Did Pureserve Building Services Deny Meal Breaks to their Employees?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Pureserve Building Services violated labor law.

The Case: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

The Court: California's Monterey County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV003470

The Plaintiff: Petra Rios Files Class Action Complaint

The plaintiff, Petra Rios, claims that Pureserve Building Services's standard business practices violated labor law. Californian workers are protected in the workforce through both federal and state labor laws. According to Rios's class action complaint, the company failed to provide their California workers with meal breaks and rest periods in compliance with labor law.

The Defendant: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

Pureserve Building Services, Inc., the defendant, allegedly failed to pay their employees for all their work hours. The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action complaint include:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to pay wages when due

• Failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

The class action's allegations constitute violations of multiple California Labor Code Sections, including 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 558, 1194, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

What Makes a Wage Statement Accurate and Itemized?

When discussing wage statement requirements, labor law refers to them as "accurate" and "itemized." Details regarding the wage statement requirements clearly state that they must include certain information:

• Pay period (dates for which the employee is being paid)

• Gross wages earned during the pay period

• Total hours worked during the pay period

• Piece rate along with the number of units earned (if applicable)

• Any deductions

• Net wages earned during the pay period

• Employee name and last four digits of their Social Security Number or an Employee Identification Number

• Name and address of employer

• Hourly rates (all applicable/in effect during the current pay period)

• Number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate (if applicable)

Failing to provide an employee with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing violates California Labor Code Section 226.

The Case: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

The case was filed in September 2024 in California's Monterey County Superior Court. Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc. is currently pending.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Associate Mechanical Contractors Underpay their California Workers?

Mark Frey recently filed a California class action claiming Associate Mechanical Contractors's inaccurate time keeping system resulted in numerous labor law violations.

Details About the Class Action: Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors

The Case: Mark Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The Court: San Diego Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU011410C

Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Frey, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, Frey (and other similarly situated California workers employed by the defendant) were underpaid because the company used an inaccurate timekeeping system to calculate their employee’s hours and pay.

The Defendant: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc., faces allegations that their timekeeping system used to calculate employee hours and total pay was inaccurate, resulting in minimum wage violations, overtime pay violations, meal break/rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to provide payment when it is due. All of the standard business practices listed constitute labor law violations.

Most of the labor law violation claims result from the company’s allegedly inaccurate timekeeping system. However, the plaintiff also states that he and other similarly situated employees were required to use their cell phones to perform their job duties, which he claims makes the employee’s personal cell phone a necessary business expense eligible for reimbursement.

The Case: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

In Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the company’s inaccurate timekeeping system and resulting alleged labor law violations alongside the defendant’s response to determine if the company has standard business practices and policies that violate labor law.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Equinox Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations: Class Action Lawsuit Pending

Another business with significant operations in California faces allegations that their standard business practices violate labor law. Equinox workers claim the company violated multiple wage and hour laws, including failing to pay minimum wage.

The Case: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

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

The Case: CV0003780

The Plaintiff: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

Demarqus Wiggins is the plaintiff in the case. Wiggins filed a class action complaint in response to standard business practices he experienced at Equinox. The complaint alleges failures to provide eligible workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wage, etc.

Equinox, the Defendant, Facing Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Equinox San Rafael, LLC (aka Equinox). Equinox faces numerous allegations in the class action, each constituting a violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint includes the following allegations: failing to pay minimum wage, provide accurate overtime wages, offer meal breaks and rest periods, reimburse workers for business expenses, provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay employees for the hours they worked at the time they are due.

(The class action allegations constitute violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code).

More About the Case: Were Employees Required to Work "Off the Clock?"

The Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Marin County Superior Court. California labor law and federal labor law (FLSA) require employers to pay every employee an established payday for a specified pay period at a rate at or above the designated minimum wage for all the hours worked in the specified pay period. Payment can be calculated using various methods: time, per piece, commission, etc. If employers provide payment based on time or the number of hours worked, "hours worked" is defined by the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." According to the plaintiff in the case, Equinox required workers to complete "off the clock" work or work completed before or after they "clock in" to work for their scheduled shift. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Equinox employees were subject to standard business practices and policies that required working during off-duty meal breaks. Employees were allegedly not compensated with at least minimum wage for all the hours they worked in a pay period due to "off the clock" work, which is a labor law violation.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices can assist you.

McDonald's Faces Meal & Rest Break Violation Allegations in California Class Action

A recent California class action alleges the rigorous work schedules of McDonald's employees meant skipping rest breaks and meal periods, which may have resulted in additional alleged labor law violations.

The Case: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. NJK Management Corp (McDonald's)

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

The Case No.: 24CV02523

The Plaintiffs: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

The plaintiffs in the case, Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins, filed a California class action complaint against NJK Management Corporation ("McDonald's"). The lawsuit alleges that McDonald's failed to provide the required meal and rest breaks and pay employees for all their time worked, violating the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

The defendant in the case, McDonald's, faces a string of employment violation allegations in the class action. According to the plaintiffs, the company violated California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 351, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 when they failed to:

• pay employees minimum wages

• pay employees accurate overtime wages

• reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• offer workers with meal periods/breaks

• provide accurate itemized employee wage statements

• provide employees with their wages when due

The Case: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

Due to frequently rigorous work schedules, McDonald's workers were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When they did receive a meal break or rest period, they allegedly were not relieved of their job duties during the break. Instead, they were regularly interrupted to assist with work or complete job duties for the company. Ball and Duggins claim that working a 5-hour shift without a break for McDonald's employees was unsurprising. The plaintiffs also claim that working a 10-hour shift without their 1st and 2nd breaks was a regular occurrence. The two former McDonald's employees claim that during their time at the company, it was standard policy for employees to stay on call and basically on duty during their off-duty meal periods and rest breaks. As a result, McDonald's employees regularly forfeited their meal breaks. They were allegedly not provided additional compensation for doing so. The forfeiture of breaks without additional compensation is allegedly in line with strict corporate policy and standard practices at McDonald's. The case Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's is pending in California's Butte County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California Class Action employment lawsuit, please reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Host Healthcare Faces California Overtime Class Action

Host Healthcare faces allegations of California labor law violations in a recently filed California overtime class action lawsuit.

The Case: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CU001979C

The Plaintiff: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Samantha Brodish, filed a class action complaint against Host Healthcare, Inc. and Host Healthcare, LLC. Brodish alleges that rigorous work schedules at the company resulted in numerous California Labor Code violations, including failing to provide appropriate meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Host Healthcare, Inc., faces numerous allegations of employment law violations, including failing to:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• reimburse workers for required business expenses

• provide wages when due

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

The allegations constitute violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Host Healthcare workers were subjected to rigorous work schedules that regularly prevented them from taking off-duty rest breaks. When employees did take their breaks and meal periods, they were allegedly often not fully relieved of their job duties. The lawsuit specifically alleges that due to overburdened work duties, inadequate staffing, and poor scheduling, Host Healthcare employees were regularly required to:

• Work more than four hours without a break

• Work through their first break (aka rest period) during 2-4 hour shifts

• Work through their first and second rest periods during 6-8 hour shifts

• Work through their first, second, and third breaks during ten-hour+ shifts

Additionally, Brodish claims the company did not provide workers one hour of wages to compensate them for the missed breaks as required by labor law. Brodish filed the class action in San Diego County Superior Court, and the case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime lawsuit or need to discuss company policies that violate overtime law, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Los Angeles empowering you to take action.

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC Faces PAGA Lawsuit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations in California

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC is currently under legal scrutiny for purportedly failing to adhere to California's stringent labor laws regarding meal and rest breaks, a case that highlights the ongoing issues surrounding workplace rights in the hospitality industry.

The Case: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV442763

The Plaintiffs: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC employees have initiated a lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), alleging that the company systematically denied them meal and rest breaks mandated by labor laws. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that staff members were often forced to work beyond four hours without the ten-minute rest periods legally required, impacting their health and well-being.

The Defendant: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, a major player in the hospitality sector, is accused of violating multiple sections of the California Labor Code, including those related to timely wage payment, meal and rest breaks, and accurate wage statement provisions. This lawsuit highlights employees' challenges in environments where operational demands often overshadow regulatory compliance.

Case History: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

The PAGA-only action filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court seeks to enforce California labor laws not just for the benefit of Marriott's employees but also as a broader enforcement action reflecting state labor policy. The case emphasizes the role of PAGA in allowing employees to act as private attorneys general to pursue penalties for violations that broadly affect the public interest.

The Case: Rodel Eugenio v. Marriott Hotel

This legal action against Marriott Hotel Services, LLC is crucial for California workers, particularly in the hospitality industry, as it underscores the importance of upholding state labor laws designed to protect workers' rights. The outcome of this lawsuit could reinforce the responsibilities of employers to provide legally mandated breaks and adhere to all aspects of California overtime law, ensuring that employees receive the rest and compensation they are entitled to. For the broader workforce in California, this case highlights the protective mechanisms, like PAGA, that empower employees to hold employers accountable and foster a fairer work environment statewide.

If you have questions about how to file a California Class Action employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Lawrence Equipment Faces Overtime Class Action Listing Multiple Allegations

In recent news, Lawrence Equipment faces multiple labor law violation allegations after a former employee filed a labor law class action.

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, was employed by Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc. and Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment) as a non-exempt, hourly employee from September 2022 through July 2023. Pedroza filed a class action lawsuit. The class action alleges multiple labor law violations by the defendants, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide workers with required rest periods and meal breaks, failure to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses, and failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

Overtime and Minimum Wage Protection for California Employees:

Overtime protections primarily apply to non-exempt employees. Certain employees are exempt from overtime and sometimes minimum wage laws based on specific criteria related to their job duties, salary level, and industry. Common exemptions include executive, administrative, and professional employees, outside salespeople, and certain computer professionals. Other exceptions may include commissioned sales employees, agricultural workers, and interns/trainees.

The Defendant: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment, the defendant in the case, is a design and manufacturing company for production systems for products like tortillas, pizza, flatbreads, and other frying systems. They operate throughout California, including Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff worked. The company faces allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks required by law, failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, failing to provide the required itemized wage statements, and failing to provide employees with their wages when they were due.

According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant’s business practices and policies allegedly led to incidents violating multiple labor codes, including numerous California Labor Code Sections (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802).

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment class action lawsuit is pending in California’s Los Angeles County Superior Court.

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