California Court of Appeals Decision Reviewed by California Supreme Court: Meal Breaks for Hospital Employees on Long Shifts

July 14, 2015 - The California Supreme Court will review the decision made by California Court of Appeals regarding Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial. The case is regarding providing meal breaks for hospital employees scheduled for long shifts. The meal-break suit outlines the dispute over whether or not an Industrial Welfare Commission order that allows health care workers to waive meal periods provided during long shifts actually conflicts with state law.

The ruling of the California Court of Appeals invalidated the portion of California’s Industrial Welfare Commission or IWC Wage Order No. 5. This particular portion allows non-exempt health care employees to waive their second meal break in shifts that are over 12 hours. It was seen as a landmark decision for both health care workers and their employers. Health care employers have relied on the Wage Order provision as do many other California employers. 

The Gerard case plaintiffs sued under the California Private Attorney General Act on their own behalf and on behalf of other employees in similar situations. They allege that (notwithstanding the Wage Order) Orange Coast Memorial was violating California State Labor Code. Employees at Orange Coast Memorial consistently work 12-hour shifts. Occasionally employees at the medical center work shifts longer than 12 hours. Any hospital employee that worked shifts over 10 hours was able to sign a written waiver of one of their two provided meal periods during long shifts; even if the “long” shift was 12+ hours.

The Court of Appeal addressed the seeming contradiction between IWC Wage Order No. 5 and the California State Labor Code Section 512 regarding meal periods and long shifts. The Court of Appeal ruling is troubling in its reversal of the rule health care facilities/employers rely on regarding non-exempt workers. The state’s high court will take up the case.

If you need additional information on California State Labor Law, IWC Wage Order No. 5 or meal breaks required by law in the workplace, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Supreme Court to Review Nixed $90M Rest Break Verdict Handed Down by Appellate Court

June 4, 2015 - A $90 million judgment against ABM Industries, Inc. was first overturned by an appellate court and is now to be reviewed by The Supreme Court of California. The judgment was handed down in response to a suit alleging that ABM Industries, Inc. kept a class of security guards “on call” during breaks. Appellate court held overturned the settlement on the grounds that California employment law doesn’t require that employers relieve workers of all their work duties while they are on break.

The damages award was vacated by appellate court in December 2014 and is now set to be reviewed by The Superior Court of California.

ABM Industries, Inc., a facilities management company, allegedly had a policy in place requiring that their security guards carry their radio during break times. This effectively left them on call even during their breaks/rest times employees claim is a violation of California labor law.

The three-judge appellate court panel supposedly voted unanimously to reverse the summary judgment ruling; vacating the $90 million award. The basis for their decision was that while they were required to keep their radios on during their breaks, they used the time to engage in non-work activities. They pointed out that the question at hand was whether or not being “on call” constitutes performing work and their conclusion was that it does not.

ABM feels that the claims that requiring their employees to carry radios during breaks constituted a failure to provide them with adequate rest breaks were “absurd.”

The case began in 2005 with claims made by lead plaintiff, Jennifer Augustus, that ABM’s policy requiring guards to carry radios during break times was in violation of California state’s Labor Code.  In February 2012, the security guards filed for summary judgment requesting that Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley award approximately $103 million in damages in response to the allegations.

Judge Wiley’s response came in July 2012 when awarded the security guards $89.7 million in damages on account of improper breaks throughout the 10-year period addressed by the class action and including over 14,000 class action members (past and present ABM security guards).

ABM, of course, appealed Judge Wiley’s decision,  claiming that it was unprecedented and in defiance of both law and reason. They also claimed that letting the ruling stand would end up crippling California companies without even providing any actual benefit to California employees. They claimed that, if upheld, the decision would force California employers to require that employees take their rest breaks outside of work sites and without their own personal cell phones.

The question quickly became one of differentiation between meal breaks and rest breaks and which labor codes applied in which instance. In December, the panel noted that the state’s Industrial Welfare Commission wage order that covers rest breaks did not actually include reference to requiring that employees be “relieved of all” work duties. This in comparison to the section covering meal breaks where it was covered. They concluded that the IWC knew what they were doing when they differentiated between the two. As of January, plaintiffs in the case were still debating their options and planning their next move in regards to the case.

If you need additional information on how to respond to workplace requirements regarding meal times, rest breaks and relief from work duty; contact the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Mexican Farm Workers Strike: Demanding Overtime Pay, Breaks, Water and Healthcare

April 28, 2015 - The Associated Press states that the average farm worker will make between $8-10 for a full 10-hour day of labor. Supporting yourself on such an income is difficult. Supporting your family on such an income is close to impossible. The Baja, California Mexican farm workers strike involves fifty thousand. Their strike is an aggressive method of protesting low wages, poor living/working conditions as well as general right abuses.

As the Mexican farm workers and the growers attempt to come together to resolve the issue, millions in crops have rotted in the field as the two play tug of war over the operations/property. It has been reported that workers have been witnessed throwing rocks and burning tires as they attempt to increase the attention given to the alleged mistreatment of the workers who farm millions of dollars worth of produce including strawberries and tomatoes in Baja. While the dispute was escalating, workers on strike blocked the main north-south highway and the Transpeninsular Highway. It’s also notable that additional strikes are breaking out in the surrounding area.

Workers are on strike demanding overtime pay, health care, water, breaks and time off. They also seek an end of arbitrary firings, and other abuses including sexual abuse. Workers (who are typically paid $8-10 per day) are requesting an increase to $20/day for long days in the sun or hothouse.

The farmers are being urged to return to work before the destruction of the crops leads to a destruction of jobs. Many could be affected by the ripple effect this would have on the region’s economy. During the course of the strike, over 200 protestors have been arrested for various activities including: riots, vandalism, rock-throwing, etc. To protect themselves and their livelihoods, businesses have boarded up their windows. More than 1,000 police officers have been dispersed throughout Baja, California area to control the situation.

If you are looking for information on hostile workplace conditions, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Ruling of California Supreme Court: Federal Aviation Authorization Act Does Not Preempt California Meal and Rest Break Claims

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court will affect truck drivers throughout California. The finding that the Federal Aviation Authorization Act does not preempt California meal and rest break claims means that any truck driver in or through California is entitled to take a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal period prior to their fifth (5^th) hour of work. Drivers are entitled to this benefit regardless of the crossing of state lines during their route or the payment of overtime to the driver.

The issue originated with a meal break class action lawsuit filed against Penske Logistics that Penske won at the district court level. The panel of judges held that the meal and rest break laws in California are unrelated to Penske’s “prices, routes or services” and would therefore not be preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The appeals court also stated that it was never intended to preempt general state transportation safety, etc.

The meal and rest break law will add costs for motor carriers and motor carriers being affected are, of course, disappointed with the decision. The court defended their ruling stating that the law does not “set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell motor carriers what services they may or may not provide, either directly or indirectly.”

The decision is excellent news for truck drivers on California roads.

For more information on California meal and rest break laws, contact your Southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Workers Sue Crabtree and Evelyn Over Missing Meal Break Pay

California courts recently heard accusations against a luxury skin care product manufacturing company, Crabtree & Evelyn Ltd. The Connecticut based company was founded in 1972. They have grown to include several hundred retail locations all selling a range of products: fragrances, soaps, lotions, home spa products, etc. Former employees claim that they were denied mandated meal breaks and rest periods. Three plaintiffs filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court: Irina Eremina, Fernando Hernandez and Lillian Zamora. The plaintiffs indicated that they believed Crabtree & Evelyn was in violation of California Labor Law when they failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods. They also claim that the company manipulated pay stubs/time sheets to make it look as if breaks and meal breaks had been provided and used. In addition to not receiving their required break times, workers were not compensated for overtime accumulated by working through said breaks and meal breaks.

Proposed class is seeking a jury trial and financial restitution (for unpaid wages, attorney costs, etc.), but potential class members have not yet been defined. The three plaintiffs filed a grievance with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency in February in an effort to settle the matter, but didn’t hear back within the 33-day period required prior to filing suit under California state law. This fulfilled the requirement (under California’s Private Attorney General Act) to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to presenting claims to the court.

If you fear you may need to talk to someone about potential violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) in your workplace, contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. 

Accusations from Workers Indicate Costco Stiffs Workers on Meal Breaks and Ignores Sexual Harassment Charges

A proposed class action in California court alleges that Costco Wholesale Corp. doesn’t provide compensation for rest or meal breaks. The former employee making the allegations further claims that the discount retail giant retaliated against him when he reported sexual harassment to supervisors. Lead plaintiff is Micah Ornelas. Micah claims that warehouse employees were not provided with rest and meal periods and were not compensated for breaks as mandated in California law. Micah also claims that he was fired when he reported instances of both sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions to his direct supervisor.

The plaintiff claims that as a result of Costco’s labor law violations, he has suffered and will continue to suffer:

• Economic damages
• Emotional distress
• Humiliation
• Mental anguish/embarrassment
• Manifestation of physical symptoms related to the case

In addition to his own personal experience with a failure to respond to reports of sexual harassment, Ornelas claims that a female employee was harassed and physically threatened by the supervisor and told to “keep quiet” about the incident after reporting the problem. When the warehouse manager was approached about the problem, Ornelas claims that he was told the direct supervisor would be fired. Instead he was promoted. When Ornelas went back to the warehouse manager with concerns over this “resolution” he also informed him of unsafe working conditions (that had been discussed in pre-shift meetings previously with not action taken to remedy the situation by management). He was told that the harassment complaint was none of his business. Ornelas was suspended for three days. Upon returning from his suspension, Ornelas was subjected to sexual harassment as well.

Ornelas complained one last time about instances of sexual harassment, which resulted in his immediate termination without explanation. Ornelas claims that he was not paid all his wages upon termination.

If you have unfair wage and hour practices in force at your place of employment, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik to quickly remedy the situation. 

Workers Sue Crabtree and Evelyn Over Missing Meal Break Pay

California courts recently heard accusations against a luxury skin care product manufacturing company, Crabtree & Evelyn Ltd. The Connecticut based company was founded in 1972. They have grown to include several hundred retail locations all selling a range of products: fragrances, soaps, lotions, home spa products, etc. Former employees claim that they were denied mandated meal breaks and rest periods. Three plaintiffs filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court: Irina Eremina, Fernando Hernandez and Lillian Zamora. The plaintiffs indicated that they believed Crabtree & Evelyn was in violation of California Labor Law when they failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods. They also claim that the company manipulated pay stubs/time sheets to make it look as if breaks and meal breaks had been provided and used. In addition to not receiving their required break times, workers were not compensated for overtime accumulated by working through said breaks and meal breaks.

Proposed class is seeking a jury trial and financial restitution (for unpaid wages, attorney costs, etc.), but potential class members have not yet been defined. The three plaintiffs filed a grievance with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency in February in an effort to settle the matter, but didn’t hear back within the 33-day period required prior to filing suit under California state law. This fulfilled the requirement (under California’s Private Attorney General Act) to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to presenting claims to the court.

If you fear you may need to talk to someone about potential violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) in your workplace, contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today.