Jeronimo Logistics LLC Faces a Wage and Hour Lawsuit

A recent California lawsuit alleges that Jeronimo Logistics LLC violated California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all their hours worked.

The Case: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 30-2023-01300011-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The plaintiff in the case, John Bruns, was employed by Jeronimo Logistics LLC from August 2021 to December 2021. Bruns received his last paycheck in January 2022. During his time with the company, Bruns was classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum, and overtime wages due for all hours worked.

The Defendant: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The defendant in the case, Jeronimo Logistics LLC, provides logistics and freight transportation for customers throughout California, including the County of Orange. They provide trucking, delivery services, messenger services, courier services, fulfillment services, and warehousing.

The Case: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The plaintiff, John Bruns, filed the California class action on behalf of himself and a California class to seek compensation for the losses they allegedly incurred during the specified class period due to Jeronimo Logistics LLC’s standard policy and business practices. The company reportedly implemented unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices by retaining employees’ wages due (in violation of both minimum wage requirements and overtime pay requirements), failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to reimburse employees for required work expenses.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Court of Appeal Holds that “Percentage Bonuses” Based on Regular and Overtime Hours Comply with Employment Law

In recent news, the California Court of Appeal held that percentage bonuses provided by employers that are based on a combination of regular and overtime hours comply with employment law.

 The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.:  B312232

The Background: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for EcoLab as a non-exempt sales manager. Lemm was given a specific route and regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours in one week. EcoLab used a pay system with certain multipliers triggered when employees met specific metrics with the employee’s hourly rate of pay used as the base pay ((base wage + overtime wages + double-time wages) x 5%). EcoLab’s policy to pay 1.5x and 2.0x his hourly rate for qualifying overtime and double time hours was not disputed. This type of payment policy is typically referred to as a percentage bonus. Percentage bonus payment systems are authorized under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations.

Progression of the Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff, Lemm, argued that EcoLab should have used an overtime calculation method applicable to flat rate bonuses under California law. In contrast, EcoLab argued that their percentage bonus plan complied with California and federal law. The trial court sided with EcoLab, rejecting an alternate interpretation of California law requiring employers to pay overtime on overtime when using percentage bonus plans. Using this interpretation would have left California employers with percentage bonus plan systems in place significantly exposed. Lemm appealed.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

On appeal, the court held that EcoLab’s percentage bonus plan complied with California employment law. The appellate court pointed out that the Ninth Circuit and several other California District Courts previously held that percentage bonuses were lawful methods to calculate additional overtime wages due to contingent compensation in California. The court also noted that paying a federal “percentage bonus” generated the same overtime pay as the “true-ups” generated by a formula published in the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual or DLSE Manual (not a binding authority, but a type of underground regulation without the weight given to IWC wage orders). The formula Lemm argued should be used to calculate his pay is also in the same manual. It is the standard the California Supreme Court adopted as proper for flat sum bonus calculations. Requiring EcoLab to apply this formula on top of their existing percentage bonus would result in overtime on overtime contravening Labor Code section 510 and the Wage Orders. The findings in this case set forth a standard or roadmap for approaching sales-based compensation for California employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced overtime attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC Engage in Meal and Rest Break Violations?

In recent news, a California worker alleges that Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC violated California Labor Law by failing to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks.

The Case: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The Court: San Mateo County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22-CIV-05061

The Plaintiff: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Vinicius De Oliveira, started working for Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC in August 2021 as a non-exempt hourly employee. Oliveira claims the company violated multiple California labor laws during his time at the company. Oliveira filed a PAGA-only complaint in San Mateo County Superior Court on December 1, 2022.

What is PAGA-Only?

California allows an “aggrieved employee” to act as a private attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. In a (“PAGA”) only suit, a plaintiff brings an action against the defendant seeking to recover PAGA civil penalties but does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699.

The Defendant: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The defendant in the case, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, is an American telecommunications company and division of Comcast Corporation that markets consumer cable television, internet, phone, and wireless services for Comcast.

The Case: Vinicius De Oliveira v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Vinicius De Oliveira, filed the PAGA-only suit seeking civil penalties under Labor Code §2699, et seq. citing violations of various California Labor Codes, including §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 et seq., 210, 218,221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512,558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198,2802, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 11040, Subdivision 5(A)-(B), and the applicable Wage Order(s).

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.

Employees Claim Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC Violated Employment Law

A class action lawsuit alleges Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC failed to provide their employees with required meal breaks and rest periods. Based on the missed meal breaks and rest periods, the employer also failed to provide employees with the total wages due, violating labor law.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The Court: Alameda Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22CV018596

The Plaintiff: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jileea Jordan, was employed by the defendant in California from February 18th,2022 to April 26th, 2022. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly wages, which entitled her to the legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, accurate wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The defendant in the case, Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, offers waxing services and other skin care solutions from certified wax specialists. According to the plaintiff in the case, the defendant regularly required employees to work during their off-duty meal breaks, stay available during their rest periods, and complete other “off the clock” work like mandatory drug testing, Covid-19 testing, temperature checks, etc. as a condition of employment.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiff also claims that employees were required to work over four hours without a 10-minute rest period. In addition to violating meal and rest period laws, minimum wage, and overtime pay laws, Defendant allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete, accurate, and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages earned. California Labor Code requires employers to issue each employee an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing gross wages earned, hourly rates used during the pay period, and time worked at each applicable hourly rate used to calculate the employee’s total pay. The case, Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, is currently pending in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California.

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

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.