Matco Ends Wage Theft Class Action with $15.8M Settlement

Matco Tools Corp., a tool company, recently agreed to pay their franchisees $15.8 million to resolve a class action alleging the corporation misclassified them as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime and other benefits.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-00463

Plaintiffs in the Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The specified settlement between the two parties in Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al. stemmed from Matco franchisee John Fleming suing the Ohio-based mechanic tools manufacturer (and its parent company, Fortive Corp) in Jan. 2019. Fleming claimed he and other franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors. Fleming was a Matco franchise owner from 2012 to 2018. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed as Fleming was not a franchise owner at the time of the filing, but the court disagreed and certified the class action. The allegations included in the complaint will be resolved by the proposed settlement, which will see plaintiffs (the affected franchisees) each receiving over $40,000 in cash/debt relief.

Defendant in the Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

Matco Tools Corp. has agreed to a $15.8 million settlement with franchisees. The settlement would resolve claims that the company misclassified their franchisees as independent contractors to skimp on costs associated with fulfilling California labor law benefits requirements like overtime, meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and timely payment of wages upon termination.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The franchisees claimed that the tools company wrongly classified them as independent contractors when they were employees, denying them the right to overtime pay and other benefits. After a years-long battle, the parties agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs stating that going to trial could be a risk, so settling before trial was their preferred option. Under the settlement terms, Matco will pay the class of about 273 franchisees $13.5 million and relieve more than $2.3 million worth of debt.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how to file an overtime class action, please contact 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.

Are TopGolf Tipped Restaurant Workers Owed Unpaid Wages?

In recent news, a former TopGolf employee filed a lawsuit claiming that tipped bartenders and servers were underpaid because TopGolf allegedly employs illegal tipping policies.

The Case: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff worked for TopGolf as a tipped worker. Batiste claims that tip workers at TopGold were not informed of the company’s intention to apply a tip credit to hourly wages and were forced to give up chunks of their tips to kitchen staff whose job duties included clearing, washing dishes, etc. without customer interaction. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that tipped workers were required to complete a significant amount of untipped job duties; some related to their serving or bartending responsibilities and some unrelated. Some of the untipped duties required were cleaning the restaurant, setting up areas for private events, prepping silverware, restocking condiments, etc. Tipped workers were paid sub-minimum wage with no tip income as a supplement during these “extra” duties.

The Defendant: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

The defendant in the lawsuit, TopGolf International, Inc. and TopGolf USA Spring Holdings, LLC, allegedly employed servers, known as “bayhosts,” and bartenders that supplemented sub-minimum hourly wages with tips. However, the tipped restaurant workers were allegedly required to spend a significant (unlawful) amount of time completing non-tipped duties. The tipped workers were also required to surrender portions of their tips to distribute amongst kitchen staff.

Details of the Case: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

Employers that pay workers less than federal minimum wage are required to adhere to strict tip credit requirements as determined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, TopGolf unlawfully attempted to take advantage of the tip credit provision set down by FLSA without following the requirements determined by the same legislation.

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.

Barton Associates Faces Allegations of Misclassified Healthcare Workers as Independent Contractors

In a recent class-action lawsuit, Barton Associates faces allegations of depriving workers of overtime wages by misclassification as independent contractors.

The Case: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

The Court: California Central District Court

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01011

The Plaintiff: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Baxley, is a licensed nurse practitioner. Baxley claims “substantial overtime” was a regular occurrence while working for Barton in Pomona, California. While the plaintiff frequently put in more than eight hours a day and 40 hours in one week, she was allegedly not paid at the appropriate overtime pay rate for her overtime hours.

The Defendant: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Barton Associates, Inc., is a healthcare staffing provider. The plaintiff claims the company did not provide healthcare workers with an off-duty meal break when they worked more than five hours or a second off-duty meal break when they worked more than 10 hours in one day. The company also failed to provide workers with their 10-minute rest period during a two- to four-hour shift, a second rest period during six- to eight-hour shifts and a third rest period during any shifts that lasted more than 10 hours. According to the lawsuit, the company also allegedly failed to properly pay healthcare workers for breaks they forfeited. According to the complaint, Barton willfully failed to timely provide wages due when employment ended (within 72 hours).

More About the Case: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

Barton Associates, Inc. is listed as the defendant in a recent proposed class action claiming they deprived their employees of overtime wages based on misclassification. According to the lawsuit, Barton has “knowingly, willfully and flagrantly” misclassified their healthcare workers as independent contractors so the company could avoid California labor law requirements to pay time and a half for overtime hours. Plaintiffs in the suit argue that properly classifying them as employees would entitle them to overtime rates for overtime hours, in addition to other employee protections like meal breaks and rest periods.

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.

Lawsuit Claims Citrix Violated Wage and Hour Law and Overtime Law

According to a recent lawsuit, Citrix Systems did not pay their employees for time spent completing mandatory pre-and post-shift tasks. Additionally, Citrix workers were allegedly denied proper overtime wages.

The Case: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

The Court: North Carolina’s Eastern District Court

The Case No.: 5:21-CV-00088

The Plaintiff: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

Cirillo, the plaintiff in the case, is a former inside sales rep at the company’s Raleigh, North Carolina location. Cirillo alleges that she and other workers in similar situations weren’t paid for the time they spent completing mandatory pre- and post-shift tasks or for overtime.

The Defendant: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

The defendant in the case, Citrix Systems Inc., is a software development company employing more than 8,100 global workers. More than 2,000 of their employees are inside sales reps at the Raleigh location. According to the complaint, Citrix Systems Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state employment law by failing to appropriately pay employees, and retaliating against the plaintiff in the case.

Situations in the Workplace that Allegedly Violate Labor Law:

• According to the complaint, Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc., a number of business practices, policies, and situations in the workplace constituted a violation of labor law including:

• Requiring employees to report only scheduled shift times regardless of the number of hours actually worked

• Required “pre-shift” tasks required in order to be “work ready” such as checking emails, logging in to various programs, etc.

• Requiring employees to work through unpaid lunch breaks

• Requiring post-shift tasks (like shutting down computers, finishing paperwork, sending emails and touching base with clients and potential customers (including clients in other time zones)

• Failing to include nondiscretionary commissions as part of the workers’ regular rates of pay when calculating overtime pay rates

Summary of the Case: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc. proposed collective and class action, also alleges Citrix failed to inform the plaintiff, Cirillo, of her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and retaliated against her after she sustained a workplace injury that necessitated that she work from home for an extended period. In summary, the plaintiff, who worked for Citrix from summer 2018 through the beginning of 2020, alleges she was wrongfully terminated from her position.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California employment law 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.

Goodyear Faces Allegations of Missed Breaks for California Workers

A former Goodyear Tire employee alleges the company did not provide proper meal and rest breaks or payment in lieu of the mandatory rest periods and meal breaks.

The Case: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The Court: California’s Northern District Court

The Case No.: 5:22-CV-01320

The Plaintiff: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The plaintiff in the case is a former employee, Franco, who worked as a Goodyear service advisor at two different Goodyear service locations in San Jose, California. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was paid at an hourly rate of $16 to $19 with an added bonus referred to as SPIFF.

The Defendant: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The defendants in the case, The Goodyear Tire, and Rubber Company, allegedly denied their employees opportunities to take their 30-minute, uninterrupted meal breaks (required by California law). Goodyear paid the employees a meal break premium at their base hourly rate in lieu of the meal breaks. However, according to the lawsuit, the meal break premiums, which are to be paid at an employee’s regular rate of pay (including all forms of compensation), did not include the plaintiff’s SPIFF bonus as part of the regular pay rate. As a result, employees were allegedly underpaid for their missed meal breaks. Plaintiffs claim the same treatment was given to missed rest periods.

More Details of the Case: Franco v. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

The case was initially filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court on January 8, 2022. On March 2, 2022, the case was removed to California’s Northern District Court. In addition to the alleged unlawful pay practices, the plaintiffs claim Goodyear failed to provide accurate wage statements, and pay workers for time worked at the time of termination. Goodyear’s wage statements allegedly failed to show accurate gross and net wages earned (due to leaving out time worked during “off the clock” rest periods and meal breaks). The lawsuit seeks to cover those who worked for Goodyear at a California location as non-exempt, hourly employees sometime during the last four years (prior to the date of the lawsuit filing).

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.

Former Peloton Employee Files California Wage and Hour Lawsuit

A former Peloton employee based out of California claims the company violated wage and hour law.

The Case: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The Court: Central District of California

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01425

The Plaintiff: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case is a Los Angeles resident who worked for Peloton as an hourly employee in the sales department. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff worked for Peloton Interactive from November 2016 through December 2021. He claims that he and other similarly situated employees at the company were deprived of meal and rest breaks, wages owed for working through breaks and rest periods, and were not reimbursed for phone and vehicle expenses required to perform their jobs. He also alleged that when the company paid overtime wages, it was not issued at the correct overtime pay rate (not considering commissions, bonuses, etc. when calculating their time and a half wage). Plaintiffs also claim the company failed to pay employees for accrued vacation and paid time off wages when employees were terminated from their positions.

The Defendant: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Peloton Interactive, Inc., is a fitness equipment and media company. According to the lawsuit filed by the former Peloton employee, the company failed to pay appropriate minimum wage, failed to provide accurate overtime pay, and did not provide employees with their mandatory rest periods and meal breaks (among other alleged wage and hour violations).

Case Details: Cohen v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

The complaint was initially filed by the ex-Peloton Interactive employee in Los Angeles County Superior Court on January 2, 2022. On March 3rd, the case was removed to California’s Central District Court. The proposed class action seeks to cover current and former non-exempt employees that worked for Peloton Interactive at any point during the last 4 years.

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.

California’s Day Management Company Allegedly Failed to Accurately Record Employee’s Hours

Andrew King, a former employee of Day Wireless Systems, makes allegations that the company violated labor law.

The Case: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV01620

The Plaintiff: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The plaintiff in the case, Andrew King, was allegedly employed by DBA Wireless Systems from December 2015 through May 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The plaintiff claims that during his time with the company, Day Management Systems policies and standard business practices resulted in employees not receiving full payment for all hours worked. The plaintiff and other members of the California class seek an injunction preventing similar future conduct, as well as relief for those economically injured by Defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

The Defendant: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

The Defendant in the case, Day Management Systems DBA Day Wireless Systems, is a part of California’s Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance Industry.

More About the Case: Andrew King v. Day Management Corp. DBA Day Wireless Systems

Day Management Corporation (or Day Wireless Systems) allegedly violated the California Labor Code when they failed to accurately record employee hours, failed to accurately pay employees' wages, etc. The full list of allegations included in the complaint includes six violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages due, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide legally mandated wage statements (accurate and itemized), failure to reimburse employees for work expenses, and failure to provide wages when they are due. The plaintiffs also point out that the company failed to pay their employees for all the time they were under their employer’s control (including mandatory Covid-19 screening required before clocking in for their shift). Failure to include off-the-clock time in employee hours resulted in a failure to pay minimum wage, and a failure to pay overtime wages when due.

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.