Air Medical Company Agrees to Pay a $78 Million Settlement in Overtime Suit

The judge in an overtime lawsuit case recently approved a $78 million settlement. The settlement between an air medical company and the medical helicopter company’s California flight crew employees resolves employment law claims of overtime pay violations and missed breaks.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement:

After three months of negotiations and legal maneuvering, Colorado based Air Methods Corporation agreed to settle an overtime class action lawsuit brought by their California flight crew. The Alameda County Superior Court Judge provided preliminary approval in July 2020.

The Settlement Between Air Methods and the Medical Helicopter California Flight Crew:

According to the settlement recently approved by the court, Air Methods out of Colorado plans to provide daily overtime to employees on their California medical flight crews effective June 28th. Daily overtime pay to medical flight crews based out of California and providing services for Air Methods should result in an approximate 20% increase in the salaries of the affected employees.  

The Defendant: Air Methods Providing Medical Transport Via Helicopter in Various States

Air Methods is a medical transport company. In fact, Air Methods is one of the country’s largest air medical transport companies and has operations in various states throughout the nation. Each Air Methods medical helicopter/aircraft is staffed with teams of nurses and paramedics. These services are often provided in remote areas (and to remote areas) throughout the US.  

Employment Law Violation Allegations Made in the Overtime Class Action:

According to the overtime class action documentation, Air Methods violated overtime pay law. The medical transport company is accused of refusing to pay daily overtime for California flight crews that worked more than eight hours in one workday. Air Methods California flight crew employees regularly worked 24 hour shifts according to plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs also claimed that Air Methods refused off-duty meal breaks or rest breaks for their medical flight crew members. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, plaintiffs in the case should receive an average of more than $100,000 each.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law 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.

Former ”Jeopardy” TV Game Show Employee Claims Sony Alleges Wrongful Termination & Age Discrimination

Glenn Kagan, 66, claims that Sony fired him from his job as a contestant-wrangler for the long-running TV game show “Jeopardy!” Kagan says he was replaced by a younger employee when the show started filing again during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Plaintiff Sues Sony for Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination: 

The veteran contestant-wrangler filed suit in California state court alleging that he worked at “Jeopardy!” for more than half his life, but when the show came back to file amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, Sony suddenly terminated his employment and gave his job to a younger replacement. Kagan brought the age discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act citing Sony and Quadra Productions as Defendants. The Defendants in the case face wrongful termination and overtime pay violation allegations. 

Plaintiff Fired and Replaced by Younger Employee Amid Covid-19 Pandemic: 

In the lawsuit, Kagan claims that the company replaced him with a much younger contestant coordinator after falsely accusing him of improper mask-wearing at work. The plaintiff was allegedly fired in August 2020 despite 34 years of employment. In the lawsuit documentation, Kagan claims he had no write-ups or reprimands on the job, no prior warnings, but was fired for not wearing a mask even though he was not provided with any protocols or instructions for wearing a mask. Kagan also claims the company did not provide any personal protective equipment. Kagan claims the real reason Sony fired him was to replace him with a younger employee. 

Plaintiff’s Job History on the “Jeopardy!” TV Game Show: 

The plaintiff was employed as the “Jeopardy!” TV game show’s senior contestant coordinator. As Senior Contestant Coordinator, Kagan was responsible for taking the trivia game show’s contestants to the green room, helping as a “stand in” for Alex Trebek during rehearsals, communicating with contestants, and assisting contestants with their necessary paperwork. A contestant coordinator in his 20’s was promoted in 2016, and according to Kagan, the younger employee gradually took over Kagan’s duties (i.e. stand-in work, etc.), yet according to Kagan, the show had not raised any issues related to Kagan’s work performance. 

Returning to Work After Telecommuting During the Covid-19 Pandemic: 

In July 2020, when Kagan returned to set for the show’s 37th season after several months of working remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic, he was assured along with other returning employees that “Covid Captains” would be providing personal protective equipment and instruction upon their return to work. Kagan alleges there was no guidance, no rules and no masks provided. Kagan claims he brought his own mask from home. Kagan states that his mask inadvertently slipped at one point during the day while he was speaking with a contestant, and that he pulled his mask down to speak to a security guard who was not able to understand him on another occasion. These are the only two occurrences Kagan can think of that producers and human resources could be referring to when they conducted a video meeting with him the next day and reprimanded him for “failing to wear a mask.” Kagan claims he responded that the company did not provide PPE or guidance/policy regarding mask wearing. In response to the discussion, he was suspended. While Kagan was suspended, the younger coordinator took over his job. Kagan was fired a few weeks later. 

Plaintiff Cites Multiple Employment Law Allegations: 

In addition to claiming wrongful termination based on age discrimination, Kagan claims he frequently worked over 40 hours in one week, but did not receive overtime pay, and also claims he did not receive accurate wage statements.

If you need to discuss how to file a California overtime lawsuit or if you have questions about identifying California Labor Law 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.

Court Approves Farmers Insurance Overtime Pay Settlement

In recent news, the court approved Farmers Insurance investigators’ $5.5 million overtime settlement. While the settlement resolves the case, this is not the first time Farmers violated the FLSA and California labor law. 

The California Wage and Hour Lawsuit Alleged Overtime Violations: 

The California wage and hour lawsuit alleged Farmers failed to pay overtime, and provide meal breaks and rest periods. The approved settlement applies to Special Investigators who worked for a California Farmers location from 2013 to 2018. While this settlement brings the recent California overtime lawsuit to a close, it’s not the first time Farmers has faced overtime pay violations. And it’s not the first time they’ve settled an overtime claim either. 

Judge Approves Farmers Overtime Pay Lawsuit Settlement: 

California federal Judge Hixson approved the settlement in late August 2020. The judge stated that settling the case was the quicker and easier path to resolution in comparison to continued litigation (litigation already extended over 3 years). With the approved settlement, Farmers special investigators and former special investigators can see a guaranteed route to payment. Each of about 80 plaintiffs in the case will receive about $47,000, which the judge noted was a “sizable” recovery. 

Other Famers Overtime Lawsuits and Overtime Lawsuit Settlements: 

Farmers Call Center Employees in 2011: Farmers isn’t new to overtime pay violation allegations or overtime lawsuits or even overtime lawsuit settlements. In 2011, Farmers agreed to a $1.52 million overtime pay settlement for 3,459 call center employees (that worked from Jan. 1, 2009 through May 10, 2010 in Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas) after investigations discovered “significant systemic violations” of the FLSA overtime and accurate record provision. The settlement terms required Farmers to maintain future FLSA compliance with proper records and accurate compensation for all hours Farmers employees work. 

Farmers Claims Adjusters in 2014: In 2014, a group of Farmers claims adjusters filed a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide rest periods and meal breaks. Close to two years down the road, Farmers settled the lawsuit with a $4.9 million settlement to 2,114 plaintiffs (Farmers claims adjusters employed between September 2011 through August 2016). 

The Most Recent Farmers Overtime Pay Settlement: The recent overtime settlement stemmed from a wage and hour lawsuit filed in 2017 by Farmers Insurance special investigators (David Deluca et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al., case number 3:17-cv-00034). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

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.

The Apple Employee Bag-Check Class Action Returns

The Apple employee bag-check class action decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had Apple paying retail workers for any time spent waiting their turn for mandatory bag checks. The Ninth Circuit decision was unanimous and aligned with the previous California Supreme Court ruling that employees' time spent being screened after their work shift is compensable.  

The Ninth Circuit Decision that Apple Should Pay Employees Waiting for Bag Checks

The Ninth Circuit found that the U.S. District Court that initially presided over the Apple employee bag-check lawsuit erred when they handed Apple a victory. The appeals court found that the California Supreme Court's holding means employees are now entitled to summary judgment on the issue.

The Original Apple Mandatory Employee Bag-Check Lawsuit: 

The lawsuit asking whether or not the time Apple employees spend in line waiting for a mandatory post-shift bag check is compensable or not was filed in 2013. The wage and hour lawsuit claimed that Apple's policy requiring its employees to clock out before they complete the mandatory bag check resulted in 1-1.5 hours of unpaid time at work each week on average. Class-action status was granted in 2015. 

Apple Bag-Check Lawsuit: California Supreme Court Decision

The California Supreme Court's decision in February determined that the time Apple employees spent waiting for the mandatory bag checks before they could leave after work was compensable under the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage. California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage requires employers to compensate employees for all time when they are under their employer's control. The Supreme Court's findings were based on a few factors: 

1. Exit bag searches were mandatory for all employees leaving work, and therefore involved a significant degree of employer control. 

2. The mandatory nature of the bag searches was enforced by potential disciplinary action. 

3. The bag searches exist primarily for the employer's benefit. 

Apple Bag-Check Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Decision 

The Ninth Circuit court agreed with the California Supreme Court – rejecting Apple's arguments that:

1. Employees can choose not to bring bags to work to avoid the mandatory bag checks. 

2. Whether the policy was enforced through discipline was disputable.  

The court found that regardless of whether or not the exit searches were enforced through discipline, Apple employees' time waiting for and completing exit bag searches under the Apple policy is compensable since the time is considered "hours worked" under state law. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court's grant of Apple's motion for summary judgment and ordered the district court to grant the employees' summary judgment motion. 

If you need to discuss employment law violations or have questions about how to file a California class action, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Café Rio Allegedly Violates PAGA: Failed to Provide Meal and Rest Periods

San Bernardino's Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against a popular restaurant, Café Rio, Inc. The class action alleges that Café Rio violated PAGA (Private Attorney General Act) and failed to accurately calculate and pay California employees' overtime as required by law. The Café Rio class action lawsuit (Case No. CIVDS2011822) is pending in San Bernardino County Superior Court claiming the company did not provide employees with mandatory meal and rest periods.  

Café Rio Class Action: Case No. CIVDS2011822

According to the plaintiff in Case No. CIVDS2011822, off the clock meal breaks and rest periods were consistently interrupted by work assignments. As a result of being forced to complete work off the clock, the plaintiff and other Café Rio employees were shorted pay. The inaccurate recording of hours worked resulted in employees regularly working without compensation at the legally required minimum wage and overtime wage rates. According to California state law, employees must be paid overtime and meal period premium wages at 1.5x the employee's regular pay rate.

Café Rio Allegedly Violated Numerous Employment Law Regulations:  

1. Requiring Employees to Work During Unpaid Breaks: This is often referred to as 'off the clock' work because employees work while they are clocked out or not being paid to work. These seemingly inconsequential moments of working during break periods can add up to hours of unpaid work. 

2. Inaccurate Wage Statements: Requiring employees to work during unpaid breaks means their time spent working is not recorded accurately as required by law. 

3. Violating Minimum Wage Requirements: By not paying employees for some of the time the work, many companies end up providing their employees with hourly wages that fall below the minimum wage requirements, which violates labor law. 

4. Violating Overtime Pay Requirements: By basing overtime pay calculations on inaccurate records of hours worked, many employees may be shorted overtime pay. 

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.

FTG Aerospace Inc. Facing Class Action After Alleged Meal & Rest Period Violations

According to allegations in a recent class-action lawsuit, FTG Aerospace Inc. failed to provide required meal and rest breaks for California employees. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP filed the class action lawsuit (Case No. 20STCV28767) in the Los Angeles Superior Court of California. 

Did FTG Aerospace Inc. Violate California Labor Law? 

The recent California class action alleges FTG Aerospace Inc. engaged in numerous California Labor Law violations: 

1. Failure to provide required meal breaks

2. Failure to provide mandatory rest periods

3. Failure to provide employee wages when due

4. Failure to pay employees minimum wage

5. Failure to provide employees with overtime pay

6. Failure to accurately record meal breaks and rest periods

7. Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

All of the above alleged actions are violations of California Labor Law and Wage Orders. The alleged violations could result in civil penalties. 

What Is an Act of Unfair Competition?  

Acts of unfair competition are typically actions, processes, or standards characterized by deceit, bad faith, fraud, or oppression that leave the victim prevented or otherwise inhibited from engaging in trade or business successfully. The FTG Aerospace Inc. class action includes allegations that the company’s company-wide policy generating a standard for overtime recording and calculation resulted in inaccurate overtime pay calculations and a failure to pay employees for all overtime hours worked accurately. The company’s intentional disregard of their legal obligation to accurately record overtime hours and calculate overtime pay rates left many employees underpaid. This is the type of company-wide policy or standard of operations considered an act of unfair competition.  

California Overtime Pay Requirements: 

California law requires employers to pay nonexempt employees daily overtime according to a specific overtime pay calculation: one and one-half times the employee’s regular pay rate. Overtime pay rates should be provided for any hours worked by non-exempt employees over 8 in one day, up to and including 12 hours in one workday. Overtime pay should also be provided for the first 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive day worked in one workweek. 

If you need help with unpaid overtime pay, unpaid commissions, wrongful termination, or other California Labor Code violations, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. 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.

Cigna Faces Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

A California wage and hour class-action lawsuit alleges Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company failed to pay employees accurately. 

Did Cigna Fail to Provide Workers Minimum Wage and Overtime?

According to the wage and hour class action, Cigna violated numerous California Labor code provisions when they allegedly failed to provide accurate pay and overtime pay. California state law protects workers against employers who try to increase profits by underpaying their workers, requiring unpaid work (i.e., mandatory unpaid training, off-the-clock work, etc.), or failing to calculate overtime pay accurately. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed the class action complaint (Case No. 283609) that is now pending in the Tulare Superior Court of the State of California. 

Cigna Allegedly Failed to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages

The class action complaint outlines multiple violations of California Labor Law: 

1. Failure to pay minimum wage

2. Failure to accurately record and provide employees with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

3. Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

4. Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

5. Failure to provide wages to workers when due

Additional Allegations: Did Cigna Commit Acts of Unfair Competition? 

The Cigna class action also alleges that the health and life insurance company committed acts of unfair competition that violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. For example, according to the class action, the company allegedly held a company-wide policy and standard procedure that failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime pay rate for workers. As a direct result of inaccurate overtime pay calculation standards and processes in place at Cigna, the company also allegedly failed to provide accurate overtime pay to workers. 

What Happens When California Employers Violate Labor Law? 

Most California businesses are subject to several regulatory and legal requirements (Federal, state, and local levels). The labor law requirements are designed to protect America’s workers. The state of California takes employment laws seriously, even when complying with the law may be difficult for California employers, so violating labor law can result in severe consequences for California employers.                              

If you need help collecting unpaid overtime, or if you need to file a California overtime pay 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.