$3.6 Million Settlement to Resolve Sherwin-Williams Wage and Hour Claims

Managers and associates of Sherwin-Williams banded together to file claims against their employer alleging failure to pay overtime, provide required meal breaks and rest periods, and other California labor law violations in Anderson v. The Sherwin-Williams Company No. 5:17-cv-02459 (C.D. Calif. May 12, 2020). As a result, Sherwin-Williams Company will pay $3.65 million to settle the claims.  

A Brief Outline of the Case: Anderson v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Workers in the case allege that he paint store not only did not pay proper overtime, and provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, but that they also failed to completely reimburse work expenses. Approximately 5,700 Sherwin-Williams workers are included in the settlement class according to court documents.   

A History of the Case: Anderson v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Plaintiffs in the case filed suit under California law, but in this type of case, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is often violated. The case includes the type of common allegations that frequently result in large settlements – like the one Sherwins-Willimans proposed to resolve the claims. 

Common FLSA Violations: Meal Breaks

Meal Breaks: Failure to keep track of, provide, or authorize meal breaks as required by law is responsible for many wage and hour related claims, even more so when they involve automatic deductions. For instance, some employers automatically deduct the 30 minutes from their worker's pay as if they always take their rest period, but do not actively ensure that the workers actually take the time off (or even actively make it possible for them to take the mandatory meal break or rest period). According to labor law, workers are supposed to be provided with meal breaks and rest periods during which they are not working.  

Off the Clock Work: Automatic deductions for breaks/rest periods are not prohibited, but employers are required to provide employees with payment for all hours worked, so if deductions are made, but employees are not taking the time off work, they are not being paid for their time. Additionally, employers are required to keep accurate records of all hours worked, so if breaks are recorded, but not taken, records being kept are inaccurate. Off the clock work is a common FLSA violation that leads to many off the clock wage and hour lawsuits. 

Overtime Pay: Another common FLSA violation is failure to provide accurate overtime pay for workers who are working more than full time. FLSA obligates employers to pay their nonexempt workers time and one-half for all hours worked beyond 40 in one workweek. 

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, we can help. Get in contact with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Mistra Allegedly Fails to Provide California Workers with Required Meal and Rest Breaks

Mistras Group, Inc. is facing an employment law lawsuit alleging California Labor Code violations. The class action complaint was filed in July 2020 in Los Angeles, (California Case No. 20STCV22485). 

The California Class Action Complaint Alleges Numerous Employment Law Violations: 

The July 2020 complaint filed in Los Angeles, California alleges numerous employment law violations. Mistras Group, Inc. allegedly violated various California Labor Code provisions when they failed to provide their workers with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, and when they failed to reimburse workers for required business expenses. 

California Class Action Complaint Alleges Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks:

According to the lawsuit, Mistras Group, Inc. failed to provide their California workers with mandatory meal and rest breaks. According to California wage and hour law, employers are required to provide their nonexempt employees with a thirty minute lunch or meal break when the worker's shift is longer than five hours in one day. California employers are also required to provide employees with mandatory rest periods or breaks equaling ten minutes for every four hours worked in a day. 

California Employment Law Class Action Currently Pending: 

The California employment law class action is currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of California. Plaintiffs allege that the employer failed to provide their workers with accurate itemized wage statements, failed to keep an accurate record and provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods, failed to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, and failed to provide wages to employees when they were due. All of the alleged practices are serious violations of California labor law. 

Additional Allegations Cite Unfair Competition in Violation of California Law:

The same complaint claims that Mistras Group, Inc. engaged in acts of unfair competition that violated California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"). The plaintiffs allege that their employer used company wide policies and procedures that failed to accurately record overtime hours worked, and failed to accurately calculate overtime pay rates for the plaintiffs and other California class members in similar circumstances. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the Defendant, Mistras Group, Inc., willfully disregarded their legal obligation to meet this burden, and that as a result of the California employer's intentional disregard of California employment law, workers were not paid provided the required compensation for all the hours they worked. 

If you need to discuss overtime violations or if you need 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 any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Air Medical Company Overtime Lawsuit Leads to $78 Million Settlement

In recent news, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Y. Smith agreed to a preliminary settlement. The settlement request was filed by 450 of Air Methods Corporation of Colorado's current and former medical flight crew members employed in California.

Air Medical Company Ordered to Pay $78 Million to Flight Crew Employees:

Air Methods, a medical helicopter operator, was ordered to pay $78 million to its California based flight crew employees for unpaid overtime and missed meal breaks and rest periods. The settlement resolves class action overtime lawsuit. In addition to the lump sum, Air Methods also agreed to pay its medical flight crew daily overtime beginning June 28. The agreement to pay daily overtime is an estimated 20% increase to flight crew member salaries.

The Defendant: Air Methods

Air Methods is recognized as one of the nation's biggest air medical transport organizations. The company also operates helicopter bases. The helicopters are used to dispatch medical crews of nurses and paramedics – frequently to far flung locations. The lawsuit alleged that Air Methods refused to pay flight crew members daily overtime.

What is Daily Overtime Pay?

Daily overtime refers to overtime wages earned when a nonexempt employee works more than 8 hours in one day. Air Method's flight crew members were allegedly working 24-hour shifts on a regular basis. The medical transportation company allegedly didn't even allow flight crew members to take mandatory off-duty meal breaks or rest periods.

Overtime Lawsuit Settlement Approval:

While the judge already granted preliminary approval, final approval should be granted in October. If all goes as planned, each Plaintiff will receive more than $100,000 each on average due to the settlement. The Director of Communications for Air Methods Corporation said that the decision to change the pay practices puts teammates first and that it will make the company stronger in the state of California by helping them continue to recruit and retain the top medical clinicians available. 

If you have questions about how to identify California labor law violations or if you need to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Aldi, Inc. California Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Settlement?

Plaintiffs in a California class action lawsuit claim that a major grocery chain violated employment law. Aldi, Inc., the grocery store chain, offers to resolve the claims through settlement.  

Plaintiffs Allege California Grocery Store Failed to Pay Overtime: 

A recent California class action alleges Aldi, Inc. failed to pay employees for all hours worked. The original Plaintiff in the case, Jeree Grant, filed the class action claiming misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide payment for all hours worked. According to Grant, Aldi employed her to work at one of their grocery stores from October 2017 to May 2018, but she did not receive payment for all the hours she worked. The California class action lawsuit listed other allegations under California labor code, including meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, etc. Aldi has a reputation for being brutally efficient amidst the competition in the California grocery store scene. They draw shoppers with low prices and a minimal $0.25 deposit for grocery cart rentals. Yet shoppers are not aware that a significant portion of the "discount" they enjoy is possible because Aldi management doesn't just keep a "tight" rein on labor costs – their grip far more than "tight." According to the lawsuit, management violates labor law to take advantage of their own workers, adding to their bottom line by taking from those who cannot afford the loss. 

Aldi Grocery Store, Defendant in California Class Action Lawsuit:  

The central claim in the Aldi class action is misclassification under California labor law. Other allegations under the California labor code regarding mandatory meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements follow from the lawsuit's central claim. While the allegations in the class action are fairly simple, the speedy resolution could indicate a more complicated story of worker abuse. Some suspect a widespread problem of systemic misclassification to treat hourly nonexempt workers as if they were managerial staff so the company can avoid paying overtime wages. 

Defendant Offers to Settle with Grocery Workers in Misclassification Case:  

Aldi, the grocery store facing the misclassification allegations, offered to settle with the class of potentially thousands of California workers. The company didn't waste time offering a $2 million settlement. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to your workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Impact Group Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, a class action overtime lawsuit was filed against Impact Group, LLC. The overtime lawsuit alleges that the company violated several California Labor Code provisions.

Impact Group Allegedly Violated Multiple California Labor Code Provisions:  

According to the recent class-action lawsuit, Impact Group LLC allegedly failed to provide workers with minimum wage, failed to provide overtime pay, and failed to provide mandatory rest periods. California labor law requires employers to provide California employees with meal and rest periods. The case (Case No. 30-2020-01141107-CU-OE-CXC) is pending in California’s Orange Superior Court.

Allegations Made Against Impact Group in Recent California Overtime Lawsuit:

In the overtime lawsuit filed against Impact Group, LLC, plaintiffs allege that Impact did not provide accurate itemized wage statements, did not properly record required meal and rest periods, did not provide mandatory meal and rest periods, did not pay overtime wages as required by law, did not pay minimum wage as required by law, did not reimburse employees for eligible required expenses, and did not pay wages when they were due. The laundry list of allegations cite violations in several applicable California Labor Code Sections, including §§201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order. Alleged violations leave the company subject to civil penalties.

What Is an Act of Unfair Competition?

The complaint also includes allegations that Impact Group, LLC engaged in acts of unfair competition. “Unfair competition” is defined as dishonest or fraudulent rivalry in trade or business. Unfair competition is a branch of intellectual property law relating to the practice of endeavoring to substitute your own goods or products in the market for those of another to deceive buyers or the public. Engaging in acts of unfair competition violates the California Unfair Competition Law under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”).

Impact Allegedly Engaged in Unfair Competition:

The lawsuit alleges that Impact Group engaged in unfair competition through the use of a company-wide policy/procedure failing to calculate and record overtime rates accurately for the plaintiff and other class members. Impact’s willful disregard of their legal obligation to accurately record overtime hours worked, and accurately calculate overtime rates for employees meant their workers did not receive full overtime pay for overtime hours.

If you need to discuss employment law violations in the workplace or overtime pay violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$5.7M Settlement Follows Cognizant Overtime Lawsuit

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., IT services giant, recently agreed to settle an overtime lawsuit for $5.7 million. The lawsuit included allegations that the firm failed to pay a group of US employees for overtime hours worked. 

What is Overtime Under California Law?

According to California state law, employers are required to pay all nonexempt employees daily overtime one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours they work over 8 hours (up to and including 12 hours in any workday), and for the first 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.

The Plaintiff in the California Overtime Case:

While the Cognizant overtime lawsuit is a class action covering several different, but similar workers, the named worker in the lawsuit is Debi Mishar. Mishar was a testing analyst for a Sacramento Blue Shield of California location for Cognizant. The other workers included in the class action were also workers in the company’s quality assurance testing business.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations: California Overtime Class Action Lawsuit

According to the documents included in the California overtime class action, Mishar was paid an annual salary until August 2012, when Cognizant switched his payment to an hourly wage. Mishar alleges that the defendant underpaid overtime by failing to include certain amounts of pay when they calculated the employee’s “regular rate of pay” used to calculate overtime pay.

The Cognizant California Overtime Class Action Lawsuit: 

The overtime class action lawsuit was filed in US Federal Court on August 25, 2017. The court granted preliminary approval of the $5.7 million settlement earlier this month. A hearing is set to seek final approval on November 12, 2020.

If you need to talk to someone about violations in the workplace or need to file an overtime lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Will California Successfully Force Uber and Lyft to Reclassify Drivers as Employers?

In recent news, California seeks to force Uber and Lyft to reclassify its drivers as employees – with a deadline only weeks out! Attorney General Xavier Becerra plans to file court documents that could make it happen. His office plans to seek a preliminary injunction against both massive rideshare companies. If the court agrees, both would be required to grant their drivers’ employment status while the lawsuit is still pending.

Should Rideshare Companies Own Up to Their Responsibilities?

Becerra feels it is time for the two rideshare companies to own up to their responsibilities and take care of the people who make them such a success – their drivers. By misclassifying drivers or other workers as consultants or independent contractors, employers like Uber and Lyft effectively pass responsibility for certain business costs on to their workers. In this scenario, workers or taxpayers end up footing the bill for employer obligations like paying a legal wage, paying overtime, offering sick leave, unemployment insurance, etc.

Do Rideshare Companies Intentionally Misclassify Drivers as Independent Contractors?

Last month, the group sued Uber and Lyft under the state’s gig work law, AB-5 accusing them of miscategorizing drivers as independent contractors. Earlier this month, the state regulator ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are employees under California law. Regardless, both rideshare conglomerates continuously defended their position that a mandatory reclassification of drivers would negatively impact their business models, cause a price increase, and leave drivers out of work.

Rideshare Companies Insist Drivers Want to be Independent Contractors

According to Uber and Lyft, most rideshare drivers want to be independent contractors. The companies have already made significant changes to their rideshare apps to retain their current business model under California law. Matthew Wing, an Uber spokesperson, even went so far as to call out California’s elected officials for focusing on “shutting down an entire industry” instead of trying to create work for the more than 3 million Californians currently without a job.                                            

If you need to talk to someone about misclassification or if you need to file a misclassification lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.