieved of all job duties and is free of the employer's control.

The Defendant: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The defendant in the case, The Golden 1 Credit Union, is a credit union in California. According to the lawsuit, the company did not comply with multiple labor codes, including alleged violations of: Labor Code § 2699, et seq., seeking penalties for DEFENDANT's alleged violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

According to court documents, Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union, the California-based credit union failed to include incentive pay described as part of the regular compensation package upon hire in the regular overtime pay rate and missed meal break premium calculations. As a result of this standard practice, Monday and other similarly situated employees of The Golden 1 Credit Union claim they were not provided with accurate wages and overtime pay for all the hours they worked. The case is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court.

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 GK Management Co., Inc. Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, GK Management Co., Inc. employees claim their standard business practices violate California labor laws, including a failure to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses.

The Case: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23CECG04411

The Plaintiff: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Elizabeth Ruvalcaba, was employed by GK Management from July 2017 through September 2023. Ruvalcaba was a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to labor law protections, including legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage and overtime, etc.

The Defendant: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The defendant in the case, GK Management Co., Inc., is a privately owned real estate company doing substantial business in California that offers various services, including management, redevelopment, and acquisition of multifamily residential properties.

The Case: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The defendant faces multiple labor law violation allegations in Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.. The class action seeks to compensate class members for losses incurred during the class period due to GK Management's alleged business practices that resulted in multiple alleged violations:

• failing to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses

• failing to pay sick wages

• failing to pay all wages when due

When Do Employers Need to Reimburse an Employee's Expenses?

According to California Labor Code 2802, California employers must reimburse employees for required business expenses for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to the plaintiff's allegations, the company required employees to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties without reimbursing them for the phone or phone service costs.

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.

I.P.S. Group, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

In recent news, I.P.S. Group, Inc. faces a lawsuit alleging numerous labor law violations, including a failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00053220-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Daryoush Nejati, filed a class action complaint alleging that I.P.S. Group, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. Nejati started working for I.P.S. Group, Inc. in September 2019. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Nejati was entitled to all the protections of labor law, including minimum wages, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, and meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, I.P.S. Group, Inc., is a California company that provides parking services. The plaintiff alleges that I.P.S. standard business practices included numerous labor law violations:

• failed to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• failed to pay sick wages

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime

• failed to provide all wages when due

The Case: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

Under California Labor Code § 226, every employer must provide each employee with an accurate itemized wage statement reflecting all applicable hourly rates during the designated pay period and the total hours worked. According to the plaintiff, I.P.S. Group, Inc. failed to include the required information on their wage statements. The case, Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego 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 L.L.P. 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 Cen Cal Builders & Developers Fail to Provide Workers with Legally Required Breaks?

In recent news, Cen Cal Builders & Developers faced numerous labor law violation allegations.

The Case: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

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

The Case No.: 23CECG04411

The Plaintiff: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

The plaintiff in the case, Evangelina Lozano, was employed by the defendant from September 2022 through November 2022. Lozano was classified as a non-exempt hourly employee, which made her eligible for the protections of California labor laws and federal labor laws, including the right to legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wages, accurate overtime wages, accurate itemized wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

The defendant in the case, Cen Cal Builders & Developers, operates a general contracting business throughout California, including Fresno, where the plaintiff worked. According to the plaintiff, Cen Cal Builders & Developers failed to pay minimum wage, pay overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse workers for necessary business expenses.

When Do Employers Need to Provide Meal Breaks and Rest Periods?

California law requires that employees provide their non-exempt employees with one unpaid 30-minute meal break and two paid 10-minute (minimum) rest breaks during each 8-hour shift, with employees receiving their off-duty meal break before the end of their fifth hour of work. Employees working a 2-4 hour shift should receive one paid 10-minute rest break. Employees who work 10 hours or more should receive three paid, ten-minute rest periods. Employees who cannot take their breaks are to be compensated in compliance with labor law.

The Case: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

In Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers, Lozano alleges that the general contractor’s policies and practices for meal breaks and rest periods violated labor law. Additionally, the violation of meal break and rest period regulations created wage and hour violations that allegedly left employees uncompensated for all their hours. The Cen Cal Builders & Developers class action lawsuit is pending in the Fresno County Superior Court in 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 San Francisco Aids Foundation Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, plaintiffs in a lawsuit claim that the San Francisco Aids Foundation violated California labor law.

The Case: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

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

The Case No.: CGC-23-609040

The Plaintiff: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against San Francisco Aids Foundation for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Ellenberg-Wiley was employed by the San Francisco Aids Foundation from September 2021 through October 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ellenberg-Wiley was entitled to the protections of California Labor Law and federal labor laws, including legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and accurate overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.

The Defendant: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The defendant in the case, San Francisco Aids Foundation, is a California nonprofit corporation operating sexual health clinics throughout California, including the San Francisco location where Ellengerg-Wiley worked. The organization faces several allegations in the Ellenberg-Wiley’s class action lawsuit, including:

• failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• failed to compensate workers for missed meal breaks and rest periods accurately

• failed to compensate workers for all time worked

• failed to provide compensation for off-the-clock work

• failed to pay overtime at the correct regular rate of pay

• failed to provide meal rest premiums at the regular rate

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failed to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The lawsuit alleges San Francisco Aids Foundation violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all of their time worked. The San Francisco Aids Foundation class action lawsuit is pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

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.

Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech Face Wage and Hour Allegations

In recent news, Henley Pacific, Devon Industries, and JDL Tech face wage and hour allegations. Did they fail to provide their workers with payment for the hours they worked?

The Case: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00047610-CU-OE-CTL,

The Plaintiff: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

Devin Moore, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint against Henley Pacific LA LLC, Henley Pacific LLC, Henley Pacific RE LLC, Henley Pacific SD LLC, Henley Pacific South LLC, Devon Industries, Inc., and JDL Tech USA LLC. Moore alleged the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

The defendant in the case, Henley Pacific, Devon Industries, and JDL Tech, faces allegations of violating California labor law. Under California law, employers must pay employees no less than minimum wage on their established payday for the period designated, and they must pay them for all hours they worked during the payroll period. According to the court documents, the defendant allegedly required workers to work before clocking in for their shift and after clocking out from their shift. They also allegedly required workers to perform job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiffs claim the company did not compensate for the time employees worked while off the clock or during their breaks. By failing to track all the employees’ work hours, the company failed to provide minimum wage for all hours worked, pay employees accurately for overtime, etc.

The Case: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to:

1. pay minimum wages

2. pay overtime wages

3. provide required meal breaks and rest periods

4. pay wages when due

5. provide accurate itemized wage statements

6. reimburse employees for required expenses

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.