Workplace Claims: Should Workers Be Paid for Mandatory “Call Ins?”

June 1, 2015 - Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC workers are raising the question of whether or not retail employees who are required to call in to see if a shift is available or not should be paid simply for the mandatory call. It’s a new type of workplace claim that will be put to the test in federal appellate court.

Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit seek payment for mandatory calls in their workplace. The petition for interlocutory appeal to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals followed a rare grant from U.S. District Judge George H. Wu to file due to what he referred to as the “novelty” of the legal question being presented.

Since the only precedent for the case is Judge Wu’s original dismissal followed by his grant to file for interlocutory appeal, the 9^th Circuit holds a lot of power in their hands. They will be the deciding factor. The employment law industry will either see this new and “novel” issue nipped in the bud or they could see an entirely new and fertile area for workplace grievances leading to worker lawsuits. This case could result in a new area of claims for employees as many large chains have call in policies for their workers.

The lawsuit was filed by Mayra Casas and Julio Fernandez. The suit is based on California’s reporting time laws requiring a minimum amount of pay when an employee is required to report to work, but they aren’t needed or no work is available at the appointed time. California is one of eight states with similar reporting time laws (including New York). The California reporting time laws guarantees employees will receive up to 4 hours of pay when they report for an 8-hour shift that is cancelled, resulting in the employee being sent home without working. Up until this point, the focus has been on employees who physically report in to their workstations. Whether or not similar guarantees should be in place for call in claims is the current question.

In the current lawsuit between Victoria’s Secret Stores LLC and Casas/Fernandez, it has been pointed out that employees abiding by the retail chain store’s call in policy must arrange their entire schedule around the need to call in 2 hours prior to a potential shift. Sometimes employees are required to do so up to five times in one week. Legal representation for the plaintiffs are pointing out the difficulties this poses in regards to scheduling daycare, etc. as proof of the need for a change.  

For additional information on California workplace claims and California reporting time law, contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Discrimination Allegations: Pregnant Women Sue Raley’s

May 7, 2015 - Luciana Borrego, new mother to a baby boy born on Nov. 13, 2013, claims that she lost her job in Ukiah at Raley’s due to her pregnancy.

Raley’s is a part of a West Sacramento-based retail grocery store chain. In June of 2013, Borrego recalls advising her managers of her pregnancy (five months before her baby was born). On July 11, approx. one month later, she came to work with a doctor’s note advising her supervisors that she should not be lifting anything over ten pounds. Within an hour, Borrego claims she was called to the director’s office at the store and advised that she needed to take unpaid leave.

She was advised that she needed to go home, as the company didn’t accommodate pregnant workers even with the doctor’s note. Ms. Borrego claims she was devastated by the treatment she received. She never went back.

Ms. Borrego is one of two plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court against Raley’s. The suit contains allegations that the policy mentioned by Borrego’s director that Raley’s didn’t accommodate pregnant workers is unlawful. The company policy makes reasonable accommodations for workers injured on the job, but fails to provide any type of accommodation for pregnant workers.

Raley’s spokesperson responded denying the accusations and objecting the suggestion that they don’t care about all their team members, and in particular, their pregnant team members. They continued by indicating that Raley’s has been known to go above and beyond legal minimum requirements in this area. They are known as a strong, family owned business and, as such, it’s important to them that people see them as appreciative of the role women play in their workplace. They will defend themselves against the charges being brought by the plaintiffs.

Raley’s (also operating under the names Bel Air Markets, Nob Hill Foods and Food Source) operate more than 120 supermarkets in Northern California and Nevada.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status for current/former Raley’s California employees who were denied acceptable accommodations for pregnancy related needs over the past four years.

If you are interested in discussing California laws protecting pregnant women in the workplace, please contact your southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Class Action Lawsuits Over BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Expense Reimbursement

April 23, 2015 - Some are expecting a wave of California employee class action lawsuits to show up any day with demands for expense reimbursement in relation to BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies. Last year a California court ruled that when employees use their personal mobile phone for work (resulting in phone call charges), they must be reimbursed by their employer.

The ruled that when California employees have to use their personal mobile phones for work related purposes, California law (Labor Code section 2802) requires that employers provide reimbursement. The specifics of the employees cell phone plan (unlimited minutes vs. limited minutes) shouldn’t change their right for reimbursement, but reimbursement for BYOD policies should be a reasonable percentage of their total cell phone service bill.

Based on the decision in Araiza v. The Scotts Company, LLC, in which plaintiffs demanding reimbursement for employee business expenses, other employees are starting to file class action lawsuits in California courts seeking similar reimbursement. This isn’t the first time a class action lawsuit has been filed in an attempt to obtain reimbursement for like expenses, but this decision has California employers studying their policies and California workers considering the legality of their own employer’s Bring Your Own Device policies. 

This trial could set in motion a new trend in class action lawsuits. The BYOD discussion lends itself to a number of devices – some are even pointing towards home WiFi. Almost everyone has WiFi in his or her home, but many use it to access their corporate network after hours or simply out of office. Those who see this as an issue limited to California should consider that other states have similar wording and language in their state labor laws. A lot depends on the ruling in this case, but even if it doesn’t end in the plaintiffs’ favor in California, it’s likely that someone else will use what they learned from watching the case play out in California and file a similar suit in another area.

If you are unsure whether or not you should be eligible for a BYOD expense reimbursement from your employer, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Class Action Suit Against DirecTV: Justices Will Need to Decide Whether Customer Agreements Require Court

April 22, 2015 - The Supreme Court took up a class-action lawsuit against DirecTV. The suit was brought in California and calls into question early termination fees for customers who end their service prior to the agreed upon period. In brief order, the justices stated that they would need to come to a decision regarding whether or not the customer agreements between the company and their customers require private arbitration or a group lawsuit/court proceedings. They are determining how best to obtain a resolution to the dispute.

Plaintiffs would prefer a group lawsuit as they feel that conducting private arbitration behind closed doors would leave them at a disadvantage. Plaintiff counsel claims private arbitration is stacked in favor of the companies while businesses claim the process is an effective means by which litigation costs can be controlled and customer disputes can be resolved more efficiently.

In a string of cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress sought to encourage arbitration in passing the Federal Arbitration Act.

DirecTV’s customer contract contains a clause that a California state appeals court stated made the arbitration clause unenforceable, but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco allowed that federal arbitration law enables DirecTV to move the dispute into arbitration.

The case will be heard in the fall of 2015.

For more information on the latest news on southern California class action lawsuits, visit Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik often. For answers to your questions regarding southern California law and filing a class action lawsuit, contact one of our experts today. 

US Class Action over Children’s Online Facebook Purchases

April 21, 2015 - Facebook, Inc. faces a nationwide class action lawsuit that seeks refunds for purchases children made on Facebook social media company’s website without parental permission. San Jose, California’s U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said plaintiffs numbering in the hundreds of thousands should press their claim against Facebook to change their online policy regarding purchases by minors.

The judge also stated that plaintiffs would need to seek individual refunds because any refunds would differ for each case making it impossible to seek group compensation/refunds under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A trial date was set for October 19^th.

Facebook responded to the lawsuit stating that they think the case lacks merit. They will be defending themselves wholeheartedly.

According to details outlined in the 2012 lawsuit against Facebook, the social media site allows minors to use their parents’ credit cards to purchase Facebook Credits (online, virtual currency). When parents complained about the purchases made without their permission, Facebook declined their requests for refunds pointing towards their “all sales are final” policy. The suit claims that this response violates California law. Judge Freeman stated that state law offers protection for parents as children sometimes have a lack of judgment when it comes to purchases. Facebook responds that plaintiff claims are too disparate – that they won’t be addressed by an injunction.

The Facebook Credits previously mentioned were discontinued in 2013. The new system in place is called Facebook Payments. The lawsuit was brought by a set of parents and their children. Many wait to see how the case will end and wonder if there will be a possibility that it will set a precedent regarding the treatment of “minor” members of social media sites.

For additional information on becoming a class member or what warrants a class action lawsuit, contact the experts at southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Class Action: Weitz and Luxenberg vs. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

April 15, 2015 -Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit seeking to make Lumber Liquidators home improvements retailer pay restitution. Consumers who purchased certain brands of laminate flooring discovered later that it was found to emit high levels of formaldehyde – high enough to be potentially dangerous to their health. The class action contains allegations that the Toano, Virginia based home improvements retailer was aware of the problem (that the levels of formaldehyde being emitted were unhealthy and cancer causing) and purposefully concealed the information from consumers in order to continue selling their tainted product.

California air quality standards are the most stringent in the nation. Weitz & Luxenberg claim that Lumber Liquidators went so far as to advise their customers that the laminate flooring’s formaldehyde emissions met those extremely high air quality standards when they did not.

Six plaintiffs were named in the class action filed in Manhattan in federal court. The plaintiffs named were from 3 different states: Texas, New York and New Jersey. The suit seeks financial reimbursement from Lumber Liquidators to provide members of the class who bought the dangerous flooring with a full refund for their purchase price, and associated costs (installation, delivery, removal, etc.) It has also been requested that Lumber Liquidators pay damages (as permitted by the various states) in regards to false advertising and additional violations of a variety of other consumer protection statutes.

The class action lawsuit is a civil litigation device. When compared to criminal law, it’s important to note that civil law deals with private disputes. A private dispute is one in which one party accuses a second party of some type of injury and sues for damages that occurred as a result of that injury. Injury can come in many forms: physical, psychological, emotional, or financial. Class actions are most useful in cases where you alone would be David to the other party’s Goliath. If you alone attempted to sue a major “Goliath” sized company, it would be a painful process with slim chances for success. The class action lawsuit allows all the “Davids” to get together in one suit, which allows them to obtain a “Goliath” size lawyer to fight for their case; drastically increasing the chances for the “everyday Joe’s” chance of success against major corporations and massive organizations.  

If you need additional information on forming a class action lawsuit, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Class Action Lawsuit Claims California Wineries are Lacing Products with Arsenic

April 8, 2015 -Many California wine lovers may be eyeing their favorite local wines with a more suspicious eye after recent accusations that 28 different California wineries are generating arsenic-laced products for the public. The class action lawsuit against the low-cost winemakers was filed earlier this month alleging that they were selling wines containing high levels of a known carcinogen: inorganic arsenic.

This alleged action would be in violation of California state law in which it prohibits knowingly producing, marketing and selling wine contaminated with arsenic. The 28 wineries are also accused of failing to provide consumers with a warning of the potential danger of their products. This is also a violation of California state law.

If you’re wondering if you harbor any of the potential offenders in your own wine collection you may want to be aware of the following brands of wineries included in the lawsuit: Glen Ellen, Beringer, Charles Shaw, and Sutter Home. In the lawsuit, it states that there was an independent testing completed by BeverageGrades out of Denver, Colorado. The lab completed tests for 1,306 different wines with 83 of them with “elevated” arsenic levels. The tests were initially completed in order to determine what the wines were “made of,” but after results were received they could only be described as very disturbing.

The Wine Institute, as a representative of over 1,000 wineries, responded to accusations saying that the allegations were “false and misleading.” They continued their statement to define arsenic as a natural element in the environment all around us: in our air, water, food and soil. Wines, as an agricultural product, will naturally contain trace amounts of arsenic (as do juices, vegetables, grains, etc.) They also stressed that there is no valid research that shows that the trace amounts of arsenic found in agricultural products such as wine pose a health risk for consumers. 

The lawsuit does not request specific financial recompense. Instead it seeks civil penalties and damages. For additional information on southern California class action lawsuits contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.