Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement for OneStaff Overtime Class Action

Parties in the Madison v. OneStaff Medical overtime class action negotiated a settlement agreement and received preliminary approval from the court.

The Case: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

The Court: United States District Court Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01384-AWI-JLT

The Plaintiff: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

The plaintiff, Pamela Madison, filed a complaint on September 30, 2020 asserting three putative claims under California law: failure to pay overtime, unfair business practices, and waiting time penalties. The complaint also included a putative collection claim under FLSA. The claims were all founded on the defendant’s alleged exclusion of per diem and allowance payments from Travelers’ overtime wages. Madison sought to represent a class of Travelers employed by the defendant in California as far back as September 30, 2016 who received hourly per diems, housing allowances, and/or travel allowances. Madison also sought to represent a collective of Travelers falling under the same definition.

The Defendant: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

OneStaff assigns hourly healthcare workers short term travel assignments at various medical facilities, hospitals, and clinics. The Plaintiff was employed as a OneStaff Traveler in Bakersfield, California from Sept. 2019 through December 2019.

More About the Case: Madison v. OneStaff Medical LLC

On February 28, 2021, the Court stayed the case to allow parties to explore possibilities of early settlement. The parties engaged in mediation on April 15, 2021, ultimately agreeing on the principal terms of settlement. On May 26, 2021, after additional negotiations were completed, the parties finalized a settlement agreement providing a maximum recovery of $525,000. The plaintiff in the case sought preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached with OneStaff Medical Limited Liability. After considering the proposed settlement and the proposed class notice, documents, issued findings, and recommendations, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The proposed settlement was approved on a preliminary basis as fair and adequate, and Pamela Madison was appointed representative for the class. The final approval and fairness hearing is set for October 18, 2021.

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

Trulieve Workers & Applicants Granted Class Certification

Logan Lyttle filed a class action lawsuit against Trulieve after the company rescinded a job offer based on a background check and sought class certification. After considering oral arguments from both parties, the Court decided to grant-in-part and deny-in-part the plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.

The Case: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:19-cv-2313-CEH-TGW

The Plaintiff: Lyttle v. Trulieve

Lyttle, the plaintiff in the case, alleged in the class action suit that the defendant took adverse action against both employees and applicants based on background checks, and that their methods violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Lyttle claims he applied for a job with Trulieve and was given a conditional job offer, but that the job offer was later rescinded based on the contents of Lyttle’s “consumer report” or a background check. Prior to rescinding Lyttle’s job offer, Trulieve allegedly failed to provide notice of their intent to rescind, a copy of the report they based their action on, or a summary of the applicant’s rights under FCRA.

The Defendant: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The Defendant, Trulieve, is a cannabis company. Allegedly, Trulieve admitted that the denial of employment based on Lyttle’s consumer report was a mistake.

Details in the Case: Lyttle v. Trulieve

The FCRA § 1681b(b)(3)(A) states that when using a consumer report (aka background check) for “employment purposes, before taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person intending to take adverse action shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a copy of the document “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” prescribed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).” Lyttle attests that if he had been offered the required adverse action notice, a copy of the report, and a summary of his rights under FCRA, he could have offered clarification, and the error could have been avoided. However, since the defendant allegedly offered no notice of adverse action and did not provide a copy of the report or the applicant’s FCRA rights, Lyttle did not have the chance. Instead he brought a claim against the defendant under the FCRA. On August 13, 2021, the US District Court, Middle Dist. of Florida certified an “Adverse Action Class” in the class action suit. According to court documents, Trulieve settled the class action lawsuit for an undisclosed amount.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or filing an adverse action class action, 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.

Ladies Win Class Action Status in the Google Gender Pay Disparity Suit

In recent news, a class of 10,800 women win class action status in the gender pay disparity suit against Google.

The Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court, San Francisco County

The Case No.: CGC-17-561299

The Plaintiff: Ellis v. Google Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, almost 11,000 women, filed the lawsuit claiming that Google pays men more than women for doing the same job. Four lead plaintiffs will represent the women in the class group over claims of gender-based pay discrimination. The plaintiffs allege violations of California’s Equal Pay Act, which is one of the strongest measures of its kind in the country.

The Defendant: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Alphabet Inc.’s Google failed to persuade the judge in the case to block class-action status for the gender-pay disparity lawsuit. Google claims that they conducted an analysis for the last several years designed to ensure pay, bonuses and equity awards are fair. The company claims that when they discover differences in pay, including gender-based disparities, they make adjustments; increasing pay to remove the disparities before new compensation goes into effect.

The History of the Case: Ellis v. Google Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case seek more than $600 million in damages. Women at various tech companies have turned to the courts to seek equal pay and treatment at work, but have had difficulty gaining traction. Other gender disparity lawsuits on behalf of women workers in other industries (retail, finance, etc.) have seen similar results. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked 1.5 million women that worked at Walmart Inc. from pursuing discrimination clams as a class, which set the bar fairly high.

Similar Cases In a Number of Industries:

Oracle Corp. faced similar allegations last year and saw a similar ruling.

Twitter Inc. faced a lawsuit from their female engineers, but the plaintiffs were not granted class action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

Microsoft Corp. also faced claims of gender-bias, but the plaintiffs failed to win class-action status. The ruling was upheld on appeal.

If you have questions regarding employment law and how it protects California employees from gender discrimation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Plaintiffs in Minted Hacking Class Action Request Preliminary $5M Settlement Approval

Atkinson and Renvall, plaintiffs in the Minted hacking class action file a motion for preliminary settlement approval.

Details of the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-03869-VC

Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc. : The Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in the case are Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall. The two plaintiffs filed individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs began investigating a cybersecurity incident in May 2020. The incident involved Minted, and a hacking group called the Shiny Hunters.

The Allegations: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

In June 2021, the plaintiffs filed claims alleging millions of customer records from Minted’s user account database were breached by Shiny Hunters in a May 6, 2020 incident. According to the suit, the cyberattack resulted in the theft of approximately 4.1 million customers’ personal info. When no response was received in response to the CCPA letter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to seek statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Resolving the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

After a contentious dispute over arbitration discovery, some exchange of information, and deposition prep, the two parties agreed to engage in meditation. A tentative agreement was reached during meditation in early January 2021, but three months went by before sufficient information was gathered regarding the breach, the Defendant’s financial statements, etc. and the parties agreed to settlement terms to resolve litigation. On April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs and Minted finally reached a Settlement Agreement. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, Minted will establish a $5,000,000 settlement fund and implement several changes in their standard business practices that enhance security and protect user information.

Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.: The Proposed Settlement

The comprehensive settlement guarantees relief for all the Settlement Class Members (both monetary and through mandatory data security changes). The proposed settlement establishes a non-reversionary $5 million fund that will provide relief for participating class members. Class members should receive an estimated $43 payment, 2 years of credit monitoring, and personal identity restoration services. Some class members may also be eligible for fraud resolution assistance.

If you need to discuss California state law 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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Popular Online Art Sourcing Company, Minted Faces Major Class Action

Atkinson and Renvall, plaintiffs in the case, brought a class action against Minted, a popular online marketplace for crowd-sourced home decor, invitations, and stationery. The plaintiffs in the case filed individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals.

Details of the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-03869-VC

Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted: The Plaintiffs in the Case

Plaintiffs Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall filed individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated people.

Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted: The Defendant in the Case

Minted, a massive online marketplace, takes submissions from independent artists, allows the entire Minted online community to vote on submissions, and winning submissions are offered for sale on the site. Products vary from home decor to stationery. While the company is built on a crowd-sourcing business model, it is not a small business. According to an Inc. Magazine feature published in 2019, Minted employs between 400-800 people and generates hundreds of millions of dollars in sales annually. In order to purchase from Minted, customers are required to create user profiles using their personally identifiable information (including first and last name, email, home address, phone, credit card information, and password). Customers are assured that their personal information will be securely maintained in Minted’s Privacy Policy.

Overview of the Case: Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted

A computer hacking group that uses the name Shiny Hunters (a reference to the popular PokemonGo game) allegedly burst onto the dark web scene on May 6, 2020 attempting to sell over 73.2 million records. The records contained personally identifiable info from eleven different company’s user databases (one of these eleven companies was Minted). In a notice to affected customers, Minted stated that they became aware of the data breach through a public report listing them as one of several companies impacted by a cybersecurity incident. Almost two weeks later, or three weeks after the data breach, Minted reached out to affected customers again to notify them that their PII has been disclosed to unauthorized or malicious parties. Minted acknowledged that certain information was accessed by third parties including name, email address, hashed passwords, and in some cases phone numbers, billing addresses, and shipping addresses. However, Minted claims they do not have any reason to believe payment information, address book inf, photos, or personalized information was disclosed. No information regarding why they believe this info was not included in the breach was provided.

If you need to discuss violations of California state law or if you need to file a California 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.

Delta Argues for Rehearing of California Wage Violation Class Action

Delta Airlines argues that the full Ninth Circuit should rehear their appeal regarding a proposed California wage violation class action. Delta argues for the rehearing claiming that the panel misapplied federal law intended to stop state laws from creating an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Details of the Case: Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 17-15124

Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.: The Plaintiff

The proposed class action was filed in 2015 by Dev Oman on behalf of flight attendants. Later Todd Eichmann, Flores and Lehr joined the lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the case claimed that Delta shorted their flight crew workers on pay and violated wage statement and timekeeping requirements as stated in employment law.

Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.: The Defendant

According to Delta, Michael Lehr, one of the flight attendants who brought the suit, spent 94% of time during one pay period working outside California. And another named flight attendant, Albert Flores, spent 94% of his time working outside of California. In this case, Delta questions whether applying California state employment law is an undue burden on interstate commerce and if permitting California to apply its laws beyond its borders violates the dormant commerce clause.

Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.: An Overview

In 2017,summary judgment was granted in favor of Delta by the district court. The district court’s findings were based on the statements regarding the flight attendant’s spending most of their work hours in federal airspace - not California, so it did not matter if Delta failed to comply with California wage statement requirements since they would be subject to federal law, not California law. The plaintiffs appealed. In June 2020, the California Supreme Court responded to questions from the Ninth Circuit regarding the case stating that workers were entitled to California wage and hour protections if California served as the base of their “work operations” (even if most of their time on the job was out of state). In February 2021, the panel ruled that the commerce clause did not bar California rules from applying, and in so doing, reversed the district court’s summary judgement in favor of the airlines. Delta petitioned for a rehearing in March 2021 arguing that the Ninth Circuit received bad guidance from the California Supreme Court.

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file wage and hour claims, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can Geico Employees Keep their Wage Suit Alive?

In recent news, Geico attempted to have an overtime pay lawsuit tossed, but in this instance, auto claim adjusters alleging the company forced workers to work off the clock, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods as required by law.

Details of the Case: Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:20-cv-11722

Workers Filed a Collective and Class Action:

In December 2020, workers filed a collective and class action alleging Geico employees were required to work off the clock, and work through breaks without appropriate compensation. The push to work through breaks and off the clock was allegedly a company effort to meet inspection quotas and employees claim they feared refusing could result in poor performance evaluations. Plaintiffs Alexander Rieske and Saul Gonzalez filed the suit alleging violations of California and New York state laws, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the motion, thirteen other adjusters have already joined the plaintiffs.

Defendant Files a Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Jurisdiction:

In March 2021, Geico filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that there was no practical reason to litigate out-of-state claims in California and indicating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims in the case. In their opposition filing, plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court decision the insurer relied on to push for dismissal of the nationwide collective action (and the New York state class action) doesn’t apply because unlike the Supreme Court case, Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. involves federal claims brought in federal court.

Does the 2017 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Decision Apply?

When filing for dismissal, Geico cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. However, plaintiffs in the suit claim this decision does not apply to the current case since Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court pertained to state jurisdiction finding that California state courts could not adjudicate mass tort claims when plaintiffs were not from California. The Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. action is different because it concerns federal claims in federal court. Plaintiffs further argued that if the court accepted the position presented by Geico that federal courts cannot hear out-of-state claims brought under FLSA, it would effectively eliminate the collective nature of the FLSA.

California Federal Court Finds Bristol-Myers Decision Does Not Apply:

In October 2020, the California federal court’s decision stated that the Bristol-Meyers decision does not apply to FLSA claims brought in federal court (including the current action).

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file FLSA claims, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.