$30M Apple Employee Bag Search Lawsuit Settlement Receives Approval

In 2021, Apple agreed to pay retail workers in California $30 million to settle claims that their bag check policy caused violations of California employment law.

The Case: Amanda Frlekin, Aaron Gregoroff, Seth Dowling, Debra Speicher; and Taylor Kalin v. Apple Inc.

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 15-17382

The Plaintiff: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

In an incredibly long, drawn-out lawsuit that Apple employees first filed in 2013, plaintiffs claimed that Apple forced their retail workers to a mandatory search before leaving their job each shift. The mandatory search allegedly included their purses, bags, backpacks, briefcases, and personal Apple smart devices. The plaintiffs estimated that time spent waiting for the search and allowing search ranged from around five to twenty minutes. According to the plaintiffs, some employees even waited up to 45 minutes. Apple allegedly provided no compensation for this time as employees were required to clock out before their exit search according to Apple policy.

The Defendant: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Apple, Inc., is well known and needs no definition. Apple claimed the exit searches were necessary to prevent theft. On the other hand, employees brought up the amount of time spent waiting and enduring the mandatory searches with no pay.

Details of the Case: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

In July 2015, the district court certified the class defined as "all Apple California non-exempt employees who were subject to the bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present." This case asked the question, "Is time spent on the employer's premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as "hours worked" within the meaning of Wage Order 7?" A California judge dismissed the class action suit in 2015, but the plaintiffs appealed. When the appeals court was asked the same question, they turned to the California Supreme Court to clarify the law. In February 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled that Apple must pay their retail workers for their time spent for mandatory exit searches. In November 2021, Apple agreed to a $30 million settlement to resolve the matter, and U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup approved the settlement in summer 2022. The class members total approximately 12,000 current and former California Apple store employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Jet Blue and California Flight Attendants Agree to Settle Claims

In recent news, JetBlue is working toward a settlement to resolve litigation brought by California flight attendants alleging noncompliance with California work rules.

The Case: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 15-cv-01203

The Plaintiff: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The two lead plaintiffs were JetBlue flight attendants. The workers alleged that JetBlue did not grant them overtime pay or provide accurate wage statements of hours worked as flight attendants. Court documents show the plaintiffs filed suit in 2015.

The Defendant: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The defendant in the case, JetBlue, found itself facing litigation, including allegations it violated California work rules requiring meal breaks and rest periods for California employees working for companies in California. In addition, the plaintiffs accuse the major airline of failing to pay them overtime pay for hours they worked over 8 hours in one workday. After several different rulings in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, the two parties decided on a settlement during private mediation on June 2, 2022.

Details of the Case: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

If approved, the proposed settlement motion would require JetBlue to pay “$3.6 million for claims from 568 different class members. The amounts distributed to each class member are established based on:

• the time employed with JetBlue and

• the category of harm that applies to each situation (harm from not receiving a proper pay statement, not receiving proper overtime pay, and receiving appropriate pay for work late upon termination from the company).

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law complaint, 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.

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.