Lawrence Equipment Faces Overtime Class Action Listing Multiple Allegations

In recent news, Lawrence Equipment faces multiple labor law violation allegations after a former employee filed a labor law class action.

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09752

The Plaintiff: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The plaintiff in the case, Rudy Pedroza, was employed by Lawrence Equipment Leasing, Inc. and Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (Lawrence Equipment) as a non-exempt, hourly employee from September 2022 through July 2023. Pedroza filed a class action lawsuit. The class action alleges multiple labor law violations by the defendants, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide workers with required rest periods and meal breaks, failure to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses, and failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

Overtime and Minimum Wage Protection for California Employees:

Overtime protections primarily apply to non-exempt employees. Certain employees are exempt from overtime and sometimes minimum wage laws based on specific criteria related to their job duties, salary level, and industry. Common exemptions include executive, administrative, and professional employees, outside salespeople, and certain computer professionals. Other exceptions may include commissioned sales employees, agricultural workers, and interns/trainees.

The Defendant: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

Lawrence Equipment, the defendant in the case, is a design and manufacturing company for production systems for products like tortillas, pizza, flatbreads, and other frying systems. They operate throughout California, including Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff worked. The company faces allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks required by law, failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, failing to provide the required itemized wage statements, and failing to provide employees with their wages when they were due.

According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant’s business practices and policies allegedly led to incidents violating multiple labor codes, including numerous California Labor Code Sections (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802).

The Case: Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment

The Pedroza v. Lawrence Equipment class action lawsuit is pending in California’s Los Angeles 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. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

PAGA-Only Action: Axlehire, Inc. Faces Multiple California Labor Code Violation Allegations

In recent news, a PAGA-only action alleges Axlehire engaged in multiple California labor code violations.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV055896

The Plaintiffs: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte, filed a lawsuit against Axlehire, Inc., alleging the companies violated the Labor Code.

The Defendant: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The defendant in the case, Axlehire Inc., faces allegations of multiple labor code violations. The company allegedly failed to provide workers with legally required meal breaks and rest periods. From time to time, employees were required to work more than four hours without a ten-minute break, as employers are required to provide employees according to labor law.

California Wage Order Requires Employers to Offer Employees Off-Duty Rest Periods:

California mandates that employers provide their employees with a ten-minute off-duty break for every four hours of work. The California Supreme Court defines an "off-duty rest period" as a time during which employees are not only relieved from their work responsibilities but are also free from any control exerted by their employer.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

This lawsuit is classified as a PAGA-only action, wherein the State of California leverages such suits to uphold state labor laws by allowing employees to act as representatives or proxies of state labor law enforcement agencies. Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), pursuing penalties is fundamentally a regulatory enforcement action aimed at safeguarding public interests rather than securing private benefits. Through PAGA, employees like the plaintiffs in this case, Acosta and Duarte, are essentially empowered to act as private attorneys general to address and penalize non-compliance with the California Labor Code. Their suit, which seeks penalties for alleged violations by Axlehire, is currently under consideration in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing 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.

AC Pro and Material Supply Faces Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime Pay

In recent news, AC Pro and Material Supply faced allegations they failed to comply with overtime pay requirements in violation of labor law.

The Case: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

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

The Case No.: CIVSB2407304

The Plaintiff: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

Alsha Jackson, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint against AC Pro Inc. and Material Supply Inc. (from now on, collectively, "AC Pro and Material Supply Inc."). According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly failed to provide meal and rest breaks following labor laws.

The Defendant: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

The defendant in the case, AC Pro Inc., is a family-owned heating and air conditioning distributor with many locations throughout Southern California, Southern Nevada, and Arizona. In addition to its distribution locations, the company manufactures custom metal parts from two plants - one in California. According to the lawsuit, AC Pro and Material Supply Inc. allegedly violated multiple California Labor Codes (including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558 , 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations include:

• Failing to Pay Minimum Wage

• Failing to Pay for Overtime Hours

• Failing to Provide rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to Provide Wages When Due

• Failing to Provide Itemized Wage Statements

• Failing to Reimburse Workers for Business Expenses

Which California Workers Are in Danger of Wage Theft?

Any California worker can be a victim of wage theft. Still, the workers most likely to become victims of wage theft often work in restaurants, construction, the hospitality industry, car washes, farming, nail salons, warehousing, or the clothing industry. These are the same industries that were most gravely affected during the pandemic, leaving workers in these industries vulnerable to the losses that can occur when employers engage in overtime pay violations or minimum wage violations. For example, workers lost almost $2 billion from unpaid minimum wage in 2015 (according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank).

The Case: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc., is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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 Walmart Settle their Unpaid Overtime Suit with California Workers?

In recent news, a California judge considered a revamped $2.25 million unpaid overtime settlement.

The Case: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino

The Case No.: 5:16-cv-01645-BRO-RAO

The Plaintiff: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Juan Garcia, initially filed a proposed class action complaint against Wal-Mart Stores in May 2016, alleging that the company did not provide a second meal break for shifts over 10 hours as required by labor law. Garcia also claimed he did not voluntarily waive his missed meal breaks and that Walmart did not obtain Garcia’s signature on any lawful meal break waivers. According to Garcia, a documented policy denied Walmart Logistics employees their second meal period.

The Defendant: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Walmart Stores, holds the title of the largest retailer globally, with a staggering valuation of $218 billion. This retail giant operates 3,250 stores across the U.S. and employs approximately 1 million individuals. Currently, in 2024, about 39 class-action lawsuits are active against Walmart in 30 states, ranging from California to New York. These lawsuits collectively involve several hundred thousand employees pursuing claims for tens of millions of dollars in unpaid wages. Previously, Walmart resolved two comparable cases regarding overtime payments in Colorado and New Mexico.

The Case: Juan Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.

In the motion for preliminary approval, over 1700 Walmart workers hoped for a resolution. The first motion to approve the settlement in September was denied, with the court pointing out deficiencies. The first allocation method did not fairly compensate the employees. The skewed compensation structure favored part-timers because it relied on weeks worked instead of hours worked. In the recent motion for preliminary approval, Walmart workers said they corrected the allocation method to address the deficiency.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California 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 Disney Underpay Maintenance Workers at California’s Disneyland Hotel?

In recent news, Disney faces a lawsuit alleging that they underpaid maintenance workers at their Disneyland Hotel just outside the California theme park.

The Case: Torres v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

The Court: California Superior Court, Orange County

The Case No.: case number not available

The Plaintiffs: Torres v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

The plaintiff in the case, Charlie Torres, claims that Disney failed to provide the maintenance workers for the Disneyland Hotel with accurate overtime pay rates and required that workers pay for their own hand tools and equipment while on the job. Maintenance workers also allege they weren’t provided with the one-hour break period required for shifts lasting over four hours and were deprived of the “meal break premiums” they were entitled to due to the missed breaks. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim Disney failed to provide the required accurate, itemized wage statements. Charlie Torres worked at Disneyland Hotel as an assistant maintenance engineer. He was hired in February 2022. Torres still works at the hotel.

The Defendant: Torres v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc

The defendant in the case, Disney, owns the Disneyland Hotel, the 970-room, four-star hotel where Torres works as an assistant maintenance engineer. The defendant faces multiple allegations of employment law violations.

The Case: Charlie Torres v. Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.

Under the California Wage Orders, employees who are required to bring their own tools for work must be paid double the minimum wage. The lawsuit alleges that Disney failed to pay maintenance workers at the Disneyland Hotel the overtime wages they were due. Torres, the plaintiff, is seeking at least $1 million in back pay and loss of benefits for the four years prior to the filing date. He also demands a jury trial to settle the claims. The complaint was filed on March 5, 2024. Torres aims to represent a group of more than 115 current and former workers at the Disneyland Hotel if the suit is granted class-action status.

If you have questions about filing 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.

Wildcat Discovery Technologies Faces Overtime Wage Pay Allegations

In recent news, a California company has been accused of violating California labor laws due to standard business practices that allegedly left employees without their minimum wages and accurate overtime wage payments.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2023-00055145-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The plaintiff in the case, Albert Ajero, was employed by the defendant from November 2022 through May 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee protected by labor law. Ajero filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Wildcat Discovery Technologies, Inc. (from now on, "Wildcat Discovery Technologies") failed to provide meal and rest breaks (as required by labor law).

The Defendant: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The defendant in the case, Wildcat Discovery Technologies, is a Deleware company that operates a substantial amount of business in California, providing technology services. According to allegations in the class action lawsuit, Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Violations included the failure to:

pay minimum wages

pay overtime wages

provide required meal and rest periods

reimburse for required business expenses

provide accurate itemized wage statements

provide wages when due

What is a Class Action, and Why Would a Plaintiff File a Class Action Complaint?

A class action lawsuit is a legal proceeding where a group of people facing similar grievances against an employer collectively bring a claim to court. This approach allows individuals, often employees or former employees, to pool their resources, streamline legal processes, and share the costs and benefits of the litigation. It's an effective legal tool for addressing widespread issues within a workplace, ensuring that justice is accessible even when individual claims might be too small to pursue independently.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The lawsuit, Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies, alleges Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated the California Labor Law by failing to pay employees for all their time worked. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing 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.

University Healthcare Alliance Faces Allegations of Overtime Law Violations in Class Action

University Healthcare faces allegations that they failed to pay overtime in compliance with federal and state labor laws.

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.: 23-CIV-05931

The Plaintiff: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda Nunez, worked for University Healthcare Alliance in California from February 2023 to October 2023 as a nonexempt hourly employee. According to the plaintiff, she and other employees in similar positions with the company were not provided with mandatory breaks and off-duty meal periods that California employers are required to provide their employees under labor law. The plaintiff claims that the company’s standard practices left employees without rest periods/meal breaks, completing off-the-clock work, being interrupted to fulfill job duties when receiving an off-duty meal break, etc. The plaintiff alleges that employees were not provided with minimum or accurate overtime wages due to these and other standard business practices at University Healthcare Alliance.

The Defendant: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The defendant in the case, University Healthcare Alliance, is a corporation that provides healthcare services in California. According to the class action lawsuit, University Healthcare Alliance allegedly failed to provide proper rest periods and off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the company allegedly failed to accurately record their employees time worked, utilizing a “rounding” method to track employee time worked as a standard business practice that plaintiffs claim resulted in the inaccurate payment of minimum and overtime wages paid to their employees.

• failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

• failure to provide mandated meal and rest periods

• failure to deliver wages when due

• failure to issue accurate wage statements

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the California overtime class action lawsuit, from time to time, University Healthcare Alliance employees were allegedly required to work five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. According to the complaint, the company allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including the time University Healthcare required them to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before being allowed to clock in to work for their shifts. The time spent completing the mandatory screenings resulted in off-the-clock work not qualifying for overtime premium payment calculations.

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 help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.