A non-exempt WinCo employee filed a complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees alleging that WinCo violated California employment law.

The Case: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

The Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01354-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. March 28, 2022)

The Plaintiff: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

Everardo Garza, the plaintiff in the case, was a non-exempt employee at WinCo. On August 21, 2020, he filed the original complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated at WinCo, alleging that the company failed to pay wages due to the employees. Garza's class action suit seeks to hold the company liable for the employment law violations.

The Allegations: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

Garza asserts seven causes of action arising under California state law in the complaint.

1. Failure to pay overtime wages

2. Failure to pay minimum wages

3. Rest period violations

4. Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

5. Waiting time penalties

6. Unfair competition

7. Civil penalties under the PAGA

The Defendant: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

WinCo Holdings, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an operator of grocery stores and a distribution and transportation network across California. According to Garza's allegations, WinCo utilized a rounding policy when counting their employees' work hours, resulting in unpaid regular hours and overtime hours. When WinCo did account for overtime hours worked, Garza alleges the company improperly calculated the overtime rate of pay. Additionally, Garza claims WinCo failed to pay non-exempt employees non-discretionary bonus payments connected to their overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, WinCo also failed to provide required rest breaks (uninterrupted, duty-free rest breaks), and rest periods were not authorized.

Details of the Case: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

In September 2020, WinCo removed the case to federal court. In October 2020, WinCo moved to dismiss all claims arguing a failure to state a claim under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. They also argued that Garza's first cause of action was preempted and subject to dismissal under the LMRA because Garza's employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). WinCo also argued that the complaint was not sufficiently argued. Garza disagreed and filed a motion to remand to state court. The court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.