Wage & Hour Violations: Did Soapy Joe's Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, Soapy Joe's is facing a lawsuit alleging they violated labor law's wage and hour requirements.

The Case: Makiya Epps & Tessie Haley vs. Soapy Joe's Group, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2022-00013622-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's

The plaintiffs, Makiya Epps and Tessie Haley, claim that Soapy Joe's engaged in a pattern of wage and hour violations as a part of their regular business practices. According to the class action lawsuit, the plaintiff believes that the company knowingly engaged in labor law violations to decrease employment-related costs.

Minimum Wage: How Employers Violate California Labor Law

In California, the minimum wage is set by state law (higher than the federal minimum) and varies depending on the business size and location. As of 2024, California employers who employ more than 25 employees are required to pay minimum wage of $15.50 per hour. However, some cities and counties have established a higher minimum wage applicable in their area. Employees should pay attention to make sure their employer is not paying an hourly wage less than the applicable minimum wage, making improper deductions from employee wages, requiring employees to work "off the clock," miscalculating wages for tipped employees (in California, tipped employees are paid the full minimum wage before tips, unlike various other states that allow a lower minimum wage). Labor law violations can lead to required back payment of wages, fines, interest (payable to the affected employees), and potential legal action from the state labor enforcement agencies.

The Defendant: Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's

The defendant, Soapy Joe's, faces multiple allegations of labor law violations, including failing to:

• offer eligible employees required meal breaks and rest periods (off the clock)

• pay minimum wage

• pay accurate overtime wages

• pay accurate sick pay and overtime pay rates

• provide reimbursement for necessary business expenses

• create and maintain accurate records and provide accurate itemized wage statements

• pay wages on time

The plaintiff in the case alleges that the company's behavior violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802.

The Case: Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's

The case, Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's, alleges Soapy Joe's violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay workers for all their work hours. The case is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court.

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.

Former Employee Claims California Air Cargo Company’s Practices Violate Labor Law

A former employee of Swissport Cargo Services claims the company’s business practices violate labor law and fail to provide the company’s employees with full payment for their work hours.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 24STCV31310

The Plaintiff: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The plaintiff, William Hayes, Jr., worked for Swissport Cargo Services from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024. During his time at the company, Hayes claims the company failed to record all hours he and other employees worked accurately. Inaccurate timekeeping practices allegedly led to inaccurate and incomplete wages and wage statements, which violates labor law. Hayes filed a California wage and hour class action lawsuit representing himself and other former employees who qualify for the class.

The Defendant: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The defendant, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., provides air cargo services in California. According to the lawsuit, the air cargo provider allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including:

• failing to pay their workers the minimum wage required by law (in violation of Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

• failing to provide their employees with an accurate itemized wage statement for each pay period (in violation of Labor Code § 226)

• failing to provide employees with overtime wages when they work overtime (in violation of Labor Code § 510)

• failing to provide employees with meal periods/rest breaks (in violation of Labor Code § 226.7 and 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order)

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses (in violation of Labor Code §2802)

• failure to provide wages when due (in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203)

• failure to provide sick pay wages (in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 203, 233, and 246)

The plaintiff also claims the defendant engaged in unfair competition practices in violation of California Business & Professional Code §§ 17200.

What Qualifies as “Time Worked” for California Employees?

“Time worked” for a California employee is any time when the worker is subject to their employer’s control. Being “under an employer’s control” can refer to the time when an employee is allowed or permitted to work but not required to work, including active duty hours and any time the employee needs to remain on the worksite or business premises, wait for work to arrive or start, attend meetings, fulfill training requirements, etc. In addition, “time worked” for a California employee can refer to time when the employee was allowed to work and the work benefited the company/employer. If you have questions about how your employer defines “time worked,” contact an experienced employment law attorney to get answers for your job situation.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The plaintiffs in the case, William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., seek compensation for their alleged lost wages, an injunction to prevent similar unlawful conduct in the future, and all other appropriate and legal equitable relief for the plaintiff and other class members who were economically injured by Swissport Cargo Services’ alleged unlawful conduct (past and present). The plaintiff filed the case in Los Angeles County Superior Court; it is currently pending.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact 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.

Swissport Cargo Lawsuit Alleges Wage and Hour Violations

In recent news, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. faces wage and hour violation allegations.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV31310

The Plaintiff: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

The plaintiff, William Hayes, Jr. (a non-exempt hourly employee for Swissport Cargo from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024), filed a class action complaint alleging that Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

Swiss Cargo Services, L.P. provides air cargo services in California. A recent class action complaint alleges that the defendant, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.:

• Required their employees to work "off the clock" without paying them for their time (a violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

• Failed to pay minimum wage (a violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

• Did not provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement (a violation of California Labor Code § 226)

What Information Should Employers Provide on an Itemized Wage Statement?

Labor law is specific about the information that must be included in an accurate, itemized wage statement. To comply with California Labor Code Section 226(a), employers must include the following:

• All applicable hourly rates during the pay period

• Total hours worked

• Applicable pay period in which the wages were earned

According to the class action lawsuit, the wage statements Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. provided their employees did not identify the necessary information.

The Case: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

According to the Hayes' complaint, off-duty meal breaks or rest periods were regularly interrupted for work, rounded employee time worked (to benefit the company), and required off-the-clock mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking into work. The case, Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo, is currently pending in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, 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.

California Workers Claim Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. Violated Labor Law

A recent employment law case discusses labor law violation allegations after California workers claim Live Nation Worldwide failed to reimburse them for business expenses.

The Case: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

The Court: California Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2024-01435581-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiffs: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

The plaintiff in the case, Byron Gonzales, was an hourly employee eligible for labor law protections. As such, he was entitled to receive minimum wage, overtime pay, accurate, itemized wage statements, rest periods, and meal periods. Gonzales claims during his employment, the company's employees in similar circumstances allegedly required employees to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Gonzales filed a class action lawsuit for himself and other workers in similar positions, alleging that Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

Labor Code Requires Under California Labor Code 2802, California employers are required to "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…"

The Defendant: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

The defendant in the case is Live Nation Worldwide. Workers at the company claim they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses (including using personal cell phones). Allegedly, this standard business practice also resulted in inaccurate and incomplete wages and wage statements. California employers are required to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. To fulfill this requirement, the statements must include 1) applicable hourly rates, 2) total hours worked, and 3) the applicable pay period in which the wages were earned (Labor Code §226(a)). According to the plaintiff, Live Nation's wage statements failed to comply with labor code requirements.

The Allegations: Included in the Class Action

• Wage Statement Violation: Live Nation allegedly did not provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement (violating California Labor Code §226).

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violation: Live Nation allegedly failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses (California Labor Code 2802).

Status of the Case: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

Gonzales filed the Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. class action lawsuit in California's Orange County Superior Court. The case is currently pending.

If you have questions about filing a California class action lawsuit, please 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 San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Okdak Fail to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Okdak violated labor law.

The Case: Roberto Contreras Jimenez v. Okdak, Inc.

The Court: California's Riverside County Superior Court

The Case No.: CVRI2404524

The Plaintiff: Jimenez v. Okdak

The plaintiff, Jimenez, filed a class action complaint alleging that Okdak, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. According to the class action complaint, Okdak failed to reimburse workers for required business expenses, violating Labor Code 2802. Jimenez claimed that during his employment, he and other class members were required to use their personal cell phones to fulfill their job responsibilities.

What is California Labor Code 2802?

California Labor Code 2802 requires employers to "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..." As such, employees who must purchase items or services in order to fulfill their job duties should receive a reimbursement for the business expense from their employer.

The Defendant: Jimenez v. Okdak

According to the plaintiff, Okdak failed to accurately record employee hours and provide accurate compensation for actual hours worked. Since labor law requires employers to pay their workers for all time worked, failing to do so is a violation. "Time worked" (when referring to labor law) refers to the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control. The plaintiff claims the employee required workers to work off the clock without pay. Since the off-the-clock hours did not qualify for overtime premium payment, the company allegedly failed to provide employees with minimum wage for their off-the-clock hours, which violates multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1).

More About the Jimenez v. Okdak Class Action Lawsuit:

The plaintiff filed on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees. The class action is pending in California's Riverside County Superior Court.

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.

Pacific Bell Settles California Wage and Hour Class Action: $2.235M Settlement

In recent news, Pacific Bell resolved a California wage and hour class action lawsuit with a proposed $2.235 million settlement.

The Case: Macopson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County California Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV13800

The Plaintiffs: Macopson v. Pacific Bell

The plaintiff in the case, Macopson, claimed Pacific Bell violated state wage laws. The class action was filed for Pacific Bell workers employed at California locations between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024. According to the original complaint, Pacific Bell underpaid their employees and failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses; both allegations allegedly violated California labor law. The plaintiffs filed claims under PAGA (California's Private Attorneys General Act). The state law enables workers to file these types of claims on behalf of other workers and California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members are those who Pacific Bell employed in California between April 26, 2018, and March 21, 2024.

What is the Origin of California's PAGA?

California's Senate Bill 796 (SB 796) enacted the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2004. The law was designed to reduce state labor law violations, address common unlawful and anti-competitive business practices, create the possibility for employees to collect penalties for labor law violations, and address staffing issues in state labor law enforcement.

California Telephone Company Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Pacific Bell, a California telephone company owned by AT&T. The plaintiffs claim that Pacific Bell's business practices violated labor law. Whlle they declined to admit any wrongdoing, the company chose to resolve the claims through a settlement agreement.

Macopson v. Pacific Bell: Learn More About the Case

The terms of the $2.235 million settlement agreement designate that class members employed by the defendant between April 10, 2018, and March 21, 2014, receive the designated payment and that class members employed by the telephone company between April 10, 2021, and March 21, 2024, are eligible for the PAGA payment.

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

Amazon Settles for $3M in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Amazon settled a California wage and hour class action lawsuit for $3 million.

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The Court: California Eastern U.S. District Court

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Allegations: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amazon’s California employees who worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023, during the same workweek they received a signing bonus. In the original wage and hour complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Amazon violated California labor laws when they failed to include the signing bonus to determine the regular pay rate when calculating overtime pay. As a result, the workers were allegedly underpaid for their overtime.

The Defendant: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., is a multinational tech company and the largest online retailer in the U.S. (selling many products, including books, music, movies, electronics, apparel, etc.).

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The California Eastern District U.S. District Court approved a $3 million settlement to resolve the overtime violation claims in September 2024. The class counsel’s $1 million attorneys’ fees were included in the settlement amount. The settlement was intended to return alleged unpaid overtime wages to eligible California workers.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact 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.