Did SAS Retail Services Fail to Reimburse California Employees for Work Expenses?
/
According to court documents, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly violated California labor law when they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses to complete their duties.
The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC
The Court: Orange County Superior Court
The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC
The Plaintiff: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC
The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action lawsuit against SAS Retail Services, LLC, alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. According to the plaintiffs in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for the required business expenses necessary to complete their required job duties. The plaintiffs claim that while employed at SAS, they and other class members in similar situations with the company were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties.
The Defendant: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC
The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to pay the minimum wage and overtime wages required under California labor law.
Alleged California Labor Code Violations: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC
California Labor Code §2802 states that California employers "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..." Plaintiffs argue that SAS Retail Services, LLC's policy violated Section 2802.
The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC
Overtime wage rates were allegedly calculated based on the employee's regular pay rate but failed to consider the non-discretionary bonus plaintiffs and other class members received as part of their pay. The incentive program that generated the non-discretionary bonuses was allegedly described to new and potential hires as part of an employee's compensation package. Due to the company's standard practice, the California employer allegedly violated minimum wage and overtime laws.
If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.
