Can Geico Employees Keep their Wage Suit Alive?

In recent news, Geico attempted to have an overtime pay lawsuit tossed, but in this instance, auto claim adjusters alleging the company forced workers to work off the clock, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods as required by law.

Details of the Case: Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:20-cv-11722

Workers Filed a Collective and Class Action:

In December 2020, workers filed a collective and class action alleging Geico employees were required to work off the clock, and work through breaks without appropriate compensation. The push to work through breaks and off the clock was allegedly a company effort to meet inspection quotas and employees claim they feared refusing could result in poor performance evaluations. Plaintiffs Alexander Rieske and Saul Gonzalez filed the suit alleging violations of California and New York state laws, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the motion, thirteen other adjusters have already joined the plaintiffs.

Defendant Files a Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Jurisdiction:

In March 2021, Geico filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that there was no practical reason to litigate out-of-state claims in California and indicating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims in the case. In their opposition filing, plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court decision the insurer relied on to push for dismissal of the nationwide collective action (and the New York state class action) doesn’t apply because unlike the Supreme Court case, Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. involves federal claims brought in federal court.

Does the 2017 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Decision Apply?

When filing for dismissal, Geico cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. However, plaintiffs in the suit claim this decision does not apply to the current case since Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court pertained to state jurisdiction finding that California state courts could not adjudicate mass tort claims when plaintiffs were not from California. The Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. action is different because it concerns federal claims in federal court. Plaintiffs further argued that if the court accepted the position presented by Geico that federal courts cannot hear out-of-state claims brought under FLSA, it would effectively eliminate the collective nature of the FLSA.

California Federal Court Finds Bristol-Myers Decision Does Not Apply:

In October 2020, the California federal court’s decision stated that the Bristol-Meyers decision does not apply to FLSA claims brought in federal court (including the current action).

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file FLSA claims, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Aldi Agrees to Pay $2M in California Overtime Pay Lawsuit

Aldi, a discount grocery store chain, recently agreed to a $2 million settlement to end a California overtime lawsuit.

The Details of the Case: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:19-cv-03109

Overview of the Suit: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

Thousands of California employees claim that Aldi, the discount grocery store chain, cheated them out of overtime wages. In summer 2020, the discount grocery store chain negotiated a settlement to shut down the overtime pay dispute. This is not the only time the Illinois-based company negotiated to resolve an overtime pay violation claim.

Other Overtime Pay Suits this Defendant Faced:

Aldi, the discount grocery store chain that faced allegations of overtime pay violations from California workers in 2020, previously settled claims with a group of New York store managers alleging they were ot paid for all hours they worked for $10 million. It was just a year after this $10 million wage and hour settlement that a pair of California employees for the same company unveiled their suit including similar allegations.

The Settlement: Jeree Gant v. ALDI Inc. et al.

The two California workers involved in the California wage and hour lawsuit, filed the settlement in federal court on March 29, 2021. They seek settlement approval from U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt. Initially, the two (Grant and Lacey-Salas) filed two separate suits in 2020, but the court granted approval to consolidate the two cases in March 2021. Both plaintiffs alleged that the discount grocery store where they were employed did not provide California employees with full compensation for the hours they worked.

Seeking Settlement Approval in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit Against Aldi:

The plaintiffs are seeking settlement approval and hope to have payouts approved ranging from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand for themselves and for the 2,050+ workers in 70 different Aldi’s locations throughout California employed during the past 5 years.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.5 Million Paid for California Overtime and Per Diem Suit

According to a California federal court filing, a medical staffing company recently agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in a California overtime class action.

Details of the Case: Hubbard v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc.

Court: United States District Court Northern District of California.

Case No.: 4:19-cv-06363

Allegations in the Case: Hubbard v. RCM Technologies (USA), Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case allege they were shortchanged by the medical staffing company that employed them. The workers allege the company violated labor law; failing to provide proper overtime pay while employees were on travel assignments. According to the workers involved in the case, the alleged overtime law violations were a result of the company failing to factor in the employees’ per diems for base-pay rates. In short, medical workers claim the company, RCM Technologies (USA) Inc., miscalculated overtime wages. The group of medical workers recently called for preliminary approval of a settlement with the employer, RCM Technologies (USA) Inc.

Protracted Negotiations Resulted in Compromise and Settlement Terms:

While the negotiations were described as “protracted,” the health care workers eventually concluded that based on the size of the risk associated with attempting to recover the maximum amount they sought with the suit, a compromise was justified. For the purposes of the settlement, the plaintiffs were willing to agree with the terms and come to an agreement. Rhonda Hubbard filed the original lawsuit in October 2019 citing that RCM violated California labor law and California business laws associated with failing to pay accurate overtime pay.

The Class Members: Over 300 California Workers Employed by RCM

The certified class members numbered over 300. The class included any workers employed by RCM in California on a nonexempt, hourly basis during the four years before the lawsuit was filed (through class certification), and received overtime pay and a weekly per diem or stipend from RCM. According to the preliminary terms of the $1.5 million settlement, each class member can expect to receive approximately $3,110. Hubbard receives a $10,000 service award, and the attorneys are provided up to $500,000 in attorneys fees, and $20,000 in litigation costs.

Considering Per Diems & Overtime Pay:

Should per diems always be factored into a California employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations? The preliminary settlement occurred before the court provided an answer on the question at the heart of this case. However, In February, the Ninth Circuit ruled that per diem pay should have been considered part of the worker’s bae pay rate. Regardless, Hubbard wasn’t sure she could depend on the Ninth Circuit ruling to guarantee her class action’s success in litigation continued, since the Ninth Circuit also found that the inclusion of per diem for the purposes of calculating overtime should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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 various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Jimmy John's Agrees to Pay $1.8M to Resolve Overtime Pay Dispute

In recent news, Jimmy John’s agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle wage and hour claims. Employees brought form wage and hour claims against Jimmy Johns under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Details About the Case: Jimmy John’s Overtime Litig., N.D. Ill., 2/15/21

Case Numbers: 14-CV-5509, 15-CV-1681 & 15-CV-6010 

Court: Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

The Plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Claims Case: 

Sixty-six assistant managers from various Jimmy John’s corporate-owned locations that opted into the FLSA collective will receive a settlement check from a $272,500 fund. Additionally, more than 500 Jimmy John’s managers at different independent Jimmy John’s franchisees will receive gift cards totaling $300. The Jimmy John’s gift cards are transferable and can be resold for cash. Two plaintiffs initially filed the suit in July 2014, alleging assistant store managers were misclassified, leaving them exempt from overtime pay. In 2015, the lawsuit became a collective action after numerous other suits were filed. Plaintiffs involved in the case were employed at various Jimmy Johns franchises nationwide, and all allege they were cheated out of overtime pay due to misclassification. 

Seeking a Settlement to Resolve Misclassification, Wage and Hour, and Overtime Pay Claims: 

The plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a motion o Feb. 15th to Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking $1.1 million in attorneys’ fees, $250,000 in litigation costs, and $2,500 service award for each named plaintiff in the case. The settlement proposal was intended to resolve three consolidated collective actions alleging FLSA violations stemming from the alleged misclassification. 

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 various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: 1st Light Energy Inc. Faces Lawsuit

In recent news, 1st Light Energy Inc., is facing a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly violated California Labor Code by failing to provide workers with accurate wages, as well as other claims. 

All the Details on the Case: Landin v. 1st Light Energy Inc.

Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2020-9700

Filed: Nov. 19, 2020

Court:San Joaquin County Superior Court

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Sammy Landin

Defendant: 1st Light Energy Inc.

The Lawsuit Against 1st Light Energy Inc.:

The lawsuit against 1st Light Energy Inc. is currently pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. The lawsuit lists several allegations. 

• Failure to provide minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime pay

• Failure to provide required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements

• Failure to provide wages promptly when due

• Failure to reimburse employees for necessary job-related expenses

Other Claims Made in the 1st Light Energy Lawsuit: 

In addition to the claims already listed, the lawsuit alleges that the company committed acts of unfair competition violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 with a company policy failing to correctly calculate and record accurate overtime pay rates for overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff in the case and others in similar situations with the company. According to the lawsuit, the company’s failure to meet this burden was ongoing and intentional. Failing to properly calculate and pay the legally required compensation for work completed violates California Labor Code. 

California Overtime Requirements: What is Overtime Pay? 

Most non-exempt California employees have the legal right to payment for overtime hours worked. When the California employee works more than a certain number of hours in one day or in one work week, they are due an overtime wage as payment. Overtime pay is a type of increased payment employees earn when they work “overtime hours.” Overtime hours accrue once an employee works more than a certain number of hours in one workday or one workweek. The overtime pay rate is determined using a specific calculation based on the employee’s regular rate of pay. 

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.

Vail Resorts Faces Lawsuit Alleging Labor Law Violations

On Dec. 3, 2020, three employees filed a lawsuit against Vail Resorts alleging the company violated federal and California state labor law, and multiple other states’ labor laws. Plaintiffs in the case seek class action status. 

All the Details on the Case: Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

Case No.: 1:2020cv03569

Filed: December 3, 2020

Court:United States District Court for the District of Colorado

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Randy Dean Quint, Mark Molina and John Linn

Defendant: Vail Resorts Inc.

Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status for Quint et al v. Vail Resorts Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in early December 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of R. Quint, J. Linn, and M. Molina seeks class action status. If granted, class action status would include eligible current and former employees of Vail Resorts for the last three years. Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Defendant exploited seasonal employees and violated both federal and state labor laws. The lawsuit seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for alleged violations and fairly compensate plaintiffs and others in similar circumstances for damages some estimate at over $100 million. 

The Plaintiffs Seek Others to Join the Class Action: 

Plaintiffs in the case seek others in similar situations to join the proposed class action against Vail Resorts. According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts broadcasts above-market hourly wages for their workers, but they allegedly did not pay hourly employees for all hours worked at the rate agreed upon in employment contracts. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant’s employment law violations applied to ski instructors, snowboard instructors, ticket scanners, lift operators, etc. All are allegedly not fully paid for their entire shift, according to the lawsuit. “Off the clock” work that was allegedly left unpaid included some training, travel time, dressing time, use, purchase or maintenance of ski/snowboard equipment, and use, purchase or maintenance of cell phones. 

Workers Allegedly Not Paid for All Hours Worked: 

According to the lawsuit, Quint was employed as a seasonal Vail Resorts employee and full-time snow sport instructor at Beaver Creek Resort for seven years. The Plaintiff claims during that time he worked 470 hours for which he did not receive payment, as well as 422 hours of allegedly unpaid overtime. 

According to the lawsuit, Linn was a part-time employee and full-time snow sports instructor at Beaver Creek. The Plaintiff claims he worked 213 hours that were not paid, as well as 130 hours of unpaid overtime during his years with the company. 

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.

Sticker Mule, Popular Sticker and Merchandising Company, Faces Overtime Lawsuit

Tierra Bonefort, former Sticker Mule LLC and Print Bear LLC employee, filed a federal overtime lawsuit alleging the sticker-making companies violated labor law when they failed to pay overtime wages.

California Sticker Mule Employee Files Suit and Seeks Class Action Status:

Bonefort’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on October 5th. Bonefort’s suit seeks back pay, attorneys fees, and class action status. If class action status is granted, the lawsuit would allow approximately 40 other former and current Sticker Mule and Print Bear employees and workers to join the suit.

Allegations Included in the Overtime Lawsuit:

Bonefort alleges that Sticker Mule and Print Bear (mutually owned sticker making companies) did not pay appropriate overtime wages in accordance with the law (both federal and state labor law) from Sept. 12, 2018 through Jan. 31, 2020. During this time period, Bonefort often worked more than 40 hours per week at the two companies located at 49 Elk Street and 336 Forest Avenue respectively. Allegedly the companies have three shifts for workers and they offer a pay differential for late/overnight work shifts. However, they do not include the pay increase for late/overnight shifts when they calculate overtime pay rates.

In Addition to Miscalculating Overtime Pay, Defendant Failed to Issue Accurate Pay Statements

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant did not provide their employees with accurate wage statements as required by law. By law, wage statements were required to include the employer’s phone number, and the base rate for the employee’s pay. Class members allegedly did not receive pay statements with the required information. The number of overtime hours Bonefort worked during the time period in question is not listed in the lawsuit. However, the plaintiff does require class certification and to notify other potential litigants of their right to join the class.

If you need to talk about employment law violations, or if you need to file a California overtime 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.