SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses
/
In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.
The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC
The Court: Orange County Superior Court
The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC
The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC
The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.
The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC
The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.
The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC
The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.
If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.
