Options for Youth-California, Inc. Facing California Labor Code Violation Allegations

In recent news, Options for Youth-California, Inc. is facing allegations of multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIVSB2132685

The Plaintiff: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

Anthony Gutierrez, the plaintiff in the case, filed the PAGA only complaint seeking civil penalties on behalf of himself and all current and former aggrieved employees of Options for Youth-California. Under PAGA, California workers are allowed to bring an action on behalf of themself or on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only.

The Defendant: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

According to the complaint, Options for Youth-California, Inc. is a California corporation offering students a personalized, flexible approach to their education.

What is a PAGA Action?

PAGA creates the opportunity for individuals to act on behalf of California state to enforce state labor laws through the legal system. Under PAGA, an employee can file a lawsuit as the proxy of the California State Labor Law Enforcement Agency. For all intents and purposes, a PAGA-only action is fundamentally a law enforcement action intended to protect the public and not intended to benefit any private party. Under PAGA actions, the plaintiff seeks not to recover damages or restitution, but to act as a “deputy” private attorney to enforce California State Labor Code.

Summary of the Case: Anthony Gutierrez v. Options for Youth-California, Inc.

According to the complaint, Options for Youth-California, Inc. allegedly failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest breaks, which resulted in underpaying employees' wages. The company has multiple locations throughout the state of California. The employer allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks. The plaintiff also claims that employees were required (now and then) to work more than four (4) hours without being offered the legally required ten-minute rest period (as outlined by employment law). According to the California Supreme Court, off-duty rest periods are defined as the time during which employees are relieved from all their work-related tasks and responsibilities, and are also free from their employer’s control.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California employment law complaint or PAGA complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did THC-Orange County Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Meal Breaks?

In recent news, another California employer faces allegations of Labor Law violations.

The Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-597887

The Plaintiff: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Arva Anderson, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that THC - Orange County, LLC violated California Labor Code. Anderson was employed by the Defendant from July 2021 through October 2021 and the company classified Anderson as a non-exempt employee paid hourly. As such, Anderson was legally entitled to the required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages.

The Allegations: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

According to the complaint, THC-Orange County, LLC, the Defendant, failed to pay workers minimum wage, failed to provide workers with overtime pay, failed to provide legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks, failed to offer workers accurate and itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse workers for necessary expenses, and failed to pay worker’s wages when they were due.

The Defendant: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

The Defendant in the case, THC-Orange County, LLC, provides healthcare services (including both medical and surgical care services) in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Arva Anderson v. THC-Orange County, LLC

All the allegations represent violations of California Labor Law. According to California Labor Code § 226, California employers are required to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements that show the worker’s "gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period..." in addition to other data. The lawsuit alleges that THC-Orange County, LLC allegedly violated California Labor Law by failing to fulfill this requirement for accurate and itemized wage statements.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Sheraton Hotel Faces a Class Action Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

Sheraton Hotel workers filed a class action alleging The Sheraton, LLC and NFNY Hotel Management LLC violated state labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to meet minimum wage pay requirements, and not handing over tips to their workers.

The Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court Western District of New York

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-00046

The Plaintiff: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

Doris Green and Christina Casero filed the original lawsuit against The Sheraton Hotel. The two are former hourly workers for the Sheraton Niagara Falls Hotel. The former employees cited both the hotel and NFNY Hotel Management, the company that runs that particular hotel location, as defendants in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the companies violated labor law by failing to comply with minimum wage, and wage statement requirements as well as failing to hand over tips earned by their workers.

The Defendant: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The defendants in the case, The Sheraton, LLC, and NFNY Hotel Management are both facing allegations of labor law violations. The Sheraton is a popular and well-known hotel chain with many locations throughout the nation. NFNY Hotel Management is the company that ran The Sheraton Niagara Falls location at the time the plaintiffs were employed. The plaintiffs, Casero and Green, claim the companies' wage notices fail to accurately and timely show employees their true rates of pay and proper tip credits to be taken into consideration against the minimum wage. The wage notices allegedly failed to include names, addresses, and phone numbers for the joint employers. According to the plaintiffs, affected workers included waiters, bartenders, servers, room service attendants, and nonmanagerial service workers.

More Details of the Case: Green, et al., v. The Sheraton, LLC, et al.

The two former Sheraton Niagara Falls employees accuse the hotel owners and hotel management of depriving them of minimum wage and their earned tips. The allegations are made in a class action lawsuit with class members including a variety of different Sheraton employees paid at an hourly rate. One of the plaintiffs, Casero, was employed as a server at the Sheraton Niagara Falls from May 2016 through August 2020. Casero’s hourly rate of $8.25 did not meet New York’s state minimum wage (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during her time of employment). Green, another plaintiff, worked as a Sheraton Niagara Falls bartender, front desk associate, and other roles at the hotel from May 2019 through August 2020. Green’s hourly pay rate of $12 also did not meet the state minimum wage requirements (New York state’s minimum wage went from $11.10 up to $12.50 during the time of employment). The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of current and former hourly workers at the Sheraton Niagara Falls location. The group seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, legal fees, and costs. The plaintiffs also seek a jury trial, and the case is pending.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss how to file a California class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Krispy Kreme & Insomnia Cookies Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, a worker filed a suit alleging Krispy Kreme Inc. violated labor law.

The Case: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

The Case No.: 6:22-cv-06075

The Plaintiff: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The Plaintiff in the case, Taylor Rae Hine, claims Krispy Kreme and Insomnia Cookies both failed to pay their workers both minimum wage for their hours worked and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in one week. Both minimum wage and overtime pay are required by law.

The Defendant: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

The plaintiff argues that Krispy Kreme’s and Insomnia Cookies both exhibited willful and intentional policies and employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as state labor laws.

Case Details: Hine v. Insomnia Cookies, et al.

Hine, the plaintiff, wishes to represent a class of non-exempt workers who were employed by either Krispy Kreme or Insomnia Cookies over the past six years. The plaintiff, Hine, worked as a delivery driver for both companies for about two years between 2019 and 2021. According to Hine, she was paid a flat compensation and the company did not inform her of her hourly rate or potential tip deductions made by the employer towards the minimum wage. Additionally, Hine claims she spent over 20% of her workday engaging in non-tipped job tasks and was required to pay out-of-pocket for car expenses related to delivery services without appropriate reimbursement. Hines demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief as well as unpaid wages and liquidated/punitive damages for both herself and the qualified class members.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Barton & Associates, Inc. Face Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Barton & Associates, Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit alleging they failed to provide their workers with wages for all hours worked.

The Case: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 21STCV43314

The Plaintiff: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case filed a class action complaint against Barton & Associates, Inc. for allegedly failing to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked.

The Defendant: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

According to the lawsuit, the defendant, Barton & Associates, Inc. violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 when they allegedly failed to pay overtime wages, pay minimum wage, provide mandated required meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and provide wages when they are due. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the company violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which means they may face civil penalties for their violations as well. (PAGA allows employees to file a lawsuit intended to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California based on Labor Code violations).

Details of the Case: Latisha Shaconna Anderson v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc.

In California Labor Code Section 226 it states that employers are required to furnish employees with accurate itemized wage statements (in writing showing). An itemized accurate wage statement must show an employee’s gross wages earned, their total hours worked during the pay period, the number of piece-rate units earned during the pay period and any applicable piece-rate, all deductions from the employee’s pay, all net wages earned, specific dates designating the time period for which the employee is receiving pay, the name of the employee and the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or employee identification number, the name and address of the employer (the legal entity), and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period with the corresponding total number of hours worked at each designated hourly rate. Allegedly, Barton & Associates, Inc. failed to fulfill this requirement of employment law. Plaintiffs claim they did not provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with all the requirements of California Labor Code Section 226.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC Faces California PAGA-Only Action

In recent news, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC faces a California PAGA-only action.

The Case: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

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

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

The plaintiff in the case filed a PAGA-only action, California enacted the PAGA to allow an individual to bring an action on behalf of herself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only. This is the precise and sole nature of this action. In accordance with the intended purpose of the PAGA-only action, the plaintiff seeks to obtain all applicable relief for the Defendant’s violations under PAGA and solely for the relief as permitted by PAGA (specifically penalties and other relief the Court deems appropriate under PAGA). Nothing in this PAGA complaint should be construed as trying to seek any relief that would not be available in a PAGA-only action.

The Defendant: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

According to the lawsuit, the defendant, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, is a limited liability company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as Ritz-Carlton, and a significant amount of their business is conducted in the state of California.

Details of the Case: Susana Cuellar v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

According to the lawsuit, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC allegedly failed to accurately record Plaintiff’s time worked (as well as other similarly situated workers). Employees were required to submit to mandatory drug testing, among other testing, as a condition of continued employment. While submitting to the mandatory testing, employees were working off the clock. Additionally, the Plaintiff's off-duty meal breaks were, on occasion, interrupted by work assignments. As labor law defines mandatory rest breaks and meal periods as times during which employees should be relieved of all job tasks and responsibilities, this is another alleged employment law violation.

Under PAGA an employee can sue as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public. It’s not designed to benefit private parties in any way. The purpose of PAGA is not to recover damages or restitution but to “deputize” citizens to help enforce the Labor Code.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Judge Gives Early Approval of McDonald’s $2M Wage Deal

The revised $2 million settlement between the class of 5,500 current and former workers and McDonald’s of California, was given early approval by the judge.

The Case: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-01175-HBK

The Plaintiff: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gennifer Manzo, worked as a shift manager at McDonald’s in Clovis, California. Manzo filed the lawsuit in 2020 on behalf of other similarly situated employees under California’s Labor Code and PAGA. Manzo alleged McDonald’s failed to provide employees with accurate wage statements reflecting their correct pay rates and total hours worked. Gennifer Manzo was joined by a class of 5,500-plus employees in California who allegedly received inaccurate wage statements.

Early Approval of Settlement: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

While Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta offered early approval of the settlement deal; she did voice multiple concerns regarding the details of the settlement. The judge made sure to voice concerns that the attorneys’ fees requested were one-third the total amount of the settlement. She was also concerned that the proposed service fee award of $1,000 for the case’s lead plaintiff, was also higher than typical in a class action case. In fact, she specified that it was 46 times the average class member’s payout. According to the proposed settlement deal, class members receive roughly $1.88 million; which would mean approximately $216 per class member on average.

More About Settlement Details: Gennifer Manzo v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

The judge also questioned the hourly rates of the attorneys; they failed to articulate if their rates were within the normal range for the Bay Area/Los Angeles. She noted that no details were provided about legal work completed for the case. The settlement deal also included $100,000 for penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act and $30,000 for settlement administration costs.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.