Did Associate Mechanical Contractors Underpay their California Workers?

Mark Frey recently filed a California class action claiming Associate Mechanical Contractors's inaccurate time keeping system resulted in numerous labor law violations.

Details About the Class Action: Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors

The Case: Mark Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The Court: San Diego Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU011410C

Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Frey, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, Frey (and other similarly situated California workers employed by the defendant) were underpaid because the company used an inaccurate timekeeping system to calculate their employee’s hours and pay.

The Defendant: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc., faces allegations that their timekeeping system used to calculate employee hours and total pay was inaccurate, resulting in minimum wage violations, overtime pay violations, meal break/rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to provide payment when it is due. All of the standard business practices listed constitute labor law violations.

Most of the labor law violation claims result from the company’s allegedly inaccurate timekeeping system. However, the plaintiff also states that he and other similarly situated employees were required to use their cell phones to perform their job duties, which he claims makes the employee’s personal cell phone a necessary business expense eligible for reimbursement.

The Case: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

In Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the company’s inaccurate timekeeping system and resulting alleged labor law violations alongside the defendant’s response to determine if the company has standard business practices and policies that violate labor law.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Equinox Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations: Class Action Lawsuit Pending

Another business with significant operations in California faces allegations that their standard business practices violate labor law. Equinox workers claim the company violated multiple wage and hour laws, including failing to pay minimum wage.

The Case: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

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

The Case: CV0003780

The Plaintiff: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

Demarqus Wiggins is the plaintiff in the case. Wiggins filed a class action complaint in response to standard business practices he experienced at Equinox. The complaint alleges failures to provide eligible workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wage, etc.

Equinox, the Defendant, Facing Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Equinox San Rafael, LLC (aka Equinox). Equinox faces numerous allegations in the class action, each constituting a violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint includes the following allegations: failing to pay minimum wage, provide accurate overtime wages, offer meal breaks and rest periods, reimburse workers for business expenses, provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay employees for the hours they worked at the time they are due.

(The class action allegations constitute violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code).

More About the Case: Were Employees Required to Work "Off the Clock?"

The Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Marin County Superior Court. California labor law and federal labor law (FLSA) require employers to pay every employee an established payday for a specified pay period at a rate at or above the designated minimum wage for all the hours worked in the specified pay period. Payment can be calculated using various methods: time, per piece, commission, etc. If employers provide payment based on time or the number of hours worked, "hours worked" is defined by the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." According to the plaintiff in the case, Equinox required workers to complete "off the clock" work or work completed before or after they "clock in" to work for their scheduled shift. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Equinox employees were subject to standard business practices and policies that required working during off-duty meal breaks. Employees were allegedly not compensated with at least minimum wage for all the hours they worked in a pay period due to "off the clock" work, which is a labor law violation.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices can assist you.

Calexico Logistics Company Allegedly Attempts to Prevent Investigation of Wage and Hour Violations

In recent news, a Calexico logistics company attempted to prevent the U.S. Department of Labor from investigating wage and hour violations by removing workers and hiding them at a local fast food location for hours until the investigators left the building. The U.S. Department of Labor obtained a preliminary injunction and court order that forbids the company from threatening or retaliating against its workers or attempting to interfere with the ongoing federal wage and hour violation investigation.

The Case: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

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

The Case No.:3:2024cv01081

The Allegations: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

While under investigation for wage and hour violations, a Calexico company allegedly attempted to prevent U.S. Department of Labor investigators from obtaining evidence necessary to support the allegations by:

• Removing workers and hiding them at a local fast-food restaurant for hours until the investigators left the building and

• Instructing employees to report to work across the border in Mexicali before firing them and then deleting all proof of their prior employment from the company’s databases.

The Preliminary Injunction: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

In response to the situation, the Southern District of California U.S. District Court issued an injunction and order on July 31, 2024. The preliminary injunction prohibits NGB Logistics Alliance from retaliating against any workers who may have spoken to investigators, interfering or obstructing employees from cooperating with the investigation, contacting or threatening employees’ family or friends regarding speaking with investigators, and destroying evidence related to the ongoing investigation.

The Case: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

The preliminary injunction in the case, Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc., follows an investigation into employment law violations. Investigators seek evidence that NBG Logistics Alliance paid individuals working at their California warehouses in pesos through a Mexico-based affiliate, Agencia Aduanal Guillermo Nogueira y Asociados S.C.

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.

Bronx, Long Island Gas Stations’ Workers to Receive Over $1M in Back Wages

In recent news, the U.S. Department of Labor obtained a judgment ordering payment of over $1 million in back wages for gas station workers.

The Case: Julie A. Su, U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

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

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-02206-JHR-RWL

The Allegations: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The complaint alleged that the owner of 15 Bronx/Long Island gas stations, Jagjit Singh, willfully denied over one hundred employees full payment of their wages. The court found that the defendant was withholding overtime pay from their Bronx, Long Island gas station workers. The employees allegedly worked more than 40 hours weekly (including some workers putting in over 85 hours per week). Rather than paying the required overtime pay rates for any hours worked over 40 in one work week, the employer allegedly provided pay for all hours worked at the standard pay rate. Due to these standard business practices, some employees were also paid less than the federal minimum wage, and the company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to their employees. Some of the company’s locations had no employment and pay records before 2017, and some presented incomplete employment records.

The Defendant: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The defendants in the case included 15 different gas station locations operating under various brands, including BP, Mobil, and Sunoco. The gas stations were located in Bronx, Nassau, and Suffolk counties.

The Case: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

In response to a federal investigation, the court ordered the owner/president of the 15 gas stations to pay over $1 million in back wages and liquidated damages to current and former employees in the class. The recovery of back wages and damages sends a signal to employers intentionally violating federal overtime and wage and hour laws that doing so can have significant financial consequences. The federal court required Singh and his businesses running the specified 15 gas stations to pay back wages ($549,673), liquidated damages ($549,673), and civil money penalties ($75,655) to the Department of Labor due to the companies’ willful nature of the employment law violations.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Did El Centro Regional Medical Center Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, a phlebotomist filed a California lawsuit alleging El Centro Regional Medical Center engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Ctr.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

The Case No.: 04-24-2024

The Plaintiff: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The plaintiff in the case, Falestine Abdelmuti, was employed as an hourly, nonexempt phlebotomist from approximately June 2020 through April 2021, working at the defendant's El Centro location. She alleges she was not paid for hours the Center failed to record due to a standard "rounding" timekeeping system and that she was also not paid for the time she spent traveling to complete mandatory physical examinations and testing. Furthermore, Abdelmuti alleges the Center failed to pay her for work duties she performed off the clock before and after scheduled shifts.

The Defendant: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The defendant in the case, El Centro Reg'l Med. Center (Center) is a municipal hospital established by the City of El Centro and governed by a board of trustees, a public agency. Alleged employment law violations include:

• Minimum wage law violations

• Overtime pay violations

• Meal and rest break violations

• Necessary expense reimbursement violations

• Other wage and hour-related violations

The Case in Superior Court: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The Superior Court ruled the plaintiff's first cause of action filed because it asserted only a claim of unpaid wages, not a failure to pay minimum wages, and that Abdelmuti could not maintain a PAGA claim for penalties because applicable Labor Code provisions did not apply to the defendant, a public entity employer.

The Case on Appeal: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The plaintiff in the case, Falestine Abdelmuti, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's order, contending the trial court erred by its ruling. She argued that her complaint properly pleaded the claims regardless of the Center's status as a public entity employer. The appeals court agreed, concluding that Abdelmuti's complaint adequately stated the two causes of action. The appellate court also concluded that since Section 1197.1 specifically imposes specified civil penalties on "[a]ny employer . . . who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an applicable state or local law, or by an order of the commission ...." and Abdelmuti pleaded a PAGA claim for the Center's alleged minimum wage law violations, sections 1194 and 1197.1 provide for civil penalties. On appeal, the Superior Court's judgment was reversed and remanded with directions.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Joe’s Pizza on Sunset Faced Overtime Pay and Minimum Wage Violation Allegations

California pizza delivery driver sues for overtime and minimum wage pay violations and wins but ends up seeking an appeal when the trial court denies the attorney fees and costs request.

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

The Case: 03-25-2024

The Plaintiff: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gramajo, worked as a pizza delivery driver for Joe's Pizza from February 2014 to June 2015. In February 2018, Gramajo sued Joe's Pizza for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, citing multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc., faced numerous employment law violation allegations in the case including:

• Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 558, 1194)

• Failure to provide rest and meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 512, 226.7)

• Failure to pay wages due (upon termination) (Lab. Code, §§ 201, 202, 203)

• Failure to reimburse for business expenses (Lab. Code, § 2802)

• Unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The trial for Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc. was set after close to four years of litigation and discovery, with Gramajo seeking $26,159.33 in unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, and unreimbursed expenses. After completing a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of Gramajo on both the minimum wage and overtime causes of action and awarded Gramajo $2.17 in unpaid minimum wages and $3,340 in unpaid overtime wages. In total, Gramajo recovered:

• $7,659.63 (of unpaid minimum and overtime wages)

• $2,115.59 in statutory interest

• $2,100 in waiting time penalties (at a daily wage rate of $70 per day for thirty days according to Labor Code section 203)

• $2.17 in liquidated damages

• $100 in statutory penalties

Following the verdict, Gramajo moved for attorney fees totaling $296,920 and $26,932.84 in costs. The trial court denied Gramajo's fee request, granting Joe's Pizza's motion to tax costs, ultimately awarding Gramajo nothing, claiming the plaintiff acted in bad faith by inflating his damages figure, including claims he had no intention to pursue to justify the filing of an unlimited civil proceeding. The trial court also argued that the case was severely over-litigated.

Seeking Attorney Fees and Costs On Appeal: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the law entitled him to reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)) and that the trial court abused its discretion when turning to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), to support their denial of his litigation costs. The appeals court found the plaintiff was entitled to an award of reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)), and denying all costs by relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a) was in error. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the defendant's motion to tax costs was reversed and remanded to the trial court. The trial court will determine a "reasonable" attorney fee and costs award for the plaintiff. The appellate court did not express an opinion on the reasonableness of the plaintiff's attorney fees and costs requests or whether or not the case should have been filed in limited jurisdiction.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys can assist you from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices.

Do California Labor Code Minimum Wage & Overtime Provisions Apply to Work Programs?

In a recent California Wage and Hour case, the court considered whether or not California’s Labor Code minimum wage and overtime provisions apply to specific inmates in county jail work programs.

The Case: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.:S277120

The Plaintiffs: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

The plaintiffs in the case are non-convicted individuals who were detained at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California. While detained at the Santa Rita Jail, the plaintiffs were assigned to prepare meals for the jail’s general population and staff in the jail’s kitchen under an agreement between Aramark, a private contractor, and the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs were not paid for their work and filed an employment law complaint citing minimum wage and overtime violations.

The Allegations: Employment Law Protections

A minimum wage violation occurs when an employer pays an employee at a pay rate lower than the minimum wage rate required by federal, state, or local law. The minimum wage is determined at the federal level by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the U.S., but states and local governments can set higher minimum wage rates. Employers are required to provide the highest applicable minimum wage, whether federal, state, or local. Minimum wage violations can result in legal penalties, including the payment of back wages, damages to the affected employees, fines, and sometimes criminal charges against the employer.

An overtime violation occurs when an employer does not properly compensate eligible employees for hours worked beyond the standard workweek limits defined by law. In the U.S., the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the federal law governing overtime pay rates, although some states have their own overtime laws that may offer greater protections. Under the FLSA, overtime pay is required for eligible employees (non-exempt workers) at a rate of one and one-half times their regular pay rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendant: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

The plaintiffs filed an employment law complaint against the county and private contractor Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. The defendants argue that the law grants discretion to the Board of Supervisors regarding whether to pay wages.

The Case: Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda

Initially, the Federal District Court granted in part and denied in part, the defendant’s motion to dismiss, arguing that the Penal Code addresses issues of employment and wages for state prisoners but that it does not address the same issues for non-convicted detainees awaiting trial in county jails. At the same time, the court also agreed with the Defendants’ argument that government entities are exempt from state overtime laws and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for overtime pay. After the district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide the issue: do non-convicted incarcerated individuals working for a private company while in a county jail have a legal claim for minimum wage and overtime pay under California law?

Do Non-Convicted Incarcerated Individuals Have a Legal Claim for Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay?

Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda is pending before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the federal court asked the California Supreme Court to address the state law question first. To determine their finding on the issue, the court considered the interplay among the Penal Code, the California Labor Code, and the constitutional provisions governing public-private inmate labor contracts. The Supreme Court of California concluded that non-convicted incarcerated individuals working for a for-profit company while in county jails do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime pay under California Labor Code Section 1194 (even in the absence of a local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals).

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour or overtime 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.