Lawrence Equipment Allegedly Violated Labor Law: Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, an equipment rental company faces allegations of labor law violations stemming from missed meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc., Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment)

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, filed a class action lawsuit, including allegations that rigorous work schedules prevented employees from taking their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Pedroza also claimed employees were not fully relieved of work duties for their meal periods.

The Defendant: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The defendant in the case, Lawrence Equipment, allegedly failed to offer workers the required meal breaks and rest periods, or more specifically, employees were periodically interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks with requests to complete tasks for Lawrence Equipment. According to the California lawsuit, the employer violated multiple California labor laws. Allegations listed in the lawsuit include:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to offer employees the required meal and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse their employees for required business expenses

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to provide wages when due

When Should California Employers Provide Employees with Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California labor law mandates specific meal breaks and rest periods for non-exempt employees to make sure workers have enough time to rest and eat while at work or on the job. When employees work more than five hours daily, employers must offer them a 30-minute meal break. If an employee's total workday is six hours or less, they can waive their meal break if both the employer and employee agree. California employees are entitled to another 30-minute meal break on workdays that extend beyond 10 hours. (If the total hours worked in one day are no more than 12, the second meal break can be waived by mutual consent, but only if the employee did not waive their first meal break of the work day). Employers must also provide employees a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked (or major fraction, defined as anything more than two hours). Rest periods are paid time taken in the middle of work. If an employer does not provide required rest periods, the employee must be compensated with one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday the rest period is not offered.

The Case: Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment employees were allegedly required to complete work at Lawrence Equipment for more than five hours during a shift without being offered an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the suit alleges Lawrence Equipment didn't offer their employees a second off-duty meal period as required on workdays when employees worked 10 hours. According to the plaintiff, Lawrence Equipment kept employees on call and on duty during what was supposed to be their "off duty" meal periods. Pedroza also claimed that the defendant did not provide additional compensation to employees for the missed meal breaks as required. The class action lawsuit, Rudy Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment, is pending in California's LA County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Does GNC Provide Employees with Labor Law Complaint Meal Breaks and Rest Periods?

A lawsuit filed recently in California notes allegations that GNC failed to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks compliant with labor laws.

The Case: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

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

The Case No.: 24CV000627

The Plaintiff: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rahmeez Jackson, was a GNC employee from July 2022 through April 2023. Jackson claims that while he worked there, GNC didn’t provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods and that failing to do so constitutes a labor law violation. Jackson filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other GNC employees in a similar situation.

The Defendant: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The defendant in the case, GNC Holdings LLC, owns and operates a chain of health food stores. The allegations in the class action lawsuit include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to reimburse workers for job-related necessary expenses

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to pay wages when they’re due

The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action would violate multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

Do All California Employees Get Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

California employers must provide their non-exempt employees with a minimum 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours a day and a second meal break if they work over ten hours. Additionally, employees are entitled to 10-minute rest periods for every four hours they work. Failure to provide these breaks allows employees to receive one additional hour of pay at their regular rate for each workday that the meal or rest period is not provided.

The Case: Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC

The wage and hour class action lawsuit, Rahmeez Jackson v. GNC Holdings LLC, is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact 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.

Cogswell College Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

Cogswell College/University of Silicon Valley faces allegations of labor law violations after plaintiffs claimed they did not provide the legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

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

The Case No.: 22STCV00409

The Plaintiff: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rosangela Torres, recently filed a lawsuit alleging that Cogswell College (also known as the University of Silicon Valley) violated the California Labor Code when they allegedly failed to pay employees for all their time worked. According to the complaint, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 and 2804. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff described a workplace setting in which employees engaged in rigorous work schedules that prevented them from taking rest breaks off duty. Torres also alleged that employees were not fully relieved of their work duties during their rest periods.

The Defendant: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

Cogswell College, LLC, the defendant in the case, allegedly violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods (as required by law). According to the plaintiff, Torres, Cogswell College engaged in numerous behaviors that violate labor law, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide meal and rest periods

• Failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

According to details provided in the case, the labor law violations arose from issues with understaffing and overtasking the existing workforce. As a result, the company allegedly sometimes required employees to work through their 4-hour, 8-hour, and even 10+ hour work shifts without their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rest break. Torres also claims that the college did not provide employees who were not provided with their legally mandated rest breaks with the one-hour wage payment instead of a break. The case, Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego Allegedly Failed to Provide Employees with Breaks

Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed claiming Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego violated labor law when they failed to provide their employees with meal breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00027035-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The plaintiff in the case, Stephanie Jones, was employed by Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego from July 2020 through November 2022. Jones was entitled to the regular rest breaks and meal periods provided under labor law as a non-exempt hourly employee. Jones filed a class action complaint alleging that during her time with the facility, she was not provided with meal breaks, which violated labor law.

The Defendant: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The defendant in the case, Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, is the owner/operator of a hospital in California. According to the plaintiff, the hospital engaged in standard business practices that required her and other employees to work “off the clock,” did not provide them with legally required off-duty meal breaks, and utilized a “rounding down” system to track employee hours that resulted in workers not being paid for all hours worked.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The case, Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, focuses on multiple alleged labor law violations, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to pay all wages when due.

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

Allegations Claim 7-Eleven Failed to Provide Workers with Required Breaks

In recent news, 7-Eleven faces allegations that they failed to provide workers with legally mandated rest breaks and meal periods.

The Case: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00045550-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

The plaintiff in the case, Crystal Jourden, filed a class action against 7-Eleven, alleging the failure to provide employees with meal and rest breaks in compliance with labor law. According to the plaintiff, the workers’ rigorous work schedules and 7-Eleven’s staffing practices and uniform policies and procedures left employees unable to take their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When they took a meal break, employees were allegedly not relieved of their job duties. According to the plaintiff, workers might be interrupted during their off-duty meal break to complete tasks for the company. The plaintiff claims that the forfeiture of meal breaks and rest periods did not result in additional compensation from 7-Eleven. Jourden was employed at a San Diego 7-Eleven location from April 2020 through May 2023 as an hourly, non-exempt employee.

The Defendant: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

The defendant in the case, 7-Eleven, is a Texas corporation that operates several convenience stores throughout California, including one in San Diego County, where Jourden worked. According to the wage and hour lawsuit, 7-Eleven allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802 when they failed to:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• provide wages when due

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

• reimburse for required business expenses

The Case: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against 7-Eleven for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest breaks for workers. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that 7-Eleven violated the California Labor Code when meal break and rest period violations resulted in a failure to provide payment for all the hours their employees worked. The case is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour 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.

Workers Claim Uglyfighters dba Harley Davidson Didn’t Provide Meal and Rest Breaks

In recent news, Harley Davidson faces allegations that they violated labor law by failing to provide workers with legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

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

The Case No.: 23CHCV02986

The Plaintiff: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Rivas, alleges that Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson) engaged in a practice and pattern of wage and hour violations to decrease the company's employment-related costs. Rivas was employed at one of the defendant's California locations from March 2022 through March 2023. He was partly paid an hourly wage and party non-discretionary bonuses and commissions. Due to his employment status, Rivas was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages for all the hours he worked.

The Defendant: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

The defendant in the case, Uglyfighters Motorcycles dba Harley Davidson, owns and operates motorcycle dealerships throughout California. The company allegedly failed to provide accurate employee wages for all the time worked. According to the plaintiff's claims, the company's systematic violations of California wage and hour laws included:

• Failing to provide employees with compliant meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to offer breaks and rest periods free of job duties

• Failing to pay all wages due (minimum wage, sick pay, regular pay, and overtime pay)

• Failing to pay employees within seven days of the payroll close date

• Failing to pay employees for all the hours they worked

• Failing to maintain accurate records

• Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to provide wages in a timely manner

• Failing to timely pay wages upon termination of employment

The Case: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

The lawsuit alleges that Uglyfighters Motorcycles dba Harley Davidson violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees for all their hours. As a result of the workers' rigorous work schedules and the company's inadequate staffing practices, plaintiffs claim they were regularly unable to take their thirty-minute off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, when workers did take a meal break, they were often not relieved of work duties during the break. (Of note: the nature of the work performed does not qualify for the limited and narrowly construed "on duty" meal period exception). For example, workers were often required to stay on-site during their meal break, or if they left the job site, they were required to be accessible by phone/text to manage work-related communications. Workers were also regularly not provided with rest periods as required by labor law, and employees were not reimbursed for allegedly necessary business expenses for cell phones, home computers, and internet. The plaintiffs' claims were all necessary to complete their required job duties. Additionally, employees should have been provided with itemized, accurate wage statements. For example, the company often included Vacation Pay, Sick Pay, and Personal Day Pay in the computation of total hours worked, which violates California Labor Law.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour 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 Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center Violate Meal and Rest Break Law?

In recent news, a class action complaint alleges Twin Palms Healthcare Center violated wage and hour labor law by failing to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

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

The Case No.: 23STCV20411

The Plaintiff: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The plaintiff in the case, Mary Franklin, filed a class action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the complaint, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center's employees engaged in rigorous work schedules that prevented them from taking off-duty rest breaks. Plaintiffs also claim they were not fully relieved of duty during their rest periods. Plaintiffs in the case allege they were sometimes required to work through their work periods due to their overburdened work schedules. In addition to failing to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, allegations indicate that the employer did not provide employees who missed their breaks and meal periods with the one-hour wage required instead of a break.

The Defendant: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The defendant in the case, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center, faces several allegations in the class action complaint, including failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse employees for required business expenses. The alleged violations fall under numerous California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 and 2804.

When Do California Employees Get Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

In California, employees are entitled to rest breaks and meal periods under certain circumstances, depending on their work shifts and total hours worked.

Rest Breaks: Employees are entitled to a paid rest break of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked. Rest breaks are paid breaks; employees should receive their regular pay rate during this time.

Meal Periods: Employees are entitled to an unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes when they work more than five hours in a workday. Employees who work more than ten hours in a workday are entitled to a second unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes. Meal periods are unpaid, and employees are fully relieved of their duties.

The Case: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The case, Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. At the center of the case is the allegation that due to their allegedly rigorous work schedules and inadequate staffing, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center's employees were sometimes allegedly denied their rest periods by their employer without receiving additional payment in place of a break as employment law requires.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour 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.