Did Acadia Healthcare Fail to Pay Employees Accurate Wages & Overtime?

Acadia Healthcare Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with accurate wages for all the hours they worked, pay accurate overtime wages, and keep an accurate record of their employee's time worked.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of California

The Case No.: 22CV407143

The Plaintiff: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Rhonald Aranzaso, was a California employee of the defendant from June 2021 through September 2022. Aranzaso was an hourly, non-exempt employee at all times with the company, so federal and state labor law protected his right to minimum wage, accurate overtime pay, meal periods, and rest breaks. The plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action alleging and seeking compensation for their losses incurred during the class action period caused by the employer's policies and practices that allegedly violated labor law and failed to fully compensate the employees.

The Defendant: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

The defendant in the case, Acadia Healthcare Inc., allegedly used standard practices and policies that violated employees' protections under state and federal labor law.

The Case: Rhonald Aranzaso v. Acadia Healthcare Inc.

According to the lawsuit filed, Acadia Healthcare Inc. allegedly violated labor law by including non-discretionary wage earnings that increased their regular pay rate in calculating sick pay wages, resulting in an alleged loss of income for employees who qualify as class members. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their rigorous work schedules prevented them from taking their thirty-minute off-duty meal breaks or being fully relieved of duty during their legally required meal periods. The plaintiffs also claim their employer failed to provide required second-off-duty meal breaks when necessary. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendant intentionally disregarded their obligation to comply with California Labor Codes and minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.

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

Byer California Faces Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Byer California faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-23-605878

The Plaintiff: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The plaintiff in the case, Jonathan Moore, was employed by Byer California from July 18, 2022 through November 16, 2022 as a nonexempt employee paid hourly. Moore claims that the company's standard policies and practices resulted in labor law violations during his time at the company. Moore filed a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers employed by Byer California during the class period (the period beginning four(4) years before the filing of Moore's complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court).

The Defendant: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The defendant in the case, Byer California, supplies junior, misses, and girls' fashion for retail department stores, online stores, and specialty stores throughout California and the nation. A substantial amount of their business is conducted in the state of California. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in the case, Jonathan Moore v. Byer California, failed to fully compensate their employees under labor laws.

The Case: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The case, Jonathan Moore v. Byer California, hinges on Moore's classification as a nonexempt hourly employee. As such, he is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked for his employer. According to the plaintiff, Jonathan Moore, the defendant regularly required workers to work during their off-duty meal breaks, allowed work assignments to interrupt employees' off-duty breaks, and employed a rounding system as a standard practice that benefitted the employer by rounding hours down, which allegedly resulted in employees receiving less pay than they would if the company paid their workers for actual time worked without the rounding system.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Twitter Facing California Class Action Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violation

Another former Twitter employee recently filed a California labor complaint alleging that the social media platform giant violated labor law when they failed to give the required notice to employees before companywide layoffs.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01788

The Plaintiff: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eitan Adler, is a former Twitter employee. The software engineer's LinkedIn profile indicates he worked full-time at Twitter for over 7 ½ years. Adler was laid off on November 15, 2022. According to the complaint, Adler did not receive 60 days of advance written notice (required by the federal and California WARN Act). Adler also claims he did not receive pay in place of the legally required notice. On top of that, Adler brings another claim under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of California and other aggrieved California employees in similar situations. California's PAGA allows workers to sue on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the state for California labor law violations.

The Defendant: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Twitter, has dropped from approx. eight thousand employees to about 2,000 employees since the new owner, Musk, took over the business. According to Adler, Elon Musk's near-immediate mass layoff has affected more than half of Twitter's workforce. In addition, Twitter is facing five additional suits in the same San Francisco federal court with similar allegations that are currently pending, claiming Twitter targeted female workers in layoffs, discriminated against employees with disabilities, those who criticized the company, tried to organize strikes, etc.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

According to court documents, Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al., Twitter did not provide the necessary notice for companywide layoffs to Adler and other employees. However, Twitter did provide the required notice under federal and California WARN Acts to many employees affected by the mass layoffs. As of April 13, when Adler filed the complaint, 75% of Twitter's workforce had been laid off. While numerous other suits were filed, this lawsuit stands apart because Adler opted out of the arbitration agreement between Twitter and their workers, and he asserted PAGA claims.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action complaint, 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.

California Plaintiffs and Five Guys Fifth Agreement Nears Settlement

In recent news, California plaintiffs and Five Guys are near a settlement (based on their fifth agreement).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Fresno Division

The Case No.: 1:17-cv-00762-JLT-EPG

The Plaintiff: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jeremy R. Lusk, was an hourly, non-exempt manager in training at one of the Five Guys California locations from August to November 2016. He filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated labor law when they denied their workers' overtime pay and legally mandated breaks and rest periods. Preliminary approval was granted in September 2022 for a settlement based on the fifth agreement between the two parties.

The Defendant: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., is faced with a number of allegations.

• Failed to provide paid meal breaks and rest breaks for workers because it was too busy.

• Failed to pay workers legally mandated overtime pay.

• Required workers to work off the clock (requiring workers to clock out and then continue to complete required work duties like counting money in the cash register, etc.)

• Failing to reimburse employees for the use of personal cars in the course of completing their job duties (like traveling to and from other restaurant locations for pick-ups, supply runs, etc.)

• Failed to pay workers for overtime work.

• Failed to provide workers with accurate wage statements.

• Obtained authorization to conduct background checks using a disclosure form that did not comply with the law (FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), CCRAA (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act), and ICRAA (Investigating Consumer Reporting Agency Act).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., reached a fifth proposed settlement of $1.2 million that would involve 2,206 class members. The two parties await final approval of the settlement.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Community Hospice, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A former Community Hospice, Inc. employee filed a class action lawsuit claiming Community Hospice, Inc. failed to pay accurate overtime wages.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The Court: Stanislaus County Superior Court

The Case No.: CV-23-001773

The Plaintiff: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Tyeisha Travis, was employed by Community Hospice, Inc. from September 2019 through April 13, 2022. Travis was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Travis filed the class action for herself and other similarly situated employees qualifying as class members.

The Defendant: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Community Hospice, Inc., provides medical, nursing, emotional, spiritual, and educational support to individuals and their families and loved ones as they cope with life-threatening illness, disease, and grief.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

In the case, Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc., the defendant allegedly failed to pay employees accurate sick wages in violation of labor law. When employees earned non-discretionary incentive wages, it increased their regular rate of pay. However, when the employees were paid sick pay, the sick pay was issued at the lower base rate of pay instead of the adjusted rate after the non-discretionary incentive wage additions. While working for Community Hospice, Inc., employees used their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. The plaintiff claims their cell phones were a necessary job expense that the company failed to reimburse.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did St. Anne's Foundation Violate California Labor Laws?

In a recently filed California class action complaint, St. Anne's Foundation faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with meal breaks and rest periods, which violates California labor law.

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV14674

The Plaintiff: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The plaintiff in the case, Britney Clarke, is a Los Angeles County resident. The class is defined as hourly employees (current or former) residing in California employed by the defendant anytime between four years before the date of the complaint filing through the final resolution.

The Defendant: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The defendant in the case, St. Anne's Foundation, and Family Services, is a California corporation.

The Allegations: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to give employees their wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

According to court documents, Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services allegedly violated labor law. The case poses the question of whether any failure to pay wages was willful on the defendant's part and whether St. Anne's corporate policy or practice violated labor law by failing to pay them for all hours worked promptly and providing overtime pay at the appropriate overtime pay rate. According to the plaintiff, the company required them to work more than 8 hours in one day and more than 40 hours in one week. The plaintiff claims that there was a clear pattern of wage abuse during her employment.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action complaint, 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.

Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Prudent Security Solutions Inc. faces a wage and hour class action citing multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Prudent Security Solutions Inc. employed Brian Bradford from March 2022 to April 2022. Bradford was a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses and was eligible for federal and state labor law protections, including minimum wage, overtime wage, meal breaks, and rest periods.

The Defendant: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California, including Los Angeles.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly committed various labor code violations, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses, failing to pay wages when due, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to pay vacation wages when due, failing to make lawful deductions, failing to pay wages during employment promptly, and failing to pay sick pay.

California Labor Law: Minimum Wage

According to California law, employers must pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked during the designated pay period on an established payday. The relevant wage order defines "hours worked" as the time during "which an employee is subject to the control of an employer," including the time the employee is suffered or allowed to work, even if they are not required to work.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Prudent Security Solutions required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts and during "off-duty" meal breaks. The plaintiffs also allege Prudent Security Solutions failed to compensate employees for time employees spent under the employer's control "off-the-clock." As a result, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly failed to provide employees with the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked.

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