AT&T’s $575K California Class Action Settlement

After facing allegations of labor law violations, AT&T agreed to resolve the California class action with a $575K settlement.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiff in the case, Razo, filed suit claiming that AT&T violated labor law. California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. California businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal actions and potential consequences under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that allows California workers to seek penalties on behalf of the state’s labor regulator.

The Defendant: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T Mobility, is a phone company providing cell service to California residents, as well as internet service and TV plans. According to a class action lawsuit against AT&T, the company wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt. As a result, these employees were allegedly denied benefits such as minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. AT&T agreed to pay the $575,000 as part of a settlement to resolve the California class action claims alleging they failed to pay California workers minimum wage and overtime wages for all their hours worked in in violation of labor laws.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The case, Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility, is settled. The settlement goes to eligible class members who worked for AT&T Mobility in the state of California as non-exempt employees from November 2nd, 2021 through September 21st, 2022. AT&T agreed to the $575,000 class action settlement, but the company did not admit any wrongdoing. However, the settlement does resolve the allegations. The $575,000 settlement includes a $7,500 payment to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA.

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.

Did Apple Fail to Pay Overtime at the Correct Rate?

In a recent California overtime class action lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Apple's compensation practices violated labor law. Allegedly, Apple awards restricted stock units to their non-exempt employees. However, they allegedly do not incorporate the stock units into their regular pay rate for overtime pay calculations.

The Case: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 5:23-cv-01353

What is a Class Action?

A class action is a legal proceeding. One or more plaintiffs may bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, which is referred to as the “class.” Any proceeds resulting from a class-action lawsuit first pay legal fees, and are then shared amongst the qualifying class members.

The Plaintiff: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francis Costa, filed a class action against Apple claiming that their policy of awarding stock units to non-exempt employees without including the value in their regular pay rate to calculate overtime pay rates violates labor law. Costa filed the California overtime class action in California federal court. According to the plaintiff, Apple "intentionally, willfully, and regularly" violated the FLSA. Costa hopes to represent a nationwide class of any current or former non-exempt workers employed by Apple within the past three years who were awarded restricted stock units that vested during the same period.

 The Defendant: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The defendant in the case, Apple Inc., allegedly includes the restricted stock units awarded to the employee on the payroll record. Still, the payroll records do not reflect the value of the vested restricted stock units included in the overtime pay rate calculations.

 What Are Overtime Pay Rate Calculations?

 To calculate an employee's regular rate of pay, you would need to add up all compensation earned during the workweek (excluding overtime premiums), and divide it by the total number of hours worked during the same workweek. This includes all forms of compensation such as hourly pay, salaries, commissions, bonuses, and some types of non-discretionary payments.

 The Case: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

 The case, Costa et al. v. Apple Inc., argues that Apple violated labor law when they allegedly failed to include the value of vested restricted stock unit compensation  as part of the regular rate of pay when they calculated the employee's overtime pay rate. The plaintiff demanded a jury trial and requested an award of declaratory relief and an award of unpaid overtime wages and liquidation and statutory damages. A California federal judge approved a $30 million class action settlement in August. The settlement resolved claims Apple allegedly violated labor law by requiring workers to comply with off-the-clock bag checks before and after their work shifts.

 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

Dr. Pepper Faces the 3rd Overtime and Misclassification Lawsuit Since 2019

Keurig Dr. Pepper is facing another overtime and misclassification lawsuit, including allegations that the company failed to pay overtime wages by misclassifying their employees.

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-10425

The Plaintiff: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francisco Verdin, is a Keurig Dr. Pepper employee. Verdin was a Keurig Dr. Pepper warehouse supervisor for two years and then a forklift operator. Verdin claims he was paid a yearly salary despite frequently working over 40 hours in one week. Verdin said he sometimes worked as many as 60 hours in one week with no overtime compensation. Verdin filed an overtime class action lawsuit last month in Massachusetts federal court alleging the company misclassified their employees in both Pennsylvania and California as exempt from receiving overtime wages. According to the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and California labor law by allegedly not paying overtime wages to employees. In addition to the overtime wage allegations, plaintiffs allege wage statement violations, which often go hand in hand. Verdin also claims the company did not pay wages in a timely manner, which could result in waiting time penalties charged for record-keeping violations. The plaintiff alleges that the company violated unfair competition law by not providing accurate wages for hours worked by their employees.

The Defendant: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr, Pepper Inc.

The defendant in the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., faces four allegations:

•Failure to pay the wages due

•Failure to pay wages due in a timely fashion (resulting in "waiting time penalties")

•Misclassifying employees and violating record-keeping laws by incorrectly labeling employees as overtime exempt

•Violating unfair competition law by not paying employees accurate wages for the hours they worked

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The case, Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., is the third overtime lawsuit filed against Keurig Dr. Pepper since 2019.

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

Logan's Roadhouse Faces Allegations they Did Not Provide Employees with Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, Logan's Roadhouse faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with breaks, which violates labor law.

The Case: Symba Rose v. LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, J and A Food Service, Inc.,

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

The Case No.: 23CV00426

The Plaintiff: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Symba Rose (previously named Jamal Shabazz), was employed by Logan's Roadhouse (aka the Defendants) from July 2022 to August 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to the protections offered employees by state and federal employment laws.

The Defendant: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The defendants in the case, LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, and J and A Food Service, Inc., were joint employers of the plaintiff, according to documents the company provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff performed work for both, respectively, so both are considered jointly responsible by the plaintiff for actions leading to employment law violations as described in the lawsuit. Defendant owns, operates, or manages Logan's Roadhouse restaurants in California, including the Logan's Roadhouse in Butte County, where Symba Rose worked.

The Allegations: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff claims that they engaged in numerous employment law violations during his time with the restaurant. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 with practices and policies that resulted in:

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to provide wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

According to court documents, Logan's Roadhouse employees, like the plaintiff, had rigorous work schedules, which allegedly left them unable to take off-duty rest breaks. In addition, they were not fully relieved of duty for their rest periods. Additionally, Logan's Roadhouse's and J and A Food Service's workers were allegedly not paid one hour of their regular working wage in place of missed breaks and rest periods.

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.

Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association Face Allegations They Failed to Pay Employee Wages

In recent news, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association face allegations they failed to provide their employees wages for all hours worked.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 23STCV02200

The Plaintiff: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The plaintiff in the case, Devonte Rojo, worked for Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association in Los Angeles from January 2019 through February 2022. Rojo was a non-exempt employee paid hourly and entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and rest period/meal break protections provided by federal and state labor laws. Rojo filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant violated the labor code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked, failing to provide legally required rest periods, failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for eligible business expenses, and failing to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Defendant: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

According to the complaint, the defendant in the case, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association (Forest Lawn), were joint employers of Devonte Rojo, the plaintiff. Forest Lawn operates funeral businesses in Los Angeles and throughout California.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The case documents in Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association allege that rigorous work schedules left Forest Lawn employees unable to take off-duty meal breaks and that the employees were not fully relieved from their job duties when they did take a break or meal break. Instead, the plaintiff claims employees were interrupted during off-duty breaks and meal periods to complete tasks for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to work more than five hours a shift without being provided their off-duty meal break as required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims Forest Lawn failed to offer a second off-duty meal period when employees were required to work 10 hours in one shift. Forest Lawn policy allegedly required employees to remain on call/duty during rest periods and meal breaks. Due to this uniform policy and practice at the company, employees were required to forfeit their meal breaks without receiving additional compensation as required by law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour 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.

Kelly Services Global, LLC Facing a PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, aggrieved employees claim Kelly Services Global, LLC violated California Labor Code when failing to fully relieve employees for their rest periods and meal breaks, resulting in off-the-clock work.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01304927-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Yuri Fischer, was employed by the defendant, Kelly Services Gobal, LLC in California from June 2021 through June 2022 as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Fischer was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum wage and overtime wages due for all his time worked.

The Defendant: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The defendant in the case, Kelly Services Global, LLC, is a limited liability company operating in California, providing management solutions and staffing services to top companies across numerous industries. According to the complaint, Kelly Services Global, LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and regularly required employees to work more than four hours without providing the legally required rest period (10 minutes). According to California state law, the off-duty rest periods must be free of work-related duties and employer control.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

In the case Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, the plaintiff files seeking only to recover PAGA civil penalties for himself and current and class members. He does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699. The State of California can enforce state labor laws through employees suing under the PAGA as a proxy or agent of California state labor law enforcement agencies. Actions to recover civil penalties under PAGA are essentially law enforcement actions intended to protect the public and do not benefit private parties involved. PAGA-only actions do not seek to recover damages but seek to enforce Labor Code. The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendant violated numerous labor laws. The case is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

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.

Ecolab Faces Allegations their Overtime Calculations Violate Labor Law

In recent news, Ecolab faces allegations that its standard overtime pay calculations violate the labor code.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior

The Case No.: 19STCV21322

The Plaintiff: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for Ecolab for several years before being promoted to route sales manager on April l5, 2018. As an Ecolab route sales manager, Lemm was the primary contact with customers on his. He visited them regularly to install, repair, and maintain Ecolab equipment, provide continuous training and customer service, and sell additional or supportive Ecolab products and parts. Route sales managers are nonexempt employees who are entitled to overtime compensation. Lemm regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours weekly in 2018 and 2019. Lemm's payment was calculated according to an annual Incentive Compensation Plan with compensation comprised of hourly wages and a nondiscretionary monthly bonus earned by meeting specific metrics. On June 19, 2019, Lemm filed a PAGA suit, alleging Ecolab improperly calculated the overtime due on the nondiscretionary bonus paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

The Defendant: Lemm v. Ecolab

The defendant in the case, Ecolab, provides sanitation and pest control services and supplies, commercial kitchen equipment and appliance maintenance, and food safety services. On July 25, 2019, Ecolab responded, denying Lemm's allegations.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

About two months later, on October 2, 2019, Lemm filed an amended PAGA notice, asserting additional claims for civil penalties associated with Ecolab's failure to pay all required wages, including reporting time and split shift wages. However, Ecolab successfully moved for summary judgment because its formulation of the overtime payment comported with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). On appeal, Lemm argued that the method by which Ecolab calculated overtime compensation owed on the monthly bonuses failed to comply with California law and that state law supersedes federal law because Lemm's claim was a state claim, and California provides greater protection for employees. However, the Second Appellate District confirmed the trial court's decision, explaining they weren't required to use the exact formula set down in Section 49 2.4 when using the nondiscretionary bonus for overtime calculations. Ecolab demonstrated to the court that as long as the overtime calculations did not include overtime on overtime, the amount of overtime pay was the same regardless of which overtime calculation option they used: the section 49.2.4 formula or the CFR 778.210 formula.

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.