Should Delta Pay OT Wages to Employees Who Swap Shifts?

In recent news, Delta faces a class action questioning whether their standard business practices regarding overtime payment to employees who swap shifts violate labor law.

The Case: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-05712-TWT

The Plaintiffs: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

Delta allows employees to swap their work shifts with co-workers trained to complete the same job duties, but according to the lawsuit, Delta does not pay overtime when employees who have swapped shifts then work extra time during a work period. The Delta employees included in the class are customer service employees at airports across the United States, reservation and sales representatives who may perform customer service duties from call center locations across the United States, and tower coordinators working at any of Delta’s eight hubs nationwide. The proposed class would potentially include tens of thousands of Delta workers denied overtime due to Delta’s standard business practices.

The Defendant: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

The defendant in the case, Delta Air Lines Inc., faces a class action lawsuit regarding failure to pay overtime to employees who have “swapped shifts.” When employees swap shifts, the shift is still worked, and the company receives the employee labor. Under Delta’s employee contract, swaps do not count toward overtime, and even if Delta employees work more because of a swapped shift, it does not result in overtime pay. Delta’s practice is built on the argument that if overtime is defined as work performed more than the standard “full time” scheduled hours, then swapped shifts, by definition, are not overtime, as they weren’t technically scheduled hours. Instead, they could technically consider the swapped shift a reallocated scheduled shift. However, the lawsuit argues that when an employee swaps a shift and ultimately works extra hours during that period, but does not receive overtime pay. When this occurs, Delta treats the swapped shift as unpaid time.

The Case: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

In the case, Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc, the class argues that the Overtime Contract’s passive language indicates that when calculating overtime eligibility for Delta employees, the significant point is whether an employee’s scheduled hours in a specified work period were worked, not whether that employee was the one that worked them.

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

Publix Facss Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, Publix faces allegations of overtime violations, with more current and former employees coming forward with similar complaints after the suit was initially filed.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The Court: U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-C

The Plaintiff: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, Hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case are Christopher Roberts, Caitlin Throckmorton, Brandy Moore, Carter Hubbs, and Jessica Schafer. At the last check, approx. 20 past and current Publix managers (at varying management levels) were listed as plaintiffs in the potential overtime class action. The potential class action lawsuit was originally filed in October and included allegations that Publix did not pay their hourly employees for hundreds of overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, workers routinely worked before and after their shifts and on unpaid meal breaks. The class action applies to Publix store workers in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.

The Defendant: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The defendant in the case, Publix Supermarkets, Inc., operates over 1,300 stores in seven states, employing over 250,000 employees. Publix is headquartered in Lakeland. According to the allegations, Publix managers and assistant managers were paid hourly rates. Still, they worked before and after clocking out to complete mandatory job duties. Some of these mandatory job duties managers were allegedly expected to perform off the clock included:

• walking departments with supervisors

• organizing

• cleaning

• restocking

• assisting customers

According to the class action allegations, managers were also routinely interrupted while they were on unpaid breaks so they could handle work matters. They were also allegedly expected to handle work matters when they were not at work - they were simply contacted by call or text. They were not provided any compensation when they were expected to complete these tasks off the clock and while completely off duty.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case estimate that they worked an average of at least five unpaid overtime hours weekly without being provided with any means of recording their hours or receiving payment for the job duties they completed while outside the store or off the clock.

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.

Will Superior Court Judge Give Final Approval to $36M Equinox Settlement?

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court judge gave Equinox a nod indicating they can expect to receive final approval on the $36 million global settlement to resolve California state and federal labor law allegations claiming Equinox pushed more than 15,000 employees to complete off-the-clock work and skip meal periods, and rest breaks.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

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

The Case No.: 19-cv-05072-WHO

The Plaintiff: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The plaintiffs in the case are group fitness instructors and personal trainers employed in a nonexempt status. The plaintiffs claim they regularly worked over 40 hours in one workweek and more than 8 hours in one workday. According to the complaint, nonexempt workers were paid hourly for the time they were clocked in and at a piece rate for finishing specific tasks. Equinox allegedly let plaintiffs and qualifying class members complete numerous tasks off-the-clock without pay, such as:

• Interacting with clients outside of classes or training sessions

• Organizing and creating calendars for scheduling

• Scheduling work meetings

• Engaging with supervisors

• Contacting prospective clients

• Prepping client programs for sessions.

In addition to not receiving pay for the hours required to complete the off-the-clock tasks, the hours spent were also not considered for overtime calculations.

The Defendant: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

The defendant in the case, Equinox, owns and operates luxury health clubs in California. According to allegations in the labor law complaint, Equinox's published policies discouraged/prohibited workers from submitting all the hours they worked. For instance, personal trainers were limited to two to three hours weekly for session-related activities. They were required to reach out to management if they felt they needed to spend more time than that on their fitness programming outside of training sessions. According to the plaintiffs, performing all the tasks associated with programming required by Equinox within the time allotted was not realistic. As a result, plaintiffs claim that Equinox's standard policy resulted in inaccurate wages, overtime wages, and wage statements.

The Case: Fodera v. Equinox Holdings

In the case, Fodera v. Equinox Holdings, the $36 million wage and hour settlement approved by the court represents the resolution of claims from numerous California State and Federal Court cases. The hefty settlement covers a class of more than 15,000 hourly nonexempt current and former Equinox workers employed from April 2015 to December 2022. The class includes a PAGA group of nonexempt personal trainers and fitness instructors. Equinox allegedly failed to pay for pre-short work and post-shift work. Additionally, the plaintiffs pointed out that Equinox's company policy regarding meal periods, rest breaks, wage statements, and other wage and hour practices are not in line with labor law requirements. Superior Court Judge Herbert issued final settlement approval on September 21, 2023.

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

Elite Bohemian Grove Club Faces Class Action Alleging Employment Law Violations

In recent news, an elite secret club called Bohemian Grove faces labor law violation allegations, including failing to pay overtime and not giving workers breaks.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:2023cv02760

The Plaintiff: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Anthony Gregg, Wallid Saad, Shawn Claiborne, filed the proposed class action on June 25, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, demanding a jury trial. The plaintiffs are former Bohemian Grove valets who worked at the club’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California, for several years. They allege unfair labor practices, including 16-hour workdays with no breaks and failing to pay overtime and minimum wages.

The Defendant: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The defendant in the case, Bohemian Grove, one of the most elite and secretive clubs in the U.S. (with Reagan and Nixon listed among its elite membership), faces multiple labor law allegations:

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

2. Collective Action - Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.)

3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods

4. Failure to Provide Paid Rest Breaks

5. Failure to Pay All Wages at Termination (Labor Code Section 201-203)

6. Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

7. Unfair Business Practices; 8. Violation of Labor Code Section 2699 (PAGA)

Bohemian Grove attracts some of the world’s most powerful people to mysterious gatherings in the woods outside of San Francisco, California, and has long been the focus of conspiracy theorists and general fascination. The plaintiffs worked for several years at Bohemian Grove’s Monte Rio summer camp in Sonoma County, California (a secretive 2,700-acre camp near the Russian River that’s been in operation every summer for 150 years). The club lists 2,600 active members and a significant wait list.

The Case: Gregg et al. v. Bohemian Club et al.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Club is comprised of 100 camps, each with one or more captains who consistently violate numerous labor laws yearly. The lawsuit alleges that the Bohemian Grove treasurer, B. Dawson, personally directed valets to falsify payroll records and perform work off the clock. According to complaints in the lawsuit, throughout the 14-day summer camp each year, workers were consistently paid for eight hours when working 16-plus hour workdays without breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. If certified, the class action status would affect 300 employees. The plaintiffs seek up to $1.5 million in damages from the all-male Bohemian Grove club.

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

Did SpaceX Violate Numerous California Labor Laws?

In recent news, a SpaceX employee alleges the company violated numerous California labor laws.

The Case: Juan Padilla v. Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. DBA SpaceX

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

The Case No.: 23STCV17559

The Plaintiff: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Padilla, a former SpaceX employee, filed a class action accusing the company of a slew of California labor law violations, including failing to pay hourly workers proper minimum wages, straight-time wages, and overtime wages. Labor Law entitles hourly employees to a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period every five hours. According to the complaint, SpaceX often required employees to work more than five consecutive hours without providing them with their legally compliant meal breaks. Similarly, the complaint alleges that SpaceX required hourly workers to work over four consecutive hours without providing a legally required 10-minute rest break. The plaintiff also claims that the missed breaks were not compensated with an additional hour of pay as labor law requires.

The Defendant: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The defendant in the case, SpaceX, is a spacecraft engineering and manufacturing company co-founded by Elon Musk in 2002. In addition to the missed meal break and rest period claims and alleged minimum wage, wage and hour, and overtime pay violations, the defendant also faces allegations of failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses (like parking and cell phone use), and timely payment of final wages (California law stipulates that all unpaid wages are due immediately upon discharge or within 72 hours of a former employee’s departure).

The Case: Juan Padilla v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case is a former SpaceX employee and California resident. Padilla was employed at SpaceX from January 2022 through September 2022. Padilla seeks to represent anyone who worked for SpaceX in California as a non-exempt hourly employee at any time during the four years and 178 days preceding the initial complaint filing and ending when the notice to the class is distributed.

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.

California Class Action Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

The Allegations: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

• Meal and Rest Period Violations

• Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

• Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

• Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

• Unreimbursed Business Expenses

• Wage Statement Violations

• Failure to Pay Wages on Time

• Unlawful Deductions

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Class Action Accuses VNA Hospice of Overtime Pay Violations

In the Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice class action, VNA Hospice is accused of violating overtime pay requirements governed by labor law.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice and Palliative Care of Southern California

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California

The Case No.: CIVDS1909598

The Plaintiff: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against VNA Hospice, claiming the company failed to compensate hourly employees with accurate overtime wages. According to Carter, the company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt workers non-discretionary incentive wages calculated based on their performance on the job. The plaintiff argues that the bonuses should have been included in the employee’s regular pay rate for overtime wage calculation. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The defendant in the case, VNA Hospice, allegedly committed various California Labor Code violations by failing to pay its employees the proper overtime wages.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The case, Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice, includes claims that the company’s overtime calculations were not based on an accurate regular pay rate – leading to the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of VNA Hospice being underpaid in overtime wages. The class action complaint seeks penalties for missed rest periods and meal breaks based on the company’s lack of standard policy and practices providing employees with legally mandated breaks, minimum wage, and accurate overtime pay.

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.