Staffing Solution Company Faces Overtime Violations Class Action Allegations

In recent news, Libra Staffing and Samuel Hale face class action allegations. Plaintiffs allege the company engaged in wage and hour violations and overtime violations.

The Case: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV25896

The Plaintiff: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Aurora Gonzalez, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, citing overtime pay violations. Gonzalez was employed by the defendants in April 2022 and worked for them through May 2022. Gonzalez was paid on an hourly basis as a non-exempt employee and, as such, was entitled to all legally required meal breaks and rest periods as well as the payment of minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime wages as outlined by labor law for all hours worked over 8 in one day or 40 in one workweek.

The Defendant: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

The defendant in the case, Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company that conducts a substantial amount of business in Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff works. Samuel Hale operates a professional employer organization that provides various business services, including administrative tasks, payroll services, benefits administration, etc. Libra Staffing and Samuel Hale are listed as joint employers of Aurora Gonzalez in Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC. Gonzalez’s class action complaint alleges that Libra Staffing and Samuel Hale utilized uniform policies and practices that failed to compensate employees for all their hours worked fully.

The Allegations: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

According to the class action allegations, the defendant failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods accurately, failed to provide payment for all hours worked, failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work, failed to pay workers for overtime hours at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to pay workers meal rest premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse workers for business expenses, and failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements to their employees (showing hourly wage rates applicable during the designated period, and all hours worked). Plaintiffs in the case argue that the defendant's uniform practices and policies were purposefully designed to avoid full payment for workers for all hours worked, which was economically damaging to workers while allowing the company to create an unfair advantage over competitors in compliance with labor laws.

The Case: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

Gonzalez filed the wage and hour and overtime pay class action seeking relief for herself and members of the class who were economically injured due to the defendant’s uniform practices and policies about payroll record-keeping practices, wage payment, and overtime pay calculation policies. The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Elite Bohemian Grove Club Faces Class Action Alleging Employment Law Violations

In recent news, an elite secret club called Bohemian Grove faces labor law violation allegations, including failing to pay overtime and not giving workers breaks.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:2023cv02760

The Plaintiff: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Anthony Gregg, Wallid Saad, Shawn Claiborne, filed the proposed class action on June 25, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, demanding a jury trial. The plaintiffs are former Bohemian Grove valets who worked at the club’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California, for several years. They allege unfair labor practices, including 16-hour workdays with no breaks and failing to pay overtime and minimum wages.

The Defendant: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The defendant in the case, Bohemian Grove, one of the most elite and secretive clubs in the U.S. (with Reagan and Nixon listed among its elite membership), faces multiple labor law allegations:

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

2. Collective Action - Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.)

3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods

4. Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks

5. Failure to Pay All Wages at Termination (Labor Code Section 201-203)

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

7. Unfair Business Practices; 8. Violation of Labor Code Section 2699 (PAGA)

Bohemian Grove attracts some of the world’s most powerful people to mysterious gatherings in the woods outside of San Francisco, California, and has long been the focus of conspiracy theorists and general fascination. The plaintiffs worked for several years at Bohemian Grove’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California (a secretive 2,700-acre camp near the Russian River that’s been in operation every summer for 150 years). The club lists 2,600 active members and a significant wait list.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Club is comprised of 100 camps, each with one or more captains who consistently violate numerous labor laws yearly. The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Grove treasurer, B. Dawson, personally directed valets to falsify payroll records and perform work off the clock. According to complaints in the lawsuit, throughout the 14-day summer camp each year, workers were consistently paid for eight hours when working 16-plus hour workdays without breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. If certified, the class action status would affect 300 employees. The plaintiffs seek up to $1.5 million in damages from the all-male Bohemian Grove club.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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 Class Action Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The Court: Orange County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

The Allegations: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

• Meal and Rest Period Violations

• Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

• Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

• Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

• Unreimbursed Business Expenses

• Wage Statement Violations

• Failure to Pay Wages on Time

• Unlawful Deductions

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

If you have questions about how 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 various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Accuses VNA Hospice of Overtime Pay Violations

In the Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice class action, VNA Hospice is accused of violating overtime pay requirements governed by labor law.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice and Palliative Care of Southern California

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California

The Case No.: CIVDS1909598

The Plaintiff: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against VNA Hospice, claiming the company failed to compensate hourly employees with accurate overtime wages. According to Carter, the company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt workers non-discretionary incentive wages calculated based on their performance on the job. The plaintiff argues that the bonuses should have been included in the employee’s regular pay rate for overtime wage calculation. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The defendant in the case, VNA Hospice, allegedly committed various California Labor Code violations by failing to pay its employees the proper overtime wages.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The case, Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice, includes claims that the company’s overtime calculations were not based on an accurate regular pay rate – leading to the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of VNA Hospice being underpaid in overtime wages. The class action complaint seeks penalties for missed rest periods and meal breaks based on the company’s lack of standard policy and practices providing employees with legally mandated breaks, minimum wage, and accurate overtime pay.

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.

Bloom Energy Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations: Employees Claim They Don’t Receive Breaks

Bloom Energy, the defendant in a recently filed California labor law class action, is facing allegations that employees were not paid a full wage for all their work hours due to the employer's failure to comply with meal and rest break laws.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV419599

The Plaintiff: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The plaintiff in the case, Alexander Gilmore, was an employee at a Bloom Energy facility in Santa Clara from October 2022 through December 2022. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Gilmore was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wages, and accurate overtime wages. In his complaint filed on July 25, 2023, Gilmore alleged the company violated his and other similarly situated workers' rights under state and federal employment law.

The Class Members: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The California class for the case is defined as anyone currently employed or formerly employed by Bloom Energy in California as a non-exempt employee during the period beginning four years before the filing of Gilmore's complaint and ending on the date to be determined by the court.

The Defendant: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The defendant in the case, Bloom Energy Corporation, is a Deleware company conducting significant business in California. The company provides renewable energy and electric power solutions. According to the plaintiff, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice failed to compensate employees lawfully. According to the class action, Bloom Energy allegedly failed to provide eligible employees with legally compliant meal breaks and rest periods and to compensate the employees for the missed meal breaks and rest periods as required by law. As a result of this uniform policy and practice, the workers were allegedly not compensated for all hours worked, which led to additional alleged minimum wage, overtime pay violations, and accurate itemized wage statement violations due to the off-the-clock work.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

In Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, including current and former employees. The class action seeks compensation for class members' losses due to alleged labor law violations during the class period. The plaintiff in the case describes instances when they were required to work while clocked out for off-duty meal breaks as a regular occurrence and also claims that there were days when they did not even receive a partial lunch break during the midst of their full-time schedule. As a result, Gilmore and other class members forfeited minimum wage and overtime pay by regularly putting in hours that were not accurately recorded or compensated at the required minimum wage and overtime pay rates. According to the complaint, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice resulting in the alleged violations is notable in the defendant's business records. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action meal and rest break 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.

Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Bluecrew Violated Labor Law

In a California class action lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the company failed to provide employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in inaccurate wages and overtime wages.  

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-602240

The Plaintiff: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Dela Cruz, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that as a result of rigorous work schedules, he and other employees who qualify as California class members were sometimes unable to take their thirty-minute meal breaks and that at other times they were not fully relieved of work duties during the meal breaks they did take. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that their employer sometimes failed to provide workers with their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours in one shift. 

When Do California Workers Get a Second Meal Break in One Work Shift? 

In California, workers are generally entitled to a second meal break if they work a certain number of hours in a single work shift. The specific rules for meal breaks in California are as follows: one meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work over 5 hours in one workday, and a second meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work more than 10 hours in one workday with the second meal break provided no later than the end of the worker’s tenth hour or work. There are certain exceptions for specific industries, and employees can waive their second meal break if their total hours in the day do not exceed 12 hours (as long as they did not already waive their first meal break). When an employer does not provide an employee with the required meal break, the employee is typically required to pay the employee an additional hour at the regular pay rate for each day a meal break was not provided. 

The Defendant: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The defendant in the case, Bluecrew, LLC, faced allegations of California labor law violations when an employee filed a class action complaint alleging that Bluecrew (and Bluecrew Staffing) allegedly:

1. Failed to pay minimum wage.

2. Failed to pay overtime wages.

3. Failed to provide legally mandated rest periods and meal breaks.

4. Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

5. Failed to reimburse their employees for necessary work expenses.

6. Failed to pay sick pay wages.

7. Failed to pay wages when due. 

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

Did Bluecrew violate California labor law? In the case Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC, California’s San Fransisco Superior Court had to consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the company’s standard practices violated California labor laws.

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.

Did SAS Retail Services Fail to Reimburse California Employees for Work Expenses?

According to court documents, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly violated California labor law when they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses to complete their duties.

The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action lawsuit against SAS Retail Services, LLC, alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. According to the plaintiffs in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for the required business expenses necessary to complete their required job duties. The plaintiffs claim that while employed at SAS, they and other class members in similar situations with the company were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties.

The Defendant: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to pay the minimum wage and overtime wages required under California labor law.

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

California Labor Code §2802 states that California employers "shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." Plaintiffs argue that SAS Retail Services, LLC's policy violated Section 2802.

The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

Overtime wage rates were allegedly calculated based on the employee's regular pay rate but failed to consider the non-discretionary bonus plaintiffs and other class members received as part of their pay. The incentive program that generated the non-discretionary bonuses was allegedly described to new and potential hires as part of an employee's compensation package. Due to the company's standard practice, the California employer allegedly violated minimum wage and overtime laws.

If you have questions about how 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 various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.