Papa, Inc. Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Violation Claims Due To Alleged Misclassification

A California federal district court granted conditional collective certification of claims brought under the federal FLSA for minimum wage and overtime violations arising from the alleged misclassification of Pals employed by Papa, Inc.

The Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The Court: California Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

The Case No.: CV-496 June 2015

The Plaintiff: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim the company misclassified the Pals, assistants who provide daily living tasks and companionship to seniors, as independent contractors. According to the collective action complaint, Papa Inc.’s Pals were misclassified based on the following:

1. The company conducted background checks before allowing the workers to connect with customers.

2. Providing the workers with training and strict policies.

3. Setting the pay structure for the Pals.

4. Tracking the location and productivity of Pals workers.

5. Retaining the right to terminate Pal workers without cause or for violating rules imposed in the Papa Inc. contract.

The Defendant: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The defendant in the lawsuit, Papa, Inc., operates an app allowing seniors and their families to access the services of “Papa Pals.” Pals assist with chores and offer companionship services. The company contends that the Pals are independent contractors because they choose how often they use the app. They also operate primarily at the direction of the seniors or the seniors’ families who access the app, and they do so free from the direct supervision of the company. The company argued that the court should deny the plaintiff’s certification motion because the plaintiffs failed to establish they suffered any failure to receive overtime wages or minimum wage because they worked so few hours. The court disagreed, finding that the arguments were related to the merits of the claims, which were not appropriate to consider at that time.

Details of the Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The court concluded that the plaintiff adequately showed that Pal workers are treated as independent contractors, which creates the potential of not receiving overtime pay and minimum wages required by employment law for those legally classified as employees. This court’s decision seems to contradict past case decisions. For instance, in 2021, the Fifth Circuit decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC required district courts to scrutinize similarly situated workers from the outset of the case instead of issuing a lenient conditional certification in the early stages of the suit. The case brings attention to the continuing discussion of how companies should classify their workers.

If you have questions about how to file a California misclassification 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 Federal Court Barred from Hearing Collective Action Claims by Employees in Another State?

Fischer v. Federal Express Corp. asks whether a federal court in one state is barred from hearing collection action claims by employees in another state.

The Case: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

The Court: Supreme Court of the United States

The Case No.: 22-396

The Plaintiff: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

Christina Fischer, the plaintiff in the case, worked as a FedEx security specialist in Pennsylvania. Fischer worked at FedEx for ten years. Security specialists like Fischer regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but FedEx classifies them as salaried employees. Under the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938, salaried employees are exempt from overtime pay. Fischer filed an FLSA collective action in federal district court in Pennsylvania seeking unpaid overtime from FedEx. In the complaint, Fischer argued that she was ineligible for the Act's overtime exemption. Two security specialists in other states "opted in" to the collective action Fischer filed.

The Defendant: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

The defendant in the case, Federal Express Corp. (also known as FedEx Corporation, FDX Corporation, FedEx, etc.), is an American multinational conglomerate holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce, and business services. FedEx is based out of Memphis, Tennessee.

The Case: Fischer v. Federal Express Corp.

In 2017, the justices' decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California limited certain personal-injury lawsuits against businesses to residents of a single state. The decision allowed companies to convince state courts to question the validity of lawsuits brought by out-of-state plaintiffs over out-of-state actions. In Fischer v. Federal Express Corp., the court considered whether Bristol-Myers Squibb also barred a federal court in one state from hearing collective-action claims against FedEx by employees in another state. The 3rd Circuit court concluded that it does. The employees argue that the 3rd Circuit's decision contradicts longstanding federalism and due-process doctrines, investing state courts with a narrower personal jurisdiction than federal courts and cutting the power of collective actions off at the knees. Based on these arguments, the employees urged the court to reinstate their collective action against the massive shipment and transportation company.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

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.