Real Time Staffing Services, Employbridge and Lakeshore Learning Materials Face Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In a recently filed wage and hour lawsuit, California employees claim that Real Time Staffing Services, Employbridge, and Lakeshore Learning Materials violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods required by law.

The Case: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 23STCV01037

The Plaintiff: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Zelaya, was an employee of Real Time Staffing Services (or another listed defendant) from March 2022 through May 2022. During his time employed with the company, Zelaya was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Zelaya was entitled to employment law protections, including minimum wage, overtime pay, etc. Zelaya was assigned to work at a Defendant Lakeshore Learning facility. The plaintiff brought a Class Action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a California class of other employees and former employees of the defendant as non-exempt employees in California who were assigned to work at the Defendant’s Lakeshore Learning location during the specified period.

The Defendant: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al., employed the plaintiff as an hourly employee with non-exempt status in California (or acted on behalf of their employer) who either paid or caused to be paid a rate less than minimum wage allegedly in violation of employment law.

The Case: Zelaya v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al.

According to the California class action allegations, the defendants failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. The California employer allegedly violated numerous California Labor Code Sections, including §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198. The alleged employment law violations included:

● Failed to pay minimum wage

● Failed to pay overtime wages

● Failed to provide required meal and rest periods

● Failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

● Failed to provide employees with wages when they were due

In addition, the class action claims that the defendants violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), giving rise to civil penalties. Under PAGA, aggrieved employees can file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties on their own behalf, on behalf of other employees, and on behalf of the State of California due to Labor Code violations. Under PAGA, an aggrieved employee can become a deputized private attorney general to enforce Labor Code.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Allegedly Failed to Pay Sick Wages

In recent news, The Permanente Medical Group faces allegations they violated employment law when they failed to pay sick wages to employees.

The Case: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2022-00332012

The Plaintiff: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

The plaintiff in the case, Erica Morris, was employed by The Permanente Medical Group in 2008. Morris was classified as a non-exempt employee and paid hourly during her employment. As such, she was entitled to legally required meal breaks, rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime pay due for all hours worked. The plaintiff brought the class action wage and hour lawsuit on behalf of herself and other employees and former employees in similar situations during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint (with an end date for qualification as determined by the court). The plaintiff seeks losses incurred by employees due to their employer’s policies and practices on wage payment.

The Defendant: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

The defendant in the case, The Permanente Medical Group, is a California Corporation providing medical services to clients throughout California. The group is headquartered in Oakland, California.

The Case: Erica Morris v. The Permanente Medical Group

According to the plaintiff in the case, the employer required employees to work off the clock, did not provide required off-duty meal breaks, did not pay employees for all hours worked due to a practice of rounding employee hours, required employees to submit to mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires off the clock, etc. As a result of these standard practices, the plaintiff claims their employer violated labor law by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime pay, and failing to provide off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the employer’s failure to incorporate incentive pay into their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime violated their rights under employment law. The Complaint also alleges that The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. did not pay employees accurate sick pay wages (in violation of California Labor Code Section 246). When the company paid sick pay wages, they allegedly paid them at a base pay rate that did not include the higher pay rate generated by earned non-discretionary incentive wages employees routinely earned.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can Earned Wages Due on Weekends Be Paid the Next Weekday?

In recent news, the court held that earned wages due on weekends can generally be paid the next weekday.

The Case: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

The Court: Sacramento Superior Court

The Case No.: 34-2018-00247176-CU-OE-GDS

The Plaintiff: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

The plaintiff in the case, Mr. Parsons, received pay through the company’s weekly pay period running from Sunday through the following Saturday. Parsons alleged that the delay between the end of the pay period and when the employer issued payment to employees violated Labor Code section 204, subdivision (d).

The Defendant: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

The defendant in the case, Estenson Logistics, had a standard practice to pay their employees on the second Monday after the pay period (aka typically nine calendar days after the pay period). Parsons v. Estenson Logistics clarifies a gray area and provides California employers with common sense flexibility for paying earned wages when a payday falls on a weekend.

The Case: Parsons v. Estenson Logistics

When the Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the delay in payment was a legal violation, they reasoned that California Code of Civil Procedure section 12a (Section 12a) governed the employer’s timely payment obligations (under Labor Code § 204); and that since Section 12a extends deadlines falling on holidays to the following non-holiday, Estenson’s practice of paying their employees on Monday after the weekend deadline for payment was a legal practice. In Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, the court held that when weekly-paid wages are due on a weekend or a holiday, they can legally be paid on the next day that is not a holiday. In essence, the Court set forth a common-sense “exception” to the seemingly inflexible rules about the timely payment of employee wages in California.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants Face Allegations they Failed to Pay Workers

In recent news, Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants face allegations that they violated California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

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

The Case No.: 22-CIV-04939

The Plaintiff: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Ricci, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations. The defendant employed Ricci from February 2020 through July 2021. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ricci was entitled to the protections provided by federal and state employment law for employees, including required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages. Ricci filed the class action seeking compensation for losses incurred due to the defendant's alleged employment law violations for herself and on behalf of eligible class members.

The Defendant: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises are defined as joint employers of the plaintiff according to the arguments presented in the complaint. Tomatina Restaurants are a popular Italian dining location with multiple locations in California.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

According to Ricci, the plaintiff in the California class action, the staff's rigorous work schedule inhibited them from taking off-duty meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of duty for their required meal periods, and from time to time, they were interrupted during their off-duty meal periods to fulfill job duties "off the clock" for Tomatina restaurants and Syufy Enterprises. According to the plaintiff, employees were required to work shifts longer than five hours without receiving off-duty meal breaks, and the defendant failed to with second off-duty meal breaks when they worked more than ten hours in one workday. The company allegedly required that their employees stay on call (and essentially on duty) during what was supposed to be "off duty" meal periods. The standard business practice caused employees to forfeit meal breaks, and the company did not provide additional compensation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action 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.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Freenome Holdings, Inc. faces a PAGA-Only action alleging multiple California labor code violations.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-22-603540

The Plaintiff: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel De La Torre, as an “aggrieved employee,” acted as a private attorney general (under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) to file suit against Freenome Holdings. The PAGA-only action seeks to obtain PAGA civil penalties for himself and other aggrieved employees in similar situations with the company. California’s PAGA permits an individual to bring an action on behalf of himself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only; this is the precise and sole nature of this action.

The Defendant: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Freenome Holdings, Inc., is a corporation that provides clinical research services, as well as the development and creation of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of age-associated clinical conditions.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. employed Torre from September 2021 through August 2022. During his time at the company, Torre was classified as a non-exempt employee and earned wages on an hourly basis. As such, Torre was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due according to employment law. According to the PAGA-only action, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff (and other similarly aggrieved employees that qualify under the class definition) wages due, engaged in practices that required employees to complete “off the clock” work, failed to provide mandatory off-duty meal breaks, required mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening before employees could clock in for shifts, engaged in an established company policy that rounded employee hours rather than providing payment for the actual hours employees worked, etc.

If you have questions about how to file a California PAGA-only 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.

Wingstop Faces Class Action Allegations of Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Violations

In recent news, Wingstop faces allegations of California wage and hour and overtime pay violations.

The Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22CV02669

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

The plaintiff in the case, Jamal Shabazz, worked at one of the Wingstop franchise locations owned by the defendant from February 2022 to March 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As a worker at a Wingstop franchise owned by the defendant, the plaintiff claims employees could not take off-duty meal breaks and that the company did not entirely remove them from responsibility for job duties during their off-duty meal periods. Shabazz alleges that employees on their off-duty meal breaks were regularly interrupted to perform work duties for the company. Employees were also required to work shifts longer than 5 hours without being provided an off-duty meal break and weren’t provided a second meal break period if they worked shifts longer than 10 hours. According to the lawsuit, employees were expected to be on call and available even when they were “off duty” for meal breaks. This business practice left employees forfeiting their meal breaks without additional compensation.

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

The defendant in the case, Mann & Company, Inc., owns, operates, and manages a chain of Wingstop franchised restaurants in California, including in the county of Butte, where Jamal Shabazz, the plaintiff, worked.

Details of the Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Jamal Shabazz was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all hours worked. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant engaged in several labor law violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to issue employees their wages when they are due. These alleged activities would constitute violations of several California Labor Codes, including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. The case, Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. dba Wingstop, is currently pending in the Butte County Superior Court of the State of California.

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.

Dreamfields Faces a California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

Allegations in a California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed on September 9, 2022, accuse Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California, LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc. of California Labor Code violations when they allegedly failed to pay their workers for all of the time worked.

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

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

The Case No.: CVRI2203871

The Plaintiff: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Adriana Marquez, was employed by the defendant from May 2021 through November 2021 as a non-exempt hourly employee at Dreamfields in Riverside. Marquez filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit alleging that the defendant, her joint employer, violated labor law when they failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., produce, harvest, and retail cannabis products throughout California, including Riverside. According to the lawsuit, the defendant employed the plaintiff at their Riverside, California location.

The Allegations: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The allegations in the class action lawsuit violate numerous sections of the California Labor Code, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. Consider the allegations listed in the class action:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, Dreamfields Security, Inc.

The case, Adriana Marquez v. Dreamfields Brands, Inc., Dreamfields California LLC, and Dreamfields Security, Inc., is currently pending in the Riverside County Superior Court of the State of California.

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