Virgin America Appeals Supreme Court’s Ruling to Comply with California Labor Laws

In recent news, Virgin America appealed the Supreme Court's ruling that California law is not preempted by federal airline regulations.

The Case: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

The Court: U.S. Supreme Court

The Case No.: No. 21-60

The Plaintiff: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

In 2015, a group of Virgin flight attendants filed a lawsuit accusing Virgin America Airlines of failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime pay, providing meal and rest breaks, and issuing accurate wage statements per California labor law's requirements.

The Defendant: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

Virgin's arguments were originally backed by the Ninth Circuit Court due to California law conflicting with the ADA. The ADA preempts state laws that seek to regulate airlines. But last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that does not extend to states' general employment laws (even if it's shown to have an incidental impact on the airline's general operations). The court noted that airlines should be subject to uniform nationwide regulations.

The Case: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

In January, the Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case connected to Delta Air Lines Inc. But in November, the court invited the solicitor general to weigh in on Virgin's case, which suggests that the justices are interested in reviewing the issues in the case. In a late May 2022 brief, the solicitor general stated that Virgin can comply with both sets of laws. The legal team stated that at most, the Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein case should be remanded to the 9th Circuit so the lower court can take a closer look at whether California's meal and rest break requirements create an actual conflict with federal regulations.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss wage and hour violations, please contact 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.

Will Sundance Face Morgain in Court Regarding Arbitration Agreement?

Does the FAA require a party resisting arbitration on the grounds of waiver to show they suffered prejudice from a failure to compel arbitration sooner?

The Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

The Court: California Superior Court

The Case No.: 142 S.Ct. 1708

Plaintiff in the Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Plaintiff Robyn Morgan, worked at a Taco Bell franchise owned by Sundance Inc. Morgan signed an agreement stating any employment dispute would be argued direction with the defendant. However, Morgan later filed a nationwide collective action alleging that Sundance violated federal overtime pay laws.

Defendant in the Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sundance, Inc., ran the Taco Bell franchise where Morgan worked. When Morgan filed suit, the defendant initially defended against the suit, filing a motion to dismiss, and cooperating with mediation. After eight months, Defendant moved to stay litigation and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Plaintiff argued that Defendant waived the right to arbitration by engaging in litigation. The court denied the defendant’s motion. However, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the finding because the plaintiff did not show prejudice, so the defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration.

The Case: Morgan v. Sundance Inc.

To resolve a circuit split, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari regarding whether federal courts may adopt an arbitration-specific waiver rule demanding a showing of prejudice (similar to the Eighth Circuit, and a number of other circuits). When considered by the United States Supreme Court, the case was vacated and remanded with the court noting that outside the arbitration context, federal courts assessing waivers generally do not consider prejudice. While the FAA’s policy favors arbitration, it does not go so far as to allow federal courts to create arbitration-specific variants of federal laws and procedural rules (like the procedural rules regarding the waiver). The court held that the federal policy being considered intends to treat arbitration contracts like all other contracts - not foster arbitration. The case was remanded to the California court so they could decide if the Defendant waived their right to seek arbitration.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime class action or PAGA lawsuit, please contact 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.

Kronos Cyber Attack Sparked a String of Employment Law Complaints

The string of very similar employment law complaints filed following the December 2021 Kronos cyber-attack clearly shows how third-party security breaches can cause significant problems. These problems aren't only felt by the company that was hacked, but often by all the businesses depending on their products or services in their own business practices.

2022 Wage and Hour Class Actions Stemming from Kronos Cyber Attack:

The following is a sampling of the wage and hour class actions filed against companies who used the Kronos payroll and timekeeping software during the December 2021 ransomware attack. Plaintiffs in the cases allege that the Kronos hack resulted in overtime pay violations for hourly workers. The string of litigation shows clearly that third-party cyber-breaches can lead to significant consequences in the form of labor and employment law claims.

Henderson v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2:22-cv-00414)

Parrish v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (4:22-cv-00284)

Ellis et al v. PepsiCo, Inc. (3:2022cv01895)

Mitchell v. Baptist Health System, Inc. (3:2022cv00383)

Holbert et al. v. The Giant Company LLC (1:2022cv00501)

Details of the Wage and Hour Class Action Cases:

In early April, Johnson Controls, Inc. was sued on behalf of a putative class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the Eastern District Court for the District of Wisconsin. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.(a subsidiary of PepsiCo) was also sued in early April on behalf of a putative class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees, but this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. PepsiCo itself has been sued three times so far in connection to the Kronos breach. First, at the end of March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees. Second in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees (also at the end of March). And third, Ellis et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In early April, Baptist Health System was sued on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. And The Giant Company was sued (also in the first week of April) on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs Cite Similar Allegations in the String of Wage and Hour Lawsuits:

The various lawsuits stemming from the Kronos data breach in December 2021 include similar wording and allegations stating that after being made aware of the situation, defendants could have implemented systems to record hours and pay wages until the issues resulting from the hack were addressed, but they didn't take action. Some of the complaints also indicated that the defendants let the financial consequences of the Kronos hack fall on their frontline workers and that average American workers rely on their full wages paid in a timely manner to make ends meet in their day-to-day lives. Class actions seek to recover unpaid wages and damages as well as penalties and interest.

If you have questions about California employment law or 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.

Bamia 2 LLC Facing Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime Wages

Bamia 2 LLC faces allegations they violated employment law by failing to pay their employees overtime wages they were due.

The Case: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-598895

The Plaintiff: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

The plaintiffs, Valenzuela and Manjarrez, filed suit on behalf of themselves and on behalf of similarly situated individuals in this California Overtime class action. The plaintiffs in the case demand a jury trial alleging multiple violations of the California Labor Code and federal employment laws.

The Defendant: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

The Defendant in the case, Bamia 2 LLC, faces allegations that they:

• Violated the labor code by engaging in business practices constituting unfair competition

• Failed to pay minimum wage

• Failed to pay overtime wages

• Failed to provide required meal periods

• Failed to provide required rest periods

• Failed to reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenditures

• Failed to provide accurate wage statements

• Failed to provide wages when due

The Case: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

The allegations in the case stem from accusations that Bamia 2 LLC allegedly did not accurately record their employees' time on the job. According to the plaintiffs in the case, Bamia 2 LLC did not pay employees for all the time they spent under the employer's control. Specifically, the case references the time employees were required to spend submitting to mandatory Covid-19 screening before they could clock in for work. Based on the off-the-clock time employees logged, the company record of employee hours is inaccurate. The company's allegedly inaccurate time records resulted in both wages below minimum wage requirements and inaccurate overtime wage calculations. The case is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California. The alleged conduct and resulting violations could give rise to civil penalties.

If you have questions about inaccurate overtime pay calculations, minimum wage violations, or other employment law violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced California 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.

Class Action Alleges Amazon Violated Overtime Law

Ex-Amazon employee filed a proposed class action claiming Amazon area managers were misclassified as exempt, which meant they did not receive overtime wages they were due in accordance with labor law. The class-action suit also includes additional alleged labor law violations including wage and hour violations and accurate wage statements.

The Case: Gallardo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The Court: District Court of Southern California

The Case No.: 3:22-CV-00297

The Plaintiff: Gallardo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The plaintiffs in the case allege Amazon failed to pay overtime rates to their area managers. They also claim that Amazon area managers do not fall under any recognized overtime exemptions, and do not meet the criteria for executive, professional, or administrative exemptions even though the hourly rate they earn may be the equivalent of twice the minimum wage. According to the suit, workers put in over 40 hours per week and more than 8 hours per day but did not receive time and half for overtime hours worked as defined by employment law. Additionally, plaintiffs allege Amazon fails to accurately track workers’ overtime hours.

The Allegations: Gallardo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

In summary, the allegations in the case include overtime pay violations, wage and hour violations, failure to provide accurate wage statements, etc.

Details of the Case: Gallardo v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The plaintiffs in the case hope to represent Amazon area managers and other Amazon employees in similar positions at California Amazon facilities who were not paid overtime wages or minimum wage for hours worked as required by law. The suit also attempts to cover employees who were not provided accurate wage statements or proper records maintained by their employer showing their hours worked. The suit was filed on January 13, 2022 in San Diego County Superior Court, and removed to California’s Southern District Court on March 4, 2022.

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.

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.