Core Analytics Radiology Faces Overtime Pay Violation Allegations

In Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology (Case No. 24CV103976), a lawsuit filed in the Alameda County Superior Court of California, the plaintiff claims their employer violated California overtime pay laws when they failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked in addition to a full standard work week.

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

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

The Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Plaintiff Lere Garrett, along with other affected employees, contends that Core Analytics Radiology did not pay overtime wages, violating California labor law. According to the plaintiff, employees worked additional hours under the direct control of their employer, but didn't receive overtime wages at the labor law-dictated overtime wage rate. The situation allegedly resulted in a significant amount of unpaid wages.

The Defendant: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to their LinkedIn profile, Core Analytics Radiology is an independently owned and operated full-service laboratory and radiology clinic that has provided comprehensive lab services in post-acute care settings, healthcare facilities, and physicians' offices for over a decade. While the case is in the early stages of litigation and the defendant has not yet offered a detailed counterargument, they maintain that their timekeeping and compensation policies and procedures do not violate labor law, and any overtime pay discrepancies must be the result of administrative errors or misinterpretations of employee work schedules.

The Ongoing Case: Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

The case was filed in the California Superior Court, serving Alameda County, based on claims that the company systematically undercompensated workers by using inaccurate timekeeping records. The case brings attention to ongoing concerns that California employers often fail to comply with wage and hour laws, and highlights the need for precise timekeeping procedures.

How Could the Case Affect California Workers?

Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology highlights the essential nature of accurate and precise timekeeping in strict compliance with overtime laws. If the court hands down a favorable ruling for the plaintiff, the case could also set a new precedent for future California wage and hour claims.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did Crossing, Inc. Violate California’s Wage and Hour Laws?

In the case of Benny Adams v. Crossing, Inc. (Case No. 24STCV27904), plaintiffs allege that Crossing, Inc. violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay employees all the wages they were entitled to—potentially including overtime and proper break compensation.

The Case: Benny Adams v. Crossing, Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 24STCV27904

The Plaintiff and Case History: Benny Adams v. Crossing, Inc.

The lawsuit centers on claims that employees at Crossing, Inc. were not paid for all time worked. Plaintiffs assert that the company engaged in practices—such as misclassifying work hours and providing inadequate breaks—that resulted in underpayment and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California's robust wage and hour laws. The plaintiff, Benny Adams, represents the workers affected by the alleged violations and claims the company's conduct deprived workers of fair compensation by violating their statutory rights under California labor law.

The Defendant: Benny Adams v. Crossing, Inc.

Crossing, Inc. is accused of implementing policies that allegedly allowed management to manipulate time records and avoid paying overtime. While the court documents indicate that the company contends its practices were consistent with existing policies and interpretations of labor law, the plaintiffs argue that such practices directly violate state regulations designed to protect workers from wage theft.

Details of the Case: Benny Adams v. Crossing, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that Crossing, Inc. systematically failed to accurately track employee work hours, which led to incomplete wage payments and inaccurate wage statements. The lawsuit contends that the mismanagement of timekeeping—whether through inadequate record-keeping or intentional misclassification—resulted in employees not receiving overtime pay or meal and rest breaks as mandated by California labor law. The Adams v. Crossing lawsuit underscores the importance of accurate time reporting for California employers and reinforces the employees' right to accurate compensation for every hour they work (under both federal and state labor law).

Do you need to file a California wage and hour lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago

Lil Durk's Legal Woes: Family of Saviay'a Robinson Files Second Wrongful Death Suit

In a new twist to his legal challenges, Lil Durk faces his second wrongful death lawsuit as the family of Saviay'a Robinson files fresh claims in Cook County Circuit Court.

Case Details: Family of Saviay'a Robinson v. Durk Banks (aka Lil Durk), Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, Case No.: 3138246

Tragic Event Allegedly Directly Linked to Actions of Lil Durk:

In a tragic string of events, Saviay'a Robinson (a.k.a. Lil PAB) was shot and killed during an alleged attempt on her cousin Quando's life in August 2022 in Los Angeles. Durk (aka Lil Durk) is accused of masterminding the crime. Alleging that Saviay'a's untimely death is directly linked to Lil Durk's negligence and actions, her family filed a wrongful death complaint. There is currently limited public information regarding Durk's response to the allegations made by Robinson's family, as there hasn't been a formal announcement from his legal team regarding the second wrongful death lawsuit in connection with the fatal LA incident in 2022.

Interpreting Negligence & Liability Standards in Wrongful Death Claims:

The Family of Saviay'a Robinson v. Durk Banks case could set an important legal precedent in wrongful death litigation, particularly in cases involving celebrities or high-profile figures. A ruling in the family's favor could influence future interpretations of negligence and liability standards in wrongful death claims and help reinforce stricter accountability measures for celebrities and public figures in similar cases.

Could We See Greater Accountability in the Entertainment Industry?

This wrongful death suit has already sparked discussion regarding the consequences when celebrity behavior compromises public safety. As the case continues, it could lead to a much-needed closer look at accountability in the entertainment industry.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Medtronic MiniMed Prevails: Wrongful Death Lawsuit Dismissed

When they found themselves facing wrongful death allegations (again), Medtronic MiniMed turned to a defense they were already familiar with: a preemption defense. Their efforts met with success when they secured a dismissal at the summary judgment stage.

Case Details: Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No.: 20STCV33401

Did Medtronic MiniMed Downplay the Risks and Exaggerate the Benefits?

According to the plaintiff, Rieger, Medtronic violated manufacturing and safety standards; the complaint argued that Medtronic downplayed the risks of the insulin pump while exaggerating the benefits. Rieger's wrongful death lawsuit alleged that a defective Medtronic insulin pump caused significant injuries.

Preemption Defense: Medtronic MiniMed's Tried and True Method of Case Dismissal

Medtronic MiniMed, a global medical technology company that develops and manufactures healthcare technologies and therapies, acquired MiniMed in 2001. MiniMed insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems are often used for diabetes treatment. Medtronic MiniMed approached the wrongful death lawsuit with a preemption defense, arguing that state law claims should be dismissed because the state claims are preempted by federal law under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

The Case: Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.

Rieger v. Medtronic MiniMed, Inc., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. After extensive litigation and briefing, the court concluded that the insulin pump used by the plaintiff was U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved and subject to the rigorous premarket approval process. This meant the plaintiff's California state law claims were preempted (under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic (128 S. Ct. 999)).

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did Core Analytics Radiology Violate Wage and Hour Law?

After a recent California lawsuit filing, Core Analytics Radiology faces wage and hour violation allegations.

Case Details: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

The plaintiff, Lere Garrett, started working at Core Analytics Radiology in July 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to the protections of labor law. During his employment, Garrett alleges Core Analytics Radiology exhibited several California Labor Code violations, including failing to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods.

Core Analytics Radiology, a California Employer:

The defendant, Core Analytics Radiology, owns and operates a clinical laboratory and mobile X-ray.

The Allegations: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to the plaintiff's allegations, the California employer allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wage (California Labor Code Sections §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1)

• Failing to pay overtime (California Labor Code Sections §§ 510, et seq)

• Failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods (California Labor Code Sections §§ 226.7 & 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order)

• Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements (California Labor Code Sections §§ 226)

• Failing to pay wages when due (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202 AND 203)

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses (California Labor Code Sections §§ 2802).

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to court documents, the company's rigorous work schedules allegedly prevented its employees from taking off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the employees were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were regularly interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks so they could complete work tasks for the company. The California class action is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Former TSA Transportation Officer Claims Wrongful Termination

After his recent termination, a former TSA Transportation Officer argues wrongful termination and contends he was fired just 56 days after he complained about a denied FMLA leave request.

Case Details: Kama v. Mayorkas, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 107 F.4th 1054 (9th Cir. 2024)

The Plaintiff: Meyer Kama v. Mayorkas

The plaintiff, Meyer Kama, is a former TSA Transportation Officer. After his recent termination, Kama claimed he was fired in retaliation. The termination occurred just 56 days after he complained about a denied request for intermittent leave under FMLA. According to Kama, the termination had "temporal proximity" to his EEO complaint.

The Defendant: Meyer Kama v. Mayorkas

The defendant argued that Kama's termination was based on his refusal to cooperate with the company's investigation into his (and other TSA officers') improper receipt of compensation in exchange for serving as personal representatives to employees during internal investigations.

Case History: Meyer Kama v. Mayorkas

After considering the arguments, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that temporal proximity alone was not enough to establish retaliation in all cases. Additionally, the court pointed out that 56 days was a long time in comparison to "only a few days," as was the situation in cases cited to support Kama's argument. The court also indicated that there was a fairly close temporal link between Kama's refusal to cooperate with the investigation and his termination. The district court also indicated that the TSA must have "wide latitude" when determining the terms of their screeners' employment. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Do Corporate Pilots Get FLSA Overtime Pay Protections?

A group of corporate pilots recently filed a lawsuit questioning why they were not paid overtime when working more than eight hours in one day or forty hours in one workweek.

Case Details: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., U.S. District Court of Nevada, Case No.: 110 F.4th 1136 (9th Cir. 2024)

The Plaintiff: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

Sean Kennedy and the other plaintiffs were full-time corporate pilots for Sands from March 27, 2014 through March 27, 2017. During that time they received a salary ($125,000 and $160,000 annually). According to the pilots, they allegedly often worked more than eight hours per day and forty hours per workweek without receiving overtime pay. The group filed claims for unpaid overtime and retaliation under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standard Act).

The Defendant: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

The defendant, Sands Aviation, LLC, provides aviation services for executives and patrons of Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Las Vegas Sands, LLC.

The Allegations: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

On March 27, 2017, the Sands pilots filed the overtime lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime (violating 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)) and retaliation (violating 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)).

The Case: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

After hearing the case during an eight-day bench trial, the district court judge decided in favor of Las Vegas Sands Corp. on the grounds that the pilots qualified as “highly compensated exempt employees” (according to definitions provided by the FLSA)) who primarily performed non-manual labor and regularly made significant discretionary decisions. The district court further noted that even if the pilots were not exempt from overtime based on salary and job duties, waiting time between flights did not constitute “work” requiring overtime payment under FLSA since the pilots could engage freely in personal activities during wait times. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime pay lawsuit, contact the knowledgeable employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. They're ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.