Landmark Viking River Cruises Case: Supreme Court Decision Limits PAGA Claims

/

The 2022 Supreme Court ruling in the Viking River Cruises Case significantly altered the legal landscape surrounding California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the Court concluded that individual claims under PAGA could be forced into arbitration. Importantly, the Court indicated that when individual claims go to arbitration, representative claims made on behalf of other employees would no longer have standing and must be dismissed.

Case: Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

Court: Supreme Court

Case No.: 20-1573

The Plaintiff: Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

Angie Moriana, a former employee of Viking River Cruises, filed a lawsuit under California's PAGA, alleging that the company violated several provisions of the California Labor Code. Moriana sought to represent herself and other aggrieved employees, bringing both individual and representative claims.

The Defendant: Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

Viking River Cruises contended that Moriana had signed an employment agreement mandating individual arbitration for labor disputes and explicitly waiving rights to bring class or representative actions. The company argued that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required the enforcement of such arbitration agreements, thereby blocking Moriana's representative claims in court.

The Case: Viking River Cruises v. Moriana

The June 2022 Supreme Court decision was a decisive ruling that stated the FAA mandates the enforcement of arbitration agreements even in the context of PAGA claims. According to the decision, employees bound by arbitration agreements must arbitrate their individual claims and, upon arbitration, lose standing to pursue representative claims for other employees in court. However, the California Supreme Court complicated matters in 2023 by clarifying that plaintiffs could still bring representative PAGA claims in state court even if their individual claims proceeded separately through arbitration.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact 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.

Exela Enterprise and Novitex Face Class Action Over Alleged Meal and Rest Break Violations

/

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and Novitex Government Solutions, LLC, alleging violations of California labor laws related to meal and rest breaks. 

Case: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No. 24STCV31304

The Plaintiff: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Plaintiff Merclyn Brown filed the a class action alleging that Exela Enterprise and Novitex systematically vioated California labow laws. Specifically, Brown claims that Exela/Novitex did not provide required meal periods and breaks (or that employees were required to work through their "off duty" breaks without receiving additional compensation).

The Defendant: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and Novitex Government Solutions, LLC are accused of implementing policies and practices that deny employees their rightful meal and rest periods. The lawsuit alleges that the company institued these practices (and other similar practices) as part of a larger goal to reduce labor costs without concern for protecting their employees' rights.

The Case: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

The wage and hour lawsuit seeks to represent all non-exempt employees who worked for Exela Enterprise and Novitex in California and were denied proper meal and rest breaks. The plaintiffs seek compensation for unpaid wages, penalties, and other damages caused by the alleged labor law violations.

What Should You Do If You're Denied Meal and Rest Breaks at Work?

Some employers don't provide their employees with legally mandated meal and rest breaks. If you believe your employer falls in this category, document each instance and report the issue to your human resources department. If the problem persists, consider consulting with an employment law attorney to explore your legal options and ensure your rights are protected.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact 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.

Seeking Justice After a Public Transit Accident: The Stout's Charter Bus Lawsuit

/

In a groundbreaking lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Burlington County, a guardian ad litem has stepped forward on behalf of an injured minor, alleging that Stout's Charter Bus and others failed to maintain safe operating conditions, resulting in severe traumatic injuries.

The Case: Denise Steele, Guardian Ad Litem of Russel Steele, Jr. v. Stout's Charter Bus, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County

The Case No.: BUR-L-001407-18

Guardian Ad Litem Claims Negligence Caused Traumatic Injuries

Representing the interests of her minor ward, Denise Steele claims that due to negligence on the part of Stout's Charter Bus and its associates, Russel Steele, Jr. sustained traumatic injuries from an accident involving a public transit vehicle. The plaintiff contends that inadequate safety measures and maintenance lapses contributed directly to the accident and the subsequent harm suffered by the injured minor.

Defendants Accused of Failing to Uphold Safety Standards

Stout's Charter Bus and other named defendants are accused of failing to uphold minimum safety standards. The defendants are alleged to have neglected critical maintenance protocols and operational procedures, leading to an accident that caused significant physical trauma and emotional distress for the injured child and his family.

Lawsuit Following Public Transit Accident Resulting in Traumatic Injury

After a public transit accident involving Stout's Charter Bus resulted in the traumatic injury of Russel Steele, Jr., Steele’s guardian ad litem filed a lawsuit. The complaint points out a lack of adherence to safety regulations and proper maintenance that allegedly resulted in the incident. According to the plaintiffs, regular maintenance and proper safety measures could have prevented the accident. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the extensive injuries and hardships caused by the incident for the minor and his family.

What Should You Do if You're Injured in a Public Transit Accident?

If you or a loved one suffers traumatic injuries from a public transit accident, you should:

Seek Immediate Medical Care: Ensure you receive proper medical treatment as quickly as possible. Document both injuries and treatments.

Document the Incident: Record detailed notes, take photographs, and gather witness information about the accident.

Preserve All Records: Retain copies of medical reports, treatment bills, and any communications with the transit company or public transit group.

Contact a Lawyer: Contact a qualified, experienced traumatic injury attorney to discuss your legal options and potential compensation claims.

If you have questions about filing a traumatic injury claim, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable traumatic injury 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.

Electrocution Injury Jury Verdict: $4.8M Award for Traumatic Brain Injuries from Unchecked Power Lines

/

In a groundbreaking verdict, a jury awarded nearly $4.8 million in damages to Heydi Velez and others who suffered traumatic brain injuries after an unchecked power line from Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) caused a devastating electrocution incident.

The Case: Heydi Velez et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company

The Court: Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County

The Case No.: 17-022854-CA-21

The Plaintiff: Heydi Velez et al. v. Florida Power & Light Company

Heydi Velez and her co-plaintiffs, who experienced severe injuries including traumatic brain injury, PTSD, migraines, panic attacks, anxiety, and cognitive impairment, claim that FPL’s negligence led to an avoidable electrocution accident. The plaintiffs allege that a faulty, unchecked power line resulted in a dangerous situation where a 57-year-old individual was electrocuted while leaning on a metal fence in contact with water, ultimately causing extensive long-term health issues.

Did FPL's Power Line Maintenance Policies Create an Unsafe Environment?

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) policies and preventive measures regarding power line maintenance are at the heart of the litigation. The plaintiffs allege that FPL failed to maintain a safe electrical infrastructure and that the failure led directly to the incident. Allegedly, FPL's oversight created a dangerous environment and failed to protect its own workers and customers.

Jury Verdict Following a Rigorous Trial with Multiple Experts & Extensive Evidence

Following a rigorous trial featuring multiple expert testimonies and extensive evidence, the jury delivered a verdict awarding $4,847,000 in damages. This decision is expected to serve as a critical precedent, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to safety regulations and the severe consequences of neglect by utility companies. The appeal process is underway at the Third District Court of Appeal under Case No. 3D22-181, as FPL seeks to challenge the ruling.

What Can You Do If You Suffer from Traumatic Injuries Due to Negligence?

If you or a loved one has suffered traumatic injuries caused by negligent maintenance or unsafe conditions, it is important to document your experience, gather evidence, and seek expert legal advice as soon as possible.

If you need to discuss filing a wrongful death lawsuit or traumatic brain injury claim, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable wrongful death 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 Superior Plus Energy Violate the California Labor Code?

/

Michael Adams filed a wage and hour lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging that Superior Plus Energy failed to provide their employees with required meal and rest breaks, violating California labor law and resulting in lost wages and hardship.

The Case: Michael Adams v. Superior Plus Energy

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV023748

The Plaintiff: Who Made the Allegations?

Michael Adams, on his behalf and potentially other similarly situated workers, alleged that Superior Plus Energy did not provide mandatory off-duty meal and rest breaks, essential for safeguarding employee health and ensuring fair wage compensation. Adams' complaint alleged that the company's unsatisfactory break administration practices led to significant wage loss and labor law violations.

Did Superior Plus Energy Violate California Labor Law?

In the recently filed lawsuit, Superior Plus Energy was accused of falling short of its legal obligations to implement sufficient measures to ensure break compliance. While the company might argue that break omissions were isolated errors rather than systemic issues, the plaintiff contends that such practices amount to a deliberate disregard for California labor standards and workers' rights.

The Case: Michael Adams v. Superior Plus Energy

In the case Adams v. Superior Plus Energy, the court must consider if inadequate scheduling causing workers to work without receiving their legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods constitutes a California Labor Law violation. Adams filed the lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid wages and enforce wage and hour law protections. The case serves as a reminder to California employers of the importance of labor law compliance.

What Should You Do If Your Employer Fails to Provide Required Meal and Rest Breaks?

If you suspect your employer is not granting legally mandated meal and rest breaks, document your work hours meticulously, review your pay stubs for discrepancies, report any issues to your HR department, and consider contacting an employment law attorney for guidance about your next steps.

If you need to discuss filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, contact 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.

KFC Under Fire: California Workers Claim Denied Meal Breaks and Rest Periods

/

In a recent class action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, employees allege that KFC failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, resulting in significant wage loss and undue hardship.

The Case: Rebecca Villa v. KFC

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

The Case No.: 24CU024590C

The Plaintiff: Rebecca Villa v. KFC

Rebecca Villa, representing herself and other similarly situated KFC workers, contends that the fast-food giant consistently denied its employees the off-duty meal breaks and rest periods required under California labor law. Villa considers the company's actions a clear violation of labor law and insists that their practices negatively affect the well-being of employees.

Is There a Systemic Wage and Hour Problem at KFC?

The plaintiff accused KFC of operating policies and practices that systematically neglected workers and failed to provide them with meal breaks and rest periods to which they were entitled under labor law protections. The defendant, KFC, maintains that any lapse in providing their workers with rest periods and meal breaks was incidental, not deliberate or systemic, and that the company's practices and policies comply with California's wage and hour laws.

Were Employees Denied Their Legally Mandated Rest Periods?

According to the California wage and hour lawsuit, KFC employees were not provided with their legally mandated breaks and rest periods due to KFC's rigid scheduling practices and understaffing issues. The alleged failure to provide breaks and rest periods led to substantial unpaid wages, clearly violating California labor regulations that protect employee health and productivity.

What Can You Do? If Your Employer Denies You Meal and Rest Breaks?

If you suspect that your employer is not providing the required meal breaks and rest periods:

Track Your Hours: Keep a detailed record of all work hours and missed breaks.

Check Your Pay Stubs: To spot discrepancies, compare your documented hours with your payment records.

Report the Problem: Notify your human resources department about the issue promptly.

Seek Legal Guidance: Contact an employment law attorney to discuss your rights and potential legal actions.

If you need to discuss filing a California class action, contact 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.

Young Life Accused of Overtime Pay Violations in California Class Action

/

In a class action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court, employees claim that Young Life failed to pay overtime wages, depriving them of compensation for hours worked beyond the standard work period.

The Case: Katelyn Lettich v. Young Life

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU026517C

Who is the Plaintiff in the Case?

Katelyn Lettich is the plaintiff in the case. Acting for herself and other similarly situated employees, Lettich alleges that Young Life systematically neglected its duty to compensate workers for overtime hours. The California wage and hour lawsuit claims this practice resulted in significant underpayment and violated California's wage and hour laws, leaving the affected employees without full earnings.

Did Young Life Violate California Labor Law?

The defendant, Young Life, is accused of maintaining timekeeping and payroll policies that fell short of California's legal standards. According to the plaintiff, the company's standard practices did not award overtime pay to workers who exceeded the standard workweek. Young Life argues that any cited missed overtime payments were not intentional. They insist that the "isolated errors" did not reflect a broader systemic issue.

The Plaintiff Claims the Company Mismanaged Employee Schedules

According to the lawsuit, the company mismanaged employee work schedules and utilized subpar record keeping. The combination routinely left employees working more than their standard shifts. The additional "unscheduled" hours were not accurately recorded, which left workers without the overtime pay they earned (in compliance with labor law).

The lawsuit seeks to enforce proper wage compensation practices and hold Young Life accountable for potential labor law violations impacting workers' earnings.

What Should You Do If Your Employer Does Not Pay Your Overtime Pay?

If you aren't receiving overtime compensation but you are working overtime hours, you should:

  • Document: Meticulously log all the hours you work, including overtime hours.

  • Review: Compare your records to the company's records (included on your wage statements) to identify any discrepancies.

  • Report: If you notice any discrepancies, immediately raise your concerns with your employer's human resources department.

  • Seek Help: If HR does not address your issues, contact a local employment law attorney to explore appropriate legal options.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact 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.