Uber Facing San Francisco Discrimination Class Action Suit

A recent class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco claims Uber ratings posted by racially biased customers resulted in wrongful terminations.

Former Uber Drivers File Class Action Lawsuit in San Francisco Court:

A group of former Uber ride-share drivers filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco, California court including allegations that the company uses an evaluation system that is heavily influenced by racial and ethnic biases of riders/customers. According to the lawsuit, riders decide to cancel scheduled rides or provide lower ratings/scores based on the race or ethnicity of their driver.

The Uber Rating/Scoring System:

Since a lower score or rating affects a drivers employment and can, in fact, be a significant factor in the driver’s termination from their job, drivers can allegedly be fired because of their race or ethnicity. Plaintiffs claim that Uber has done nothing to correct this glaring issue tying lower scores and more firings due to rider race biases. In response, the plaintiffs turned to the court with a class action lawsuit claiming that firing a worker based on customer or rider ratings is illegal discrimination.

The Plaintiffs in the Case:

Thomas Liu of San Diego is the lead plaintiff in the case. Liu was deactivated as an Uber driver after his score fell below 4.6 (Uber’s minimum rating or standard). Liu is an Asian-American and claims that he experienced hostile behavior from riders due to his accent. Liu claims those hostile passengers gave him low ratings that affected his overall score and eventually endangered his job due to Uber’s standard rating requirements.

Racial Bias a Factor in Uber Transactions Like Tipping:

Many Uber drivers and the massive ride-share company itself, have made note of the racial bias that plays a part in certain aspects of the Uber transaction. One obvious aspect of the overall experience that can be affected is tipping. Overall ratings can also be affected, but they can also be challenged. This is especially true when user comments are being considered.

The class action lawsuit is expected to be heard soon in court.

If you need help with a workplace discrimination claim or other California Labor Code violation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Cigna Faces Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

A California wage and hour class-action lawsuit alleges Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company failed to pay employees accurately. 

Did Cigna Fail to Provide Workers Minimum Wage and Overtime?

According to the wage and hour class action, Cigna violated numerous California Labor code provisions when they allegedly failed to provide accurate pay and overtime pay. California state law protects workers against employers who try to increase profits by underpaying their workers, requiring unpaid work (i.e., mandatory unpaid training, off-the-clock work, etc.), or failing to calculate overtime pay accurately. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed the class action complaint (Case No. 283609) that is now pending in the Tulare Superior Court of the State of California. 

Cigna Allegedly Failed to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages

The class action complaint outlines multiple violations of California Labor Law: 

1. Failure to pay minimum wage

2. Failure to accurately record and provide employees with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

3. Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

4. Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

5. Failure to provide wages to workers when due

Additional Allegations: Did Cigna Commit Acts of Unfair Competition? 

The Cigna class action also alleges that the health and life insurance company committed acts of unfair competition that violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. For example, according to the class action, the company allegedly held a company-wide policy and standard procedure that failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime pay rate for workers. As a direct result of inaccurate overtime pay calculation standards and processes in place at Cigna, the company also allegedly failed to provide accurate overtime pay to workers. 

What Happens When California Employers Violate Labor Law? 

Most California businesses are subject to several regulatory and legal requirements (Federal, state, and local levels). The labor law requirements are designed to protect America’s workers. The state of California takes employment laws seriously, even when complying with the law may be difficult for California employers, so violating labor law can result in severe consequences for California employers.                              

If you need help collecting unpaid overtime, or if you need to file a California overtime pay lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Aldi, Inc. California Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Settlement?

Plaintiffs in a California class action lawsuit claim that a major grocery chain violated employment law. Aldi, Inc., the grocery store chain, offers to resolve the claims through settlement.  

Plaintiffs Allege California Grocery Store Failed to Pay Overtime: 

A recent California class action alleges Aldi, Inc. failed to pay employees for all hours worked. The original Plaintiff in the case, Jeree Grant, filed the class action claiming misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide payment for all hours worked. According to Grant, Aldi employed her to work at one of their grocery stores from October 2017 to May 2018, but she did not receive payment for all the hours she worked. The California class action lawsuit listed other allegations under California labor code, including meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, etc. Aldi has a reputation for being brutally efficient amidst the competition in the California grocery store scene. They draw shoppers with low prices and a minimal $0.25 deposit for grocery cart rentals. Yet shoppers are not aware that a significant portion of the "discount" they enjoy is possible because Aldi management doesn't just keep a "tight" rein on labor costs – their grip far more than "tight." According to the lawsuit, management violates labor law to take advantage of their own workers, adding to their bottom line by taking from those who cannot afford the loss. 

Aldi Grocery Store, Defendant in California Class Action Lawsuit:  

The central claim in the Aldi class action is misclassification under California labor law. Other allegations under the California labor code regarding mandatory meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements follow from the lawsuit's central claim. While the allegations in the class action are fairly simple, the speedy resolution could indicate a more complicated story of worker abuse. Some suspect a widespread problem of systemic misclassification to treat hourly nonexempt workers as if they were managerial staff so the company can avoid paying overtime wages. 

Defendant Offers to Settle with Grocery Workers in Misclassification Case:  

Aldi, the grocery store facing the misclassification allegations, offered to settle with the class of potentially thousands of California workers. The company didn't waste time offering a $2 million settlement. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to your workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Burma Superstar Restaurant Workers Awarded $1.3M in Class Action Suit

Burma Superstar restaurant workers alleging failure to pay overtime and failure to provide required sick leave were awarded a $1.3 million class-action settlement.

Local California Restaurant Accused of Unfair and Unpaid Wages:

Owners of local restaurant chain Burma Superstar (with locations in Oakland, Alameda, and San Francisco) face allegations including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay mandatory overtime, failure to provide sick leave, and failure to provide mandatory rest periods and meal breaks.

Current and Former California Restaurant Workers File Class Action Lawsuit:

The California class action was filed in Alameda County Superior Court. Class members include 350 current and former Burma Superstar kitchen workers. In June 2020, the California judge hearing the case issued a $1.3 million settlement in favor of the plaintiffs. The workers are proud that they stood up for themselves and hope they made some real change. One of the plaintiffs who went on record was William Navarette, a Burma Superstar dishwasher, food preparer, and cook. Navarette was employed by the local California restaurant from 2011 through 2016 and worked at all three locations in San Francisco, Oakland, and Alameda.

Workers Allege California Labor Law Violations:  

According to the lawsuit, workers were required to work full-time hours (8 hours per day and 40 hours per week), but were not classified as full-time employees by Burma Superstar restaurant. Workers also allege that the restaurant did not provide the required 30-minute meal breaks or mandatory 10 minute rest periods as outlined by labor laws. According to the court documents, workers allege they were provided a fixed salary that totaled less than 2x California’s minimum wage.

The Defendant’s Response to the Allegations:  

Burma Superstar owner, Desmond Tan, said the restaurant has always been and continues to be dedicated to the well-being of their workers. They strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and claim they settled the suit to move forward. They’re glad it’s over and can now look forward to doing what they love, providing Bay area residents with the best Burmese cuisine.

The Pandemic Caused Massive Decrease in Traffic:

Before the novel coronavirus was declared a pandemic, the Burma Superstar restaurants typically had lines out the door. Californians happily waited for a table at one of their popular locations. During these challenging times, restaurants like Burma Superstar depend heavily on community support and dedicated employees – restaurant workers are a huge part of any restaurant’s success. In addition to the $1.3 million settlement, Burma Superstar restaurants also agreed to restore tips to their kitchen staff, return back holiday and time-off benefits, and provide Burmese, Spanish, and Chinese translations of their employee handbooks. 

If you have questions about how to identify California labor law violations or if you need to file a class-action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Carter’s Facing California Class Action After Alleged Employment Law Violations

Carter’s Retail, Inc. faces multiple employment law allegations. The plaintiffs filed the California class-action lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court, and the suit is currently pending.

Carter’s Allegedly Violated Employment Law:

Plaintiffs allege that Carter’s Retail, Inc. violated employment law by failing to provide accurate wage statements and failing to provide required meal breaks and rest periods.

Plaintiff Claims Carter’s Did Not Pay for All Hours Worked:

In the case, the plaintiff alleges that Carter’s Retail, Inc. failed to provide accurate pay for all the hours they worked or were “under the Defendant’s control.” The inaccurate calculation of wages for overtime worked is a direct violation of both federal and state employment law. Carter’s Retail, Inc. allegedly failed to conduct accurate wage calculations to unlawfully and unilaterally avoid paying employees overtime compensation they earned. According to labor law, employers must pay employees an overtime wage that is one-and-a-half times their “regular rate of pay” when they work overtime hours. Overtime hours are defined as being more than 8 in one day or more than 40 in one workweek.

Off the Clock Work Allegations Included in Overtime Class Action:

On top of allegations that the company purposefully avoided paying overtime to their employees, the plaintiffs allege that Carter’s Retails, Inc. required them to work “off the clock” or when they were clocked out. The “off the clock work” allegedly occurred during the plaintiff’s off-duty meal break. According to allegations made in the class-action lawsuit, the Defendant also occasionally failed to provide employees with their second meal period – meaning that the employees were required to work 10 hours without the accurate pay or meal breaks. The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order requires employers to pay employees for all time worked.

What is the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order?

The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) was created to monitor and regulate wages, hours, and California working conditions. California employers are required to post IWC wage orders in accessible areas frequented regularly by employees so that all employees have easy access to the information and can easily read it during their workday.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

UPS Employees Allege Employment Law Violations in Recent California Class Action

UPS employees cite various employment law violations in a recent lawsuit. Not the first, but the latest class-action lawsuit filed against UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., this suit claims employees were not paid overtime, did not meet minimum wage requirements, failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods, etc. The lawsuit (Case 3:19-CV-07551-RS) is pending in Riverside County Superior Court. The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of California but was moved to the Northern District of California in November 2019.

California State Labor Law Provides Employees with Protection:

California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked, including all the time that a worker is under the “company’s control.” UPS faces allegations that they failed to compensate their workers in a California warehouse for time spent on mandatory security checks.  

Did Mandatory Security Checks Violate Employment Law?

According to claims in the class action, UPS required warehouse employees to complete security checks on their way into the premises and again on their way out. This occurred when they arrived for the shift, as well as when they came and went for lunch or rest breaks. To complete the security checks, workers had to wait in line for their turn to undergo security screenings. Time spent waiting in line, completing the security screening, and walking to and from the screening area to the time clock was not counted as hours worked, so workers were not compensated for any of the time.

Are Workers Under Employer’s Control During Security Checks?

Class members in the suit argue that the time spent going to and from and completing security checks constitute a type of control the employer held over the workers, and the time should, therefore, be compensated. Lawsuit documents argue that the UPS workers are owed minimum wage (and overtime when applicable) for any hours they spend complying with the UPS security check requirements. As the workers were also under the company’s control for part of their lunch breaks and rest periods, the class members argue that UPS did not comply with the law by relieving employees of “all duties” during their legally mandated breaks. Due to time spent completing the mandatory security checks, employees’ meal breaks were shortened to less than the legally required 30-minute meal break and 10 minute rest periods defined by state law. The lawsuit seeks an hour’s worth of pay at the employees’ regular rates of pay for each non-compliant meal break or rest period. 

Is UPS Violating Federal and State Labor Laws?

Seasonal workers on the east coast accused UPS Inc. of federal and state labor law violations in a suit filed in New York federal court. The temporary or seasonal workers, Lalynda Hedges and Zyaire Simmons, worked at New York UPS facilities during the peak season, October 2018 – January 2019. They allege UPS violated labor law by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, etc.

If you need to discuss employment law violations or if you need to file an overtime or wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Chipotle Workers Denied Class Action Certification

California Chipotle workers were recently denied certification of a potential class action. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California explained that at the class certification stage, it isn’t enough to assert that there were company-wide policies. The plaintiffs must prove that the alleged policies exist on a “company-wide basis.”

About the Discrimination Case: Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

The plaintiffs brought the class-action lawsuit alleging that Chipotle systematically discriminated against Hispanic or Mexican workers with claims under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). Plaintiffs in the case sought class certification with a proposed class of about 43,000 workers (mostly Hispanic or Mexican hourly workers). The suit alleged numerous discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims based on two alleged Chipotle policies:

What Chipotle Policies Led to the Discrimination Suit?

English-Only Policy: Plaintiffs in the case alleged there was an unwritten policy that prohibited Chipotle employees from speaking Spanish on the job.

Promotion Policy: The plaintiffs in the case also alleged that an unwritten Chipotle policy required a subjective English proficiency before a Chipotle employee could be promoted to a management position.

Were Alleged Unwritten Policies Company-Wide?

The plaintiff employees alleged that the unwritten policies applied at all California Chipotle locations (approximately 400 across the state). The Defendant argued that there was a lack of evidence demonstrating this claim. Additionally, Chipotle argued that even if the unwritten policies did exist and were company-wide, claims would require individualized inquiries into the company policies, including the alleged decision-making by supervisors determining promotion, etc. at individual restaurants. The court’s response to the request for class certification was that when considering class certification, the court cannot accept the Plaintiffs’ theory of the case at face value, but must instead engage in rigorous analysis to determine whether or not Rule 23 is satisfied. In some cases, this analysis overlaps with the merits of the dispute.

Did Plaintiff Employee’s Evidence Rebut Their Own Argument?

The court also stated that the plaintiff’s evidence offered in support of their argument actually rebuts the inference that Chipotle uniformly imposed the named policies across all their California locations. When examining 12 declarants, the court received differing responses. Half the declarants did not experience the alleged English-only policy. Some who claimed they experienced the alleged English-only policy were permitted to speak Spanish among themselves at work. The declarant testimonies led the court to conclude that there was no evidence of a “company-wide” English-only policy applicable across the entire proposed class.

The plaintiffs and declarants also experienced different policies and requirements for promotion, depending on their location and their supervisor. One declarant asserted they did not experience the alleged promotion policy at all. Some “similar” experiences were noted, but those employees worked in the same store under the same general manager. Testimonies on record indicated that four of the 400 California Chipotle locations had employees who were told at varying times that promotion depended on improving their English proficiency. Based on testimonies offered, the court concluded that, in regards to the unwritten promotion policy, the evidence did not suggest a uniform, “company-wide” policy applicable to all class members.

Without a common question of law or fact, class certification is not appropriate since the suit would not be resolved efficiently in a single proceeding. Due to these facts and findings, the court denied class certification. This action is a reminder to California employees that class action certification requires proof of the existence of a uniform policy – especially when allegations are based on unwritten policies.

If you are experiencing discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.