Allegations Indicate that Epic Healthcare Violated Meal & Rest Period Requirements

In recent news, Epic Healthcare faces employment law violation allegations with a former employee’s class action alleging that they failed to provide meal and rest periods required by employment law.

The Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV38980

The Plaintiff: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The plaintiff in the case, Tina Charnett, was employed by Epic Healthcare in California from January 2022 through May 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Charnett was entitled to the protections offered by state and federal employment laws regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal break and rest period requirements. Charnett alleges that while employed by Epic Healthcare, she was required to perform off-the-clock work, complete job duties during “off-duty” meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The defendant in the lawsuit, Epic Healthcare, allegedly used a non-discretionary incentive program that provided hourly employees with additional compensation or “incentive wages” based on performance. Hourly employees could earn incentive pay if they met designated performance goals created by the employer. However, when Epic Healthcare calculated the “regular rate of pay” used to determine overtime pay wages, they allegedly failed to include the incentive pay in the calculations, which resulted in alleged overtime pay violations.

Details of the Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

In addition to allegations that the defendant failed to provide off-duty meal breaks and failed to include incentive pay in overtime pay calculations, the plaintiff claims that the business practice and policies in use at Epic Healthcare and their affiliates incorporated a rounding system instead of paying employees for all the hours they worked. They also required that employees submit to a Covid-19 screening process (as a condition of employment), which required them to submit to temperature checks and system questionnaires before clocking in for their shift. Due to the company policies in place during her time at Epic Healthcare, Charnett claims she and other similarly situated employees forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.

1st-Time Right LLC Faces a Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, 1st-Time Right LLC faces a California class action. The class action complaint alleges that the company violated California Labor Code by failing to comply with meal and rest break requirements and pay their employees for all the hours they worked.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

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

The Case No.: 22STCV36533

The Plaintiff: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jermaine Ford, a California resident, was employed by the Defendant from October 2021 through December 202. Categorized as a non-exempt employee paid hourly, Ford was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.

The Defendant: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The defendant in the case, 1st-Time Right, LLC, operates a staffing company throughout California, with operations in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff, Ford, was employed.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

Ford brings the class action on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees in the California class (current or former employees of 1st-Time Right, LLC in California classified as non-exempt employees at any time within the four years preceding the filing of the complaint (with an end date to be determined by the court). The plaintiff seeks compensation for losses incurred due to employment law violations during the class period. According to the complaint, the losses were incurred due to the defendant’s practices and policies that created a failure to fully compensate employees for their work. The plaintiff also alleges that 1st-Time Right, LLC illegally retained employee wages.

If you have questions about how 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC Faces Allegations of Meal Break Violations

In a recent California employment law case, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC is accused of violating California labor law by failing to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods, among other violations.

The Case: Violena Perez Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The Court: California Superior Court, County of San Diego

The Case No.: 37-2022-00017063-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Violena Perez Martinez, filed a PAGA-only action citing violations by the defendant, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC. Martinez was employed by Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC in California from July 2019 to December 2021. At all times during Martinez's employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, received pay on an hourly basis, and was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wage requirements.

The Defendant: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The defendant in the case, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC, operates a business that sells, develops, and commercializes packaged foods. According to the court documents, the defendant allegedly violated several California and federal labor codes, including furnishing employees with a written, accurate itemized wage statement showing: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned, and any applicable piece-rate, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates for which the pay period provided the employee with payment, the employee's name and only the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number, the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, all applicable hourly rate in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Olli Salumeria allegedly failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage statements that complied with California state law.

The Case: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The representative class action complaint is pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. According to the lawsuit, Olli Salumeria allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). PAGA violations can give rise to civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties for themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. An "aggrieved employee" is defined as someone "employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." See California Labor Code section 2699(c) for more. PAGA actions allow aggrieved employees to become "deputized" as private attorneys general so they can enforce the Labor Code on behalf of the state of California.

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

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.