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.

Balance Staffing and Draxlmaier Face Allegations of Meal Break Violations

In recent news, Balance Staffing and Draxlmaier face meal break and rest break violation allegations.

The Case: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al.

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

The Case No.: 23CV042695

The Plaintiff: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Ricardo Barahona Mayorg, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, Balance Staffing Workforce LLC, and several connected entities (collectively referred to as Balance Staffing here). The class action complaint also makes allegations on behalf of Balance Staffing employees who worked for Draxlmaier. Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked in violation of California labor codes.

The Defendant: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al. 

The defendant in the case, Balance Staffing (and Draxlmaier), allegedly violated California Labor Law when they engaged in the following illegal business practices:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide the required meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to pay wages when due

• failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

Are California Employers Required to Provide Wage Statements to Employees?

Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements to employees is one of the most common employment law violations. California Labor Code Section 226 is the specific law that requires California employers to provide employees with wage statements (a.k.a. itemized wage statements). Under Section 226, wage statements must include certain information:

• total hours worked (unless the employee is on salary)

• gross wages earned during the pay period

• number of piece-rate units earned/applicable piece rate (if an employee is paid on a piece-rate basis)

• any deductions from wages (taxes, insurance premiums, retirement, etc.)

• net wages earned

• pay period dates

• employee’s name and employee identification number or last four digits of social security number

• employer’s name and address (including main office or principal place of business)

 The requirement to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements is designed to create transparency and compliance with labor laws.

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

Bloom Energy Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations: Employees Claim They Don’t Receive Breaks

Bloom Energy, the defendant in a recently filed California labor law class action, is facing allegations that employees were not paid a full wage for all their work hours due to the employer's failure to comply with meal and rest break laws.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV419599

The Plaintiff: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The plaintiff in the case, Alexander Gilmore, was an employee at a Bloom Energy facility in Santa Clara from October 2022 through December 2022. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Gilmore was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wages, and accurate overtime wages. In his complaint filed on July 25, 2023, Gilmore alleged the company violated his and other similarly situated workers' rights under state and federal employment law.

The Class Members: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The California class for the case is defined as anyone currently employed or formerly employed by Bloom Energy in California as a non-exempt employee during the period beginning four years before the filing of Gilmore's complaint and ending on the date to be determined by the court.

The Defendant: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The defendant in the case, Bloom Energy Corporation, is a Deleware company conducting significant business in California. The company provides renewable energy and electric power solutions. According to the plaintiff, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice failed to compensate employees lawfully. According to the class action, Bloom Energy allegedly failed to provide eligible employees with legally compliant meal breaks and rest periods and to compensate the employees for the missed meal breaks and rest periods as required by law. As a result of this uniform policy and practice, the workers were allegedly not compensated for all hours worked, which led to additional alleged minimum wage, overtime pay violations, and accurate itemized wage statement violations due to the off-the-clock work.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

In Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, including current and former employees. The class action seeks compensation for class members' losses due to alleged labor law violations during the class period. The plaintiff in the case describes instances when they were required to work while clocked out for off-duty meal breaks as a regular occurrence and also claims that there were days when they did not even receive a partial lunch break during the midst of their full-time schedule. As a result, Gilmore and other class members forfeited minimum wage and overtime pay by regularly putting in hours that were not accurately recorded or compensated at the required minimum wage and overtime pay rates. According to the complaint, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice resulting in the alleged violations is notable in the defendant's business records. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.

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

DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Allegedly Violated Meal and Rest Break Law

In recent news, DWWH, Inc., dba Weir Canyon Honda, faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, started working for Weir Canyon Honda in July 2022. Ureno an hourly wage plus commission-based bonuses and non-discretionary bonuses. His employment status meant he was entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and compliance with meal and rest time break laws.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, owns and operates car dealerships in Orange County, California, and other locations throughout the state. Weir Canyon Honda faces a class action California lawsuit alleging they violated labor law. The defendant faces several labor law violation allegations:

(1) failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked

(2) failing to pay overtime wages when due

(3) failing to provide the legally required meal breaks and rest periods

(4) failing to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement

(5) failing to pay wages on time; and

(6) failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a class action complaint alleging the company failed to provide workers with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods as required by law. The case is currently pending in the California's Orange County Superior Court.

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

Public Health Institute Allegedly Violated Meal & Rest Break Labor Laws

In recent news, allegations indicate that Public Health Institute may have violated labor law by failing to adhere to meal and rest break requirements.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV028034

The Plaintiff: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiff in the case, Anysia Taylor, worked for Public Health Institute from January 2021 to April 2022. Taylor was employed as a non-exempt hourly worker entitled to the protections offered by federal and state labor law, including meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages for all time worked. The plaintiff brings the class action wage and hour suit on behalf of herself and other eligible class members seeking losses that resulted from the employer’s policies and practices that violated labor law and failed to compensate non-exempt hourly employees lawfully. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant retained wages due to the plaintiff and other class members.

The Defendant: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The defendant in the case, Public Health Institute, operates programs throughout California intended to improve overall health, equity, and wellness through new research, strengthening partnerships and programs already in place, and supporting and advancing specific public health policies.

The Case: Anysia Taylor v. Public Health Institute

The plaintiffs and eligible class members seek an injunction preventing similar unlawful conduct in the future and relief for economic injuries resulting from Public Health Institute’s allegedly illegal practices and policies.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

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.