Supreme Court on Groff v. DeJoy: Clarifying Religious Accommodation Requirements for Employers

Groff v. DeJoy clarified legal requirements employers must meet for employees seeking religious accommodations at work (referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII). Before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in this case, the "de minimis" standard was accepted. However, the Supreme Court's decision redefined the standard for religious accommodations in the workplace, moving beyond the previous standard and emphasizing that employers must demonstrate that accommodating an employee's religious observance would substantially increase costs relative to their business operations.

Case: Groff v. Dejoy

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Case No.: 22–174

The Plaintiff: Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian and former postal worker in Pennsylvania sought exemption from Sunday work to observe his Sabbath. Initially, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) accommodated his request. However, as operational demands increased, Groff was scheduled for Sunday shifts. However, Groff refused to work the assigned Sunday shifts (due to religious reasons), and his refusal to work Sunday shifts led to disciplinary actions that prompted him to resign from his position and file a labor law lawsuit alleging his employer violated Title VII.

The Defendant: Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

The USPS was represented by Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, in the lawsuit. USPS argued that to exempt Groff from Sunday shifts posted an undue hardship that required them to reassign his duties to other workers, and claimed the situation would result in potential disruptions to mail delivery.

The Case: Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

The court ruled for Groff - unanimously. The court clarified the "undue hardship" standard under Title VII as requiring employers to show that providing requested accommodations for an employee's religious practices would significantly increase costs relative to overall operations costs. The clarification moved away from the previous interpretation that allowed employers to deny accommodations based on a minimal burden.

Can Employees Obtain Religious Accommodations at Work?

Employees are empowered to seek accommodations for their religious practices, with the assurance that their requests cannot be dismissed based on minimal inconvenience to the employer. Employers must carefully consider requests for religious accommodations and make sure that any accommodations request denial is based on evidence showing fulfilling the request would cause a significant increase in costs or a significant disruption of day-to-day operations.

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.

Staples Faces Renewed Scrutiny Over Manager Misclassification in Wesson Lawsuit

Another lawsuit makes labor law violation allegations that call Staples Inc.'s practices into question. In Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al. the plaintiff claims that the big box store misclassified general managers as exempt employees. The case underscores ongoing concerns about employment classification practices within large corporations.

Case: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

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

Case No.: BC593889

The Plaintiff: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

Fred Wesson, a former general manager at Staples, initiated the lawsuit alleging that he and approximately 345 other general managers were misclassified as exempt employees. Wesson claims that despite holding managerial titles, the duties performed were predominantly non-exempt tasks, such as customer service and stocking shelves, which should have entitled them to overtime compensation under California labor laws.

The Defendant: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

The plaintiff claims that Staples implemented a standard policy that misclassified general managers so they could avoid paying overtime wages. Staples maintains that its classification practices are lawful and that general managers meet the exempt status criteria, including managerial responsibilities and decision-making authority.

The Case: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

The lawsuit centers on the assertion that Staples' general managers were systematically misclassified, resulting in unpaid overtime and denial of meal and rest breaks. Wesson sought nearly $36 million in civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), representing himself and other affected employees. However, the trial court struck the PAGA claim, deeming it unmanageable due to the individualized assessments required for each manager's duties and classification. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and emphasized the need for manageable litigation and the employer's right to a fair trial.

What Constitutes Employee Misclassification Under California Law?

California law distinguishes between exempt and nonexempt employees based on the nature of the worker's job duties, their level of autonomy, and the level of control exercised over the employee and their job duties by the employer. When an employer inaccurately classifies a worker as an independent contractor or exempt employee, they deprive the employee of labor law protections. Misclassified employees may be entitled to recover unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits.

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.

Staples Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations in Overtime Class Action

An overtime class action lawsuit filed by a former employee alleges Staples failed to compensate nonexempt employees for overtime work. The case highlights ongoing concerns about employee rights and corporate labor practices and leaves Staples under legal scrutiny.

Case: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples, the Office Superstore LLC

Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:25-cv-00028

The Plaintiff: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples, the Office Superstore LLC

Maraya Lumadue, a former Staples employee, initiated the overtime class action lawsuit. Lumadue claims that Staples required employees to perform tasks off-the-clock, including assisting customers before clocking in for their shift and undergoing bag checks after clocking out. These practices allegedly led to unpaid overtime and violated California labor laws.

The Defendant: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples

Staples, a major retailer with numerous locations across California, is accused of systemic labor violations. The company allegedly failed to provide proper meal periods and rest breaks. The plaintiff also claims that Staples did not compensate workers for completing mandatory tasks outside of scheduled hours, and neglected to reimburse workers for job-related expenses including uniform maintenance and personal cell phone use.

The Case: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples

The lawsuit addresses alleged widespread labor violations affecting nonexempt Staples employees in California. Key allegations include:

• Requiring employees to work off-the-clock before and after shifts.

• Failing to provide workers with legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks.

• Lack of compensation for time spent on mandatory tasks such as bag checks.

• Failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses.

• Inaccurate wage statements

If proven, the various allegations represent significant violations of California labor laws.

What Should You Do If You Suspect Labor Law Violations at Your Workplace?

If you believe your employer is not complying with labor laws—such as failing to pay overtime, not providing required breaks, or not reimbursing work-related expenses—it's important to document these instances and consult an experienced employment law attorney.

When you need help protecting your rights in the workplace, 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.

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.