$85 Million Settlement Follows Arrest in California Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In recent news, a California jury found that the San Diego County sheriff's deputies used excessive force in a 2015 incident.

The Case: K.J.P., a minor, and K.P.P., a minor, individually, by, and through their mother, LOAN THI MINH NGUYEN, who also sues individually and as successor in interest to her now deceased husband, Lucky Phounsy v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

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

The Case No.: 15-cv-2692-H-MDD

The Plaintiff: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

The plaintiff in the case is the family of Lucky Phounsy, a 32-year-old Santee, California resident who died after an April 13, 2015 encounter with the San Deigo Sheriff's Department and local deputies. Lucky's family claims he died because he was tased, beaten, and hogtied during the encounter. Amid a mental crisis during his son's 2nd birthday party, Phounsy called 911 to report unknown assailants were trying to harm him. The complaint argues that the Sheriff's deputies who responded to the call were confrontational, aggressive, and profane. When the deputies attempted to handcuff Phounsy, his family claims Phounsy became frightened and confused. Court documents also indicate that a taser was used on Phounsy. The situation escalated to an altercation leaving Phounsy hogtied. Phounsy was then strapped to a gurney tightly and placed into an ambulance while still hogtied. Former Sheriff's Deputy Richard Fischer rode with Phounsy to the hospital. During the drive, Fischer put a spit-sock over Phounsy's face and pushed down on his head and torso with all his strength until Phounsy went into cardiac arrest. The application of the split-sock prevented paramedics from giving Phounsy oxygen or monitoring his condition. Phounsy went into a coma before reaching the hospital, and after being treated in the local hospital for a few days, he died. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department. The first trial in 2021 ended with a hung jury.

The Defendant: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

Lucky's family filed a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against the county and sheriffs. According to court documents, the two responding deputies called for backup units "while they were being assaulted and injured by Phounsy." According to the summary, the two deputies were both injured in the altercation (one of them severely). After the incident, the Sheriff's Department cleared the deputies involved of any wrongdoing and falsely claimed that Lucky Phounsy died of a drug overdose and extreme exertion.

Details of the Case: K.J.P. and K.P.P. by and through Loan Thi Minh Nguyen v. County of San Diego and Richard Fischer

While the defendant attempted to claim Phounsy died of a drug overdose and extreme exertion, toxicology reports contradict the claims proving Phounsy had no drugs in his system. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department, but the first trial in 2021 ended with a hung jury. For the second trial, the plaintiff's counsel simplified the case and honed on the main defendant, former Sheriff's Deputy Richard Fischer (currently serving time in prison for sexually assaulting women during his patrols), and the lack of suitable training of the other deputies involved. The second trial resulted in the jury unanimously finding that Fischer's use of excessive force and the county's failure to provide proper training to deputies caused Phounsy's death. The jury found that the deputies used excessive force against Phounsy, weren't trained properly, violated Phounsy's civil rights, and were negligent in their duties -- all leading to Phounsy's wrongful death. On March 15, 2022, the federal jury awarded $85 million to Phounsy's family. The $85 million verdict is believed to be the largest in United States history for a wrongful death civil rights trial. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department later filed two post-trial motions in San Diego federal court - they seek to overturn the verdict. The county is expected to appeal the case further if necessary.

If you have questions about how to file a wrongful death lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC Faces Allegations of Meal Break Violations

In a recent California employment law case, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC is accused of violating California labor law by failing to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods, among other violations.

The Case: Violena Perez Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The Court: California Superior Court, County of San Diego

The Case No.: 37-2022-00017063-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Violena Perez Martinez, filed a PAGA-only action citing violations by the defendant, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC. Martinez was employed by Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC in California from July 2019 to December 2021. At all times during Martinez's employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, received pay on an hourly basis, and was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wage requirements.

The Defendant: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The defendant in the case, Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC, operates a business that sells, develops, and commercializes packaged foods. According to the court documents, the defendant allegedly violated several California and federal labor codes, including furnishing employees with a written, accurate itemized wage statement showing: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned, and any applicable piece-rate, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates for which the pay period provided the employee with payment, the employee's name and only the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number, the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, all applicable hourly rate in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Olli Salumeria allegedly failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage statements that complied with California state law.

The Case: Martinez v. Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC

The representative class action complaint is pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. According to the lawsuit, Olli Salumeria allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). PAGA violations can give rise to civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties for themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. An "aggrieved employee" is defined as someone "employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." See California Labor Code section 2699(c) for more. PAGA actions allow aggrieved employees to become "deputized" as private attorneys general so they can enforce the Labor Code on behalf of the state of California.

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

Virgin America Appeals Supreme Court’s Ruling to Comply with California Labor Laws

In recent news, Virgin America appealed the Supreme Court's ruling that California law is not preempted by federal airline regulations.

The Case: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

The Court: U.S. Supreme Court

The Case No.: No. 21-60

The Plaintiff: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

In 2015, a group of Virgin flight attendants filed a lawsuit accusing Virgin America Airlines of failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime pay, providing meal and rest breaks, and issuing accurate wage statements per California labor law's requirements.

The Defendant: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

Virgin's arguments were originally backed by the Ninth Circuit Court due to California law conflicting with the ADA. The ADA preempts state laws that seek to regulate airlines. But last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that does not extend to states' general employment laws (even if it's shown to have an incidental impact on the airline's general operations). The court noted that airlines should be subject to uniform nationwide regulations.

The Case: Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein

In January, the Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case connected to Delta Air Lines Inc. But in November, the court invited the solicitor general to weigh in on Virgin's case, which suggests that the justices are interested in reviewing the issues in the case. In a late May 2022 brief, the solicitor general stated that Virgin can comply with both sets of laws. The legal team stated that at most, the Virgin America Inc v. Bernstein case should be remanded to the 9th Circuit so the lower court can take a closer look at whether California's meal and rest break requirements create an actual conflict with federal regulations.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss wage and hour violations, 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.

Matco Misclassification Lawsuit Resolved with $15.8M Settlement

John Fleming, a former Matco franchisee distributor filed a California misclassification suit alleging numerous labor law violations.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp.

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

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

The Plaintiff: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp.

The plaintiff in the case, John Fleming, filed suit in 2021 and moved for class certification on his wage and hour claims alleging that during his time employed by Matco Tools Corp. he worked roughly 20 hours of overtime per week. Fleming described the agreement that required franchise operators to pay an initial fee to Matco, only distribute Matco-approved brand tools using the Matco system, attend Matco's training program for new distributors (including sixty hours of classroom training plus eighty hours of field training)*, lease or purchase a Matco Truck with the company’s branding, make the vehicle available for required company inspections, wear Matco branded uniforms; and refrain from operating the “Matco” truck outside of the company-identified territory. Despite the described conditions that appear to amount to tight company control, Fleming and other distributors were classified as independent contractors, leaving them ineligible for overtime pay and other benefits and protections afforded to non-exempt employees.

*They were required to pay for travel and hotel costs associated with the training.

The Defendant: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp.

The defendant, Matco Tools Corp., is a manufacturing and distribution company for professional quality mechanic's tools and service equipment. The brand’s products are distributed primarily by authorized franchisee distributors, who enter into a Matco Distributorship Agreement ("DA"). Matco classifies its franchise distributors as independent contractors.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp.

The United States District Judge, William H. Orrick, granted Fleming's motion for class certification on the issues of misclassification and reimbursement claims, wage statement, and UCL (in regards to the wage statement claim). Judge Orrick denied the motion for class certification with respect to the overtime, meal and rest breaks, waiting time, and wage deduction claims.

If you have questions about California employment law or 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.

Halsey Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Multiple Employment Law Violations

A recently filed lawsuit alleges that Halsey engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Ashley D. Frangipane aka Halsey, Leaving Things Behind Touring, Halsey Music LLC (hereafter referred to as Halsey)

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

The Case No.: 22STCV18905

The Plaintiff: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The plaintiff in the case, Ashley Funches, is the former nanny for Halsey, the “Without Me” singer. Funches claims Halsey forced her to work “around the clock on consecutive days with little to no day of rest” and failed to pay overtime – and then fired her when she sought time off for medical care. According to Funches, she sent Halsey a text message informing Halsey that she might need to have a medical procedure completed that would require her to take a leave of absence from work. Allegedly, the only response Funches received to the message came days later, and instead of responding to the request for time off, Halsey fired Funches with no warning. Funches filed her complaint on June 9th, 2022 in Los Angeles court.

The Defendant: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The defendant in the case, Halsey, is the “Without Me” singer facing a new lawsuit claiming she fired her nanny after she requested time off to have a medical procedure completed. The well-known star describes the claims as “baseless.”

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The case, Ashley Funches v. Halsey, will consider various claims of California labor law violations including failure to pay overtime wages, and alleged discrimination based on disability.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Texas Roadhouse Fail to Provide Employees with Legally Required Breaks and Meal Periods?

In recent news, employees of popular steak restaurant, Texas Roadhouse, claim the company violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Case: Porsche Barrett v. Armadillo Holdings, LLC Texas Roadhouse Management Corp., and Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, "Texas Roadhouse")

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

The Case No.: CV-22-001986,

The Plaintiff: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Porsche Barrett, alleges that Texas Roadhouse failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by labor law. According to court documents, Barrett was employed by Texas Roadhouse at one of their California locations since 2015. At all times during her employment, she was classified as a non-exempt employee, paid on an hourly basis, and as such, was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage, and payment of overtime wages due.

The Defendant: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The defendant in the case, the Texas Roadhouse, allegedly failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods, failed to pay employees for all time worked, failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work, failed to pay employees overtime at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to compensate employees for meal rest premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, and failed to issue employees with accurate itemized wage statements showing, among other things, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay periods and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. Additionally, plaintiffs in the case allege that Texas Roadhouse’s uniform policies and practices are intended to purposefully avoid the accurate and full payment for all time worked as required by California law (allegedly allowing the restaurant to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors who are in compliance with the law).

Summary of the Case: Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse

The class-action lawsuit, Porsche Barrett v. Texas Roadhouse, is currently pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California law, employers must pay each employee, on the established payday for the specified period, no less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in that payroll period. Hours worked are defined in 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 plaintiffs in the case, Texas Roadhouse allegedly required their employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts (off-the-clock work), as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit further alleges that the popular steakhouse restaurant failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. Not providing payment for off-the-clock work and time spent working during meal breaks and rest periods resulted in Texas Roadhouse allegedly failing to pay employees the applicable minimum wage.

If you have questions about California employment law, wage and hour violations, or need help filing a California class-action 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.

First Advantage Settles Class Actions Claiming they Ran Illegal Background Checks

In recent news, First Advantage settles class-action suits claiming they ran illegal background checks on employees.

The Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct.

The Case No.: CIV-535083

The Plaintiff: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks on consumers without securing prior authorization to do so, which is required by the FCRA. Class members in the case include any consumers who had a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization and provided to a prospective employer between the dates August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020.

The Defendant: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

The Defendant in the case is First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. First Advantage is a background check company specializing in providing services to employers during their hiring processes.

Details of the Case: Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. is one of two class-action lawsuits claiming First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)). The settlement, which was granted final approval on Dec. 8, 2021, resolves both class actions and benefits individuals who had a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage anytime between August 17th, 2012, and November 20th, 2020 without prior authorization as required by law. Allegedly, First Advantage violated the FCRA by failing to clearly inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and failed to get written authorization. However, First Advantage hasn’t admitted any wrongdoing. But as part of the settlement agreement, they did agree to change their terms and policies ensuring consumers provide prior authorization before any background checks are run on them for the benefit of their potential employers.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, 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.