Amazon Settles for $3M in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Amazon settled a California wage and hour class action lawsuit for $3 million.

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The Court: California Eastern U.S. District Court

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Allegations: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amazon’s California employees who worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023, during the same workweek they received a signing bonus. In the original wage and hour complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Amazon violated California labor laws when they failed to include the signing bonus to determine the regular pay rate when calculating overtime pay. As a result, the workers were allegedly underpaid for their overtime.

The Defendant: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., is a multinational tech company and the largest online retailer in the U.S. (selling many products, including books, music, movies, electronics, apparel, etc.).

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The California Eastern District U.S. District Court approved a $3 million settlement to resolve the overtime violation claims in September 2024. The class counsel’s $1 million attorneys’ fees were included in the settlement amount. The settlement was intended to return alleged unpaid overtime wages to eligible California workers.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Host Healthcare Faces California Overtime Class Action

Host Healthcare faces allegations of California labor law violations in a recently filed California overtime class action lawsuit.

The Case: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CU001979C

The Plaintiff: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Samantha Brodish, filed a class action complaint against Host Healthcare, Inc. and Host Healthcare, LLC. Brodish alleges that rigorous work schedules at the company resulted in numerous California Labor Code violations, including failing to provide appropriate meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Host Healthcare, Inc., faces numerous allegations of employment law violations, including failing to:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• reimburse workers for required business expenses

• provide wages when due

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

The allegations constitute violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Host Healthcare workers were subjected to rigorous work schedules that regularly prevented them from taking off-duty rest breaks. When employees did take their breaks and meal periods, they were allegedly often not fully relieved of their job duties. The lawsuit specifically alleges that due to overburdened work duties, inadequate staffing, and poor scheduling, Host Healthcare employees were regularly required to:

• Work more than four hours without a break

• Work through their first break (aka rest period) during 2-4 hour shifts

• Work through their first and second rest periods during 6-8 hour shifts

• Work through their first, second, and third breaks during ten-hour+ shifts

Additionally, Brodish claims the company did not provide workers one hour of wages to compensate them for the missed breaks as required by labor law. Brodish filed the class action in San Diego County Superior Court, and the case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime lawsuit or need to discuss company policies that violate overtime law, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Los Angeles empowering you to take action.

Joe’s Pizza on Sunset Faced Overtime Pay and Minimum Wage Violation Allegations

California pizza delivery driver sues for overtime and minimum wage pay violations and wins but ends up seeking an appeal when the trial court denies the attorney fees and costs request.

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

The Case: 03-25-2024

The Plaintiff: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gramajo, worked as a pizza delivery driver for Joe's Pizza from February 2014 to June 2015. In February 2018, Gramajo sued Joe's Pizza for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, citing multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc., faced numerous employment law violation allegations in the case including:

• Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 558, 1194)

• Failure to provide rest and meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 512, 226.7)

• Failure to pay wages due (upon termination) (Lab. Code, §§ 201, 202, 203)

• Failure to reimburse for business expenses (Lab. Code, § 2802)

• Unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The trial for Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc. was set after close to four years of litigation and discovery, with Gramajo seeking $26,159.33 in unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, and unreimbursed expenses. After completing a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of Gramajo on both the minimum wage and overtime causes of action and awarded Gramajo $2.17 in unpaid minimum wages and $3,340 in unpaid overtime wages. In total, Gramajo recovered:

• $7,659.63 (of unpaid minimum and overtime wages)

• $2,115.59 in statutory interest

• $2,100 in waiting time penalties (at a daily wage rate of $70 per day for thirty days according to Labor Code section 203)

• $2.17 in liquidated damages

• $100 in statutory penalties

Following the verdict, Gramajo moved for attorney fees totaling $296,920 and $26,932.84 in costs. The trial court denied Gramajo's fee request, granting Joe's Pizza's motion to tax costs, ultimately awarding Gramajo nothing, claiming the plaintiff acted in bad faith by inflating his damages figure, including claims he had no intention to pursue to justify the filing of an unlimited civil proceeding. The trial court also argued that the case was severely over-litigated.

Seeking Attorney Fees and Costs On Appeal: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the law entitled him to reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)) and that the trial court abused its discretion when turning to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), to support their denial of his litigation costs. The appeals court found the plaintiff was entitled to an award of reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)), and denying all costs by relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a) was in error. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the defendant's motion to tax costs was reversed and remanded to the trial court. The trial court will determine a "reasonable" attorney fee and costs award for the plaintiff. The appellate court did not express an opinion on the reasonableness of the plaintiff's attorney fees and costs requests or whether or not the case should have been filed in limited jurisdiction.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys can assist you from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices.

A Critical Analysis of the Uber and Lyft Overtime Lawsuit

In a landmark decision that has stirred the legal landscape of California employment law, the California Supreme Court recently cited Proposition 22 when they ruled that rideshare drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft can legally be classified as independent contractors. The California Supreme Court ruling reaffirms the gig economy's business model in California, emphasizing the constitutional validity of the recently approved state ballot measure.

The Case: Castellanos v. State of California

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-06462-JCS

The Plaintiff: Castellanos v. State of California

The plaintiffs in the case were rideshare drivers supported by various labor groups, who challenged the classification of drivers. They argued that classifying rideshare app drivers as independent contractors deprived them of critical labor protections provided by California employment law, including minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other benefits.

The Defendant: Castellanos v. State of California

The defendants, prominent rideshare companies Uber and Lyft (along with food delivery service DoorDash), defended their model by supporting Proposition 22. They argued that the proposition provides flexibility for drivers to operate as independent contractors, thus allowing them the freedom to decide when and how they work. The companies maintained that this setup benefits both the drivers for its flexibility and the companies for maintaining a cost-effective operational model.

History of the Case: Castellanos v. State of California

This legal battle reached the California Supreme Court after a three-year contest in lower courts, including a 2021 decision by a state Superior Court judge that deemed Proposition 22 "unenforceable" and a reversal by the state Appeals Court in 2023. The Supreme Court's ruling not only overturned previous lower court decisions but also marked a significant victory for the gig economy, solidifying drivers' employment status as independent contractors under state law.

The Case: Castellanos v. State of California

The Supreme Court's decision is pivotal for workers across California, particularly those in the gig economy. It underlines the ongoing tension between evolving business models and traditional employment protections. While the ruling secures the status quo for rideshare companies, it also highlights the need for continuous dialogue and potential legislative adjustments to ensure fair treatment and adequate protections for all workers in the state. The case serves as a crucial precedent in understanding and navigating the complexities of violating California overtime laws and the broader implications of labor classification in California's dynamic labor market.

If you have questions about filing a California misclassification 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.

Amazon Workers Receive Payout to Resolve Overtime Lawsuit

Recently, Amazon.com Services reached a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit alleging violations of overtime regulations.

The Case: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Plaintiffs: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy, and Patricia Salazar, filed a class action overtime lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Amazon workers did not receive overtime pay between 2017 and 2023. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of anyone who worked at Amazon during the past six years and received a sign-on bonus in the same week they worked overtime. According to the plaintiffs, Amazon violated California Labor Law by underpaying overtime wages earned during the same week a sign-on bonus was issued. The overtime pay was allegedly calculated at the regular rate of pay when they should have considered the bonus payment when determining the “regular rate of pay.”

The Defendant: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The defendants in the case, Amazon.com Services, are paying up in response to the class action overtime lawsuit. To settle the complaints, Amazon.com Services agreed to pay Amazon workers in the class over $500. While Amazon agreed to settle, it also denied the allegations of wrongdoing. Amazon.com Services has committed to a $3M payout for class members.

The Case: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services case resulted in a settlement agreement. Amazon workers can easily determine if they are eligible for a portion of the settlement. The criteria are: 1. Current or former Amazon employee; 2. Located in California; 3. Employed between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023; and 4. Received a sign-on bonus and worked overtime the same week.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

If you have questions about how to file a retaliation, discrimination, or wrongful termination 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.

Newport’s Stoneacre Employees Allege Owners Took Take and Didn’t Pay Overtime

In a significant legal development, the Stoneacre family of restaurants and its owners are embroiled in serious labor law violation allegations. The lawsuit contends that they unlawfully appropriated employee tips and misclassified positions, thereby exempting certain workers from overtime pay requirements.

The Case: Martin V. Walsh v. Kale Stems, LLC d/b/a Stoneacre et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00289

The Plaintiff: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The complaint was filed by U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and lists four counts of Fair Labor Standards Act violations against Stoneacre Hospitality co-owners Christopher Bender and David Crowell and their associated LLCs (associated with Stoneacre Brasserie, Stoneacre Garden, and Stoneacre Tapas (now closed)). According to the complaint, Bender and Crowell participated in the employee tip pool and allowed other managers and supervisors to participate. Doing so violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), which prohibits employees in positions that don't typically receive tips from participating in a tip pool. According to the complaint, the alleged participation in the tip pool also led to minimum wage compensation violations.

The Defendant: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The defendants in the case are the Stoneacre family of restaurants and its owners. The Newport area entrepreneurs started business during the Covid pandemic. In addition to the tip pool and minimum wage allegations, the defendants face allegations that they failed to pay proper overtime pay rates, misclassified employees to leave them exempt from overtime pay protections provided by labor law, and failed to maintain and keep accurate records of their employees' hours. According to the complaint, the defendants scheduled their employees' shifts at three locations. The employees also received payment through three different entities, and the defendants did not combine the hours worked at the three locations, so employees regularly worked overtime hours without receiving any overtime pay.

The Case: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The plaintiff seeks payment for the withheld tips and back wages due to minimum wage violations and damages for current and former employees affected by the alleged violations.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime 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.