Did Texas Roadhouse Fail to Provide Employees with Legally Required Breaks and Meal Periods?

In recent news, employees of popular steak restaurant, Texas Roadhouse, claim the company violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Case: Porsche Barrett v. Armadillo Holdings, LLC Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., and Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, "Texas Roadhouse")

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

The Case No.: CV-22-001986,

The Plaintiff: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Porsche Barrett, alleges that Texas Roadhouse failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by labor law. According to court documents, Barrett was employed by Texas Roadhouse at one of their California locations since 2015. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and as such, was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages due.

The Defendant: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The defendant in the case, the Texas Roadhouse, allegedly failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods, failed to pay employees for all time worked, failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work, failed to pay employees overtime at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to compensate employees for meal rest premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, and failed to issue employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. Additionally, plaintiffs in the case allege that Texas Roadhouse’s uniform policies and practices are intended to purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California law (allegedly allowing the restaurant to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors who are in compliance with the law).

Summary of the Case: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The class-action lawsuit, Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse, is currently pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California law, employers must pay each employee, on the established payday for the specified period, no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in that payroll period. Hours worked are defined in 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 plaintiffs in the case, Texas Roadhouse allegedly required their employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts (off-the-clock work), as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit further alleges that the popular steakhouse restaurant failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. Not providing payment for off-the-clock work and time spent working during meal breaks and rest periods resulted in Texas Roadhouse allegedly failing to pay employees the applicable minimum wage.

If you have questions about California employment law, wage and hour violations, or need help filing a California class-action 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Employee Alleges Autonomous Labs Violated California Labor Law

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Autonomous Labs Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide California workers with overtime wages, minimum wage, and meal and rest periods required by law.

The Case: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

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

The Case No.: CIVSB220474

The Plaintiff: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Autonomous Labs Inc from March 2017 to September 2021 and was classified as a non-exempt employee paid through an hourly wage, commission-based compensation, and non-discretionary bonuses. Plaintiff claims that the company violated the law by failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages for hours worked. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Autonomous Labs’ conduct violated PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA enables aggrieved employees to act on behalf of themself, other workers, and California state in filing to recover civil penalties. Under PAGA, aggrieved employees are essentially deputized as private attorneys to enforce the employment law. An aggrieved employee is defined as an employee of the alleged violator against whom one or more of the alleged labor law violations was committed (refer to California Labor Code Section 2699(c)).

The Defendant: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The defendant in the case, Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc., faces a class-action lawsuit. (Autonomous, Inc. operates its business in California under the name Autonomous Labs Inc. or Autonomous Labs). While Autonomous, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, the company operates under the name Autonomous Labs Inc in California - and conducts (and continues to conduct) a significant amount of business in California.

Case Details: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The complaint is currently pending in San Bernadino County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Autonomous Labs allegedly violated California Labor Code numerous times. The allegations of labor code violations are based on the plaintiff’s claims that the company failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide employees with minimum wages, failed to provide employees with rest periods and meal breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for business expenses, made unlawful deductions, and failed to provide wages due in a timely manner.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a California class-action 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc., Faces Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Provide Meal Breaks

A recent case brings allegations against Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. Plaintiffs in the case allege that the California employer failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Case: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

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

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2022-552

The Plaintiff: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

The Plaintiff in the case, Rolletta Mangaron, was employed by Doctors Hospital of Manteca from March 2019 through February 2021. The defendant classified her as a non-exempt employee paid on an hourly basis. As such, Mangaron was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all her time worked.

The Defendant: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

The Defendant in the case, Doctors Hospital of Manteca, provides medical services primarily in the state of California.

Summary of the Case: Rolletta Mangaron v. Doctors Hospital of Manteca

According to the plaintiff in the case, Doctor Hospital of Manteca violated a number of California labor laws including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failing to provide wages when due. All of the alleged actions represent a violation of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements. By definition, an accurate, itemized wage statement should (at a minimum) show clearly the employee’s gross wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the specified pay period. According to the lawsuit, this California medical provider failed to provide the required accurate itemized wage statement for their workers.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California class-action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Legoland California Faces Class Action Alleging Meal Break Violations

In recent news, one of California’s most popular amusement parks, Legoland California, faces a class-action lawsuit alleging they failed to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Case: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2021-00052868-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Sierra Steele, was employed by Legoland California since March 2019. Steele was classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As such, she was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods as well as the payment of minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked. Steele alleges Legoland California, LLC violated employment law by failing to provide meal breaks, failing to offer rest periods, failing to pay minimum wage, and failing to provide accurate overtime wages.

The Defendant: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

Legoland California, LLC, the defendant in the case, owns and operates leisure facilities offering visitor attractions, theme parks featuring hotels, water parks, spas, holiday villages, conference venues, and golf courses.

Summary of the Case: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

The plaintiff filed the Class Action on behalf of herself and a California class. The class is defined as all individuals currently or previously employed as non-exempt employees by Legoland California at any time during the period beginning four (4) years before the complaint filing (with end date determined by the court). Steele filed a class action complaint alleging that Legoland California, LLC violated the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges Legoland California, LLC failed to compensate the plaintiff and other employees for all the time they were under their employer’s control. Allegedly, Legoland California required employees to work longer than four hours without being provided their ten minute rest periods from time to time. Additionally, plaintiffs allege that Legoland employees were allegedly required to work for more than five hours without receiving their legally mandated off-duty meal break.

In Violation of California Labor Law: Sierra Steele v. Legoland California, LLC

According to Cal. Lab. Code § 226, employers must provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." According to the lawsuit, Legoland California violated this California Labor Code when they allegedly failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements for their employees.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss meal break violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Performance Foodservice Allegedly Owes Tens of Thousands of Employees Unpaid Wages and Overtime

A Performance Foodservice employee filed a California overtime lawsuit seeking retribution for labor violations.

The Case: Alvarez v. Performance Foodservice et al

The Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:2021mc80299

The Plaintiff: Gerardo Alvarez

The plaintiff, Gerardo Alvarez, sued the company citing a number of labor law violations including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, denied meal and rest periods, and waiting time penalties. Alvarez claims he experienced the violations firsthand during his years working for the food distributor.

The Defendant: Performance Foodservice and Performance Food Group, Inc.

Defendant in the case, Performance Foodservice, is a wholly-owned division of Performance Food Group, Inc., a Colorado-based corporation that engages in business in various California locations (Gilroy, Livermore, and City of Industry).

The Case: Alvarez v. Performance Foodservice et al

In the December 2021 lawsuit, Alvarez claims that the company provided non-compliant, non-itemized salary documentation, did not pay required compensatory premiums, and regularly rounded down when calculating employee hours worked. The class includes non-exempt hourly Performance Foodservice California employees that worked for the company during the last four years. The plaintiff believes that the putative class in the case could include as many as “tens of thousands” of employees. According to Alvarez, the company required employees to work off the clock by mandating that they answer work-related questions before and after their shifts. Alvarez also claims that the company required employees to work more than eight hours and did not provide full compensation for hours worked. the company is also facing allegations that they refuse to pay wages in a timely manner and deny employees their mandatory rest and meal breaks. The practices that allegedly violate employment law were also allegedly a widespread standard throughout all of the company’s California locations.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or off-the-clock work, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Accurate Delivery Systems Facing PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

A PAGA-Only Action alleges that Accurate Delivery Systems failed to compensate employees for missed meal and rest breaks as required by employment law.

The Case: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2125174

The Plaintiff: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

According to the PAGA-Only action filed, Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. allegedly failed to fully release Marquez, plaintiff, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for the thirty minute meal breaks required by employment law. Plaintiff also claims that the employer sometimes required employees to work in excess of four hours without being provided ten minute rest periods as required by law. According to the Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are defined as time during which employees are relieved from their work duties and free from their employer’s control.

The Defendant: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

The defendant in the case is Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. The case is currently pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court.

The Case: Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc.

Willie Marquez v. Accurate Delivery Systems, Inc. is a PAGE-Only action. An employee can sue under PAGA as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor enforcement agencies. This mechanism was designed to allow the State of California itself to enforce state labor laws through employees. PAGA-Only actions are designed to recover civil penalties, and act as a law enforcement action. Designed to protect the people of California, PAGA-Only actions are not to benefit private parties. The purpose of PAGA actions is not to recover damages or obtain restitution. Rather the PAGA-Only action seeks to create a way to "deputize" citizens as private attorneys general as an additional means of enforcing the Labor Code.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a PAGA-Only action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Court Allows Los Angeles Airport Mechanic to Move Forward With Meal Break Suit

In recent news, a California Appeals court allows a Los Angeles airport mechanic to proceed with his lawsuit claiming his employer did not provide meal breaks required by state law.

The Case: Medina v. United Airlines

The Court: Calif. Ct. App.

The Case No.: B293677 (Aug. 24, 2021

The Plaintiff: Medina v. United Airlines

The plaintiff, a mechanic for United Airlines at the Los Angeles International Airport, filed a claim that United Airlines, Inc. did not provide meal breaks as required by California State Law. United Airlines mechanics working at LAX are subdivided into different categories. The plaintiff, as a Line technician, performed maintenance on aircrafts currently in service (arriving/departing from a United station). As a Line technician, the plaintiff responded to mechanical concerns raised by the flight crew and made sure equipment was in working order prior to takeoff. The plaintiff filed a representative action under PAGA raising only one claim—that United is violating California's meal break law by failing to provide employees with a 2nd meal break (when mechanics work shifts longer than 10 hours). The plaintiff seeks civil penalties for alleged violations of California’s meal break requirements.

The Defendant: Medina v. United Airlines

The defendant in the case, United Airlines, argued that the terms and conditions of employment are governed by a CBA that was negotiated and approved under the RLA. The CBA defines a normal workday as eight hours with a 30 minute unpaid meal break and two 10-minute rest breaks. Under the agreement, when a mechanic such as the plaintiff works 2+ hours of overtime, they are entitled to an extra 30 minute paid meal period. Under California Labor Code, employers are prohibited from requiring employees to work during mandated meal and rest periods. Under California law, employers should provide a second meal period of at least 30 minutes for any employee that works over 10 hours in one workday. When the trial court dismissed the action before trial, on the basis that the lawsuit was preempted by the RLA since considering the claim would mean interpreting provisions of the plaintiff’s CBA. The employee filed an appeal.

About the Case: Medina v. United Airlines

Trial court found that the action was preempted by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) deciding that they would have to interpret the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the two parties, but the appeals court did not agree. After hearing the arguments presented in the case, the California appeals court ruled that since meal break requirements under state law are not preempted by federal labor law, the United Airline mechanic filing the suit can proceed with the lawsuit.

If you have questions about meal breaks violations or if you’ve experienced other California labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.