Did THC-Orange County Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Meal Breaks?

In recent news, another California employer faces allegations of Labor Law violations.

The Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-597887

The Plaintiff: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Arva Anderson, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that THC - Orange County, LLC violated California Labor Code. Anderson was employed by the Defendant from July 2021 through October 2021 and the company classified Anderson as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. As such, Anderson was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Allegations: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

According to the complaint, THC-Orange County, LLC, the Defendant, failed to pay workers minimum wage, failed to provide workers with overtime pay, failed to provide legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks, failed to offer workers accurate and itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse workers for necessary expenses, and failed to pay worker’s wages when they were due.

The Defendant: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Defendant in the case, THC-Orange County, LLC, provides healthcare services (including both medical and surgical care services) in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

All the allegations represent violations of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements that show the worker’s "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." in addition to other data. The lawsuit alleges that THC-Orange County, LLC allegedly violated California Labor Law by failing to fulfill this requirement for accurate and itemized wage statements.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss labor law 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.

Sheraton Hotel Faces a Class Action Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

Sheraton Hotel workers filed a class action alleging The Sheraton, LLC and NFNY Hotel Management LLC violated state labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to meet minimum wage pay requirements, and not handing over tips to their workers.

The Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00046

The Plaintiff: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

Doris Green and Christina Casero filed the original lawsuit against The Sheraton Hotel. The two are former hourly workers for the Sheraton Niagara Falls Hotel. The former employees cited both the hotel and NFNY Hotel Management, the company that runs that particular hotel location, as defendants in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the companies violated labor law by failing to comply with minimum wage, and wage statement requirements as well as failing to hand over tips earned by their workers.

The Defendant: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The defendants in the case, The Sheraton, LLC, and NFNY Hotel Management are both facing allegations of labor law violations. The Sheraton is a popular and well-known hotel chain with many locations throughout the nation. NFNY Hotel Management is the company that ran The Sheraton Niagara Falls location at the time the plaintiffs were employed. The plaintiffs, Casero and Green, claim the companies' wage notices fail to accurately and timely show employees their true rates of pay and proper tip credits to be taken into consideration against the minimum wage. The wage notices allegedly failed to include names, addresses, and phone numbers for the joint employers. According to the plaintiffs, affected workers included waiters, bartenders, servers, room service attendants, and nonmanagerial service workers.

More Details of the Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The two former Sheraton Niagara Falls employees accuse the hotel owners and hotel management of depriving them of minimum wage and their earned tips. The allegations are made in a class action lawsuit with class members including a variety of different Sheraton employees paid at an hourly rate. One of the plaintiffs, Casero, was employed as a server at the Sheraton Niagara Falls from May 2016 through August 2020. Casero’s hourly rate of $8.25 did not meet New York’s state minimum wage (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during her time of employment). Green, another plaintiff, worked as a Sheraton Niagara Falls bartender, front desk associate, and other roles at the hotel from May 2019 through August 2020. Green’s hourly pay rate of $12 also did not meet the state minimum wage requirements (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during the time of employment). The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of current and former hourly workers at the Sheraton Niagara Falls location. The group seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, legal fees, and costs. The plaintiffs also seek a jury trial, and the case is pending.

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.

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.