Victims of Thomas Fire in California File Class Action Lawsuit Against California Utility

Nine plaintiffs allege that Southern California Edison, a Southern California utility company, sparked the biggest wildfire the state has seen in modern history. The joint suit cited negligence in regard to the fire ignited on the evening of December 6th, 2017.

The plaintiffs claim that if the utility company had behaved in a responsible manner, the Thomas Fire could possibly have been prevented. According to the lawsuit, negligence was apparent when the company performed construction near a facility without necessary safety precautions and in an unsafe manner that resulted in nearby vegetation catching fire. It was also noted that the company failed to maintain its facilities (both overhead electric and communications) in a safe manner and that Southern California Edison did not remove trees and/or vegetation that was encroaching on space surrounding utility poles.

The lawsuit also lists two other Defendants: Ventura City and the Casitas Municipal Water District citing their failure to have functioning generators available when they were needed that would have been able to help with water pressure during the fire.

The Thomas Fire left destruction in its wake. 242,000 acres were burned through. More than 1,000 structures of various sizes and purposes were destroyed or left with extensive fire damage. And thousands and firefighters and countless resources were required to extinguish the flames. The Thomas wildfire left more than 100,000 Californians displaced – their homes either destroyed or unlivable.

One major problem during the fight to extinguish the fire was a lack of water pressure being supplied to fire hydrants located in hillside neighborhoods and canyons of Ventura. Plaintiffs find it shocking that the City of Ventura failed to have a working backup generator on hand when it was desperately needed.

The utility company declined to comment on the pending lawsuit as the Cal Fire investigation is currently in progress. Ventura City’s Water General Manager expressed his sympathy for those who lost their homes and/or were displaced by the Thomas Fire and added that the city doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but that they did commend both the firefighters and Ventura Water crews for their response during the emergency.

The Municipal Water District also declined to comment citing the pending nature of the litigation. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

If you have questions regarding corporate liability, or filing a class action lawsuit in California, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Walmart Class Action Suit: Cashiers Allege Retail Giant Knows Seating is Feasible

In early January 2018, the 80,000 member class of Walmart cashiers alleging that the big box store was in violation of state law due to the failure to provide them with seating on the job made the notable claim that when the company provided seats to cashiers with disabilities, they conceded that seating for cashiers was feasible. This claim that the company has already (through their actions towards cashiers with disabilities) acknowledged that the work of a Walmart cashier permits seating was made in California federal court in support of allegations in their suit.

The class argued that in light of last year’s California Supreme Court ruling that companies are required to provide seats if the work can be done sitting down, the big box store’s obvious acknowledgement that the work can be completed while sitting leaves them with no excuse for not allowing all their cashiers to sit.

When determining how best to accommodate cashiers with disabilities, both Walmart’s safety and compliance department and Walmart’s own Americans with Disabilities Act experts tested and later approved ergonomic reaches and ranges of motion relevant to the work of a seated cashier stationed in the ADA check-out lanes. Walmart chose the specific seat to be offered to disabled cashiers themselves in order to ensure that the situation would be acceptable for both the company’s findings regarding required work and situational necessities.

The action was originally launched by Lead Plaintiff and former cashier, Kathy Williamson, in the Superior Court for Alameda County in summer of 2009. It was moved to federal court at a later date. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila granted the motion to certify class in 2012, finding that there was a common nature of work amongst the California Walmart cashiers. He also concluded that a trier of common facts could pinpoint exactly what designated tasks could be performed while cashiers were seated.

The Defendant appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the decision in June. This was just two months after the state Supreme Court defined the state’s seating rule in the Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. decision. In this decision, the court determined that employees must be provided with seats if the work they are completing can be done in a seated position even if they aren’t performing the same task all day long. The class of Walmart cashiers argued that the Kilby decision controlled the case and that Walmart has shown on numerous occasions that being seated would not prevent their cashiers from performing their duties (i.e. Walmart productivity study, and study on negative perception in 2007). The case is scheduled to go to trial in fall 2018.

If you have questions about class action lawsuits or if you feel unfairly treated in the workplace, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP to discuss potential violations.

Young California Startup Logging its 3rd Class Action Lawsuit

A San Francisco, California startup in its early years is logging its third lawsuit. The shopping service, particularly popular with busy, urban professionals, has been repeatedly vilified by some of its own service workers. The company is planning to finalize a $4.6 million settlement in January 2018 to resolve the issues. The California class action overtime lawsuit was filed by employees and independent contractors of Maplebear Inc. (dba Instacart). 

The proposed settlement will resolve issues for which plaintiffs seek resolution including angst over numerous allegations. 

Allegations Made by Plaintiffs Against Maplebear, Inc. (dba Instacart):

• Service Fee Assumed by Consumers to be a Built-In Tip for Drivers
• Workers Collecting Earnings Translating to as Low as $1 Per Hour

Many users of the Instacart service assumed the service fee automatically added to their orders was a built-in tip for drivers, but it wasn’t. Some Instacart workers collected earnings that, after all was said and done, translated to a measly $1/hour. An amount that falls far short of legal minimum wage requirements per laws recognized by the State of California, as well as potential violations of federal overtime laws. 

Instacart was started by Apoorva Mehta, a Canadian and alma mater of the University of Waterloo who spent years working for tech companies such as Blackberry, Qualcomm and Amazon.com before deciding to move on and try his luck at start ups. Instacart was his 21st startup idea. It was aimed at busy, tech-savvy professionals that would benefit from an on-demand grocery shopping platform. The idea quickly gained traction. Orders were placed through the app in a similar fashion to order a car on Uber or Lyft. Instacart had both employees and independent contractors working as “shoppers” who filled orders and delivered them to customers. 

In 2015, Instacart was hit by a class action lawsuit due to misclassification of workers. Eventually, Instacart converted its workforce making most of their shoppers part-time employees with a small number qualifying for benefits. As of today, the startup has 300 full-time employees and tens of thousands of part-time shoppers. 

The company was hit by another class action in 2016, Husting et al. v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart. 

In February of 2017, the company faced another class action lawsuit due to alleged wage and hour violations. 

If you have questions about how to file a class action lawsuit or if you aren’t sure if you qualify for class certification, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Avis: FCRA Background Check Suit Ends in $2.7Million Deal

Avis, popular car rental company, recently agreed to pay out $2.7 million to resolve a FCRA background check lawsuit. According to the suit, Avis improperly acquired and used background checks in order to reject job applications. 

Angela Fuller, plaintiff, originally sought to certify a settlement class of approximately 45,000 people. Fuller now urges the court to grant final approval to the settlement deal, as she believes it is fair to all class members. Separately, Fuller’s lawyers sought $891,000 to cover fees and expenses (1/3 of the total $2.7 million proposed settlement). The final approval hearing will take place on November 28, 2017. 

Fuller originally sued Avis in June 2015. She claimed the company denied her a rental sales position in 2013 because they ran a background check that violated FCRA requirements. Fuller claims that Avis did not appropriately disclose in a form designated for that purpose alone that they might run a background check and access Fuller’s consumer report. Fuller also claims that the company did not provide her with a pre-adverse action notice alongside a copy of the report used to make the decision and a written description of her FCRA rights before they rejected her job application on the basis of her background check. 

The report used during Fuller’s job application process at Avis showed that she had received a $40 ticket for drinking a malt beverage as a vehicle passenger in 1985 in the state of North Carolina. In the complaint filed by Fuller, she states the reported information was incorrect as the ticket was only an infraction, not a conviction. According to FCRA, only convictions can be reported more than seven years after the incident. 

The proposed settlement was initially submitted for approval in March. It was granted preliminary approval at the end of July. According to the terms of the settlement, class members will receive cash payments or other compensation depending on which “group” they are in. The agreement will also offer relief to individuals whose claims against Avis rental company lay outside the FCRA’s two-year statute of limitations. 

A substantial portion of the funds would be paid to anyone who was the subject of a consumer report pulled by Avis to be used during the job application process or for other employment reasons between June 9th, 2013 and April 28, 2016 through a form similar to the one used by Fuller. This group is referred to as the “2-Year Inadequate Disclosure Group.” Members in this group number over 21,000 and would each receive a $45 payment for a total of $968,000. 

The second group will receive the largest individual payments. This group of 590 people was subject to a background report pulled by Avis to whom Sterling was advised to provide a pre-adverse action notice on the part of Avis between June 9, 2013 and April 28, 2016. Each will receive $45 for being a part of the first group as well as an additional $650. 

Other members of the class number about 25,000 people that were all the subject of a consumer report pulled by Avis between June 9, 2010 and June 8, 2013. 601 in this group were also supposed to receive a pre-adverse action notice from Sterling on Avis’ behalf during the same time frame. These claims are similar to Fuller’s but are outside the FCRA’s statute of limitations. All members with claims falling outside the statute of limitations will receive a $20 voucher to apply toward a weekday car rental at Avis. 

Fuller requested an additional $15,000 award for her services as the class representative.

If you have questions about background checks during the employment process or the statute of limitations for claims, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Lamar Dawson’s Lawsuit Against the NCAA, Pac-12 is Dismissed

Lamar Dawson, ex-USC football player, filed a California lawsuit against the NCAA and Pac-12 that was dismissed earlier this month by a federal judge, Judge Richard Seeborg. Dawson’s class action was filed in September 2016 seeking minimum wage and overtime pay as well as additional compensation as a result of alleged NCAA and Pac-12 Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code violations.

Lamar Dawson started out at USC as a linebacker his freshman year in 2011, but was injured. His injuries disrupted his football career and he lost his shot at the NFL – mostly due to a torn ACL that occurred in 2013. He redshirted in 2014 and played in 8 games throughout the 2015 season, finishing with 31 tackles.

This decision to dismiss was reminiscent of a similar case last year involving former track and field athletes from the University of Pennsylvania. The three-judge panel in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in that case ruled former student-athletes at NCAA Division I schools are not technically considered employees under the rules set down by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dawson contended during the course of the case that his specific situation was different than the case of University of Pennsylvania’s track and field athletes because football is a revenue-generating sport (in comparison to track). The judge ruled that revenue generation as a determination of employment status is not supported legally. Seeborg set aside the policy question of how Division I FBS college football players should be compensated for what he considered a more fundamental issue determining the direction of the case and his eventual ruling: legal basis for finding them employees under the FLSA. He found none.

The NCAA and Pac-12 were not surprised by the ruling. Both had previously stated similar opinions regarding the validity of Dawson’s claim dating back to the original filing. The NCAA is pleased with the outcome and reiterated their stance that there is no legal support for college athletics participation constituting “employment” with the university. They went on to specify that playing college sports is an opportunity for students to obtain a quality education and build skills that prepare them for educational success at the college level. They concluded their thoughts on the matter by regretting the wasted funds and resources that are spent on cases such as this that will eventually be dismissed. The Pac-12 was also pleased with the ruling finding that it reaffirmed their conviction that college athletes are students – not employees.

If you have questions regarding employment status or whether or not you are misclassified on the job, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Teamsters Object to $27 Million Lyft Deal, but are Rejected

Katie when teamsters’ objected to the proposed $27 million settlement between Lyft and the class of 163,000 California drivers, their objection was rejected by a federal judge. But the same judge also delayed finalizing the proposed deal.

The case has been all over the news and many have heard bits and pieces as the proceedings proceed. To recap, the Uber Lyft Teamsters Ride Share Alliance (known as ULTRA) filed a brief opposing the deal in October. Claims were made that the proposed settlement fails to adequately compensate full-time drivers and also forces workers to waive their right to sue the company due to Fair Labor Standards Act violations. During settlement approval, the U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria appeared to become frustrated when the objecting attorney did not provide specific information supporting his argument that the deal should be rejected. The attorney argued that doubling compensation for individuals who driver 30+ hours per week for Lyft was not adequate because that would leave part-time drivers with a fairly high compensation for their work in comparison to full-time drivers. Yet could not tell the judge what he suggested an appropriate multiplier should be for full-time workers.

A similar argument occurred when the attorney suggested more data would be necessary in order to come up with such a number and the judge asked what data was necessary only to have the attorney unable to say precisely what data he would need to calculate the needed number.   

Other issues discussed during the proceedings were: the settlement provision shielding Lyft from lawsuits over alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and the workers’ right to opt in to waive their rights to sue, the addition of the condition post- Cotter v. Lyft suit, and appropriate (and timely) notification to workers of the settlement terms and their rights to opt out or object to the deal, the inability to access the actual text of the agreement online, and adequate time for class members to object to the motion for attorneys’ fees (13.6% or $3.67 million in fees), objections regarding Lyft policy and procedure being inadequate in the case of a deaf driver,

According to attorney for the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against Lyft, 84,000 drivers (or 51% of the class) have filed claims for reimbursement so far. As of mid-November, attorneys estimated that drivers who drove over 2,000 hours for the rideshare service since May 2012 should receive distributions of about $11,000 for vehicle expenses reimbursement and unpaid overtime wages. As part of the settlement, drivers would agree to waive their claims that Lyft misclassified them as independent contractors in order to be denied employment benefits. Drivers may continue to submit claims for a portion of the settlement up until the first distribution is allocated to drivers in the class, which should occur about six months after final approval of the settlement is granted by the judge.

For additional information about overtime pay, overtime pay violations or class action certification, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Samsung Advices New Galaxy Note 7 Owners to Turn Phones Off Immediately

If you are the proud owner of a new Samsung Galaxy Note 7, Samsung needs you to turn it off immediately. The alert was issued soon after release of the highly anticipated new smart phone when it became clear that there was an identifiable trend of the product spontaneously catching fire. The alert came directly after Samsung halted all production of the devices now best known for their dangerous glitches.

Samsung made an official corporate statement on the issue, assuring the media and the public that it was also planning to request that all carriers and retail partners worldwide to stop sales and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 immediately to allow Samsung time to investigate the problem. They also made it very clear in their public statement that any consumers who own the original Galaxy Note 7 or the replacement Galaxy Note 7 devices should turn them off and stop using them immediately.

In response to the situation, the company’s stock dropped more than 5% after the announcement.

The product, 5.7 inch Galaxy Note 7, was released by Samsung in August 2016 as an anticipatory move due to Apple’s impending release of the new iPhone 7 in the fall. Yet almost immediately after the exciting new product was launched, reports of phones catching on fire started to circulate. The company has indicated that faulty lithium-ion batteries were overheating and causing the devices to ignite. As of early September 2016, Samsung had recalled millions of devices across the world. When Samsung offered replacement phones, they started to spontaneously combust as well. One user reported that his replacement device caught fire and it wasn’t even plugged in. Another device began to smoke while aboard a Southwest Airline plan prior to departure resulting in the cancellation of the flight. (This incident is still being investigated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Samsung users were advised to stop using the power down their Original Note 7 phones in early September, but after the increasing incidents, Samsung is now issuing similar warnings regarding the replacement devices that were supposed to act as a solution to the problem.

According to the U.S. Federal Regulators, Samsung users affected by this problem are entitled to a full refund.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the safety of your Samsung Note 7 or if you have similar concerns regarding another product and need to discuss your legal options, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.