Did Krispy Kreme & Insomnia Cookies Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, a worker filed a suit alleging Krispy Kreme Inc. violated labor law.

The Case: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

The Case No.: 6:22-cv-06075

The Plaintiff: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The Plaintiff in the case, Taylor Rae Hine, claims Krispy Kreme and Insomnia Cookies both failed to pay their workers both minimum wage for their hours worked and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in one week. Both minimum wage and overtime pay are required by law.

The Defendant: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The plaintiff argues that Krispy Kreme’s and Insomnia Cookies both exhibited willful and intentional policies and employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as state labor laws.

Case Details: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

Hine, the plaintiff, wishes to represent a class of non-exempt workers who were employed by either Krispy Kreme or Insomnia Cookies over the past six years. The plaintiff, Hine, worked as a delivery driver for both companies for about two years between 2019 and 2021. According to Hine, she was paid a flat compensation and the company did not inform her of her hourly rate or potential tip deductions made by the employer towards the minimum wage. Additionally, Hine claims she spent over 20% of her workday engaging in non-tipped job tasks and was required to pay out-of-pocket for car expenses related to delivery services without appropriate reimbursement. Hines demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief as well as unpaid wages and liquidated/punitive damages for both herself and the qualified class members.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, 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.

Is Uber’s Battle to Avoid Class Action Trouble Over Driver Classification Finally Over?

In February 2022, a Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Settlement was filed with the Northern District of California Court. If the judge grants approval of the preliminary settlement agreement, Uber’s battle to avoid class action trouble over their classification of drivers could be over.

The Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

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

Background of the Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

The years-long battle that began when the case was filed could finally be coming to a close with the proposed $8.4 million deal reached between Uber Technologies Inc. and more than 1,300 California drivers. (The Uber drivers in the case allege they were misclassified as contractors and therefore denied many rights they were due as California employees). The judge’s approval of the preliminary settlement would effectively put an end to one of the major court battles afflicting the gig economy that predate the passage of California’s Prop 22.

The Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

The proposed settlement award would be distributed amongst 1,322 drivers that both opted out of arbitration agreements and worked for Uber between Feb. 28, 2019, and Dec. 17, 2020 (the date Prop 22 was enacted). Prop 22 is a ballot initiative Uber helped to fund that was designed to legally define app-based drivers as independent contractors. In November, Uber and the drivers involved agreed to dismiss the case as they reached an agreement. The final approval hearing for the deal is scheduled for June in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. If approved, the $8.4 million settlement would follow the previously approved $20 million settlement that came through the same court in 2019 to resolve a case between Uber drivers dispersed throughout both California and Massachusetts.

More About the Case: Christopher James, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

While approval of the settlement would close the case and avoid further class action on the matter, the settlement does not answer the question of whether Uber drivers are employees entitled to benefits outlined by labor law like overtime pay, minimum wage, reimbursement of business expenses, etc. The debate on this issue continues. In fact, following a state judge striking down Prop 22 as unconstitutional, a California appellate court currently weighs the question.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against violations in the workplace, 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.

Did California Cannabis Factory Stiizy Fail to Provide Workers with Overtime Pay & Breaks?

Diaz-Rodriguez, a California worker, claims she was assigned a job at a Stiizy cannabis factory by RP Staffing, and that during her time employed at the company her employer violated California Labor Law multiple times.

The Case: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22STCV05143

The Plaintiff: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The plaintiff, Consuelo Diaz-Rodriguez, claims Stiiizy, Inc. and RP Staffing, Inc. denied their employees rest breaks and meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and did not reimburse employees for business expenses. Diaz-Rodriguez also claims that workers were subjected to “off the clock” work policies requiring them to arrive for their work shifts 5 minutes early to get in the appropriate attire without compensation for the time required to complete this task.

The Defendant: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The Defendants in the case, Stiiizy, Inc. and RP Staffing, Inc., are a California-based cannabis retail chain, and a staffing agency that supplies the company with workers.

The Case: Diaz-Rodriguez v. Stiiizy Inc., et al.

The plaintiff wishes to represent a class of nonexempt Stiizy workers employed at the California company during the last four years, as well as 21 subclasses of exempt employees. Diaz-Rodriguez alleges that the companies listed as Defendants are “joint employers” and that they failed to provide legally mandated 10-minute rest periods, and off-duty meal periods (at least 30 minutes for every five hours on the job). Diaz-Rodriguez also claims that the company purposefully failed to provide accurate wage statements to their workers clearly showing the total number of hours worked during a pay period. Diaz-Rodriguez demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages and statutory penalties for both herself and the other eligible class members.

If you have questions about overtime violations or off-the-clock work, 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.

California Nurse Filed Two Class Actions with the Same Claims: Against the Staffing Agency & a Medical Center

A California nurse successfully filed for the same set of claims against two joint employers in two separate class actions.

The Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The Court: Cal.App.5th

The Case No.: RIC1514281

The Plaintiff: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The plaintiff, Grande, was assigned to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center by FlexCare, LLC, a temporary staffing agency. During her time working at Eisenhower Medical Center, Grande alleges she did not receive required mail and rest periods, was not paid wages earned for certain periods she worked, and did not receive overtime wages.

The Defendant: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The defendant in the case, Eisenhower Medical Center, worked with FlexCare LLC, a temporary staffing agency.

Summary of the Case: Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

The plaintiff’s claims were based solely on the time she was assigned to work at Eisenhower Medical Center by the temporary staffing agency, FlexCare LLC. Initially, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. FlexCare settled with the class, requiring the plaintiff to execute a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment that incorporated the settlement agreement and release of claims. One year later, the plaintiff filed a second class-action citing Eisenhower Medical Center as the Defendant. FlexCare intervened, insisting that the plaintiff could not bring a separate lawsuit against Eisenhower as the claims were already settled in the previous class action. After a limited trial, the trial court ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the terms of the prior class action’s settlement agreement since Eisenhower was not named in the previous lawsuit. As such, Eisenhower Medical Center did not have a legal right to avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata; they were neither a party to the prior litigation nor privity with FlexCare, LLC. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. The ruling on this case could affect how staffing agencies and the employers who work with them need to manage litigation in order to avoid duplicate litigation that would result in them paying twice for the same claims.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss how to file a California class action, 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.

Clarifying Premium Pay for Missed Meal and Rest Periods

The California Supreme Court held that an employee’s regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The decision was announced on July 15, 2021, while the court considered the implications of Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC.

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The Court: California Supreme Court

The Case No.: S259172

The Plaintiff: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

The plaintiff in the case is a hotel bartender named Ferra. Ferra alleged that Loews improperly calculated her meal and rest period premium payments by excluding her non-discretionary quarterly incentive bonuses when they completed the premium pay calculations.

The Defendant: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

Loews argued (successfully) before a trial court as well as a court of appeal that Ferra’s ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is her base hourly rate of pay and that the regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay is distinguishable from her overtime regular rate of pay. The California Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the decision from the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that: “the ‘regular rate of compensation for meal and rest period premium pay under California Labor Code section 226.7(c) is synonymous with the regular rate of pay for overtime as defined under California Labor Code section 501(a). Thus, employers paying meal and rest period premiums must include non-discretionary payments, meaning those that are paid pursuant to [a] prior contract, agreement, or promise . . . .”

The Case: Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

When the California Supreme Court held that an employee’s ‘regular rate of compensation’ for meal and rest period premium pay is synonymous with the employee’s ‘regular rate of pay’ for overtime pay, they clarified a common point of argument in California wage and hour lawsuits. When California employers pay their employees meal and rest period premiums, they must use the employee’s overtime regular rate of pay (including non-discretionary payments for any work performed). The California Supreme Court also ruled that the holding applies retroactively. As such, California employers should review and update their payroll policies and any related procedures associated with meal and rest period premiums to verify that premium payments are paid at the regular rate of pay, and include applicable non-discretionary payments.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against violations in the workplace, 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.

Wingstop Franchisee Faces Claims They Failed to Accurately Pay Employee Wages

According to a recent lawsuit, Sagar Holding Corporation (a Wingstop franchisee) violated labor law by failing to accurately pay employee wages.

The Case: Julianne R. Garcia v. Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

The Court: Superior Court of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV38872

The Plaintiff: Julianne R. Garcia

The plaintiff in the case, Julianne R. Garcia, claims that Wingstop employees were subjected to a rigorous work schedule that left them unable to take off-duty meal breaks. Wingstop employees were allegedly not fully relieved from work duties during their meal breaks and rest periods and were sometimes interrupted while on their breaks to perform tasks for their employer.

The Defendant: Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

According to the plaintiff, Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop franchisee) worked their employees on shifts longer than 5 hours without providing the required off-duty meal break and failed to provide their employees with a second off-duty meal period during workdays lasting more than 10 hours. Employees allegedly remained on call and basically on duty while they were taking their “off-duty” breaks, which is in direct contradiction to the legal definition of “off duty” in reference to meal breaks and rest periods.

Summary of the Case: Julianne R. Garcia v. Sagar Holding Corporation (Wingstop)

As the Wingstop franchisee’s standard policy allegedly required workers to forfeit their meal breaks and rest periods, they were due additional compensation under the law. However, the plaintiff in the case claims no additional compensation was provided. As such, the standard practice and policy of the defendant in the case led to additional claims of failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, etc.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file an ERISA suit, 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.

Former Virgin Air Flight Attendants File Wage and Hour and Overtime Claims

In the case of Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc., the judge will need to consider the origin of the defendant’s policy regarding meal period and rest break provisions outside of California.

The Case: Julia Bernstein, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Virgin America, Inc., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California.

Case No.: 15–v–02277–JST

The Plaintiff: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Plaintiffs in the case are current and former Virgin America flight attendants. The plaintiffs in the class action allege that Virgin failed to pay them for hours worked before their flights, after their flights, and between their flights, as well as time spent in mandatory training, time they were “on reserve,” time they were required to spend taking mandatory drug tests, and time spent filling out required incident reports. The plaintiffs also allege that the company did not allow them to take meal periods or rest breaks as required by law, did not pay appropriate overtime pay and minimum wage, and did not provide class members with accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

Virgin American is an airline company. Headquartered in Burlingame, California, Virgin trains their flight attendants in California. In fact, the company has received millions of dollars from the to do just that. All flight attendant training for Virgin takes place in California. Many of the flights arrive or depart from a California airport, as well. The airline estimates that in the last ten years, the average number of daily flights departing California airport has never fallen below 88.6%

Background of the Case: Bernstein v. Virgin American, Inc.

In most recent news, the judge found that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption against extraterritorial application of meal and rest break requirements for breaks and rest periods that occur outside of California. This finding is based on the judge’s decision that the plaintiffs did not show that the Virgin airline company policy originated at the company’s California headquarters.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or overtime pay 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.