SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses

In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.

The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.

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.

FedEx Misclassification Jury Trial Settled After One Day of Testimony

After only one day of testimony, FedEx agreed to settle a misclassification lawsuit.

The Case: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

The Court: N.D. Cal.

The Case No.: 4:18-cv-01431

The Plaintiff: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in 2018 against FedEx Ground. According to court documents, FedEx Ground operates distribution facilities at numerous spots throughout California. As part of their standard operations, FedEx Ground has contracts with multiple small “motor carriers” that provide both vehicles and drivers for package pick at FedEx Ground distribution facilities. After picking up packages, the drivers delivered them to customers. The carriers also pick up parcels from FedEx customers and deliver them back to the FedEx Ground facility. According to the complaint, FedEx worked with Bay Rim Services as an independent service provider to engage two drivers. The drivers filed suit, citing Bay Rim and FedEx Ground as joint employers who jointly violated California Labor Code provisions regarding overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, and maintaining records of employee hours and pay.

The Defendant: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

The defendant in the case, FedEx Ground Package System Inc., claims they are not a joint employer and had no role in the hiring or terminating of Bay Rim drivers, employment conditions, or paychecks.

The Case: Hinds v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.

Last year the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of drivers deciding that the drivers failed to establish a common issue predominant throughout the class of drivers who provided services to carriers. During the first day (and only day) of testimony at the jury trial, the plaintiff’s legal team argued that Bay Rim and other independent service providers who work with FedEx are generally “mom-and-pop” companies that work exclusively with FedEx. With only a few trucks and drivers dedicated to providing services contracted through FedEx, the companies must become LLCs and comply with FedEx company rules. After just one day of testimony, FedEx agreed to settle the case. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.

Instacart Agrees to $46M Settlement to Resolve Misclassification Lawsuit

In recent news, Instacart agreed to a $46 million settlement to resolve a misclassification lawsuit.

The Case: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The Court: Super. Court of California, San Diego County.

The Case No.: 37-2019-00048731

The Plaintiffs: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc., claim that Instacart violated state labor law and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Instacart workers, referred to as "shoppers," were required to maintain and fuel their own personal vehicles, use their own smart devices, and pay for other equipment (like PPE gear necessary for protection against COVID-19). The plaintiffs filed a misclassification lawsuit based on the situation Instacart created for their shoppers.

The Defendant: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

The defendant in the case, Maplebear Inc. (also known as Instacart), is a San Francisco-based online platform or gig shopping company offering same-day grocery delivery.

Details of the Case: The People of the State of California v. Maplebear Inc.

Instacart agreed to pay $46 million to settle the misclassification lawsuit the City of San Diego filed. The $46 million settlement covers about 308,000 shoppers. The settlement funds will be distributed based on the number of hours worked by each of the shoppers during the time period specified in the suit. According to court documents, the agreed settlement amount means Instacart will pay a minimum of $37 million direction to shoppers, which equates to approximately $120 per eligible shopper.

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.

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.