California Wage and Labor Law Violation Claim: Exela Enterprise & Novitex Accused of Denying Meal Breaks

In a class action lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, employees allege that Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and Novitex Government Solutions violated California labor law when they failed to provide workers with their legally mandated meal breaks, which allegedly resulted in unpaid wages.

The Case: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

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

The Case No.: 24STCV31304

The Plaintiff: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

The plaintiff, Merclyn Brown, filed a claim on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, alleging that the company systematically failed to offer appropriate meal breaks. This allegedly caused workers to lose compensation for the time they worked without receiving their required off-duty breaks and rest periods. According to the complaint, failing to comply with meal and rest break requirements deprived the employer's workers of needed rest and led to significant wage discrepancies and California labor law violations.

The Defendant: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. and Novitex Government Solutions are accused of failing to fulfill their statutory obligations under California employment law by not providing the required meal breaks. The companies argue that any lapses in break administration were isolated incidents; however, the plaintiff maintains that such oversights were part of an ongoing, systemic issue that directly impacted the employees' earnings.

The Case: Merclyn Brown v. Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc. & Novitex Government Solutions

Brown claims that employees were not given their mandated meal breaks due to inadequate scheduling practices and insufficient staffing, which led to alleged wage violations due to the uncompensated hours. The California wage and hour lawsuit seeks to enforce the workers' statutory rights and ensure all employees are adequately compensated for their hours (in compliance with California labor law).

What Should You Do If Your Employer Does Not Provide Your Legally Required Meal Breaks?

If you believe your California employer isn't providing you with your legally mandated meal breaks, start by meticulously documenting your work hours and any breaks you miss. Next, review your wage statements to find any discrepancies and report any to the company's human resources department. If the matter remains unresolved after you report the issue to HR, consider consulting an employment law attorney to discuss possible legal actions that could help.

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.

Did Core Analytics Radiology Violate Wage and Hour Law?

After a recent California lawsuit filing, Core Analytics Radiology faces wage and hour violation allegations.

Case Details: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

The plaintiff, Lere Garrett, started working at Core Analytics Radiology in July 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to the protections of labor law. During his employment, Garrett alleges Core Analytics Radiology exhibited several California Labor Code violations, including failing to provide workers with meal breaks and rest periods.

Core Analytics Radiology, a California Employer:

The defendant, Core Analytics Radiology, owns and operates a clinical laboratory and mobile X-ray.

The Allegations: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to the plaintiff's allegations, the California employer allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wage (California Labor Code Sections §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1)

• Failing to pay overtime (California Labor Code Sections §§ 510, et seq)

• Failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods (California Labor Code Sections §§ 226.7 & 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order)

• Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements (California Labor Code Sections §§ 226)

• Failing to pay wages when due (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202 AND 203)

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses (California Labor Code Sections §§ 2802).

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to court documents, the company's rigorous work schedules allegedly prevented its employees from taking off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the employees were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges employees were regularly interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks so they could complete work tasks for the company. The California class action is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action complaint, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Hogan Truck Leasing Class Action Looks at Meal Break Violations Affecting Wages

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint allegint that Hogan Truck Leasing's standard operating practices failed to provide workers with the required off duty meal periods and rest breaks.

The Case: Luther Hill v. Hogan Truck Leasing

The Court: California's County of San Bernardino Superior Court

The Case No.:CIVSB2500366

California Labor Law Mandates Meal Breaks and Rest Periods for Eligible Employees

The plaintiff in the case, Luther Hill, filed a class action complaint against Hogan Truck Leasing. Hill alleged the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks during his time at the company. According to Hill, the Hogan Truck Leasing employees' rigorous work schedules prevented workers from taking off-duty meal breaks and kept them from being fully relieved of their job duties for rest periods. In addition, when an employee missed their off-duty breaks, they were allegedly not provided with one hour of wages in lieu of the break (as required by labor law).

Did Hogan Truck Leasing Fail to Pay Workers for All Time Worked?

According to the plaintiff, Hogan Truck Leasing's standard practices failed to provide workers with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. As a result of this standard practice, the plaintiff alleges that Hogan Truck Leasing failed to pay its employees for all their hours.

Allegations Stemming from Alleged Meal Break and Rest Period Practices

According to the Hill's allegations, Hogan Truck Leasing violated numerous California labor laws governing:

• Minimum wage requirements

• Overtime pay requirements

• Meal break/rest period requirements

• Timely payment of wages

• Accurate itemized wage statements

• Reimbursement of necessary business expenses

The Case: Luther Hill v. Hogan Truck Leasing

Luther Hill filed the California class action lawsuit in California's San Bernardino County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California meal break lawsuit, let Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP help. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Evergreen Environmental Services Class Action: California Employer Allegedly Failed to Pay All Wages

Antonio Melgarejo recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Evergreen Environmental Services violated labor code. According to the California class action, the California employer failed to provide employees with required off duty meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in additional alleged violations.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV34126

Why Did Melgarejo File the California Class Action?

The plaintiff, Antonio Melgarejo, filed the class action complaint on behalf of himself and other workers in similar positions at the company. Melgarejo claims that Evergreen failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods; which are both required by labor law.

The Defendant: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The defendant, Evergreen Environmental Services, allegedly required their workers to complete job tasks before and after their scheduled shift. Additionally, workers were required to fulfill job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Evergreen Environmental Services did not compensate the employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods or for mandatory "off the clock" work. As a result, the California employer faces allegations of numerous labor law violations.

What Happens When California Employers Don't Comply with Labor Laws?

When California employers fail to comply with labor laws, they can face legal consequences. In this class action, the plaintiff included numerous labor law violation allegations, including those pertaining to minimum wage, overtime wages, timely payment of wages, meal breaks/rest periods, accurate itemized wages statements, and reimbursement of required business expenses. The plaintiff claims that the California employer's actions potentially violated multiple California Labor Codes.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The plaintiff filed the California class action, Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services, in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

WFG National Title Insurance Company Lawsuit: Should California Employers Reimburse Business Expenses?

A recent California lawsuit raises the question: Should California employers reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses?

The Case: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The Court: Sonoma County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV06420

The Plaintiff: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The plaintiff, Gina Isola, worked for WFG National Title Insurance Company for about a year, from May 2023 through May 2024, as a nonexempt hourly employee entitled to labor law protections. During Isola's employment, she (and other employees in similar situations) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones to complete their job duties. Isola's complaint alleges that WFG National Title Insurance Company failed to reimburse their workers for required business expenses, which caused lost wages and inaccurate wage statements. In response, Isola filed a California class action alleging the company violated California Labor Laws.

The Defendant: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The defendant, WFG National Title Insurance Company, provides title writing services in California. According to Isola's complaint, the company allegedly failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses.

Does California Labor Code Require Business Expense Reimbursement?

According to California Labor Code 2802, California employers must reimburse employees if they incur expenses to fulfill their job duties. California law states, "An employer shall 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..."

The Allegations: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

Isola claims that WFG National Title Insurance Company engaged in multiple violations of the California Labor Code. In addition to violations of Calif. Labor Code 2802, Isola claims the company's day-to-day practices resulted in violations of Calif. Labor Code § 226 - which requires California employers to provide workers with an accurate itemized wage statement. An accurate itemized wage statement should include specific information, including all applicable hourly rates used during the pay period, the dates of the current pay period, and the total hours the employee worked during the pay period. According to the Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company complaint, the wage statements generated by the defendant did not include the required information.

The Case: Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company

The California class action lawsuit, Gina Isola v. WFG National Title Insurance Company, is pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did The Imagine Group, LLC Fail to Pay Their California Employees?

In a recent lawsuit, an Imagine Group employee claims the company failed to provide him full wages for his hours.

The Case: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV27564

The Plaintiff: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The plaintiff, Eric Martin, filed a class action complaint alleging that The Imagine Group, LLC violated the California Labor Code. As a California employer, The Imagine Group, LLC was required to pay their workers for all the time they worked (defined as time an employee is under their employee's control, including the time a worker is "permitted or suffered" to work). According to Martin's complaint, The Imagine Group had employees occasionally complete "off-the-clock" work without providing payment. Since off-the-clock work does not qualify for overtime premium payment, the plaintiff and others in similar scenarios at The Imagine Group faced alleged minimum wage and overtime violations.

The Defendant: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The Imagine Group, LLC allegedly failed to record all their California employees' hours accurately. According to the complaint filed by Martin, the plaintiff, inaccurate recording of employee hours led to lost wages and inaccurate wage statements.

The Allegations: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

Martin claims that The Imagine Group, LLC engaged in several labor law violations connected to their standard operating processes. The lawsuit alleges Labor Code § 2699 violations and California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 226. In addition to minimum and overtime wage violation allegations, the plaintiff also included allegations that The Imagine Group failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements (as required by California Labor Code § 226). According to labor law, employers must provide employees with an accurate wage statement for each pay period that includes applicable hourly rates, total hours worked, and dates of the current pay period. However, the plaintiff claims that wage statements from The Imagine Group did not contain all the necessary information.

The Case: Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC

The California class action lawsuit, Eric Martin v. The Imagine Group, LLC, is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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

California’s Metal Container (MCC) Faces a PAGA-Only Action Claiming Violations

In a recent PAGA-Only action, Metal Container, a California product packaging service provider, faces allegations of labor code violations.

The Case: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: CVRI2405838

The Plaintiff: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

The plaintiff, John Dedet, worked for Metal Container (MCC) from July 2021 through June 2024 as an hourly nonexempt employee. As a nonexempt hourly employee, Dedet was entitled to labor law protections, including minimum wage requirements, overtime pay regulations, mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, and more.

The Defendant: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

The defendant, Metal Container (MCC) LP, is a California company and employer that provides product packaging services throughout the state—according to the plaintiff, Dedet, Metal Container (MCC) LP failed to provide their workers with meal breaks and rest breaks mandated by labor law. Failing to comply with rest period and meal break requirments often leads to additional violations. In this case, the plaintiff claims the standard practice allegedly meant lost wages for workers.

The Allegations: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

Dedet claims that Metal Container engaged in several labor law violations that were connected to their standard operating processes. The PAGA-Only action alleges violations of Labor Code § 2699 and California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204, 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2100, and 2802.

What's the Definition of California's PAGA-Only Action?

In California, employees have the right to initiate a lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which serves as a tool for the state to uphold labor laws via employees who act on behalf of the state's labor enforcement agencies. A PAGA-only lawsuit primarily serves as a regulatory measure to safeguard public interests, not for the personal gain of any individual. Instead of pursuing personal damages or restitution, this type of action empowers an employee to act as a private enforcer of the California Labor Code, effectively granting them the role of a private attorney general.

The Case: John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP

In John Dedet v. Metal Container (MCC) LP, the plaintiff filed a PAGA-Only action currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California PAGA-Only action, don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.