A Critical Analysis of the Uber and Lyft Overtime Lawsuit

In a landmark decision that has stirred the legal landscape of California employment law, the California Supreme Court recently cited Proposition 22 when they ruled that rideshare drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft can legally be classified as independent contractors. The California Supreme Court ruling reaffirms the gig economy's business model in California, emphasizing the constitutional validity of the recently approved state ballot measure.

The Case: Castellanos v. State of California

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-06462-JCS

The Plaintiff: Castellanos v. State of California

The plaintiffs in the case were rideshare drivers supported by various labor groups, who challenged the classification of drivers. They argued that classifying rideshare app drivers as independent contractors deprived them of critical labor protections provided by California employment law, including minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other benefits.

The Defendant: Castellanos v. State of California

The defendants, prominent rideshare companies Uber and Lyft (along with food delivery service DoorDash), defended their model by supporting Proposition 22. They argued that the proposition provides flexibility for drivers to operate as independent contractors, thus allowing them the freedom to decide when and how they work. The companies maintained that this setup benefits both the drivers for its flexibility and the companies for maintaining a cost-effective operational model.

History of the Case: Castellanos v. State of California

This legal battle reached the California Supreme Court after a three-year contest in lower courts, including a 2021 decision by a state Superior Court judge that deemed Proposition 22 "unenforceable" and a reversal by the state Appeals Court in 2023. The Supreme Court's ruling not only overturned previous lower court decisions but also marked a significant victory for the gig economy, solidifying drivers' employment status as independent contractors under state law.

The Case: Castellanos v. State of California

The Supreme Court's decision is pivotal for workers across California, particularly those in the gig economy. It underlines the ongoing tension between evolving business models and traditional employment protections. While the ruling secures the status quo for rideshare companies, it also highlights the need for continuous dialogue and potential legislative adjustments to ensure fair treatment and adequate protections for all workers in the state. The case serves as a crucial precedent in understanding and navigating the complexities of violating California overtime laws and the broader implications of labor classification in California's dynamic labor market.

If you have questions about filing a California misclassification lawsuit, please 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.

Amazon Workers Receive Payout to Resolve Overtime Lawsuit

Recently, Amazon.com Services reached a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit alleging violations of overtime regulations.

The Case: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Plaintiffs: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy, and Patricia Salazar, filed a class action overtime lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Amazon workers did not receive overtime pay between 2017 and 2023. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of anyone who worked at Amazon during the past six years and received a sign-on bonus in the same week they worked overtime. According to the plaintiffs, Amazon violated California Labor Law by underpaying overtime wages earned during the same week a sign-on bonus was issued. The overtime pay was allegedly calculated at the regular rate of pay when they should have considered the bonus payment when determining the “regular rate of pay.”

The Defendant: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The defendants in the case, Amazon.com Services, are paying up in response to the class action overtime lawsuit. To settle the complaints, Amazon.com Services agreed to pay Amazon workers in the class over $500. While Amazon agreed to settle, it also denied the allegations of wrongdoing. Amazon.com Services has committed to a $3M payout for class members.

The Case: Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services

The Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar v. Amazon.com Services case resulted in a settlement agreement. Amazon workers can easily determine if they are eligible for a portion of the settlement. The criteria are: 1. Current or former Amazon employee; 2. Located in California; 3. Employed between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023; and 4. Received a sign-on bonus and worked overtime the same week.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, please contact 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.

Female Disney Executive Filed Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

A former female Disney executive filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, a California Corporation, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV08350

The Plaintiff: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Asta Jonasson, is taking the network, parent company Disney, and John Ridley to court, claiming they engaged in gender, racial, and economic discrimination and wrongful termination.

During her ten years with ABC under Ridley and IFPRPC(Ridley’s International Famous Players Radio Picture Corporation), Jonasson claims her salary went unchanged and was lower than the standard for her position at the company. According to the complaint, she was also overlooked for promotions. Jonasson brought her concerns to Ridley regarding the alleged pay disparity, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination multiple times. She also states that she complained to ABC about unlawful discriminatory actions but saw no corrective action. In 2021, a white woman was hired to perform tasks Jonasson was already performing, but at a significantly higher pay rate. Jonasson eventually put her grievances in writing and was allegedly “pink-slipped” in 2022. Claiming her firing was a direct result of her written complaints of labor law violations, Jonasson filed a California wrongful termination lawsuit listing the studio, Ridley, and the parent company, The Walt Disney Company as defendants.

The Defendant: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

The case has a trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley (Oscar winner Ridley is the co-host of Deadline’s Doc Talk podcast), and ABC, face multiple alleged labor law violations, including:

• Discrimination in violation of the FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of the FEHA

• Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

• Violation of the Equal Pay Act

• Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Negligent supervision and retention

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The Case: Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company

In Asta Jonasson vs. The Walt Disney Company, the plaintiff seeks a jury trial and various unspecified damages from the trio of defendants, Disney, Ridley, and ABC.

Not the Only Labor Law Allegations Disney Faces:

Disney is facing more allegations regarding gender discrimination in a class action suit from potentially thousands of past and present employees, claiming the company shows a pattern of gender discrimination and pay disparity favoring male employees. The class action was filed in 2019 by Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore. It includes claims that female employees receive lower pay rates than male counterparts with similar job duties in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. After repeated failures to get the class action discrimination lawsuit tossed out, the action seeks at least $150,000,000 in lost wages for female Disney employees, with the potential for damages to grow to more than $300,000,000.

If you have questions about how to file a retaliation, discrimination, or wrongful termination 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.

Newport’s Stoneacre Employees Allege Owners Took Take and Didn’t Pay Overtime

In a significant legal development, the Stoneacre family of restaurants and its owners are embroiled in serious labor law violation allegations. The lawsuit contends that they unlawfully appropriated employee tips and misclassified positions, thereby exempting certain workers from overtime pay requirements.

The Case: Martin V. Walsh v. Kale Stems, LLC d/b/a Stoneacre et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00289

The Plaintiff: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The complaint was filed by U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and lists four counts of Fair Labor Standards Act violations against Stoneacre Hospitality co-owners Christopher Bender and David Crowell and their associated LLCs (associated with Stoneacre Brasserie, Stoneacre Garden, and Stoneacre Tapas (now closed)). According to the complaint, Bender and Crowell participated in the employee tip pool and allowed other managers and supervisors to participate. Doing so violates the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), which prohibits employees in positions that don't typically receive tips from participating in a tip pool. According to the complaint, the alleged participation in the tip pool also led to minimum wage compensation violations.

The Defendant: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The defendants in the case are the Stoneacre family of restaurants and its owners. The Newport area entrepreneurs started business during the Covid pandemic. In addition to the tip pool and minimum wage allegations, the defendants face allegations that they failed to pay proper overtime pay rates, misclassified employees to leave them exempt from overtime pay protections provided by labor law, and failed to maintain and keep accurate records of their employees' hours. According to the complaint, the defendants scheduled their employees' shifts at three locations. The employees also received payment through three different entities, and the defendants did not combine the hours worked at the three locations, so employees regularly worked overtime hours without receiving any overtime pay.

The Case: Walsh v. Stoneacre

The plaintiff seeks payment for the withheld tips and back wages due to minimum wage violations and damages for current and former employees affected by the alleged violations.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, please 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.

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.