Employees Claim Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC Violated Employment Law

A class action lawsuit alleges Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC failed to provide their employees with required meal breaks and rest periods. Based on the missed meal breaks and rest periods, the employer also failed to provide employees with the total wages due, violating labor law.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The Court: Alameda Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22CV018596

The Plaintiff: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jileea Jordan, was employed by the defendant in California from February 18th,2022 to April 26th, 2022. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly wages, which entitled her to the legally required meal breaks and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, accurate wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

The defendant in the case, Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, offers waxing services and other skin care solutions from certified wax specialists. According to the plaintiff in the case, the defendant regularly required employees to work during their off-duty meal breaks, stay available during their rest periods, and complete other “off the clock” work like mandatory drug testing, Covid-19 testing, temperature checks, etc. as a condition of employment.

The Case: Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Wax Center Partners Holdco LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for their legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiff also claims that employees were required to work over four hours without a 10-minute rest period. In addition to violating meal and rest period laws, minimum wage, and overtime pay laws, Defendant allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete, accurate, and itemized wage statements showing gross and net wages earned. California Labor Code requires employers to issue each employee an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing gross wages earned, hourly rates used during the pay period, and time worked at each applicable hourly rate used to calculate the employee’s total pay. The case, Jileea Jordan v. Wax Center Partners Intermediate Holdco LLC, is currently pending in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California.

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

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Face Allegations of Failing to Pay Employee Wages

JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are facing allegations that they violated the labor code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Tatiana Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

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

The Case No.: FCS059079

The Plaintiffs: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The plaintiff in the case, Tatiana Armstrong, filed a class action lawsuit on October 10, 2022. In the lawsuit, Armstrong alleged that the companies violated several labor laws:

• Unfair competition

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal periods

• Failure to provide mandatory rest periods

• Failure to pay wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Defendant: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

The defendants in the case, JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory are both California corporations. According to the lawsuit, the two defendants were joint employers of Tatiana Armstrong. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory provide inventory services such as item level and financial auditing. The plaintiff was employed at their Solano, California location from April 2021 to October 2021 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.

Details of the Case: Armstrong v. JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory

Due to their busy work schedules, JBPerry Holdings' and Valley Inventory Service's workers allegedly had to miss their off-duty meal breaks. The plaintiff claims they were not fully relieved of work duties for their rest periods for the same reason. The plaintiff describes off-duty meal breaks as being interrupted from time to time to fulfill work tasks for the company. Additionally, the company required employees to work shifts over five hours without providing a legally required off-duty meal break. On top of that, the plaintiff alleges that JBPerry Holdings and Valley Inventory Service violated labor law by failing to give the employees a second off-duty meal period during their workday (when employees were completing ten (10) hours shifts). Employees allege they had to remain on-call and on duty during their "off-duty" meal breaks. While the employees were required to forfeit meal breaks, the company did not provide additional compensation. Armstrong seeks compensation for her losses and the losses of other class members caused by the company's uniform policy. According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, this business practice resulted in the company retaining wages due to their employees and failing to fully compensate them as required by law.

If you have questions about how 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

SAS Retail Services, LLC Faces Allegations they Failed to Reimburse Employees for Expenses

In recent news, SAS Retail Services faces allegations that they violated California employment law when they failed to reimburse their employees for business expenses.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations and demanding a jury trial. Seaman was employed by SAS Retail Services in California from November 2019 through February 2022, classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Rose was also employed by SAS Retail Services in California since June 2018 and was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. Based on their classifications, both Seaman and Rose were entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and overtime wages. The plaintiffs filed the class action for themselves and others in similar circumstances at SAS Retail Services, seeking compensation for their losses.

The Defendant: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services LLC, SAS Retail Services LLC, operates out of California developing merchandising service programs for some of the nation's largest retailers and consumer brands.

The Case: Seaman and Rose v. SAS Retail Services LLC

The pending lawsuit alleges that SAS Retail Services failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses in violation of California Labor Code §2802. During their employment, the plaintiffs (and other California Class Members) were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, personal vehicles, and personal home offices to complete their necessary job duties. The plaintiffs also allege that SAS Retail Services failed to pay minimum wage and overtime wages. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs received a non-discretionary bonus allegedly not included in calculations to determine their regular pay rate. Failing to include the bonus in calculations created a violation of minimum wage law, inaccurate overtime pay rates, etc. According to the plaintiffs, the non-discretionary bonus or "incentive program" was described to prospective employees and new hires as part of the company's compensation package.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

AT&T Settles California Wage & Hour Class Action for $575K

As part of a settlement to resolve minimum wage and overtime pay claims, AT&T agreed to a settlement.

The Case: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiffs in the case filed a collective action citing wage and hour violations and overtime pay violations. According to the class action lawsuit, AT&T wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt, which allegedly denied the misclassified employees benefits like minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. The class includes anyone working for AT&T Mobility Services in California as a non-exempt employee between November 2, 2021, and September 21, 2022.

The Defendant: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T, is a phone company that provides cellular services to consumers. The company also offers internet and TV plans. AT&T has numerous locations throughout California. AT&T denied any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to resolve the allegations of overtime pay and minimum wage violations.

Details of the Case: Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility

California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. Businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal action. Consumers, including the plaintiffs in the AT&T class action lawsuit Razo, et al. v. AT&T Mobility, can file claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Doing so allows them to seek penalties for the state’s labor regulator. While AT&T never admitted any wrongdoing, they did agree to a $575,000 class action settlement to resolve these wage and hour allegations. (The settlement includes a $7,500 payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA). The parties also included a pro rata cash payment for class members in the AT&T settlement. The amount will be based on the number of weeks worked by each worker during the class period.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage & 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Shipt Same Day Delivery Service Faces Wage & Hour Violation Allegations

In recent news, Shipt faces wage and hour law violation allegations in Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The Court: Dist. Ct. 4th Jud. Dist. Minn.

The Case No.: 27-cv-22-15991

The Plaintiff: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Ellison, claims alleged violations of Minnesota wage and hour laws due to Shipt, Inc.’s misclassification of workers as independent contractors. In his complaint against Shipt, the Attorney General alleges that Shipt shoppers must comply with detailed instructions provided by the company and rules on the performance of every aspect of their job duties. Shoppers are also allegedly required to offer shopping services personally, with Shipt prohibiting them from hiring an assistant. According to the complaint, shoppers are also subject to performance reviews and have an ongoing but indefinite relationship with the company. Shoppers must complete both onboarding and corrective training (as necessary), usually need to schedule their work hours in advance and are reimbursed for certain expenses connected to customer orders.

The Defendant: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Shipt, Inc., is a same-day delivery service. Shipt is a wholly owned subsidiary of Target, the popular big box store. It offers an app designed to make online grocery delivery easy by connecting Shipt shoppers with nearby stores with the things they need. The company has “shoppers” that they classify as independent contractors that provide same-day delivery of groceries and other household items purchased by users of the Shipt app online platform. The same-day delivery service provider was sued for independent contractor misclassification in Minnesota. Shipt faces allegations of violating the state wage and hour laws due to the misclassification of workers.

The Case: Ellison v. Shipt, Inc.

According to the Attorney General, additional factors considered in the case included:

• Shipt can also discharge their shoppers at any time for any reason

• Shopper services are only available to the public through the app

• Shoppers are unable to generate a profit or a loss based on job performance

• Shoppers are not required to make a significant investment in the business

• Shoppers are an essential element of the company’s day-to-day business.

Most expect Shipt to deny the allegations of employment law violations.

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Papa, Inc. Faces Overtime & Minimum Wage Violation Claims Due To Alleged Misclassification

A California federal district court granted conditional collective certification of claims brought under the federal FLSA for minimum wage and overtime violations arising from the alleged misclassification of Pals employed by Papa, Inc.

The Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The Court: California Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

The Case No.: CV-496 June 2015

The Plaintiff: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim the company misclassified the Pals, assistants who provide daily living tasks and companionship to seniors, as independent contractors. According to the collective action complaint, Papa Inc.’s Pals were misclassified based on the following:

1. The company conducted background checks before allowing the workers to connect with customers.

2. Providing the workers with training and strict policies.

3. Setting the pay structure for the Pals.

4. Tracking the location and productivity of Pals workers.

5. Retaining the right to terminate Pal workers without cause or for violating rules imposed in the Papa Inc. contract.

The Defendant: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The defendant in the lawsuit, Papa, Inc., operates an app allowing seniors and their families to access the services of “Papa Pals.” Pals assist with chores and offer companionship services. The company contends that the Pals are independent contractors because they choose how often they use the app. They also operate primarily at the direction of the seniors or the seniors’ families who access the app, and they do so free from the direct supervision of the company. The company argued that the court should deny the plaintiff’s certification motion because the plaintiffs failed to establish they suffered any failure to receive overtime wages or minimum wage because they worked so few hours. The court disagreed, finding that the arguments were related to the merits of the claims, which were not appropriate to consider at that time.

Details of the Case: Pardo v. Papa Inc.

The court concluded that the plaintiff adequately showed that Pal workers are treated as independent contractors, which creates the potential of not receiving overtime pay and minimum wages required by employment law for those legally classified as employees. This court’s decision seems to contradict past case decisions. For instance, in 2021, the Fifth Circuit decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC required district courts to scrutinize similarly situated workers from the outset of the case instead of issuing a lenient conditional certification in the early stages of the suit. The case brings attention to the continuing discussion of how companies should classify their workers.

If you have questions about how to file a California misclassification 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.

The JetBlue California Wage Case Gets Early Approval

In recent news, JetBlue Airways agreed to a $3.6 million settlement to resolve flight attendants' class-action claims alleging that the carrier violated California labor law. The proposed settlement received preliminary approval from a federal judge.

The Case: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

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

The Case No.: 4:15-cv-01203

The Plaintiffs: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

Plaintiffs in Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp is a proposed class action filed in 2015 amidst a flurry of litigation over whether California's strict and detailed wage laws apply to flight attendants. The element creating difficulty is that flight attendants, by the nature of their jobs, are based in the state but spend most of their time on the job - in the air. The complaint accused JetBlue of requiring flight attendants to miss their rest periods and meal breaks and not paying them for the time as California law requires. The plaintiffs also claim JetBlue failed to issue accurate wage statements reflecting their pay, hours, etc.

The Defendant: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

Other airlines and trade groups faced similar allegations questioning if a federal law regulating airlines and railroads preempted state laws and arguing that a ruling to the contrary would result in costly regulatory patchwork requiring airlines to eliminate services and increase prices. The defendant in the case, JetBlue Airways Corp, presented similar arguments in this case.

Details of the Case: Booher v. JetBlue Airways Corp

The California Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers the state) ruled in recent years that state employment law generally applies and does not specify airlines, so the industry must comply with them. In 2016 and 2017, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed many of the claims but then stayed the case pending appeals in several similar lawsuits. White vacated his earlier decisions and revived several claims against JetBlue in 2020 after the court issued plaintiff-friendly rulings. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to look at the issue after receiving encouragement from the Biden administration to allow the lower court rulings to stand. Legal counsel for the plaintiff filed the proposed settlement in San Francisco federal court. The terms designate California flight attendants employed since 2011 as benefits of the settlement. While JetBlue Airways Corp agrees to pay $3.6 million to be distributed to more than 500 flight attendants to settle the long-running lawsuit, they deny any wrongdoing. The parties agree that the settlement would resolve the claims accusing JetBlue of failing to pay their workers for missed rest breaks or meal periods, violating California labor law.

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.