Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Bluecrew Violated Labor Law

/

In a California class action lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the company failed to provide employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in inaccurate wages and overtime wages.  

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The Court: San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-602240

The Plaintiff: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Dela Cruz, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that as a result of rigorous work schedules, he and other employees who qualify as California class members were sometimes unable to take their thirty-minute meal breaks and that at other times they were not fully relieved of work duties during the meal breaks they did take. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that their employer sometimes failed to provide workers with their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours in one shift. 

When Do California Workers Get a Second Meal Break in One Work Shift? 

In California, workers are generally entitled to a second meal break if they work a certain number of hours in a single work shift. The specific rules for meal breaks in California are as follows: one meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work over 5 hours in one workday, and a second meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work more than 10 hours in one workday with the second meal break provided no later than the end of the worker’s tenth hour or work. There are certain exceptions for specific industries, and employees can waive their second meal break if their total hours in the day do not exceed 12 hours (as long as they did not already waive their first meal break). When an employer does not provide an employee with the required meal break, the employee is typically required to pay the employee an additional hour at the regular pay rate for each day a meal break was not provided. 

The Defendant: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The defendant in the case, Bluecrew, LLC, faced allegations of California labor law violations when an employee filed a class action complaint alleging that Bluecrew (and Bluecrew Staffing) allegedly:

  1. Failed to pay minimum wage.

  2. Failed to pay overtime wages.

  3. Failed to provide legally mandated rest periods and meal breaks.

  4. Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

  5. Failed to reimburse their employees for necessary work expenses.

  6. Failed to pay sick pay wages.

  7. Failed to pay wages when due. 

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

Did Bluecrew violate California labor law? In the case Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC, California’s San Fransisco Superior Court had to consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the company’s standard practices violated California labor laws.

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.

Verizon Faces Another Overtime Lawsuit

/

There is no shortage of overtime lawsuits when it comes to Verizon.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Santillan, and more than 500 employees, claimed they were denied overtime, meal and rest breaks, and expense reimbursements. The plaintiffs claim that the company’s standard practices violated California labor law and federal labor laws.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case is Verizon Connect Inc. et al. Verizon Communications Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications giant. Antonio Hiram Santillan originally filed the complaint in May 2021, alleging that Verizon Connect (a Verizon subsidiary) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations and failed to either provide or compensate workers for mandatory meal breaks. Santillan worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan’s San Diego putative class action alleged that Verizon:

  • failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate

  • failure to provide all meal periods

  • failure to pay all wages

  • failure to reimburse business expenses

  • failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements

  • unfair business practices

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The parties attended mediation on January 30, 2023, and reached a settlement agreement between Verizon and hundreds of current and former employees. In June 2023, U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff granted preliminary approval of the $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit. The judge ruled that the settlement represented an acceptable resolution for the case. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the class would receive about half their expected damages with expectations that class members would see $1,800 payouts.

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.

$1.6M Settlement in Verizon Overtime Lawsuit Receives Preliminary Approval

/

In recent news, the two parties in a Verizon overtime lawsuit received preliminary approval for a $1.6 million settlement to resolve California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit claims.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Antonio Hiram Santillan, filed a putative class action in May 2021 in San Diego County Superior Court alleging that Verizon Connect (a subsidiary of Verizon) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations for employees and failed to provide (or compensate workers for) mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. Santillan was a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020.

He worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al. is not the first overtime lawsuit Version has faced (and it’s not the only one currently). The class action lawsuit has a class of more than 500 employees, all claiming they were denied proper overtime pay, as well as meal and rest breaks and reimbursements for expenses.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Verizon Connect Inc., faces allegations of failing to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate, failing to provide employees with meal periods, failing to pay all the wages due their employees, failing to reimburse workers for business expenses, failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements (on time), and unfair business practices.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

In Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al., the defendant faces allegations of multiple California and federal labor law violations. In July 2023, the parties received preliminary approval of a $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California wage and hour class action claims.

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.

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.