Did Blend Labs Fail to Pay Employees for All Hours Worked in California?

A California wage and hour complaint filed by Kaliyah Martin alleges Blend Labs, Inc. and related entities required off-the-clock work, failed to provide legally required meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

Case: Kaliyah Martin v. Blend Labs, Inc.

Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Case No. CGC-22-600420

Who Is the Plaintiff in the Case?

The named plaintiff is Kaliyah Martin. The complaint says Martin worked for the defendants in California from June 2021 through September 2021. It also states she was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and entitled to meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, and overtime pay for all hours worked. In addition to bringing claims based on her own work experience, Martin sought to pursue relief on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved California employees.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case?

The complaint names Blend Labs, Inc., Blend Operations, Inc., Blend Title Insurance Agency, Inc., and Blend Insurance Agency, Inc. as defendants. It describes each as a Delaware corporation that allegedly conducted substantial and regular business in California, including in San Francisco County. The pleading further alleges the entities acted as joint employers based on the paychecks issued and the work performed. At this stage, those descriptions and joint-employer assertions are allegations from the complaint, not court findings.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Kaliyah Martin v. Blend Labs, Inc.

The complaint alleges the defendants failed to document, track, and pay workers for all time worked, including pre-shift, post-shift, and meal-period off-the-clock work. It also claims employees were not always provided legally compliant meal and rest periods, were not fully reimbursed for work-related expenses such as personal cell phone use and certain home-office costs, and received wage statements that did not comply with California law. The pleading also raises issues regarding overtime, double time, minimum wage, waiting time penalties, and the proper calculation of pay when additional compensation should have been included in the regular rate.

What Is PAGA? PAGA stands for the Private Attorneys General Act. It is a California law that allows an employee to seek civil penalties on behalf of the state and other aggrieved employees for certain Labor Code violations.

What Is the “Regular Rate of Pay”? The regular rate of pay is the rate used to calculate overtime and certain premium payments. It can be higher than a worker’s base hourly rate if other forms of compensation must legally be included in the calculation.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The central question in the case is whether Blend Labs and the other named entities followed California wage and hour law when paying non-exempt employees. More specifically, the complaint asks whether workers were required to perform unpaid work before shifts, after shifts, or during meal periods without receiving all wages owed. The case also challenges whether the employers provided legally compliant breaks, accurate wage statements, and full reimbursement for necessary business expenses. In a broader sense, the lawsuit tests whether the defendants’ payroll and workplace practices unlawfully shifted the cost of doing business onto California employees.

FAQ: Kaliyah Martin v. Blend Labs, Inc.

Q: What Is the Blend Labs Wage and Hour Lawsuit About?

A: The lawsuit alleges California non-exempt employees were not paid all wages due. The complaint includes claims involving off-the-clock work, missed meal and rest breaks, wage statement violations, unreimbursed business expenses, and related wage and hour issues.

Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?

A: The case is Kaliyah Martin v. Blend Labs, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-22-600420, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court.

Q: What Is PAGA and Does This Case Include a PAGA Claim?

A: PAGA stands for the Private Attorneys General Act. It allows an aggrieved California employee to file a lawsuit on behalf of the state to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations. This case includes a PAGA claim, meaning Martin seeks civil penalties not just for herself but on behalf of other aggrieved current and former Blend Labs employees who allegedly experienced similar violations.

Q: What Does “Off-the-Clock Work” Mean in a California Employment Case?

A: Off-the-clock work refers to job duties an employee allegedly performed without being properly paid for that time. In this case, the complaint specifically points to alleged pre-shift, post-shift, and meal-period work that was not fully tracked or compensated.

Q: Why Do Unreimbursed Business Expenses Matter Under California Law?

A: California law can require employers to reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenses. This complaint alleges workers used personal cell phones for job duties and incurred certain home-office-related costs without full reimbursement.

Q: Why Is This Case Relevant to California Employment Law?

A: This case touches several issues that frequently appear in California wage and hour litigation, including unpaid wages, break violations, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and expense reimbursement. For workers, the lawsuit is a reminder that employment law compliance is not just about an hourly rate, but about whether every legally required payment and protection was actually provided.

If you have questions about unpaid wages, missed meal or rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, inaccurate wage statements, or other California wage and hour violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did Evergreen Environmental Services Fail to Pay Workers All Wages Due Under California Law?

A California wage and hour lawsuit filed by Antonio Melgarejo alleges Evergreen Environmental Services and related entities violated multiple California Labor Code provisions governing pay, breaks, and expense reimbursement.

Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No. 24STCV34126

Who Is the Plaintiff in the Case: Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services?

Antonio Melgarejo is the named plaintiff who filed the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees. The complaint says Melgarejo worked for the defendants in California from June 2023 through April 2024. It also alleges Melgarejo was paid on an hourly basis and was legally entitled to meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, and overtime pay for all hours worked. In addition to pursuing individual claims, Melgarejo seeks to represent a broader California class of non-exempt workers employed during the proposed class period.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case: Evergreen Environmental Services?

Evergreen Environmental Services LLC, the defendant, is a Texas limited liability company that conducted substantial and regular business in California. The complaint also names HPC Industrial Services LLC and Phillips 66 Company, claiming all three entities acted as joint employers because each allegedly exercised control over hours, wages, or working conditions. The pleading further states that the defendants operated a hazardous waste disposal business in California, including in Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The complaint alleges the defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, including work allegedly performed before shifts, after shifts, and during what should have been off-duty meal breaks. It also claims workers were denied legally compliant meal and rest periods, were not always paid overtime and premium pay at the correct regular rate, were not fully reimbursed for business expenses such as personal cell phone use and uniform upkeep, and received inaccurate itemized wage statements.

What Is “Off-the-Clock” Work? Work an employee performs without having that time properly recorded and paid. In California employment law cases, that can include time spent working during meal breaks or doing job tasks before or after a scheduled shift.

What Is a Non-Exempt Employee? A worker who is generally entitled to protections under California wage and hour law, including minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal and rest break rules. The complaint alleges the plaintiff and proposed class members were classified as non-exempt employees.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

The core issue is whether Evergreen Environmental Services and the other named entities failed to comply with California wage and hour laws for non-exempt employees. The complaint frames that question around several connected practices: whether workers were required to perform unpaid work, whether legally compliant meal and rest periods were actually provided, and whether overtime and premium pay were calculated correctly. Another major question is whether the defendants’ records, pay practices, and wage statements accurately reflected the time employees worked and the wages they earned. In practical terms, the case asks whether the employers’ policies shifted labor costs onto workers in a way California law does not allow.

FAQ: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

Q: What Does This California Employment Lawsuit Claim?

A: The lawsuit claims non-exempt employees were not paid all wages due under California law. The complaint includes allegations involving unpaid off-the-clock work, missed meal and rest breaks, overtime underpayment, inaccurate wage statements, late wage payments, and unreimbursed business expenses.

Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?

A: The case is Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 24STCV34126, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Q: What Is Joint Employer Liability and Why Does It Matter Here?

A: Joint employer liability means more than one company can be held legally responsible for wage and hour violations if all exercised sufficient control over the terms and conditions of employment. In this case, the lawsuit names Evergreen Environmental Services LLC, HPC Industrial Services LLC, and Phillips 66 Company as joint employers, alleging all were responsible for the pay practices and workplace policies at issue.

Q: What Is “Off-the-Clock Work” in a California Wage and Hour Case?

A: Off-the-clock work is job-related work that allegedly was performed without proper pay. In this case, the complaint alleges that employees were required to work before and after scheduled shifts and during meal periods without being paid for that time.

​Q: Why Do Meal and Rest Break Claims Matter in California Employment Law?

A: California law requires employers to provide compliant meal and rest periods to non-exempt employees, and missed breaks can trigger premium pay obligations. This case alleges that workers were not fully relieved of duty and were sometimes expected to remain available via communication device during breaks, which directly goes to whether the breaks were legally valid.

Q: What Makes This Case Relevant to a California Employment Law Audience?

A: This lawsuit touches several of the wage and hour issues that commonly drive California employment litigation: unpaid wages, overtime violations, meal and rest break violations, wage statement errors, final pay problems, and business expense reimbursement. For employees, the case is a reminder that payroll compliance is about more than just an hourly rate; it also depends on whether every hour worked and every premium owed was properly tracked and paid.

If you have questions about unpaid wages, missed meal or rest breaks, overtime violations, unreimbursed business expenses, or other workplace pay practices that may violate California law, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Tractor Supply Co. Wage and Hour Class Action Sees $750K Settlement

Rebecca Day filed a class action against Tractor Supply alleging the company failed to pay certain New York workers on a weekly basis in violation of New York labor law. While the case did not end with a merits ruling, the defendant agreed to a $750,000 settlement to resolve the dispute.

Case: Day v. Tractor Supply Co.

Court: New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County

Case No. 6128331/2023

Who Is the Named Plaintiff in the Class Action?

Rebecca Day is the named plaintiff in the lawsuit and served as the proposed representative for other workers with similar claims. According to the court-approved notice, she alleged that Tractor Supply failed to pay her and other non-exempt, hourly-paid manual workers on a weekly basis. While Day initiated the action and pursued wage-and-hour claims against Tractor Supply, she also sought relief on behalf of a broader class of employees who allegedly experienced the same pay schedule.

Who Is the Defendant in the Case?

Tractor Supply Company, the defendant, is a large retail business that sells products tied to rural living, including farm, pet, tool, garden, and outdoor merchandise, with a workforce of more than 52,000 team members. Tractor Supply denied the allegations made in Day’s complaint and maintained that its non-exempt hourly employees were lawfully compensated and paid all wages in a timely manner. Despite denying the allegations, the company agreed to settle the lawsuit rather than continue litigation.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Day v. Tractor Supply Co.

According to the lawsuit, Tractor Supply allegedly paid certain hourly manual workers in New York on a biweekly schedule when, under New York law, qualifying manual workers were supposed to be paid weekly. The settlement notice states that the case covered non-exempt, hourly-paid workers employed in New York stores between June 24, 2016, and February 24, 2019, who did not continue working for the company beyond February 24, 2019. Tractor Supply denied wrongdoing, and the court did not rule on the merits before the parties reached a settlement.

What Is a Non-Exempt Employee? A non-exempt employee is a worker who is generally entitled to wage and hour protections such as minimum wage and overtime pay.

What Is a Manual Worker? In this case, the term manual worker refers to employees whose job duties were sufficiently physical or hands-on that New York’s weekly pay rule allegedly applied to them.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

At the center of the case was whether Tractor Supply’s hourly workers in New York qualified as “manual workers” under state labor law. If they did, the next question was whether paying them biweekly rather than weekly violated the statute governing the frequency of pay. The dispute also raised the practical issue of what damages or statutory relief might be available when workers are paid in full but not on the schedule required by law. More broadly, the case reflects a recurring wage-and-hour question employers face: whether their payroll practices match the legal rules that apply to a specific category of non-exempt employees.

FAQ: Day v. Tractor Supply Co.

Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?

A: The case is Rebecca Day v. Tractor Supply Co., Case No. 6128331/2023, filed in New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County.

Q: Did the Court Find That Tractor Supply Violated the Law?

A: No. The case was resolved through settlement, and the court did not issue a final ruling that Tractor Supply violated the law. Tractor Supply denied the allegations and agreed to settle the dispute rather than continue litigating it.

Q: How Much Was the Tractor Supply Class Action Settlement?

A: The settlement was valued at up to $750,000. That amount was intended to cover payments to eligible class members, attorneys’ fees and costs, administration expenses, and a service award for the named plaintiff.

Q: Who Was Included in the Settlement Class?

A: The settlement covered certain non-exempt, hourly-paid Tractor Supply employees who worked in New York during the relevant class period and who were allegedly paid on a biweekly schedule instead of weekly. The class definition in the settlement materials was tied to employees working in New York stores during the dates identified in the notice.

Q: Why Does This Case Matter in Wage and Hour Law?

A: This case shows that wage and hour disputes are not always about whether workers were paid at all. Sometimes, the legal issue is whether employees were paid in accordance with the timing and method required by law. That kind of payroll practice can affect a large group of workers at once and lead to class action litigation.

Q: Why Does a New York Pay-Frequency Case Matter to California Workers?

A: Even though this case arose under New York law, it reflects a broader employment law principle that also matters in California: employers must follow the wage rules that apply to their workforce with precision. Cases involving payroll timing, unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, and wage statement compliance all turn on that same core idea.

If you have questions about wage and hour violations, or if your employer’s business practices regularly mean you aren’t paid for all the hours you work, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

OpenAI Faces Wrongful Death and Product Liability Claims Over Teen’s ChatGPT Use

A California family recently filed a lawsuit after the death of their son. In the wrongful death complaint, the Raines alleged that the design and safety failures of ChatGPT contributed to their teenage son’s death. The wrongful death suit raised high-stakes questions about AI product liability, warnings, and safeguards for minors.

Case: Matthew Raine and Maria Raine v. OpenAI, Inc.

Court: California Superior Court, County of San Francisco

Case No.: CGC-25-628528

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Raine v. OpenAI

Matthew Raine and Maria Raine, the plaintiffs, filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the death of their son, Adam Raine. According to the lawsuit, the Raines allege Adam began using ChatGPT (GPT-4o) in September 2024, and quickly developed a deep dependence on it. Less than a year later, he died by suicide on April 11, 2025, just 16 years old. They filed this action seeking damages related to Adam’s death and injunctive relief requiring additional safeguards for minors and other vulnerable users of the popular AI tool.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case include OpenAI, Inc.; OpenAI OpCo, LLC; OpenAI Holdings, LLC; and Samuel Altman, along with unnamed “Doe” employees and investors. The complaint alleges the OpenAI entities collectively designed, commercialized, and controlled the ChatGPT product at issue and that Altman, as CEO, directed key product and safety decisions related to GPT-4o’s launch and deployment.

The Plaintiffs Included Numerous Allegations in the Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

• The product allegedly encouraged a dependent, confidant-style relationship with a minor and failed to disengage during a mental-health crisis.

• The complaint alleges ChatGPT responded in ways that affirmed or prolonged discussions about self-harm rather than consistently refusing and redirecting to appropriate help.

• Plaintiffs allege OpenAI had the technical ability to detect high-risk self-harm content and terminate or meaningfully intervene, but did not do so in this instance.

• Plaintiffs claim GPT-4o’s design emphasized engagement-maximizing features (including “memory” and human-like interaction cues) that increased minors' vulnerability.

• The complaint alleges OpenAI rushed safety testing and released GPT-4o with insufficient safeguards, despite foreseeable risks to vulnerable users.

• Plaintiffs assert OpenAI failed to provide adequate warnings to teens and parents about risks such as psychological dependency and exposure to harmful outputs.

• The lawsuit asserts claims including strict product liability (design defect/failure to warn), negligence (design defect/failure to warn), unfair competition (UCL), wrongful death, and a survival action.

The Main Question of the Case: Raine v. OpenAI

A central issue in this case is whether ChatGPT with GPT-4o constitutes a “product” for purposes of the theories asserted and, if so, whether it was defectively designed or sold without adequate warnings in a way that created an unreasonable risk of harm to foreseeable users, including minors. The court will also need to consider whether defendants breached a duty of reasonable care in designing and deploying safety systems intended to prevent harmful interactions, and whether the alleged failures were a substantial factor in the death and related damages claimed. Another key question is whether defendants’ marketing and operational practices were unlawful, unfair, or misleading under California’s Unfair Competition Law based on the alleged safety and warning deficiencies. Finally, the case requires evaluating the scope of wrongful death and survival damages (and any requested injunctive relief) if liability is established.

FAQ: Raine v. OpenAI

Q: What does “design defect” mean in a product liability case involving software or an AI service?

A: It means the plaintiffs claim the product’s core design (how it works as built) created an unreasonable safety risk that could have been reduced with a safer alternative design.

Q: What is a “failure to warn” claim, and what kinds of warnings do plaintiffs say were missing here?

A: It’s a claim that users weren’t adequately warned about known or foreseeable risks, and the plaintiffs allege that warnings to minors/parents about dependency and harmful outputs were insufficient.

Q: How do courts evaluate causation in a wrongful death case tied to an alleged product defect or negligence?

A: Courts typically ask whether the alleged defect or negligence was a “substantial factor” in the harm, based on evidence linking the conduct to the outcome.

Q: What is the difference between a wrongful death claim and a survival action in California?

A: Wrongful death seeks certain damages for the family’s losses, while a survival action seeks damages the decedent’s estate could have recovered for harms suffered before death.

Q: What is California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and what remedies can it provide in cases like this?

A: The UCL targets unlawful, unfair, or misleading business practices and generally allows remedies like injunctive relief and restitution (not traditional damages).

Q: What kinds of safeguards or injunctive relief are plaintiffs asking the court to require, and why?

A: They seek court-ordered safety measures, especially for minors and high-risk situations—aimed at reducing harmful interactions and improving warnings and intervention protocols.

If you lost a loved one and believe a company’s product design, safety failures, or negligent conduct contributed to that death, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to pursue accountability and justice.

Did C4 Technical Services Fail to Provide Workers with Compliant Breaks?

In recent news, C4 Technical Services faces allegations that they violated labor law by failing to provide their workers with compliant meal breaks and rest periods.

Case: Tekeio Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

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

Case No.: 25STCV34843

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

Tekeio Phillips, the plaintiff, allegedly worked for the defendants in California from October 2013 through August 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Phillips filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees, claiming that the defendants used common pay, staffing, and timekeeping practices that allegedly resulted in employees missing legally required breaks and not receiving all wages owed.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case are C4 Technical Services, LLC, KGPCo Services, L.L.C., and KGP Telecommunications, LLC, which the complaint alleges operated a telecommunications staffing business in California. The lawsuit claims these entities acted as joint employers and controlled employees’ hours, wages, and working conditions, making them collectively responsible for the alleged wage-and-hour violations.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

During their time at the company, the plaintiff noticed standard practices that allegedly violated labor law. Some of the allegations included in Tekeio Phillips’ complaint include:

• Failing to pay employees for all time worked.

• Requiring off-the-clock work (like sending/receiving work communications)

• Requiring work during breaks (that should have been off duty)

• Failing to provide appropriate meal breaks and rest breaks (breaks were regularly late, short, or interrupted)

• Failing to provide premium pay for missed breaks

• Underpaying regular wages and overtime wages

• Inaccurately calculating overtime pay rates.

• Failing to include incentive/bonus pay when calculating the regular rate (affecting overtime wages, premiums, and sick pay)

• Failing to provide legally compliant, accurate wage statements

• Engaging in timekeeping manipulation, including fictitious meal break entries, and rounding practice that reduced paid time.

• Failing to pay wages promptly.

• Failing to reimburse necessary work expenses.

The Main Question of the Case: Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

The core issue is whether the defendants maintained common staffing, scheduling, and timekeeping practices that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock communications and unpaid work tied to meal periods. The court will also need to determine whether employees were provided legally compliant, duty-free meal and rest breaks, or whether employees were effectively kept on duty/on call and then not paid the required premium pay when breaks were missed. Another key question is whether the defendants correctly calculated and paid minimum wage, overtime, and double time, including whether incentive/bonus pay was properly included in the regular rate used for overtime, premiums, and sick pay. Finally, the court will evaluate whether the alleged practices also produced inaccurate wage statements, late wage payments, and unreimbursed business expenses across the proposed class.

FAQ: Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

Q: Do after-hours phone calls about work count as “off the clock” work?

A: They can; if the calls are work-related and the employer requires or expects employees to take them, that time may be compensable even if it happens after hours.

Q: Can employees be required to remain on call or respond to messages?

A: Employers can require on-call responsiveness, but if that requirement cuts into legally compliant off-duty meal/rest breaks or adds uncompensated work time, it may trigger wage-and-hour violations and premium pay.

Q: Do all California employers have to provide their employees with rest breaks and meal periods?

A: Most California employers must provide compliant meal and rest breaks to non-exempt employees, though the exact rules can vary by industry, wage order, and specific job duties.

Q: What is the difference between exempt and non-exempt for rest breaks in California workplaces?

A: In California, non-exempt employees are generally entitled to paid rest breaks and meal periods. However, exempt employees typically are not because they are paid on a salary basis and meet specific duties and pay tests.

Q: Is it legal for a California employer to round recorded hours down in their payroll system?

A: Time rounding can be legal, but only if it’s neutral on its face and in practice over time. However, a system that consistently rounds employees’ time down (reducing paid time) can violate California wage-and-hour laws.​

Q: When do bonuses/incentives have to be included in the “regular rate,” and why does that matter for overtime and other pay?

A: Nondiscretionary bonuses and incentives generally must be included in the regular rate, which can increase overtime, premium pay rates, and other pay calculations tied to that rate.

If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks, not paid overtime, provided inaccurate wage statements, or required to use personal devices for work without reimbursement, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Welcome Home Care Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations in Class Action

In recent news, Welcome Home Care faced allegations of labor law violations in a California class action filed by former employee Vanessa Conejo.

Case: Vanessa Conejo v. BCS Partners, Inc. dba Welcome Home Care

Court: Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: 25CV028452

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Conejo v. BCS Partners

Vanessa Conejo, the plaintiff, started working for BCS Partners as a non-exempt employee in April 2023. She claims that at times during her employment, she was paid on a piece-rate basis. Conejo filed the class action on behalf of herself and other current and former non-exempt employees, alleging the company’s pay and scheduling practices caused workers to miss breaks and lose wages. She claims the defendants’ policies resulted in employees not being paid correctly for all time worked and not receiving required premiums and protections under California labor law.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case include BCS Partners, Inc., doing business as Welcome Home Care, along with Welcome Home Care Services (a related business entity), etc. According to the plaintiff, these defendants operated as joint employers and controlled employees’ pay practices, scheduling, and working conditions in California.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

Employees allegedly weren’t paid for all time worked, including off-the-clock work before/after shifts and work performed during supposed break time.

Employees allegedly missed compliant meal breaks (including working more than five hours without an off-duty meal period and, on longer shifts, missing a second meal period).

Employees allegedly missed required rest breaks (or weren’t given the correct number of 10-minute breaks for longer shifts) and didn’t always receive the extra hour of pay owed when breaks weren’t provided.

The company allegedly underpaid overtime/other wages due to incorrect rate calculations and improper handling of incentive compensation.

Employees allegedly received inaccurate wage statements, and wages were not always paid on time.

Employees allegedly weren’t reimbursed for required work expenses (such as personal cell phones used for work, vehicles, and work uniforms).

The complaint also raises issues about timekeeping edits/rounding and access to personnel/pay records.

As of January 2026, the case was pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

The Main Question in the Case: Conejo v. BCS Partners

The key question in the case is whether the defendants maintained company-wide pay and staffing practices that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock work and unpaid time connected to meal and rest periods. The court will also need to decide whether employees were provided with legally compliant, duty-free meal and rest breaks, or whether work demands and scheduling effectively kept employees on duty/on call, triggering premium pay obligations. Another issue is whether the defendants correctly calculated wage payment (including the “regular rate” used for overtime and premium pay) and provided accurate wage statements. Finally, the case examines whether employees were properly reimbursed for required business expenses and given timely access to employment records as required by California law.

FAQ: Conejo v. BCS Partners

Q: When do California employees get a 2nd meal break?

A: A second meal period is generally required on longer shifts (typically over 10 hours unless a valid waiver applies).

Q: What makes a meal period “off-duty?”

A: A meal period is off-duty only if the employee is fully relieved of all work, able to leave the premises, and free from their employer’s control.

Q: What happens if rest breaks are missed?

A: When a California employer doesn’t provide breaks, missed rest breaks are compensated with “premium pay.”

Q: How much is “premium pay”?

A: Premium pay varies based on the specific employee’s regular rate of pay. Premium pay is one additional hour at the employee’s regular rate and is owed for each workday a compliant meal or rest break is not provided, as required by labor law.

Q: When must employers reimburse employees for work-related expenses (like phones, mileage, or uniforms)?

A: Employers must reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenses when employees are required to use personal resources or incur costs to complete mandatory job duties.

If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks, not paid overtime, provided inaccurate wage statements, or required to use personal devices for work without reimbursement, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Nordstrom Distribution Center Claims Company Violated Labor Law

In recent news, a California worker filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that, during his time at the Nordstrom Distribution Center, the company engaged in multiple labor law violations.

Case: Ricardo Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC

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

Case No.: 25STCV34977

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse

Ricardo Barahona, the plaintiff, is a former non-exempt, hourly employee. Barahona worked for the California-based Defendant from April 2025 through May 2025. After his time with the company, he filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated non-exempt employees who performed work at Nordstrom Distribution Centers during the class period. He claims the defendants’ shared pay and scheduling practices caused employees to miss compliant breaks and lose wages, including pay for all time worked and related premium payments, overtime pay, etc.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case are Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC; Randstad US, LLC; and Randstad Professionals US, LLC. According to the complaint, the defendants operated as the plaintiff’s joint employers in California. The complaint describes them as operating a staffing agency and exerting control over employees’ hours, wages, and working conditions.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

The plaintiff included multiple allegations in the original employment law complaint filing, including:

1. Failing to pay employees for all time worked, including off-the-clock work and work performed during meal periods.

2. Failing to provide employees with uninterrupted, off-duty meal breaks as outlined by labor law

3. Requiring employees to stay on duty/on-call during “off-duty” breaks

4. Failing to pay premium pay for missed breaks

5. Inaccurate overtime pay calculations (including inaccurate rate calculations, including incentive/bonus pay)

6. Failing to provide employees with accurate wage statements that comply with labor law requirements (and include all required information, i.e., correct hours/rates, etc.)

7. Failing to pay wages on time

8. Failing to reimburse employees for business expenses (including personal cell phone use)

9. Inaccurate timekeeping practices (including editing/rounding time)

The Main Question in the Case: Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse

The key issue is whether the defendants maintained common timekeeping and work-practice policies that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock work and unpaid time connected to meal periods. The court will also need to determine whether employees were provided legally compliant meal and rest breaks, or whether staffing demands and work requirements effectively denied those breaks, triggering premium pay obligations. Another central question is whether the defendants correctly calculated pay obligations such as overtime (and other payments tied to the “regular rate”), including how incentive/bonus compensation was treated. Finally, the court will evaluate whether alleged pay-practice issues also resulted in inaccurate wage statements, late wage payments, and unreimbursed business expenses across the proposed class.

FAQ: Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse

Q: When must off-the-clock time be paid?

A: Any off-the-clock work the employer requires or permits must be paid.

Q: If an employee works during a meal break or while they are clocked out, are they due wages?

A: That time may be compensable and, if a compliant off-duty meal period wasn’t provided, the employee may also be owed premium pay.

Q: When are first and second meal periods required, and what makes a meal period “off-duty”?

A: A first meal period is generally required by the end of the fifth hour of a work shift, and a second may be required on longer shifts. An “off-duty” meal period means the employee is fully relieved of all work duties.

Q: How many rest breaks are required based on shift length

A: Rest breaks generally accrue with hours worked (typically 10 minutes per four hours or major fraction), and if they aren’t provided, the employee may be owed premium pay.

Q: What happens if a California employer doesn’t provide an employee with their rest breaks?

A: Employers are required to provide employees with premium pay for any missed breaks. Premium pay is one additional hour at the employee’s regular rate (owed for each workday in which a compliant meal or rest break is not provided as required).

Q: How can incentive/bonus pay affect overtime calculations and other payments tied to the regular rate?

A: Certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentives must be included in the regular rate, which can increase overtime and other pay amounts calculated from that rate.

If you believe your employer failed to pay you for all your hours, miscalculated your overtime rates, or engaged in other labor law violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.