Did Heritage Bank Violate Wage and Hour Laws?

In recent news, Heritage Bank faces a class action lawsuit. The case was filed under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nicole Demarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: RG20080970

The Plaintiffs: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The plaintiffs in the case, Demarinis and Patire, are current and former Heritage Bank of Commerce employees. The plaintiffs brought the case under PAGA (California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004), claiming the company engaged in wage and hour Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The defendant in the case, Heritage Bank, put an arbitration agreement in place with the plaintiffs in which they waived their right to bring claims against each other in any class or representative proceeding. Heritage Bank argued that the denial of arbitration was erroneous because the waiver provision was enforceable for nonindividual PAGA claims.

The Case: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

However, the court found that the provision violated public policy by requiring plaintiffs to abandon their right to bring PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the decision made by the trial court rejecting the bank’s argument to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claims based on a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the court found that the waiver provision’s nonseverablity clause and “poison pill” provision precluded severance of the unenforceable nonindividual PAGA claims waiver by stating that if the waiver provision is unenforceable, the full arbitration agreement is null and void. As a result, the court decided the unenforceability of the waiver provision rendered the entire agreement null and void, which affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

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.

Cracker Barrel Faces Wage and Hour Violation Allegations

A wage and hour lawsuit alleges Cracker Barrel required their tipped employees to perform non-tip-producing job duties at the end of their shifts without providing them with minimum wage.

The Case: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-00813

The Plaintiff: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Catherine D. Frederick, was an hourly tipped employee at a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store restaurant. During her time at the restaurant, Frederick claims the company expected tipped workers to complete job-related, untipped tasks before and after starting their shift while logged in as tipped workers and that workers were not compensated fairly for the untipped job duties. Frederick filed an FLSA multi-plaintiff action complaint demanding a jury trial seeking unpaid minimum wage and other damages.

The Defendant: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., compensated the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees using a tip-credit compensation plan that compensated tipped employees at a sub-minimum wage hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips received during their shifts, which combined would meet the FLSA minimum wage requirements. However, the plaintiff claims that the company’s demands that workers clock in as “tipped workers” in the timekeeping system while completing untipped job duties before and after their regular shift starts violated labor law.

The Case: Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

In the case Frederick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., workers allege the popular restaurant and store paid them using a “tipped worker” timekeeping system while requiring them to complete untipped job duties. The plaintiff claims that Cracker Barrel enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of their employees. The unpaid wage claims of the plaintiff and similarly situated employees are unified through common theories of the Defendant’s FLSA violations.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact 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.

Axlehire Faces Labor Code Violation Allegations in PAGA-Only Action

In recent news, Axlehire faces labor code violation allegations in a PAGA-only action filed in Alameda Superior Court.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, State of California

The Case No.: 23CV055896

The Plaintiff: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

California Labor Law requires California employers to provide their employees with off-duty rest periods during which they are relieved of all their work-related duties and are free from the employer’s control. Acosta and Duarte allege that they were occasionally required to work four-hour shifts without a 10-minute break (the minimum required for a 2-4 hour work shift according to labor law). The plaintiffs in the case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte claim that Axlehire, Inc. failed to provide their employees with meal and rest breaks in violation of labor law. The plaintiffs filed a PAGA-only action seeking to recover PAGA civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other current/former Axlehire employees with a similar experience.

The Defendant: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Axlehire, Inc., hires individuals to assist them in providing delivery services to clients. Axlehire, Inc. allegedly failed to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks in compliance with federal and state labor law, which resulted in an alleged loss of wages for the Axlehire employees.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

California enacted the PAGA to permit individuals to bring an action on behalf of themselves and others for PAGA penalties only, which is the nature of the action in Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc. The case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc., includes allegations that constitute violations of various California Labor Codes (§§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 226(a), 226.7, 226.8, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Sizzler Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Breaks to Employees?

In recent news, Sizzler faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with rest periods and breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

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

The Case No.: 24STCV01215

The Plaintiffs: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Gayo, filed a class action complaint against BMW Management, Inc. and BMW Management, LLC (the two entities jointly operate Sizzler restaurants and will collectively be referred to as "Sizzler") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

The defendant in the case, BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC, faces multiple allegations that their standard business practices do not comply with labor law. California labor law requires all employers to pay their employees on an established payday for each pay period and pay no less than minimum wage for all hours an employee works in the payroll period. According to the plaintiff, Sizzler allegedly required employees to complete job-related tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Sizzler did not compensate its employees for any of the resulting off-the-clock work. This standard practice resulted in Sizzler failing to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. In full, the plaintiffs claim that Sizzler engaged in numerous labor law violations:

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime wages

• did not provide required meal and rest periods

• failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay wages when due

• did not provide accurate itemized wage statements

• did not provide workers with all tips and gratuities

What is the Definition of "Hours Worked" for a California Employee?

To interpret California labor law, "hours worked" is the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control, including all the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not "required to do so."

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

In the case, Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC (otherwise known as Sizzler), the plaintiff alleges Sizzler violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay its employees for all time worked. According to the lawsuit, Sizzler allegedly engaged in numerous labor law violations (violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles 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 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.

PAGA-Only Action Claims Golden 1 Credit Union Engaged in Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Golden 1 Credit Union faces allegations they violated the labor code. According to the PAGA-Only action, the company failed to provide employees with the required meal and rest breaks outlined by employment law, which resulted in alleged wage loss for their affected workers.

The Case: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV001448

The Plaintiff: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Freyja Monday, was employed by Golden 1 Credit Union from March 7, 2022 through August 24, 2023. Monday was paid hourly plus incentive pay based on employee performance. Monday claims the incentive pay was not considered part of regular pay when calculating overtime rates, even though management and supervisors described the incentive pay as part of the compensation package when recruiting new employees. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the credit union allegedly sometimes required the plaintiff (and other similarly situated workers) to work without the rest periods and meal breaks employers must provide under labor law. Monday filed a lawsuit against The Golden 1 Credit Union, citing multiple allegations of labor code violations.

Under the California Wage Order, employers must provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The Supreme Court defined "off-duty" rest periods as time during which the worker is relieved of all job duties and is free of the employer's control.

The Defendant: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The defendant in the case, The Golden 1 Credit Union, is a credit union in California. According to the lawsuit, the company did not comply with multiple labor codes, including alleged violations of: Labor Code § 2699, et seq., seeking penalties for DEFENDANT's alleged violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

According to court documents, Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union, the California-based credit union failed to include incentive pay described as part of the regular compensation package upon hire in the regular overtime pay rate and missed meal break premium calculations. As a result of this standard practice, Monday and other similarly situated employees of The Golden 1 Credit Union claim they were not provided with accurate wages and overtime pay for all the hours they worked. The case is currently pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court.

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.

Did GK Management Co., Inc. Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, GK Management Co., Inc. employees claim their standard business practices violate California labor laws, including a failure to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses.

The Case: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23CECG04411

The Plaintiff: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Elizabeth Ruvalcaba, was employed by GK Management from July 2017 through September 2023. Ruvalcaba was a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to labor law protections, including legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage and overtime, etc.

The Defendant: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The defendant in the case, GK Management Co., Inc., is a privately owned real estate company doing substantial business in California that offers various services, including management, redevelopment, and acquisition of multifamily residential properties.

The Case: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The defendant faces multiple labor law violation allegations in Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.. The class action seeks to compensate class members for losses incurred during the class period due to GK Management's alleged business practices that resulted in multiple alleged violations:

• failing to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses

• failing to pay sick wages

• failing to pay all wages when due

When Do Employers Need to Reimburse an Employee's Expenses?

According to California Labor Code 2802, California employers must reimburse employees for required business expenses for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to the plaintiff's allegations, the company required employees to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties without reimbursing them for the phone or phone service costs.

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.

I.P.S. Group, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

In recent news, I.P.S. Group, Inc. faces a lawsuit alleging numerous labor law violations, including a failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00053220-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Daryoush Nejati, filed a class action complaint alleging that I.P.S. Group, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. Nejati started working for I.P.S. Group, Inc. in September 2019. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Nejati was entitled to all the protections of labor law, including minimum wages, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, and meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, I.P.S. Group, Inc., is a California company that provides parking services. The plaintiff alleges that I.P.S. standard business practices included numerous labor law violations:

• failed to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• failed to pay sick wages

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime

• failed to provide all wages when due

The Case: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

Under California Labor Code § 226, every employer must provide each employee with an accurate itemized wage statement reflecting all applicable hourly rates during the designated pay period and the total hours worked. According to the plaintiff, I.P.S. Group, Inc. failed to include the required information on their wage statements. The case, Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego 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 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.