Outback Contractors Face Allegations they Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks (Copy)

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that Outback Contractors failed to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors, Inc.

The Court: Tehama County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CI-000225

The Plaintiff: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The plaintiff in the case, Christopher Vanderbeek, filed a class action complaint claiming Outback Contractors' employees has such rigorous work schedules that they couldn't take their off duty rest breaks and meal periods. Additionally, the employees were allegedly not fully relieved during their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Vanderbeek, employees were interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks to complete job duties for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to complete their shifts without receiving the rest periods and meal breaks California employers must provide in compliance with labor law.

The Defendants: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The defendants in the case, Outback Contractors, face several violation allegations:

• Minimum Wage Pay Violations

• Overtime Wage Pay Violations

• Meal Break Violations

• Rest Period Violations

• Wage Statement Violations

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

• Timely Payment of Wages Violations

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

According to the class action complaint, Outback Contractors’ policy allegedly caused workers to stay on-call and on duty during their “off duty” breaks and meal periods. Even though employees allegedly had to forfeit their breaks, they weren’t offered the required one hour of pay for missed breaks due to strict corporate policy and business practices at Outback Contractors. According to the California class action lawsuit, Outback Contractors’ standard policies and practices allegedly led to numerous California Labor Code violations.

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

Did Okdak Fail to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Okdak violated labor law.

The Case: Roberto Contreras Jimenez v. Okdak, Inc.

The Court: California's Riverside County Superior Court

The Case No.: CVRI2404524

The Plaintiff: Jimenez v. Okdak

The plaintiff, Jimenez, filed a class action complaint alleging that Okdak, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. According to the class action complaint, Okdak failed to reimburse workers for required business expenses, violating Labor Code 2802. Jimenez claimed that during his employment, he and other class members were required to use their personal cell phones to fulfill their job responsibilities.

What is California Labor Code 2802?

California Labor Code 2802 requires employers to "indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." As such, employees who must purchase items or services in order to fulfill their job duties should receive a reimbursement for the business expense from their employer.

The Defendant: Jimenez v. Okdak

According to the plaintiff, Okdak failed to accurately record employee hours and provide accurate compensation for actual hours worked. Since labor law requires employers to pay their workers for all time worked, failing to do so is a violation. "Time worked" (when referring to labor law) refers to the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control. The plaintiff claims the employee required workers to work off the clock without pay. Since the off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the company allegedly failed to provide employees with minimum wage for their off-the-clock hours, which violates multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1).

More About the Jimenez v. Okdak Class Action Lawsuit:

The plaintiff filed on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees. The class action is pending in California's Riverside County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Employee Files PAGA-Only Action Against Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

Did Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC fail to provide workers with all the legally required rest periods and meal breaks? The plaintiff not only claims the company failed to provide breaks but also failed to provide the required one hour of compensation in place of the missed breaks.

The Case: Rodney Nelson v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01310016-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Rodney Nelson v. Avis Budget Car Rental

The plaintiff in the case, Rodney Nelson, was employed by Avis Budget Car Rental from June 2022 through November 2022 and filed a lawsuit against Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, alleging the company violated the Labor Code. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff and other workers in similar positions were not fully relieved during legally required meal breaks. Additionally, the employees frequently had to miss their rest periods.

How Does the Court Define an Off-Duty Rest Period?

According to the California Supreme Court, an off-duty rest period is when an employee is relieved from all work and work-related duties and is free from their employer's control.

Former Employee Claims Rental Company Violated Labor Law:

The defendant in the case, Avis Budget Car Rental, owns and operates car rental agencies in California. The plaintiff claims standard business policies and practices at the rental car company led to multiple labor law violations.

Did Avis Budget Rental Car Violate Multiple Labor Laws?

The plaintiff, Nelson, claims the company violated Labor Code § 2699, et seq. and seeks penalties for the alleged violation of California Labor Codes. Filed in Orange County Superior Court, the case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime or wage and hour lawsuit or need to discuss company policies that violate overtime law, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Los Angeles, empowering you to take action.

Outback Contractors Face Allegations they Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that Outback Contractors failed to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors, Inc.

The Court: Tehama County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CI-000225

The Plaintiff: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The plaintiff in the case, Christopher Vanderbeek, filed a class action complaint claiming Outback Contractors' employees has such rigorous work schedules that they couldn't take their off duty rest breaks and meal periods. Additionally, the employees were allegedly not fully relieved during their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Vanderbeek, employees were interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks to complete job duties for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to complete their shifts without receiving the rest periods and meal breaks California employers must provide in compliance with labor law.

The Defendants: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

The defendants in the case, Outback Contractors, face several violation allegations:

• Minimum Wage Pay Violations

• Overtime Wage Pay Violations

• Meal Break Violations

• Rest Period Violations

• Wage Statement Violations

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

• Timely Payment of Wages Violations

The Case: Christopher Vanderbeek v. Outback Contractors

According to the class action complaint, Outback Contractors’ policy allegedly caused workers to stay on-call and on duty during their “off duty” breaks and meal periods. Even though employees allegedly had to forfeit their breaks, they weren’t offered the required one hour of pay for missed breaks due to strict corporate policy and business practices at Outback Contractors. According to the California class action lawsuit, Outback Contractors’ standard policies and practices allegedly led to numerous California Labor Code violations.

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

La Costa Limousine Facing Overtime Pay Allegations

In recent news, La Costa Limousine has been facing allegations that it failed to provide rest periods and meal breaks in compliance with California labor law.

The Case: Justin Johnson v. B.T. Transportation, Inc., dba La Costa Limousine and La Costa Limousine LTD

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

The Case No.: 24CU007652C

Justin Johnson v. La Costa Limousine: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Johnson, was employed in California by La Costa Limousine from April 2022 to April 2024 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. Johnson filed a class action lawsuit claiming La Costa Limousine violated labor law. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to provide rest periods, meal breaks, and overtime pay in compliance with labor law. According to the plaintiff, the employees’ rigorous work schedules prohibited taking off-duty rest breaks and meal periods. As a result, workers were often not fully relieved of duty during their breaks.

California Law Requires Employers to Offer Non-Exempt California Employees Breaks:

California labor law requires that employees provide their employees with a rest period of at least ten (10) minutes for a shift worked of at least two (2) to four (4) hours, a first and second rest period of at least ten minutes for 6-8 hour shifts, and a first, second and third rest period of at least ten minutes for 10+ hour shifts. California employers are required to offer workers one hour of wages if a worker misses a break.

The Defendant, La Costa Limousine Faces Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case, La Costa Limousine, provides chauffeur services in California, including San Diego, where the plaintiff worked. The allegations include:

• Failing to pay workers minimum wage

• Failing to provide rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to reimburse required business expenses

The Case: Justin Johnson v. La Costa Limousine

The plaintiff filed the California class action in the San Diego County Superior Court; the case is pending. According to the lawsuit, the defendant violated numerous California Labor Laws.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in any of their various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did a California Oil Manufacturer Fail to Compensate their Employees?

A California worker recently filed a wage and hour lawsuit claiming an oil manufacturer violated labor law, specifically failing to provide workers with minimum wage and accurate overtime pay.

The Case: Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles California Superior Court

The Case: 22STCV17702

Allegations of Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay Violations:

Plaintiffs allege that AOCLSC failed to provide minimum wages, overtime pay, and other compensation required by labor law. According to the original complaint, the defendant also allegedly failed to provide required meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements. Eligible class members were employed in California as non-exempt hourly workers between May 8, 2019, and May 15, 2023.

Defining the Non-Exempt Hourly Worker:

Non-exempt workers are protected by labor law's regulations regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, etc. Exempt employees aren't eligible for overtime pay and are also excluded from minimum wage requirements. The most obvious difference between exempt and non-exempt workers is their method of payment. Exempt employees receive a salary, while non-exempt employees are paid hourly.

Settlement Resolves Wage and Hour Claims for Oil Manufacturer:

The defendant in the case, AOCLSC Inc., is a parent company of AOCUSA, an oil manufacturer (formerly Amalie Oil) facing allegations that they failed to pay their workers full wages. The $920,000 AOCLSC settlement resolving the wage and hour claims benefits the eligible class members (non-exempt workers employed by AOCLSC Inc. in California from May 8, 2019 to May 15, 2023).

More About the Case: Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc.

The settlement in Villegas et al. v. AOCLSC Inc. also benefits a PAGE (Private Attorneys General Act) class of AOCLSC employees employed by the company in California as non-exempt hourly workers between June 1, 2021, and May 15, 2023. The amount each eligible class member receives is determined by the number of workweeks and PAGA pay periods they worked during the class period.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices can assist you.

Pacific Bell Settles California Wage and Hour Class Action: $2.235M Settlement

In recent news, Pacific Bell resolved a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a proposed $2.235 million settlement.

The Case: Macopson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County California Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV13800

The Plaintiffs: Macopson v. Pacific Bell

The plaintiff in the case, Macopson, claimed Pacific Bell violated state wage laws. The class action was filed for Pacific Bell workers employed at California locations between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024. According to the original complaint, Pacific Bell underpaid their employees and failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses; both allegations allegedly violated California labor law. The plaintiffs filed claims under PAGA (California's Private Attorneys General Act). The state law enables workers to file these types of claims on behalf of other workers and California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members are those who Pacific Bell employed in California between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024.

What is the Origin of California's PAGA?

California's Senate Bill 796 (SB 796) enacted the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2004. The law was designed to reduce state labor law violations, address common unlawful and anti-competitive business practices, create the possibility for employees to collect penalties for labor law violations, and address staffing issues in state labor law enforcement.

California Telephone Company Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Pacific Bell, a California telephone company owned by AT&T. The plaintiffs claim that Pacific Bell's business practices violated labor law. Whlle they declined to admit any wrongdoing, the company chose to resolve the claims through a settlement agreement.

Macopson v. Pacific Bell: Learn More About the Case

The terms of the $2.235 million settlement agreement designate that class members employed by the defendant between April 10, 2018, and March 21, 2014, receive the designated payment and that class members employed by the telephone company between April 10, 2021, and March 21, 2024, are eligible for the PAGA payment.

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