Ninth Circuit Confirms Employees Must be Compensated by the “Second”

The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco, California confirmed that even tiny amounts of work time must be counted and compensated (as in seconds on the clock). This opinion (Rodriguez v. Nike) should end the debate following the recent employer-driven campaign to revive the de minimus federal standard when considering California employment law issues and labor lawsuits.

In Rodriguez v. Nike, Isaac Rodriguez filed suit following his employment at a Nike owned California retail store. He worked at the Nike store from November 2011 through January 2012. Employees at the store (and other Nike stores throughout California), employees paid an hourly wage were required to track their hours on the clock using a time clock. As a theft deterrent, Nike required employees to allow exit inspections anytime they left the store (at the end of their shift or for a break). The mandatory checks varied in length depending on the circumstances, but they always occurred while the employee was clocked out, and the time was uncompensated.

Rodriguez filed a California class-action lawsuit against Nike in 2014 alleging violations under numerous sections of the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code. The complaint was dismissed in District Court on September 2017 with the court reasoning that the time necessary for the inspection was so brief it did not need to be counted according to the de minimus standard.

Then Troester v. Starbucks changed the landscape for this employment law issue when the court ruled that de minimus did not apply if the lawsuit being considered was brought at a state level under California labor code. The rule for federal lawsuits was not to be used for state lawsuits. After the 2018 ruling, Isaac Rodriguez went back to court amidst the new legal landscape. The Ninth Circuit Court sent Rodriguez's case back to the District Court for a decision consistent with the recent ruling in Troester v. Starbucks. The result was a reaffirmation of the judgment that the federal de minimus rule does not apply to state-level lawsuits, which is good news for wage earners in California. The question went from arguing over how many seconds we were talking about to a discussion of whether or not an employee is legally entitled to payment for work no matter how much time is in question.

An entire series of similar California cases have developed since the Troester v. Starbucks ruling. The ruling will affect all California wage earners, and the precedent provides both employers and employees a firm grasp of how to treat off the clock situations. 

If you have questions about off the clock job duties or if you have experienced California labor law violations in the workplace, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Discouraging Workers from Taking Meal Breaks Cost Walmart over $6M

Two Walmart workers filed a California class-action lawsuit alleging lost meal breaks due to mandatory security checks. The plaintiffs, Chelsea Hamilton and Alyssa Hernandez, contended that the required security search took a lot of time,  was intrusive and embarrassing.  Plaintiffs did not claim that Walmart prohibited them from taking their break, but they did insist they were discouraged. Discouraging employees from taking their legally protected meal break cost Walmart $6.1 million when the jury awarded Walmart workers in April.

Throughout the years, lawsuits filed by employees have resulted in rulings on what employers can do, what employers cannot do, and what employers are required to do in different legal areas. One of the most common disputed areas is rest and meal breaks. This case makes it clear that employers may not make it too hard or too much of a hassle for their employees to take their legally protected meal breaks. Some say that “meal break discouragement” theory could be an important new element of California labor law.

According to the California Labor Code, non-exempt workers are entitled to receive a 30-minute meal break if they work over 5 hours in one day. Employers are not required to pay employees for the meal break. Employees who work more than 10 hours in one day are entitled to additional meal breaks. Employers are also required to provide employees with 10-minute breaks every 4 hours on the job. Unlike meal breaks, employers are required by law to pay employees during their mandatory 10-minute breaks.

Employers who do not comply with meal and rest break law are required to provide employees who missed mandatory breaks with one additional hour of regular pay for each day during which a meal break violation occurred. Another extra hour of payment is required for each day during which a rest break violation occurred during their work shift.

Past lawsuits and findings of the court have made it clear that both rest and meal breaks must be free of job duties and uninterrupted (this includes running errands for the company/employer or being on call).  

If you are experiencing meal and rest break violations in the workplace or if your employer does not offer meal or rest breaks to employees, please get in touch with one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Find the employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Comcast and O.C. Communications Reach Settlement in California Wage and Hour Suit

The $7.5 million settlement presented by Comcast and O.C. Communications for California wage and hour violations was rejected initially. But it was approved in early July 2019 after two years of litigation. The California wage and hour lawsuit involved approximately 4,500 techs. Allegations included in the federal class action stated that O.C. Communications, skilled technician supplier, and Comcast both violated state and federal laws. The companies were accused of numerous wage and hour violations including not paying workers for all the hours they worked, failing to compensate their technicians for piecework and overtime, and failing to provide workers with the required minimum wage.

A group of technicians classified as non-exempt whose job duties included installing cable, tv, phone, security, and internet services to Comcast customers sued the companies as joint employers (Soto, et al. v. O.C. Communications, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00251). The plaintiffs claimed the companies failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, did not provide appropriate compensation for rest and meal breaks, did not reimburse their employees for business-related expenses, and did not provide required wage statements. All of the above allegations are violations of California’s labor code.

The original rejection of the settlement  April 2019 was due to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria’s concerns that the agreement did not address avoiding repeat scenarios. He saw the issues as being systemic. He also felt the settlement was achieved at a discount and wanted assurances that the employment law violations would be unlikely to recur.

According to case documents, Comcast techs sometimes worked 60 hours in a week and were paid on a hybrid hourly/piece-rate basis based on different tasks and jobs. One plaintiff alleged Comcast assigned him 32 jobs to complete instead of the more typical eight jobs in one shift. Comcast workers regularly ate on the job (skipping meal breaks), were required to be on call at all hours, and had to provide their own tools. One plaintiff was allegedly told to under-report his work hours.

If you have experienced injustice in the workplace or if you have been the victim of California labor law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Get in touch with the employment law office nearest you: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago.

Getaround Employs a New Tactic to Defeat Employee Lawsuits

Gig economy businesses continue to face lawsuits demanding answers regarding whether or not workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. Many gig economy companies rely on contract work for their business model. These companies have seen the most significant increase in misclassification lawsuits. As the number of misclassification lawsuits increased, so did the number of tactics businesses used to manage the employee lawsuits. These tactics have included PR campaigns, lobbyists, presenting legal arguments that they are not employers – just software programs, and more. The recent lawsuit filed against Getaround Inc. has resulted in a new tactic.

Getaround Inc. assists people hoping to rent their personal vehicles out online. But at the moment they may be best known in certain circles for employing an uncommon legal tactic to a common issue in today’s world. In a preemptive strike against a class action lawsuit, Getaround mailed out dozens of checks to former workers with paperwork attached asking them to sign away their legal right to sue. The interesting part is that a provision included in the documents stated the deposit of the enclosed check counted as an agreement to waive the right to sue – even without signing the included contract. Almost everyone who received the paperwork deposited the check.

The tactic is not unheard of, but it seems to be particularly effective in the gig economy. This may be due, in part, to the fact that industry workers lack financial stability. Attorneys asked to respond to the topic have described it as “insidious” since most former workers can’t afford to seek legal counsel for advice on depositing the check or holding out for a larger payout from an eventual lawsuit. Low wage workers are particularly vulnerable to this type of legal maneuvering.

The legal strategy in Getaround’s case highlights how creative gig companies are willing to be to avoid scrutiny of their worker classification methods. Many gig companies of this nature are not profitable, and reclassifying workers and providing employment benefits would mean even less profitability for the company. Many gig companies throughout California are still in a flat spin following California Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling last year limiting the scope of work they can classify as “contract” labor.

Settling worker claims using the “Pick Up Stix” tactic (as it is often referred to) is unusual in the gig economy, but this may be largely due to the fact that most gig economy companies require workers to sign class-action waivers as part of their arbitration agreements.

Are you misclassified on the job? If you have questions about what it means to be classified as an independent contractor versus an employee, don’t hesitate to get in touch with an experienced employment law attorney at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Our convenient locations in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago make it easy for us to be your advocate and seek the justice and compensation you deserve.

More than 2 Dozen Women File Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against McDonald’s

In recent news, McDonald’s faces 25 new charges of sexual harassment in the workplace. Workers filed the 25 new lawsuits in:

·      Cincinnati, Ohio

·      Chicago, Illinois

·      Durham, North Carolina

·      East Haven, Connecticut

·      Gladwin, Michigan

·      Kansas City, Missouri

·      Los Angeles, California

·      Monterey Park, California

·      Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

·      Sacramento, California

·      St. Louis, Missouri

·      Tucson, Arizona

McDonald’s workers have filed additional civil lawsuits in Chickamauga, Georgia; Williamsburg, Michigan; and Davison, Michigan.

Plaintiffs that filed the 25 new suits allege that they were sexually harassed while working for the large fast-food chain. All the filings involve alleged incidents at either McDonald’s restaurant locations or corporate offices throughout the United States. Women who filed suit are as young as 16 years old. Alleged incidents include groping, indecent exposure, sexual propositions, and lewd comments directed at female McDonald’s employees from supervisors on the job. The filings were announced two days before the fast-food chain’s annual shareholder meeting in Texas.

In the fall of 2018, workers for the world-renowned McDonald’s in 10 different cities in the United States went on a one-day strike protesting sexual harassment. The strike came one year after allegations of sexual harassment at the hands of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein came to light and inspired the #MeToo movement. The 25 new filings are part of a continued effort to address harassment and other unlawful workplace conditions. As the second largest employer in the world, McDonald’s has been recognized by many as in need of change.

One of the plaintiffs in the recent sexual harassment filings, Jamelia Fairley, stated that the fast-food chain does not keep workers safe. While on the job, Fairley had to deal with a co-worker’s unwanted touching, sexually explicit comments and repeated sexual propositions. The harassing co-worker even asked Fairley how much it would cost to have sex with her daughter, who was only one year old at the time. Fairley believes that every McDonald’s employee should be treated with respect in the workplace and hopes the new sexual harassment filings lead to change.

With the 25 new filings, there have been over 50 charges and suits filed against McDonald’s by employees or former employees during the past three years. McDonald’s responds to the lawsuits by offering assurances that they have instituted new manager and employer training and continue to progress in this area and citing the company’s new third-party managed hotline employees can access to report complaints of any variety that rolls out within the month.

If you have sexually harassed in the workplace or if you need to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. With numerous locations, including our San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago employment law offices, we have the resources, the knowledge, and the experience to successfully advocate for workers whose rights have been violated in the workplace.

Caltech Whistleblower Case Jury Trial Currently Underway

Farshid Roumi, a Caltech scholar, was allegedly fired for whistleblowing. Roumi worked in Pasadena-based Caltech’s engineering and applied science division. In 2017, Roumi filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging retaliation and wrongful termination.

Roumi claims that he was fired after he exposed misappropriation of funds from the Department of Energy. Superior Court Judge Monica Bachner is presiding in the downtown Los Angeles Stanley Mosk Courthouse courtroom.

Roumi finished his doctoral dissertation at Caltech in 2010, “Shape Changing Transformations: Interactions with Plasticity and Electrochemical Processes.” He currently works as the Chief Executive Officer of his own company, Parthian Energy.

The whistleblower retaliation lawsuit Roumi filed is not the first that Caltech will face. In 2014, a Caltech professor, Sandra Troian, filed a complaint alleging retaliation after she provided the F.B.I. with information about a researcher who released restricted data to Israel and then made it public. Troian alleged that retaliation followed in the form of false accusations of research misconduct, prevention of her participation in campus events, and being denied over $1 million in grant funding.

Caltech’s official policy clearly prohibits retaliation. To quote policy, Caltech  “prohibits retaliation against an individual who makes a good faith disclosure of suspected wrongful conduct.” The Institute also maintains whistleblower hotlines online or by phone.

If you need to discuss labor law violations or if you are experiencing retaliation in the workplace, take action to get the resolution you deserve. Get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw L.L.P. With conveniently located employment law offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and Chicago; we are here when you need help.

California Youth Prison Worker Threatened Black Co-Worker with Noose

According to a recent lawsuit, a maintenance worker at a California youth prison outside Los Angeles threatened a black co-worker, Gales, aged 57, with a noose. The maintenance worker who threw a noose over a light fixture at Ventura Youth Correctional Facility in May 2017 kept his job, but Darren Gales, the black co-worker to which the threat was made, was forced to go on leave after experiencing retaliation in connection with the event.

When Gales' co-worker threw the noose over a nearby light fixture and said, "someone or something needs to be hanged today," Gales, the sole black employee in the prison's procurement department, filed a discrimination complaint and let his manager know about the incident. He later overheard the maintenance worker who made the threat in a conversation with another manager in which the manager pledged to support the maintenance worker.

After overhearing this conversation, Gales went on a doctor-ordered medical leave to reduce both anxiety and stress. His physician extended the leave until January 2, 2018, when Gales returned to his job. Upon returning, Gales was told his job duties were revised in his absence – he was limited to desk duty and required to notify his boss every time he left his desk. Gales' benefits were reduced, and he received a disciplinary notice regarding the incident that started it all (well after the 30-day window to issue this type of notice passed).  

Gales was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to the alleged discriminatory incident and left his job again on February 7, 2018. He has not been able to return to the job. He seeks compensation for lost wages and benefits as well as damages for emotional pain and suffering.  

If you need to discuss an incident of discrimination in the workplace, please call one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP's various locations: San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange or Chicago. We are ready to be your advocate as you seek resolution for labor law violations in the workplace.