Culinary Specialties Faces Class Action Over Denied Meal Breaks and Wage Violations

In 2025, Culinary Specialties, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with lawful, off-duty meal breaks and by failing to provide full compensation for time worked.

Case: Erika Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU046725N

The Plaintiff: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Erika Montoro filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, alleging that Culinary Specialties failed to provide required off-duty meal periods and did not pay premium wages when those breaks were missed or interrupted. According to the complaint, employees were routinely required to work more than five hours without receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period, and some were denied a second meal period during shifts exceeding ten hours. The plaintiffs also claim that workers were required to remain "on call" during meal periods, forcing them to stay available for work-related duties and thus preventing them from fully discharging their job responsibilities.

The Defendant: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Culinary Specialties, Inc. operates as a food production and manufacturing company based in Southern California. The lawsuit alleges that the company's policies and scheduling practices violate several sections of the California Labor Code, including those governing wages, meal periods, and reimbursement of expenses. Employees were allegedly required to remain on duty or subject to employer control throughout their shifts, including during designated meal breaks. The complaint further alleges that Culinary Specialties failed to compensate workers with the additional hour of premium pay required under Labor Code Section 226.7 for each day a compliant meal period was not provided.

A History of the Case: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Filed in September 2025, the class action is still pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Culinary Specialties during the statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The Main Question Being Considered: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

The primary question before the court is whether Culinary Specialties violated California's meal-period laws by requiring employees to remain on duty during their "off duty" meal breaks or by interrupting those breaks for work-related tasks. The court will determine whether the company's practices effectively denied employees their legally mandated off-duty meal periods and whether failure to provide additional compensation constituted a systemic violation of California wage and hour statutes.

FAQ: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Q: What does the Culinary Specialties lawsuit claim?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employees were required to remain on duty or available for work during meal breaks, were denied a second meal period on longer shifts, and were not paid premium wages for missed breaks.

Q: What labor laws are at issue?

A: The complaint cites California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802, which govern pay, breaks, and reimbursement of expenses.

Q: What is an "off-duty" meal period?

A: An off-duty meal period means the employee is fully relieved of all job duties and free to leave the work area. If the employee remains under employer control, the meal period is not considered compliant.

Q: What relief are the plaintiffs seeking?

A: They seek unpaid wages, premium pay for missed meal breaks, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

Q: Why does this case matter for workers?

A: It emphasizes that California law requires meal breaks to be truly off-duty, and employers must pay additional compensation whenever employees are not provided that opportunity.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Alleges Syska Hennessy Violated Labor Law with Missed Rest Breaks

In 2025, Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company failed to provide employees with lawful meal and rest periods, failed to pay all wages due for time worked, and violated multiple sections of the California Labor Code.

Case: Anthony Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU046687C

The Plaintiff: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Anthony Tilley filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current and former employees, alleging that Syska Hennessy Group required workers to maintain demanding schedules that frequently prevented them from taking required rest and meal breaks. The complaint alleges that the company failed to provide employees with pay for all their hours worked, labor law compliant overtime pay, and premium pay when workers missed their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, the company also failed to provide legally required accurate, itemized wage statements and appropriate reimbursement for work-related expenses.

The Defendant: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. is an engineering and consulting firm with offices and projects across California. According to the lawsuit, the company’s staffing levels and scheduling practices led to employees working through their rest periods and performing duties while off the clock. Tilley claims the company did not fully relieve workers of job duties during their breaks; that they were still expected to be available to respond to job-related matters, and continue working on assignments.

A History of the Case: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

The case was filed in September 2025 in San Diego County Superior Court and remains pending. It seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Syska Hennessy Group during the relevant time period. The complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Main Question Being Considered by the Court in this Case

The primary issue before the court is whether Syska Hennessy Group violated California’s wage and hour laws. The court will evaluate whether the company’s work demands, project schedules, and staffing policies effectively denied employees the opportunity to take uninterrupted breaks, and whether such practices constitute systematic violations of the California Labor Code.

Why This Case Matters: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

For employees, the case can serve as a reminder that all workers (regardless of industry) are entitled to uninterrupted rest periods and proper compensation when those breaks are not provided.

FAQ: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Q: What is the Syska Hennessy Group lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks, required employees to work through rest periods, and did not pay premium wages as required by California law.

Q: What is premium pay for missed breaks?

A: When an employee is denied a required meal or rest break, California law requires the employer to pay one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each day a break is missed.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek to recover?

A: The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, premium pay, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case important?

A: It highlights that California’s rest and meal break protections apply broadly — not only to field or hourly workers — and that employers must ensure compliance across all departments and job types.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Golden Labor Services Class Action: Missed Rest Breaks and Unpaid Wages?

In 2025, Golden Labor Services, LLC was named in a class action lawsuit filed in Kern County Superior Court alleging multiple violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide required rest breaks, did not pay employees for all time worked, and violated various provisions of the California Labor Code.

Case: Patricia Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Court: Kern County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: BCV-25-102982

The Plaintiff: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Patricia Castillo, acting on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, filed a class action complaint alleging that Golden Labor Services failed to provide compliant meal breaks and rest periods and failed to pay employees for all compensable time worked. The lawsuit asserts that workers were required to maintain demanding schedules without sufficient rest time or relief from work duties, in violation of state labor laws. The plaintiffs allege that the company’s staffing practices and workload expectations routinely prevented employees from taking uninterrupted rest periods. In some instances, employees reportedly worked more than four hours without a ten-minute rest break or were denied additional breaks for longer shifts.

The Defendant: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Golden Labor Services, LLC, provides staffing and labor solutions in California, particularly within industries that require manual labor and field operations. According to the complaint, the company’s scheduling and break policies violated several sections of the California Labor Code, including those regulating wages, breaks, and reimbursement for work-related expenses. The lawsuit claims that Golden Labor Services failed to ensure employees were fully relieved of duty during rest periods, often due to inadequate staffing or excessive workload demands. Employees were also allegedly not compensated with the additional hour of premium pay required by law when rest periods were missed or interrupted.

A History of the Case: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Filed in September 2025, the class-action lawsuit remains pending in the Kern County Superior Court. It seeks certification for all non-exempt employees who worked for Golden Labor Services during the relevant time period. The lawsuit claims violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. The plaintiffs seek compensation for unpaid wages, penalties, and restitution, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Main Question Being Considered: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

The key issue before the court is whether Golden Labor Services violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide legally required rest breaks and by not paying employees the one-hour premium wage mandated when rest periods are missed. The court will also consider whether the company’s staffing and scheduling practices made it impossible for employees to take uninterrupted rest periods as required under California law, and whether those missed breaks resulted in unpaid wages and penalties owed to affected workers.

Why This Case Matters for California Workers:

If proven, the allegations could highlight widespread wage and hour violations impacting workers throughout the state’s staffing and labor services industry. The case underscores the importance of proper scheduling, staffing, and compliance with California’s strict rest break and compensation requirements. For employees, this case serves as a reminder that California law guarantees the right to take uninterrupted rest breaks and mandates premium pay if those rights are denied.

FAQ: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Q: What is the Golden Labor Services lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Golden Labor Services failed to provide required rest breaks, did not pay employees for all time worked, and failed to provide premium pay for missed breaks.

Q: What specific laws are at issue?

A: The lawsuit cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802 — covering areas such as overtime, minimum wage, rest periods, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement of work expenses.

Q: Why are rest breaks so important under California law?

A: Employers must provide a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked, during which employees must be fully relieved of duty. If a rest break is missed, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay at the worker's regular pay rate.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek to recover?

A: The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: What happens next in the case?

A: The case is currently pending in Kern County Superior Court. The court will determine whether the company’s policies violated state wage and hour laws and whether class certification is appropriate.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Kings FLC Inc. Faces Allegations of Multiple California Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Kings FLC Inc. faces allegations of multiple labor law violations in a California class action complaint filed in Fresno County Superior Court. The complaint claims that the company did not pay their employees for all the hours they worked, and failed to provide their employees with rest periods and meal breaks compliant with labor law.

Case: Daniel Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

Court: Fresno County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CECG01432

The Plaintiff: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

The plaintiff in the case is Daniel Cuadra. Cuadra claims that Kings FLC Inc. failed to compensate workers for the time spent under the company's control. In his complaint, the plaintiff claims that he and other employees were regularly required to perform work-related tasks before and after their official shift. Cuadra's complaint also alleges that workers were often made to work during their unpaid meal breaks, as well. According to Cuadra, these practices led to unpaid wages and overtime, and missed meal and rest periods that violated California labor law.

The Defendant: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

Kings FLC Inc. is an agricultural labor contracting company that operates in California’s Central Valley. The plaintiffs allege that the company's timekeeping and scheduling practices violated labor law and resulted in unpaid wages, inaccurate wage statements, and missed breaks and meal periods.

A History of the Case: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

The plaintiff filed the Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc. class action in May 2025. The suit seeks class certification and recovery for unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The case is pendig in Fresno County Superior Court. The case is part of a broader pattern of labor disputes in California’s agricultural industry, where off-the-clock work and denied rest periods have led to increased scrutiny under the state’s wage and hour laws.

The Main Question Being Considered: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

The central question before the court is whether Kings FLC Inc. violated the California Labor Code by requiring employees to work off the clock and by failing to provide them with full, off-duty meal and rest periods. The court will consider whether the company’s policies and practices unlawfully required employees to remain under employer control during unpaid time, entitling them to additional compensation. The decision will depend on whether the evidence demonstrates a pattern of wage and hour violations that affected multiple employees across throughout the company.

Why This Case Matters: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

If proven, the allegations against Kings FLC Inc. could represent systemic labor violations affecting agricultural employees throughout California’s Central Valley. The case underscores the ongoing importance of employer compliance with wage and hour laws in industries that heavily rely on manual labor and field operations. For workers, it reinforces the right to be paid for every minute spent under employer control — whether before shifts, after shifts, or during what should be unpaid breaks.

FAQ: Cuadra v. Kings FLC Inc.

Q: What is the Kings FLC Inc. lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Kings FLC Inc. required employees to perform work off-the-clock during unpaid meal breaks, before their shifts, and after their shifts.

Q: What labor laws are at issue?

A: The case cites alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802; laws governing wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for expenses.

Q: What does "off-the-clock" work reference?

A: Off-the-clock work occurs when employees are required to perform duties outside of their paid hours (or hours when they are "on the clock.") Under California law, workers must be paid for all time they are under the employer’s control.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek?

A: The plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case significant for California workers?

A: It underscores that agricultural and field employees are entitled to the same wage and hour protections as workers in any other industry, including the right to proper pay and legally mandated breaks.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Freight Sales Class Action Questions Off-the-Clock Work & Missed Breaks

In 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed against Sandair Corporation (doing business as California Freight Sales) in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to pay employees for all hours worked and violated multiple sections of the California Labor Code by requiring off-the-clock work and failing to provide proper meal and rest breaks.

Case: Juan Jimenez Padilla v. Sandair Corporation, dba California Freight Sales

Court: San Joaquin County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2025-9283

Plaintiff Filed a Class Action Seeking Unpaid Wages

The plaintiff in the case is Juan Jimenez Padilla. Padilla filed the class action complaint hoping to represent others in a similar situation at the company as they seek to recover unpaid wages and related damages under California’s wage and hour laws. In his complaint, Padilla alleges that he and other similarly situated employees were required to complete work tasks before and afrer rheir shifts and during meal periods - without payment. According to the plaintiffs, the company's pay practices failed to account for all their employees' work hours. As a result of this practice, Padilla claims that the company denied employees legally required overtime pay, minimum wage compensation, and compliant meal periods and rest breaks. The inaccurate pay practices also allegedly resulted in inaccurate wage statements and unpaid wages after a worker leaves their employment.

The Defendant: Padilla v. California Freight Sales

Sandair Corporation, doing business as California Freight Sales, is a freight and logistics company operating in the state of California. The lawsuit alleges that the company exercised control over its employees’ schedules and work duties but failed to compensate them for time spent working off the clock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that California Freight Sales requires employees to complete tasks before clocking in, remain on duty during meal breaks, and perform additional work after hours. The company also allegedly failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements (which are required by California Labor Code Section 226), and did not reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenses.

A History of the Case: Padilla v. California Freight Sales

The case was filed in August 2025 in San Joaquin County Superior Court. It seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for California Freight Sales during the relevant statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of multiple Labor Code provisions, including those covering minimum wage, overtime, rest and meal breaks, and wage statements. As of this writing, the case remains pending. If class certification is granted, the outcome could affect a significant number of employees across the company’s operations. The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Main Question Being Considered in the Class Action Case:

The main question before the court is whether California Freight Sales practices violated California labor laws and whether employees were "subject to the control" of the employer during the "unpaid" periods. If so, they are entitled to compensatio for that time under California labor law. The ruling will hinge on evidence showing whether California Freight Sales maintained policies or practices that required off-the-clock work or failed to ensure employees received full, uninterrupted breaks as mandated by law.

Why Does the Case Matter and How Could it Affect California Workers?

If the allegations are proven, it could indicate widespread wage and hour violations or far reaching business practices failing to comply with labor law. If so, workers throughout California's large freight and logistics industry could be affected. The case serves as a reminder that California law protects the right to be paid for every minute worked; including time spent preparing for shifts, closing out duties, or performing work during breaks.

FAQ: Padilla v. California Freight Sales

Q: What does the lawsuit against California Freight Sales claim?

A: The lawsuit claims the company required employees to work off-the-clock before and after shifts and during meal breaks, failing to pay them for all hours worked.

Q: What laws are at issue in this case?

A: The case cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 — which govern wage payments, overtime, meal and rest periods, and expense reimbursements.

Q: What will the court decide?

A: The court will determine whether California Freight Sales’ policies resulted in unpaid wages or denied employees legally required meal and rest breaks under California law.

Q: Why is off-the-clock work a violation?

A: Under California law, employees must be compensated for all time they are under the employer’s control, including pre-shift, post-shift, and break-time duties.

Q: Who could be affected by the outcome?

A: If certified as a class action, the case could impact numerous current and former employees of California Freight Sales who worked during the statutory period.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Harris Feeding Co. Faces Wage and Hour Allegations in California Class Action

In early September 2025, Harris Feeding Company was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the Fresno County Superior Court, alleging multiple violations of the California Labor Code.

Case: Sergio Zaragoza Sanchez v. Harris Feeding Co. (d/b/a Prairie Fresh Pork)

Court: Fresno County Superior Court

Case Number.: 25CECG04148

The Plaintiff: Sergio Sanchez, Filed a Class Action Compaint

The plaintiff in the case is Sergio Zaragoza Sanchez, an employee of Prairie Fresh Pork. Sanchez filed an employment law complaint alleging multiple labor law violations: failing to pay employees for all hours worked, withholding overtime pay, and issuing inaccurate wage statements. The alleged violations potentially affect a large group of current and former workers across California.

The Defendant: Sanchez v. Harris Feeding Co.

Harris Feeding Company (doing business as Prairie Fresh Pork) operates as a large-scale agricultural and livestock business based in California’s Central Valley. The company is responsible for managing feeding operations and production processes tied to pork distribution. According to the class action complaint, Harris Feeding Company exercised significant control over its employees’ work hours, duties, and schedules, but allegedly failed to comply with numerous provisions of the California Labor Code.

A History of the Case: Sanchez v. Harris Feeding Company

The lawsuit alleges that Harris Feeding Company failed to compensate employees for all hours worked properly, did not pay overtime wages as required by law, did not provide compliant meal and rest breaks, and did not issue accurate wage statements. The complaint further alleges that the company failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses, including equipment and supplies required for their jobs.

The Main Question Being Considered: Sanchez v. Harris Feeding Company

The court will need to determine whether the company’s pay and recordkeeping practices met the legal requirements outlined in the California Labor Code — particularly those governing overtime pay, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and reimbursement of work-related expenses.

Why Does this Case Matter to California Workers?

The allegations are serious as they could represent systemic wage and hour violations impacting employees throughout the company's California operations. The class action highlights ongoing concerns that California's agricultural industry is riddled with problematic levels of compliance with state labor standards. As California continues to strengthen protections for workers in industries with historically high rates of labor violations, the outcome of this case may reinforce employer accountability and serve as a reminder that all employees are entitled to full and fair compensation under the law.

FAQ: Sanchez v. Harris Feeding Company

Q: What is the Harris Feeding Company class action lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Harris Feeding Company engaged in multiple labor law violations by failing to pay employees for all hours worked, denying proper overtime pay, failing to provide required meal and rest breaks, issuing inaccurate wage statements, and neglecting to reimburse business expenses.

Q: What laws are at issue in the case?

A: The lawsuit cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802; covering areas such as minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest periods, wage statements, timely payment, and expense reimbursement.

Q: What will the court need to decide?

A: The court will determine whether Harris Feeding Company’s wage and hour policies complied with California labor laws and whether the alleged underpayment and recordkeeping violations were part of a broader pattern affecting multiple employees.

Q: Why is this case important for California workers?

A: The case underscores how critical it is for employers to maintain lawful wage and hour practices. For employees, it reinforces their right to accurate pay, proper breaks, and transparent wage documentation under California law.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Wingstop Wage and Hour Class Action

Workers in California continue to bring wage and hour claims against employers who fail to meet the state’s strict labor standards. One recent case highlights the impact on service industry employees when businesses fail to comply with wage laws.

Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

Court: Butte County Superior Court

Case No.: 22CV02669

The Plaintiff: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

As a former Wingstop employee, Jamal Shabazz filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers. He alleges the company failed to pay wages properly and follow California’s labor code requirements.

The Defendant: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

The defendant, Mann & Company, Inc., operates Wingstop franchise locations in California. As the employer, the defendant was responsible for ensuring Wingstop policies and procedures complied with wage and hour laws, including overtime, minimum wage, and break requirements.

A History of the Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

The complaint alleges that Mann & Company violated California’s labor code in multiple ways. Claims include unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, and inaccurate wage statements. Shabazz filed on behalf of a proposed class of Wingstop employees in California, seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and other damages. The case remains pending in Butte County Superior Court.

The Main Question Being Considered: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

Did Wingstop’s practices deny employees legally required wages, breaks, and accurate wage statements under California labor law?

Why This Case Matters: Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) is a good example of how California wage and hour violations impact workers in the hospitality and restaurant industries. Employers of all sizes (even smaller franchise employers) are required to be aware of and comply with labor law standards. Workers denied breaks, overtime, or accurate pay stubs may be entitled to significant recovery through class action litigation.

FAQ: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop)

Q: What is this case about?

A: The case alleges that Wingstop violated California labor laws by failing to pay wages properly and provide meal and rest breaks.

Q: What court is handling the case?

A: The case is pending in Butte County Superior Court.

Q: Who filed the wage and hour class action?

A: Jamal Shabazz is the plaintiff in the case. A former Wingstop employee, he filed on behalf of himself and other affected workers.

Q: What violations are alleged?

A: Claims include unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, missed meal periods or rest breaks, and inaccurate wage statements.

Q: Why is this case important for California's workforce?

A: This wage and hour case underscores that all employers, no matter how large or small, are required to comply with California’s strict wage and hour protections.

Take Action to Protect Your Rights as a California Worker

If you believe your employer failed to pay proper wages, denied you meal or rest breaks, or issued inaccurate wage statements, you may have legal claims under California labor law. The attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP have decades of experience representing employees in wage and hour class actions. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your case.