Merrill Settles Employee Misclassification Collective Action for $3.4M

In recent news, Merrill settled an employee misclassification collection action for $3.4 million.

The Case: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The Court: Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida

The Case No.: 50-2022-CA-007445-XXXX-MB

The Plaintiff: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The plaintiffs in the case filed a collective action on behalf of Financial Solutions Advisors employed by Merrill between Aug. 3, 2020, and Aug. 10, 2022. The class action lawsuit alleged the company misclassified an entire class of employees as exempt from overtime laws, which resulted in lost wages. In the case, the plaintiffs claim the defendant encouraged their FSA employees to work over 40 hours per week but did not pay them the overtime pay they earned. They allegedly enacted a company-wide policy that classified all Merrill FSAs as exempt from federal overtime protections. The plaintiffs claim the defendant willfully misclassified FSAs as exempt, failed to record the time the FSAs worked, and failed to pay FSAs proper overtime wages as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

According to the class action, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith is one of the world's largest banks and brokerage firms. Also known simply as Merrill, the group is the investment and wealth management division of the well-known financial institution Bank of America. Merrill denies it violated the law and that FSAs were compensated correctly.

The Case: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

Employee misclassification is common in today's workplaces, and rules about who is exempt or non-exempt and what types of work are eligible for overtime can vary depending on state laws. Merrill set up a fund of $3.4 million to resolve the misclassification and overtime class action. The $3.4 million settles the collective action lawsuit alleging the company violated the FLSA. The amount each class member receives is based on the number of weeks the employee worked during the applicable time period. Once a class member becomes part of the collective action in Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, they cannot sue Merrill for any claims relating to the lawsuit. Merrill denies the alleged employment law violations, stating that the settlement agreement avoids additional litigation expenses.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced class action attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.8M Settlement Could Resolve Background Checks FCRA Class Action Claims

G4S Secure Solutions recently agreed to a settlement totaling almost $1.8 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming they violated federal law with unfair background checks.

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The Court: Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida

The Case No.: 21-ca-005587

The Plaintiff: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Lonita Johnson, claims G4S Secure Solutions violated federal law with its employee applicant background checks. According to the court documents, the plaintiff alleges that while the company used a background check form when obtaining background checks, it did not comply with disclosures and other requirements under the federal FCRA.

The Defendant: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The defendant, G4S Secure Solutions, is a part of G4S Global. The company offers security services, cash solutions, consulting services, and care and justice services around the globe. Consider a few examples of the type of professional services the company provides:

• Estonia border security

• A Turkish bank's security upgrade

• Creating a safety standard for a European car manufacturer

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

Under FCRA, employees and job applicants are guaranteed certain rights. The FCRA holds employers to several standards when requesting, running, or taking employment action based on background checks. Employers must obtain written permission before running a background check and include disclosures in compliance with FCRA requirements. Employers/prospective employers are also limited in what they can ask about a job applicant or employee's background. According to the lawsuit, Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., G4S Secure Solutions violated these and other FCRA requirements when they requested and ran background checks on employees and applicants. G4S Secure Solutions did not admit any wrongdoing, but they did agree to resolve the allegations with a class action lawsuit settlement of $1,758,625. The settlement benefits G4S Secure Solutions employees and applicants to whom the company provided an FCRA disclosure and authorization fund since July 21st, 2019. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for the proposed settlement for Sept. 28th, 2022.

If you have questions about FCRA background check violations or need help filing a California employment law complaint, please contact 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.

Costco $3.2M ERISA Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval

On July 18th, 2022, the court granted final approval to the $3.2 million settlement agreement parties reached in March 2022 to resolve class action allegations. The class action alleged that Costco mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-00937

The Plaintiff: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Soulek, filed the class action on behalf of plan participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees of the Costco 401(k) Retirement Plan. Eligible class members are retirement plan account participants as of the class certification date or participants who had a plan account on or after the last business day of a month on or after May 30th, 2014, with an account balance of $1,000 or more for at least 12 months beginning during the class period. The class period is from May 30th, 2014, through March 17th, 2022. The plaintiff's class action accused Costco of mismanagement resulting in the 401(k) plan incurring administrative and investment management fees that were higher than necessary.

The Defendant: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The defendant in the case, Costco, is a sizeable membership-based chain of wholesale stores that sell various products (groceries, electronics, pet products, household goods, basic office supplies, and more). According to the company's website, the chain's membership is currently at more than a million members (or shoppers).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

In March 2022, the parties involved in the case, Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., reached a $3.2 million class action lawsuit settlement agreement to resolve claims that the company mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Costco denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to the settlement to resolve the class action ERISA claims. The Court granted the settlement final approval on July 18th, 2022. Under the terms of the Costco 401(k) settlement agreement, the company agreed that current plan participants would be eligible for an administrative fee reduction, with a maximum total value of $3.2 million. Former plan participants and current eligible participants (those who cease having a plan account by the settlement's effective date) can claim payment through the settlement agreement. Settlement payments to former plan participants are calculated on the number of quarters their plan account balance exceeded $1,000 during the class period. The amount is determined based on an allocation plan included in the settlement agreement.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an ERISA lawsuit, please contact 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.

First Advantage Agrees to a Settlement to Resolve Class Action Alleging Unauthorized Background Checks

First Advantage recently agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement. The settlement will resolve claims that First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)).

The Case: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty

The Case No.: CGC-17-560531

The Plaintiff: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks without obtaining prior authorization from consumers (which is required by law). Class members in the case include any consumers with a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization that was offered to a prospective employer between Aug. 17th, 2012, and Nov. 20th, 2020. According to the plaintiffs in the case, the background check company failed to secure prior consumer authorization as required by the FCRA.

The Defendant: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The Defendant in the case, First Advantage, is a background check company that provides services to employers when guiding job applicants through their hiring process. Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. is the second legal action First Advantage faces claiming the company routinely flouted federal law by running background checks on job applicants without first obtaining consent as required by law.

Details of the Case: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The FCRA was created to protect consumers by regulating the information collected (and distributed) by credit reporting bureaus. When companies request or run a background check on an employee or job applicant, the FCRA requires that they first provide "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" that "consists solely of the disclosure" so individuals are adequately notified of the background check and how the information will be used. Before running the reports, employers or prospective employers must obtain written authorization from consumers. First Advantage allegedly violated the FCRA on both counts: 1) failing to inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and 2) failing to get written authorization before running the report. While First Advantage did not admit to any wrongdoing, they did agree to resolve the class action claims with a settlement. The settlement benefits individuals with a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage without prior authorization between Aug. 17th, 2012, and Nov. 20th, 2020. As part of the settlement agreement, First Advantage agreed to change its terms and policies to ensure consumers receive prior authorization before a potential employer runs their background check.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, please contact 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.

Precision Toxicology Agrees to $545,000 Settlement Resolving California Wage & Hour Class Action

In recent news, Precision Toxicology agreed to pay $545,000 to resolve California labor law violation claims in a wage and hour class action lawsuit.

The Case: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 19STCV46037

The Plaintiff: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Delia Borrego, alleges that Precision Toxicology, LLC failed to pay its employees the wages they were owed. A class action lawsuit alleged the company violated California labor laws by failing to provide all minimum and overtime wages and other benefits.

The Defendant: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case is Precision Toxicology, a part of Precision Diagnostics, a California-based laboratory that performs different tests using automated processes. While much of their testing is through automated processes, Precision Toxicology still employs approximately 411 workers to oversee the testing and monitor the automated processes.

More Case Details: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

California's state labor laws are some of the strictest in the country, guaranteeing employees the right to fair wages for hours worked, meal breaks and rest periods, benefits, etc. In addition to failing to pay wages, Precision Toxicology allegedly violated California state labor laws by failing to provide rest and meal breaks (or premiums to replace the value of missed breaks), reimburse business expenses, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and pay wages in a timely fashion upon separations. While Precision Toxicology did not admit wrongdoing, they agreed to resolve the allegations with a $545,000 settlement deal. The settlement benefits individuals working for Precision Toxicology in California between Dec. 24th, 2015, and November 3rd, 2021.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact 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, and Riverside.

Radiant Services Corp. Faces Class Action Alleging they Failed to Pay Wages

In recent news, Radiant Services Corp. faces allegations of failing to pay their workers adequate wages for hours worked.

The Case: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case: 22STCV23115

The Plaintiff: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

The plaintiffs in the class filed suit on behalf of themselves and others employed by Radiant Services Corp. in California during the class period. The class action lawsuit is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the plaintiff, Radiant Services Corp. violated numerous labor codes including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Defendant: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

The defendant in the case is Radiant Services Corp., a full-service laundry and dry cleaning facility that completes linen services for hotels and hospitality facilities in California, including the county of Los Angeles, where the plaintiff worked. According to the plaintiff, the company engaged in the following labor code violations:

(1) failing to pay minimum wages;

(2) failing to pay overtime wages;

(3) failing to provide required meal and rest periods;

(4) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

(5) failing to pay wages when due; and

(6) failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

Details of the Case: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

California employers are required to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement. Wage statements must be in writing and must show gross wages earned, the total of all hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, any deductions made, net wages earned, the dates of the pay period the employee is receiving payment for, the employee's name and last four digits of their social security number (or employee ID), the employer's name and address, hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the number of hours the employee worked at each of the designated hourly rates. Allegedly, Radiant Services Corp. did not provide accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with legal requirements (according to California Labor Code Section 226).

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a California class-action lawsuit, please contact 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.

First Advantage Settles Class Actions Claiming they Ran Illegal Background Checks

In recent news, First Advantage settles class-action suits claiming they ran illegal background checks on employees.

The Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct.

The Case No.: CIV-535083

The Plaintiff: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks on consumers without securing prior authorization to do so, which is required by the FCRA. Class members in the case include any consumers who had a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization and provided to a prospective employer between the dates August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020.

The Defendant: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Defendant in the case is First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. First Advantage is a background check company specializing in providing services to employers during their hiring processes.

Details of the Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. is one of two class-action lawsuits claiming First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)). The settlement, which was granted final approval on Dec. 8, 2021, resolves both class actions and benefits individuals who had a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage anytime between August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020 without prior authorization as required by law. Allegedly, First Advantage violated the FCRA by failing to clearly inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and failed to get written authorization. However, First Advantage hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing. But as part of the settlement agreement, they did agree to change their terms and policies ensuring consumers provide prior authorization before any background checks are run on them for the benefit of their potential employers.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations 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.