Did Sizzler Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Breaks to Employees?

In recent news, Sizzler faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with rest periods and breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

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

The Case No.: 24STCV01215

The Plaintiffs: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Gayo, filed a class action complaint against BMW Management, Inc. and BMW Management, LLC (the two entities jointly operate Sizzler restaurants and will collectively be referred to as "Sizzler") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

The defendant in the case, BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC, faces multiple allegations that their standard business practices do not comply with labor law. California labor law requires all employers to pay their employees on an established payday for each pay period and pay no less than minimum wage for all hours an employee works in the payroll period. According to the plaintiff, Sizzler allegedly required employees to complete job-related tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Sizzler did not compensate its employees for any of the resulting off-the-clock work. This standard practice resulted in Sizzler failing to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. In full, the plaintiffs claim that Sizzler engaged in numerous labor law violations:

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime wages

• did not provide required meal and rest periods

• failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay wages when due

• did not provide accurate itemized wage statements

• did not provide workers with all tips and gratuities

What is the Definition of "Hours Worked" for a California Employee?

To interpret California labor law, "hours worked" is the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control, including all the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not "required to do so."

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

In the case, Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC (otherwise known as Sizzler), the plaintiff alleges Sizzler violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay its employees for all time worked. According to the lawsuit, Sizzler allegedly engaged in numerous labor law violations (violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles 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.

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.

Wildcat Discovery Technologies Faces Overtime Wage Pay Allegations

In recent news, a California company has been accused of violating California labor laws due to standard business practices that allegedly left employees without their minimum wages and accurate overtime wage payments.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00055145-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The plaintiff in the case, Albert Ajero, was employed by the defendant from November 2022 through May 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee protected by labor law. Ajero filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Wildcat Discovery Technologies, Inc. (from now on, "Wildcat Discovery Technologies") failed to provide meal and rest breaks (as required by labor law).

The Defendant: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The defendant in the case, Wildcat Discovery Technologies, is a Deleware company that operates a substantial amount of business in California, providing technology services. According to allegations in the class action lawsuit, Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Violations included the failure to:

pay minimum wages

pay overtime wages

provide required meal and rest periods

reimburse for required business expenses

provide accurate itemized wage statements

provide wages when due

What is a Class Action, and Why Would a Plaintiff File a Class Action Complaint?

A class action lawsuit is a legal proceeding where a group of people facing similar grievances against an employer collectively bring a claim to court. This approach allows individuals, often employees or former employees, to pool their resources, streamline legal processes, and share the costs and benefits of the litigation. It's an effective legal tool for addressing widespread issues within a workplace, ensuring that justice is accessible even when individual claims might be too small to pursue independently.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The lawsuit, Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies, alleges Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated the California Labor Law by failing to pay employees for all their time worked. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing 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.

University Healthcare Alliance Faces Allegations of Overtime Law Violations in Class Action

University Healthcare faces allegations that they failed to pay overtime in compliance with federal and state labor laws.

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.: 23-CIV-05931

The Plaintiff: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda Nunez, worked for University Healthcare Alliance in California from February 2023 to October 2023 as a nonexempt hourly employee. According to the plaintiff, she and other employees in similar positions with the company were not provided with mandatory breaks and off-duty meal periods that California employers are required to provide their employees under labor law. The plaintiff claims that the company’s standard practices left employees without rest periods/meal breaks, completing off-the-clock work, being interrupted to fulfill job duties when receiving an off-duty meal break, etc. The plaintiff alleges that employees were not provided with minimum or accurate overtime wages due to these and other standard business practices at University Healthcare Alliance.

The Defendant: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The defendant in the case, University Healthcare Alliance, is a corporation that provides healthcare services in California. According to the class action lawsuit, University Healthcare Alliance allegedly failed to provide proper rest periods and off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the company allegedly failed to accurately record their employees time worked, utilizing a “rounding” method to track employee time worked as a standard business practice that plaintiffs claim resulted in the inaccurate payment of minimum and overtime wages paid to their employees.

• failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

• failure to provide mandated meal and rest periods

• failure to deliver wages when due

• failure to issue accurate wage statements

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the California overtime class action lawsuit, from time to time, University Healthcare Alliance employees were allegedly required to work five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. According to the complaint, the company allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including the time University Healthcare required them to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before being allowed to clock in to work for their shifts. The time spent completing the mandatory screenings resulted in off-the-clock work not qualifying for overtime premium payment calculations.

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 help 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.

Former Pfizer Director Alleged Wrongful Termination

A former Pfizer Analytics Director claims Pfizer fired him after he attempted to expose the company’s FCPA violations.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

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

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-03908-DMR

The Plaintiff: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The plaintiff in the case, Frank Han, a former director of global compliance analytics at Pfizer, filed a whistleblower suit claiming he was fired from his position with the drugmaker because he tried to expose FCPA violations at the company. According to Han, he raised compliance concerns and possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations to an immediate supervisor (along with additional colleagues) at Pfizer during a November 2021 virtual meeting. Before the meeting, Han received a higher-than-perfect score on his performance review. During his next performance review, he received a reduced score, and his supervisor advised him his performance wasn’t aiding the desired results. The meeting escalated, and his supervisor allegedly demanded Han quit. After Han’s request to report to a different supervisor was denied, he received another performance review with an even lower score. Running the complaints up the official chain at Pfizer resulted in an investigation. However, the result of the investigation was that Pfizer decided no further action was necessary. A month later, Han was fired.

The Defendant: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The defendant in the case, Pfizer, is a pharmaceutical giant. During Han’s work from 2019 to 2021, he claims he discovered evidence of payments of $168 million to potentially influential government officials (PIGOs) in China. The ex-Pfizer compliance officer attempted to address the possible violations indicated, but the following chain of events ended in his firing and a wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

In Frank Han v. Pfizer, the plaintiff originally filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in California state court. However, it was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit seeks lost wages, mental and emotional distress, legal fees, injunctive and declaratory relief, and interest, among other damages.

If you have questions about how to file a wrongful termination 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.