Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. Allegedly Violated Labor Code

Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. allegedly failed to reimburse workers for expenses and failed to include hours employers spent submitting to mandatory Covid-19 screening when calculating wages and overtime pay.

The Case: Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma

The Case No.: SCV-271680

The Plaintiff: Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Toothman, filed a class action lawsuit against Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. in Sonoma County Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed that the company violated California Labor Code. The class action complaint alleges the company failed to pay workers for all the time they were under their employer's control. According to the suit, the company required the Plaintiff and other California Class Members to spend time completing mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and temperature checks before they could clock in for their shifts. As the workers didn't receive pay for their time during mandatory checks and questions (often referred to as off-the-clock work), it resulted in alleged minimum wage violations and overtime pay calculations.

The Defendant: Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., allegedly failed to include the time workers spent on required COVID-19 screening as a part of minimum and overtime wage calculations. The company also reportedly failed to reimburse employees for expenses.

Details of the Case: Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.

The class action lawsuit against Redwood Toxicology Laboratory is pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court. Numerous allegations were listed in the complaint, including

• Failing to pay minimum wage

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to offer legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to provide workers with itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failing to pay sick pay

• Failing to pay wages when they were due

The numerous allegations constitute labor code violations and could give rise to civil penalties.

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

Is a Worker Making Over $200,000 per Year Entitled to Overtime Pay?

Is a worker making more than $200,000 a year entitled to overtime compensation? A recent employment law case prompts questions regarding the federal wage law and whether its protections cover highly paid employees.

The Case: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

The Court: Supreme Court of the United States

The Case No.: 21-984

The Case: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Former oil rig worker, Michael Hewitt, makes over $200,000 per year. In a recent appeals court ruling, the court found that Hewitt was not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirement for work performed over 40 hours in a workweek because he was paid by a day rate, which does not constitute a guaranteed weekly salary.

The Dispute: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc., the defendant in the case, is fighting to overturn the appeals court ruling. Many are waiting to hear the impending U.S. Supreme Court decision as the case asks them to consider whether a worker making over $200,000 a year is entitled to overtime compensation. The case prompts questions over whether a supervisor making more than $200,000 annually is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption (29 C.F.R. § 541.601) remains subject to detailed requirements (29 C.F.R. § 541.604) to determine if highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. The case turns on technicalities in FLSA regulations. It has the court justices wrestling with the nuances of the FLSA’s implementing regulations regarding professional, administrative, and executive employees who are exempt from overtime.

The Arguments: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

Hewitt’s daily rate of a minimum of $963 is well above the required minimum weekly amount for salaried employees, and Helix claims that, as such, it could be considered a salary. However, the regulations were intended to make sure workers receive predetermined payments regardless of the quality or quantity of work completed in a work week. Others argue that the FLSA was created to protect low-wage employees working long hours for insufficient pay and wasn’t designed to offer similar protections to professionals bringing home six-figure salaries. Still, others respond that such arguments are based on common sense - not the regulations or the way the statute works, which is the matter being considered. Hewitt was paid a daily rate - not a salary, and a salary is required for a worker to be exempt from overtime pay.

The Impact: Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt

The energy industry and the nursing field are likely to see an impact from the decision in this case. The energy industry’s use of a day rate pay structure to compensate workers, including highly paid employees on their oil field and offshore jobs, could mean a major impact and significant overhaul of payment procedures. The nursing industry would also see repercussions as registered nurses currently earn pay based on an hourly basis, even if they reach six figures.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

WinCo Foods Faces Allegations of Violating Overtime Pay Law

A non-exempt WinCo employee filed a complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees alleging that WinCo violated California employment law.

The Case: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01354-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. March 28, 2022)

The Plaintiff: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

Everardo Garza, the plaintiff in the case, was a non-exempt employee at WinCo. On August 21, 2020, he filed the original complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated at WinCo, alleging that the company failed to pay wages due to the employees. Garza's class action suit seeks to hold the company liable for the employment law violations.

The Allegations: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

Garza asserts seven causes of action arising under California state law in the complaint.

1. Failure to pay overtime wages

2. Failure to pay minimum wages

3. Rest period violations

4. Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

5. Waiting time penalties

6. Unfair competition

7. Civil penalties under the PAGA

The Defendant: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

WinCo Holdings, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an operator of grocery stores and a distribution and transportation network across California. According to Garza's allegations, WinCo utilized a rounding policy when counting their employees' work hours, resulting in unpaid regular hours and overtime hours. When WinCo did account for overtime hours worked, Garza alleges the company improperly calculated the overtime rate of pay. Additionally, Garza claims WinCo failed to pay non-exempt employees non-discretionary bonus payments connected to their overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, WinCo also failed to provide required rest breaks (uninterrupted, duty-free rest breaks), and rest periods were not authorized.

Details of the Case: Garza v. Winco Holdings, Inc.

In September 2020, WinCo removed the case to federal court. In October 2020, WinCo moved to dismiss all claims arguing a failure to state a claim under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. They also argued that Garza's first cause of action was preempted and subject to dismissal under the LMRA because Garza's employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). WinCo also argued that the complaint was not sufficiently argued. Garza disagreed and filed a motion to remand to state court. The court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

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

Capital Ready Mix, Inc. Faces Allegations of Failing to Pay Accurate Sick Pay

A concrete company, Capital Ready Mix, Inc., faces allegations of employment law violations in a class action lawsuit.

The Case: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2022-00325517

The Plaintiff: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

Margarita Delgado, the plaintiff in the case, was employed by Capital Ready Mix, Inc. in California since August 2020. Classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly, Delgado was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Delgado filed a class action lawsuit alleging the company violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Capital Ready Mix, Inc., is a California corporation that conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in California, providing ready-mix concrete.

Details of the Case: Delgado v. Capital Ready Mix, Inc.

According to the class action lawsuit, Capital Ready Mix, Inc. allegedly failed to fully relieve Delgado for her legally required thirty (30) minute meal breaks. According to the plaintiff's claims, employees were also allegedly sometimes required to work more than four (4) hours without being provided the legally required ten (10) minute rest periods. According to the California Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are when employees are relieved from "all work-related duties and free from employer control." According to allegations included in the class action, Capital Ready Mix, Inc. also allegedly failed to pay their employees accurate sick pay wages, violating California Labor Code Section 246. Employees routinely earned non-discretionary incentive wages, increasing their regular pay rate. However, when those employees were paid their sick pay wages, the company allegedly used the base pay rate instead of the higher regular pay rate (including the non-discretionary incentive pay).

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.

Plaintiffs Move for Class Certification in Wage and Hour Misclassification Action

The plaintiffs moved for class certification in the wage and hour misclassification action against Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l.

The Case: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

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

The Case No.: C 16-05961 WHA

The Plaintiff: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The plaintiff in the case, Gloria Roman, Gerardo Vazquez, and Juan Aguilar, worked for the defendant providing janitorial services. The plaintiffs claim the defendant misclassified them and other putative class members as independent contractors rather than employees who would benefit from the protections offered by employment law. By allegedly misclassifying the plaintiffs, Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l violated California minimum wage, overtime, expense reimbursement, and unlawful deduction laws. The plaintiffs seek compensation on behalf of the putative class.

The Defendant: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The defendant in the case, Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, is an international janitorial cleaning business that uses a franchising model with three tiers. The top tier consists of the defendant, Jan-Pro International, Inc. The middle tier consists of "master franchisees" or "master owners" who are regional, third-party entities that purchased exclusive rights to use the trademarked "Jan-Pro" logo. (There were 91 master franchisees in the United States as of 2009). The third tier or bottom tier consists of "unit franchisees" contracted with master franchisees to clean for commercial accounts. Unit franchisees do not contract with the defendant, Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l. A given unit franchisee can be an individual or a few partners who can hire additional workers to help them clean. The plaintiffs purchased unit franchises from two different master franchisees. (The master franchisees in question are not parties herein.) The plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: all unit franchisees who signed franchise agreements with master franchisees in California and performed cleaning services for the defendant since December 12, 2004.

Details of the Case: Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l

The August 2, 2022 order grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to:

• Failure to pay minimum wage for mandatory training

• Failure to reimburse for expenses incurred for required uniforms, necessary cleaning supplies/equipment

• Unlawful deductions of management fees, sales fees, and marketing fees

And the order denies class certification for the remaining labor code claims and issues. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for all the certified matters.

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.

Dyncorp Faces Allegations of Employment Law Violations

Dyncorp International LLC faced claims that its wage statements violated labor law, failing to allow employees to easily and quickly identify the number of hours they worked and the rate of pay applicable for hours worked during that pay period.

The Case: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

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

The Case No.: CV 19-07091DDP

The Plaintiff: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Fierro, worked for Dyncorp International LLC ("Dyncorp) at the Point Mugu Naval Air Station ("Point Mugu") from December 2016 to July 2019. Fierro alleged that Dyncorp violated California labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements showing applicable pay rates and hours worked for specific shift premiums.

The Defendant: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The defendant in the case, Dyncorp, contends that, notwithstanding the omissions, the plaintiff did not demonstrate injury as required by law. Under Labor Code Section 226(a)(9), wage statements must accurately itemize "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee . . . ." Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(9). However, only an "employee suffering injury" due to a deficient wage statement is entitled to recover statutory penalties. Dyncorp argued that the missing info from the wage statements could be identified using "grade school math," so there was no injury. On this basis, the defendant moved for summary judgment.

Details of the Case: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

In an order dated Jan 31, 2022, the court denied Defendant Dyncorp International LLC ("Dyncorp") 's Motion for Summary Judgment. While Dyncorp's argument had precedent, the court found the claim that the missing info could be derived using "grade school math" inaccurate. After examining two example wage statements, there was insufficient information to determine specific pay rates. Dyncorp argued that the "missing fact that dispels this seeming discrepancy" was available in other discovery documents (two collective bargaining agreements) that indicated a "shift differential premium" applicable to specific types of paid time off (i.e., vacation, holidays, jury duty, and personal paid leave). Dyncorp argued that considering that additional information and understanding, the wage statements can then be used to calculate the number of "Shft $2.05" hours worked in the given pay period and the pay allocated for them. Ignoring that the calculations needed to determine the necessary info were, once again, not as simple as Dyncorp claimed, the wage statements were still insufficient. The law requires wage statements employees can use to "promptly and easily determine" the number of hours worked at each applicable rate "from the wage statement alone." (Section 226, Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(2)(B)(I)). The court denied Dyncorp's move for summary judgment.

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

Amazon Manager Loses Misclassification Suit Seeking Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Work

A former Amazon Level 4 Shift Manager recently lost a case in which he claimed Amazon misclassified him as exempt when he spent most of his time completing nonexempt work.

The Case: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

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

The Case No.: 17-cv-03820-JSW

The Plaintiff: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

Ortiz, a former Level 4 Shift Manager, handled logistics for the night shift (aka the "Night Sort") at three different Amazon delivery stations from February 1, 2016, until he was terminated on December 11, 2016. Mr. Ortiz alleged that Amazon failed to pay him overtime and provide mandatory rest and meal breaks, violating California's Labor Code.

The Defendant: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The defendant in the case, Amazon, classifies Level 4 Shift Managers as exempt employees. On December 11, 2016, Amazon terminated Mr. Ortiz for violating safety protocols. (According to court documents, Mr. Ortiz was injured after falling off a conveyor belt. During the litigation, Mr. Ortiz admitted that he asked Mr. Lopes (an associate) to lie about the accident and report that the fall occurred on the stairs rather than the conveyor belt, as standing on the conveyor belt in the first place was against Amazon's safety protocols. Mr. Ortiz defended this request claiming he requested it in a "moment of panic." Amazon asserts that the plaintiff is subject to the executive exemption (Labor Code section 515(a) and Wage Order 7-2001).

Details of the Case: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The main question before the court was how much time Mr. Ortiz spent doing nonexempt work. Mr. Ortiz claimed he spent the majority of his time completing nonexempt duties. However, the Court concluded that Mr. Ortiz's credibility on this issue was undermined by witnesses that directly contradicted his testimony (Mr. Lopez and Mr. Abdelaziz). Witnesses corroborating Mr. Ortiz's claim indicated they performed nonexempt tasks for less than 50% of their shifts. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's allegation was undermined by some of the representations on his own resume and social media posts that did not accurately reflect when and why he left his job at Amazon. The court concluded that Amazon met its burden to show that the plaintiff was subject to the executive exemption and not entitled to overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks as mandated for nonexempt employees.

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