Are California Employees Protected from 24/7 On-Call Requirements?

Dusty Coupwood, a former senior social media analyst and content creator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), filed a lawsuit alleging illegal employment practices related to continuous on-call requirements in alleged violation of California Labor Laws.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 25STCV12374

The Plaintiff: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Dusty Coupwood began his employment with PETA in March 2020, fulfilling a role demanding substantial responsibility as a senior social media analyst and content creator. According to Coupwood, he was expected to comply with PETA's rigorous 24/7 on-call policy that mandated constant availability and frequent engagement with work tasks beyond standard work hours. According to the plaintiff, the policy resulted in Coupwood putting in from 55-60 hours per week. Despite the excessive hours, Coupwood claims that he was only compensated for time actively spent on tasks, which resulted in significant unpaid wages (regular and overtime).

The Defendant: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The defendant, commonly called PETA, is known globally for its animal rights advocacy. However, in this instance, the group finds themselves accused of bad behavior, or more specifically, violating various California labor laws. Allegations brought forward by Coupwood detail that PETA's employment policies required constant employee availability and participation in work tasks without adequate compensation, neglected meal and rest breaks, and engaged in retaliatory behaviors against employees who challenged these practices or sought unionization.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

Filed on April 28, 2025, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, this lawsuit highlights critical issues regarding employer obligations under California labor laws. Coupwood's claims include unpaid wages and overtime, denial of meal and rest periods, inadequate expense reimbursement, and retaliation resulting in wrongful termination. Other employees also filed wage and hour complaints against PETA. After the series of complaints were filed, PETA allegedly terminated several employees involved, creating what the plaintiff describes as a hostile work environment that forced him to resign in July 2024. PETA denies the allegations, asserting that Coupwood's claims lack merit and vowing to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

Can Employers in California Require Employees to be “On Call” 24/7?

Employers in California may require employees to be on-call; however, specific conditions must be met:

• Employees must receive compensation for on-call time if restrictions significantly limit their personal activities.

• An employer is required to pay employees overtime wages for any hours they work over 40 in one work week.

• Employers must ensure compliance with mandated meal and rest breaks, even during on-call periods.

Violating labor law can lead to significant legal consequences, as demonstrated by Coupwood's claims against PETA.

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.

Overtime Pay Violations Allegations: Rocket Mortgage's $3.5 Million Settlement

When facing improper overtime payment practice allegations, Rocket Mortgage resolved the class-action lawsuit with a settlement agreement. Mortgage bankers claimed the company miscalculated their regular pay rates, leading to inadequate overtime compensation. The $3.5 million agreement underlines the critical importance of precise compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and wage calculation accuracy.

The Case: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court of Arizona

The Case No.: 2:23-cv-00010-CDB

The Plaintiff: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

Current and former mortgage bankers allege that the defendant, Rocket Mortgage, failed to pay accurate overtime wages. According to the plaintiffs, the employer systematically failed to provide accurate overtime compensation and incorrectly calculated their regular rate of pay by excluding incentives and bonuses that should be factored into the equation. As a result, mortgage bankers were allegedly underpaid significantly.

The Defendant: Gilburd v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The defendant, Rocket Mortgage, LLC, is a leading mortgage lending company. The company faced numerous labor law violation allegations when a group of current and former mortgage bankers filed an employment law complaint. According to the plaintiffs, the company had improper overtime pay practices and inaccurate methods of calculating regular pay rates (for use in overtime pay rate calculations). Despite agreeing to settle for $3.5 million, Rocket Mortgage denied all allegations of wrongdoing and maintained that the settlement implied no admission of liability.

The Case: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The plaintiff filed the original complaint against Rocket Mortgage LLC in 2023. The plaintiffs alleged that the company's practice of excluding alternate forms of payment from the regular pay rate calculations resulted in improperly low overtime pay rates. Both parties entered a mediated settlement agreement in April 2024 to resolve the dispute.

How Essential are Accurate Pay Rate Calculations?

Accurate pay rate calculations and overtime pay rate calculations are essential. Miscalculations can lead to costly lawsuits or settlements, and regulatory compliance is increasingly scrutinized. Employers who create standard payroll practices and systems that accurately reflect labor law and comply with regulations experience a healthier workforce with improved morale. Companies that actively review and update their standard payroll practices can remain compliant despite regulatory changes.

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 Settles $38 Million Class Action Over Assistant Manager Overtime Pay

In a significant resolution to longstanding labor disputes, Staples Inc. agreed to a $38 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging the misclassification of assistant managers as exempt from overtime pay. The case, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Orange, underscores the importance of proper employee classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Case: Williams v. Staples Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange

The Case No.: 816121

The Plaintiff: Williams v. Staples Inc.

The plaintiffs, led by Williams, comprised a group of current and former assistant managers employed by Staples in California. They alleged that Staples misclassified them as exempt employees, denying them overtime wages, meal and rest breaks, and other protections afforded to non-exempt workers under California labor laws.

The Defendant: Williams v. Staples Inc.

Staples is a popular, and well-known big box store. When Williams filed his complaint, the prominent office supply retailer faced allegations that their classification practices violated state labor laws. Williams accused the company of implementing a standard practice and policy that misclassified Staples store assistant managers with the purpose of avoiding payment of overtime wages and providing benefits that would be required for non-exempt employees.

The Case: Williams v. Staples

Williams' claims were centered around the allegation that assistant managers working for the big box office supply retailer were systematically misclassified, which resulted in the loss of overtime pay, and the denial of of duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by labor law. The plaintiffs filed suit seeking compensation for the alleged violation, and the case was eventually resolved with a $38 million settlement agreement. The agreement was designed to compensate affected employees and rectify the issues created by Staples' worker classification practices.

What Constitutes Employee Misclassification in California?

If an employer identifies an employee as an exempt employee or an independent contractor when they are actually a non-exempt employee, it's considered misclassification. An exempt or independent contractor classification excludes workers from wage and hour protections. Misclassified employees may be entitled to recover unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits.

If you need to discuss filing a 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.

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.