Alameda County Superior Court to Consider Claims Armorous Violated Labor Law
/
Do Armorous business practices violate labor law? A former employee's class action complaint brings the question to the attention of the Alameda County California Superior Court, where the issues will be considered.
The Case: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous
The Court: Alameda County Superior Court
The Case No.: 24CV096396
The Plaintiff: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous
The plaintiff, Brandon Stocker, was employed by Armorous from August 2023 through April 2024 as a non-exempt hourly employee eligible for labor law protections. After noticing uniform policies and practices in place at the company that failed to comply with minimum wage, meal break/rest period, and overtime pay requirements, Stocker filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit to seek relief for his own and other employees' economic injuries.
The Defendant: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous
The defendant, Armorous, is a California corporation that owns and operates a security company. According to the class action complaint, the company failed to labor law compliant meal breaks and rest periods, failed to compensate employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods accurately, failed to pay workers for all their time worked, failed to provide compensation for off the clock work, failed to calculate overtime pay rates accurately, failed to provide workers with the required itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses.
How Should California Employers Compensate for Missed Meal Breaks?
Non-exempt California employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours in one day and a second 30-minute break if they work over ten hours. The breaks must be uninterrupted and free of all work duties. California employers who fail to provide an eligible employee with their legally required, off-duty meal break must compensate them for the missed break. According to labor law, the required compensation is one additional hour of pay at the worker's regular rate for each day a meal break isn't provided.
The Case: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous
According to the class action lawsuit, Armorous allegedly violated Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.
If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Discuss your situation today with one of the experienced employment law attorneys in our various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside.
