Versace Allegedly Employed a Code Designed to Identify Black Shoppers

One of Versace’s former employees, Christopher Sampino, has come forward to file suit against the company alleging state law violations, i.e. unfair business practices, wrongful termination, racial discrimination, etc. The lawsuit claims that the Italian design house uses a secret “black code” that alerts staff and security when there is a black shopper in one of their retail locations.

Sampino’s complaint was filed in Alameda County Superior Court and included allegations that he was discriminated against by Versace for being of mixed race. He was fired after just two weeks at the Versace outlet store in Pleasanton, California. In the complaint, Sampino alleges that new-employee training included an unnamed manger advising him regarding the “D410 Code.” The code is used for labeling black clothing, but it is also used in a casual manner whenever a black person enters the Versace store. When he was advised of the use of the code, the manager explained that it was used to alert Versace workers that a “black person is in the store.”

Sampino also claims that during his time with Versace he was harassed and eventually terminated after informing the store manager that he was, in fact, black. According to Sampino, he met and/or exceeded all expectations in connection with his Versace employment, but was fired after two weeks because he did not “understand luxury” and did not “know the luxury life.” Versace also advised Sampino that his dismissal was due to his lack of experiencing a luxury life. He was advised to quit in order to make the paperwork easier.

Labor Violation Allegations Listed in Sampino’s Suit Include:

1. Not being paid for time worked.

2. Not receiving required rest periods.

3. Being wrongfully terminated.

Sampino seeks class action certification. If the proposed class action lawsuit is certified by the court, other employees and/or former employees of Versace who found themselves in similar situations and were subjected to discriminatory treatment by Versace in the U.S. during the same time frame would be able to join in the case and share in any settlement amounts.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you have questions regarding the definition of wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Wage and Overtime Allegations Aimed at Korean BBQ Restaurant

A Korean BBQ restaurant in San Francisco is facing wage and overtime allegations from three former employees who filed suit citing wage theft, wrongful termination in retaliation for complaining about the company’s labor law violations. The lawsuit was filed against YakiniQ, Inc., the restaurant’s owner, Daeho Hwang, and the restaurant’s manager, Bruce Lee. The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court July 27th.  

The Plaintiffs: Michael An, Joshua Kim & Seung-Jae Yim

The plaintiffs who filed he wage and overtime lawsuit against the restaurant were servers at various times for YakiniQ. Termination dates vary, but fall between September and December 2015. All claim that their employer promised that they would be paid minimum wage plus tips that were left by customers of the restaurant.

The Defendant/s: YakiniQ, Inc., Daeho Hwang & Bruce Lee

Lee and YakiniQ are accused of withholding wages and keeping cash tips left by customers for themselves. The Defendants are also accused of regularly requiring their employees to work shifts that were longer than eight hours without providing overtime payment.

Employment law is in place to prevent employers from taking this type of action in order to “cut corners” when providing employees with their rightful wages.  

Activities included in the plaintiffs’ common duties:

·       Greeting customers

·       Seating customers

·       Taking orders from customers

·       Serving food and drinks to customers

·       Delivering bills to customers

·       Bussing tables

·       Cleaning the restaurant after close of day

Allegedly, the restaurant owner/manager prohibited the plaintiffs from taking their rest and meal breaks as required by law under California Labor Code. According to the lawsuit, when plaintiffs were allowed to eat, they were not relieved of job duties completely. They were required to respond to requests from both customers and their employer as needed even while eating. Servers were also, allegedly, financially penalized as a group for individual mistakes on the job. If one server forgot to include an item in a customer’s bill, the cost of the item was divided up amongst servers on the shift so the restaurant could avoid absorbing the cost. Michael An states that when he complained about the unlawful action on October 4th, 2015 he was fired.  Plaintiffs seek a jury trial and compensation for lost wages/unpaid overtime.

If you have questions regarding unpaid overtime or lost wages, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Drivers’ Employment Status Leaves Uber Being Sued…Again!

Uber is being sued again. The question of the Uber drivers’ employment status has opened the class action floodgates. Within two weeks of the settlement of $100 million for class action lawsuits in California and Massachusetts that sought driver reclassification from independent contractors to employees, Uber is fielding two new cases against their company.

Following the California and Massachusetts case resolution, similar nationwide class-action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Uber drivers in both Florida and Illinois courts. The drivers (plaintiffs) allege that Uber, a San Francisco company, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The new suits seek unpaid overtime wages and work-related expenses on behalf of drivers.

The class action suit that was filed in Illinois takes the familiar allegations to a new level by attempting to recover tips that drivers earned which they allege the company stole from them or caused them to lose through Uber policies and communications.

Legal representation for the Illinois class action lawsuit indicated that the settlement with California and Massachusetts drivers was an obvious attempt by Uber to band aid the situation when it called for much more drastic methods. Many drivers who work using the Uber service do so as a means of supporting themselves and their families. They need the protection of wage and hour laws and overtime pay requirements, just as much as the rest of the workers in the nation.

Uber responded to the new legal activity with a statement indicating that 90% of their drivers work with Uber because they enjoy being their own boss and that the reclassification of drivers from independent contractors as employees would take that away from them. They would no longer have the flexibility that the status of independent contractor affords. Uber “employees” would have designated shifts, a fixed hourly wage that would limit their earnings, and prohibitions would keep them from driving for additional ride-sharing apps.

If you have questions about the misclassification of workers or if you are an independent contractor and have questions about misclassification of employees, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

Lyft Settles California Overtime Lawsuit

Lyft and Uber are both very similar businesses that allow any person to sign up as a driver and when they are needed, they go to the given pick up spot and take their customer where ever they ask to go. The companies take pride in being very lenient and easy - allowing their workers to have a full personal life while still keeping a good paying job.

After being hit with several lawsuits filed towards Lyft from thousands of the company's drivers, saying they were seen as independent contractors rather than employees, Lyft has decided to settle. This agreement to settle leaves Uber, a similar car ride service, alone to face the driver's lawsuits that state that they should get sick days and overtime pay alike all other employees. 

According to resources Lyft has agreed to the final terms of the lawsuit and also to paying a total of $12.25 million to the affected drivers. The settlement will give the drivers conditions that apply more to the independent contractor, even though the lawsuit was filed to achieve employee status.

The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is that the employee receives more benefits and rights, but is more controlled by their employer. Whereas an independent contractor has far more flexibility in their schedule and payment, but do not get overtime pay, sick days, or any other benefits that an employee may receive.

The drivers claim that they were not being given the benefits, but were being controlled more than they should have been. Lyft has addressed the benefits matter by saying hey will be giving "portable benefits" to their workers but have not stated what this entails.

Arbitration clauses were in both Uber's and Lyft's driver agreements, but were disregarded by the plaintiffs when the lawsuits were filed originally. Lyft has agreed to pay for the arbitration fees as part of the settlement. Uber's arbitration clause was rendered invalid by the judge, but the same didn't go for the clause in Lyft's agreement.

If you are in need of assistance regarding a misclassification in the workplace or unpaid overtime, please contact the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. We would be glad to assist you. 

Caretaker Sues Betty White for Unpaid Wages and Rest Period Violations

In recent news, Betty White is being sued by a former caretaker. The caretaker turned plaintiff was a long time, live-in employee named Anita Maynard. Maynard filed suit in Los Angeles alleging that Betty White did not pay her overtime and did not allow her breaks as required by California state labor law.

Betty White is most well known for her work on the TV show, Golden Girls. The popular TV show featured four older women who lived together in Miami, Florida that were experiencing the joys and pains and annoyances of their “golden years.” Betty White played the role of the spacey, but sweet Rose alongside Dorothy, Blanche and Sophia (Dorothy’s mom in the show). The show is widely known and many recognize it from the theme song along, “Thank You for Being a Friend.” The actress is now 94 years old.

Maynard claims that she was a live-in domestic worker for Betty White for over 20 years. During this time, she alleges that White did not provide her with payment for overtime hours even though she put in more than 14 hours on a typical day. Maynard’s complaint, includes additional allegations:

·       That White required Maynard to work six days/week without overtime rates for the sixth day.

·       That since discontinuing employment on March 11th, Maynard has not received all of her earned wages or vacation pay due.

·       That she earned less than the legal minimum wage according to California state labor law.

Maynard seeks wages owed, penalties and attorney’s fees through the court. A representative for Betty White responded to the legal actions by stating that Betty White has worked with thousands of people throughout her lifetime and none of them have anything negative to say about the well-loved actress. She went on to describe Betty as a kind person who is simply nice to everyone she runs into and will continue to make her purpose in life making other people happy.

If you need additional information on what qualifies for overtime pay and/or how to recognize violations of wage and hour laws, please contact one of the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

"Top Chef" Finalist Settles Wage and Overtime Lawsuit

Top chef is a television series aired on the Bravo channel. On the popular TV show, unknown chefs looking to make it big in the restaurant world are able to compete for the title of "Top Chef". In addition to the general prestige that comes with winning the title, the purpose of the competition is to win the ultimate chef's “Top Chef” prize package, which includes $125,000 and a food showcase at the Food and Wine Classic in Aspen, Colorado. Bryan Voltaggio was a contestant on the sixth season of Top Chef. Near the end of the season, Voltaggio was one of the top finalists who went on to create and own four very popular restaurants: VOLT, Lunchbox, RANGE, and Family Meal. 

In recent news, several previous employees of "Top Chef" star Bryan Voltaggio have been attempting to negotiate a settlement of their federal lawsuit filed against him. (The settlement's terms were confidential and disclosed in a U.S. District Court document). Legal representation for the parties in the case was not able to discuss the terms of the agreement.  

The group of former employees sued Voltaggio in September of 2014. He was accused of violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions stated in the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to Court recorded documents it was a mandatory obligation that the employees appear at work at least three hours before the appointed shift time. They were also required to stay from two to six hours after they had clocked out for the day. Plaintiffs were also required to work "off the clock" which means they had to work as they would during a shift, but could not clock in and receive payment until the scheduled shift had started. 

What is Off the Clock Work?  

When discussing employment law and payment for wages earned, Off the Clock Work refers to the legal right of every non-exempt employee to be compensated for their hours worked. Hours worked refers to all time an employee is required to be on duty, on the premises of their workplace, or other location employee is required to be in order to fulfill work duties. When an employee is required to work without “clocking in” or counting their hours for payment, this is often referred to as off the clock work.

When Voltaggio was informed of these charges he responded to the accusations with an email stating that his attorney was reviewing the claims. He also stated that he was sure that the plaintiffs were incorrect; that he did nothing wrong.  

If you have additional questions about off the clock work, or what qualifies as a failure to pay overtime, please get in touch with the southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

CVS $7.5M Wage Deal to Cover One Thousand Pharmacists

Final approval has been granted for the $7.4 million settlement between CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and the class of over 1,000 pharmacists. Pharmacists lodged allegations of unlawful denial of overtime pay when working over six days consecutively. The final approval hearing was held in Los Angeles Superior Court with Judge Elihu M. Berle granting the final approval for the proposed settlement.

Pharmacists included in the class action work or previously worked in three different CVS California regions. They filed a claim that they worked the “seven-day week,” but were not paid overtime. The judge noted that the plaintiffs believed they had viable claims, but that they were also aware that CVS did not believe their practices were in violation of wage and hour laws. The judge felt the settlement was fair and reasonable and that the plaintiffs were appropriately weighing the benefits of prevailing against risks posed by trial and potential delays of appeals, etc.

No class members objected to the settlement. Only seven class members opted out. Claims were filed for 85% of workweeks at issue in approving the settlement/deal. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees of $2.49 million was also approved by the judge.

The three suits were filed in October 2013 alleging violations of California labor code on the part of CVS pharmacy due to requirement of pharmacists working over six days in a row without payment of overtime (time and a half for any hours worked on the seventh day of consecutive work). Preliminary approval was granted by Judge Berle in July after parties used the help of a mediator to come to a tentative agreement.

The agreement will result in each class member receiving approximately $2,846. The actual amount will depend upon the number of workweeks the pharmacist worked during the time period designated by the class action.

If you have questions regarding the class action process or any other southern California employment law issue, please get in touch with the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We can answer your questions and provide you with the legal counsel you need.