Costco $3.2M ERISA Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval

On July 18th, 2022, the court granted final approval to the $3.2 million settlement agreement parties reached in March 2022 to resolve class action allegations. The class action alleged that Costco mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-00937

The Plaintiff: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Soulek, filed the class action on behalf of plan participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees of the Costco 401(k) Retirement Plan. Eligible class members are retirement plan account participants as of the class certification date or participants who had a plan account on or after the last business day of a month on or after May 30th, 2014, with an account balance of $1,000 or more for at least 12 months beginning during the class period. The class period is from May 30th, 2014, through March 17th, 2022. The plaintiff's class action accused Costco of mismanagement resulting in the 401(k) plan incurring administrative and investment management fees that were higher than necessary.

The Defendant: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The defendant in the case, Costco, is a sizeable membership-based chain of wholesale stores that sell various products (groceries, electronics, pet products, household goods, basic office supplies, and more). According to the company's website, the chain's membership is currently at more than a million members (or shoppers).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

In March 2022, the parties involved in the case, Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., reached a $3.2 million class action lawsuit settlement agreement to resolve claims that the company mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Costco denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to the settlement to resolve the class action ERISA claims. The Court granted the settlement final approval on July 18th, 2022. Under the terms of the Costco 401(k) settlement agreement, the company agreed that current plan participants would be eligible for an administrative fee reduction, with a maximum total value of $3.2 million. Former plan participants and current eligible participants (those who cease having a plan account by the settlement's effective date) can claim payment through the settlement agreement. Settlement payments to former plan participants are calculated on the number of quarters their plan account balance exceeded $1,000 during the class period. The amount is determined based on an allocation plan included in the settlement agreement.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an ERISA 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.

Class Action Lawsuit Alleged Merrill Lynch Violated Wage & Hour and Overtime Pay Laws

Did you know Merril Lynch resolved unpaid wage and overtime pay claims in a 2020 class action lawsuit with a settlement deal?

The Case: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Incorporated

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

The Case No.: CIV 2001671

The Plaintiff: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Scrooc, made allegations under various California laws: the state's labor laws, the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Private Attorneys General Act or PAGA (a law that allows California workers to bring labor claims on behalf of the state's labor authority). The plaintiff filed a class action alleging Merrill Lynch underpaid their California financial advisors.

The Defendant: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

Merrill Lynch is an investment management company. The investment management company employs financial advisors and associates who work with customers to guide them in creating personalized investment plans and retirement plans. According to the Merrill Lynch website, the company employs more than 13,000 financial advisors.

Summary of the Case: Scrooc v Merrill Lynch Pierce Feener and Smith Inc.

Did Merrill Lynch take advantage of its California advisors by failing to pay wages properly? While Merrill Lynch did not admit any wrongdoing and continues to contend that its company complied with California wage-and-hour laws, it agreed to a $1.375 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the wage and hour and overtime pay claims. A $100,000 portion of the settlement fund was allocated for PAGA claims, including some payments to eligible class members and a sizeable financial penalty paid to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Eligible class members include Merrill Lynch employees who worked in California as Client Associates between Aug. 26th, 2016, and May 12th, 2022, and had one of the following job titles: Registered Client Associate, Registered Senior Client Associate, Investment Associate, Private Wealth Associate, Sales Assistant, Sales Associate, Account Associate, Brokerage Associate or any other non-exempt administrative support position.

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

First Advantage Agrees to a Settlement to Resolve Class Action Alleging Unauthorized Background Checks

First Advantage recently agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement. The settlement will resolve claims that First Advantage ran background checks without prior authorization (a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)).

The Case: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The Court: Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty

The Case No.: CGC-17-560531

The Plaintiff: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that First Advantage, the defendant, routinely violated federal law by running background checks without obtaining prior authorization from consumers (which is required by law). Class members in the case include any consumers with a background report generated by First Advantage without prior authorization that was offered to a prospective employer between Aug. 17th, 2012, and Nov. 20th, 2020. According to the plaintiffs in the case, the background check company failed to secure prior consumer authorization as required by the FCRA.

The Defendant: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The Defendant in the case, First Advantage, is a background check company that provides services to employers when guiding job applicants through their hiring process. Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp. is the second legal action First Advantage faces claiming the company routinely flouted federal law by running background checks on job applicants without first obtaining consent as required by law.

Details of the Case: Chism v. First Advantage Background Services Corp.

The FCRA was created to protect consumers by regulating the information collected (and distributed) by credit reporting bureaus. When companies request or run a background check on an employee or job applicant, the FCRA requires that they first provide "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" that "consists solely of the disclosure" so individuals are adequately notified of the background check and how the information will be used. Before running the reports, employers or prospective employers must obtain written authorization from consumers. First Advantage allegedly violated the FCRA on both counts: 1) failing to inform consumers of the background check with a clear and conspicuous disclosure and 2) failing to get written authorization before running the report. While First Advantage did not admit to any wrongdoing, they did agree to resolve the class action claims with a settlement. The settlement benefits individuals with a background report provided to a prospective employer by First Advantage without prior authorization between Aug. 17th, 2012, and Nov. 20th, 2020. As part of the settlement agreement, First Advantage agreed to change its terms and policies to ensure consumers receive prior authorization before a potential employer runs their background check.

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

Misclassified Driver Files Appeal After District Court Dismisses All Claims

Brant, an allegedly misclassified driver, appealed after the U.S. District Court dismissed all claims in his FLSA lawsuit.

The Case: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

The Case No.: 21-2122

The Plaintiff: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eric R. Brant, hauled freight for the defendant in the case. Brant was classified as an independent contractor in 2018 and 2019. Brant sued Schneider in July 2020, claiming federal and state law violations and alleging Schneider National Inc. was willfully misclassifying workers as independent contractors. Brant claims Schneider engaged in several employment law violations, including minimum wage requirements (FLSA and Wisconsin Law), unjustly enriching itself (Wisconsin law), and Truth-in-Leasing regulations (federal law). When the case was before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge William C. Griesbach granted Schneider's motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings (No. 20-cv-01049-WCG). Brant appealed the decision.

The Defendant: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case is Schneider National, Inc., a significant motor carrier. In 2019, Schneider oversaw thousands of trucks in its freight business. Most of Schneider's drivers are employees, but in 2020 it designated more than a quarter of its drivers as independent contractors. At this time, Schneider recruited drivers interested in being "owner-operators" who had not independently invested in purchasing a truck by leasing Schneider's trucks out to drivers who would then drive for Schneider under contract. Under this contract, Brant became an "owner-operator" and hauled freight for Schneider from December 2018 to August 2019. While Brant claims the company misclassified him and violated multiple employment laws, the company claims they were engaged in a business deal with Brant, relying on two written contracts. The Lease allowed Brant to lease a Freightliner truck from Schneider, and an Operating Agreement allowed Brant to lease the truck back to Schneider and receive 65% of the gross revenue for the shipments he hauled for Schneider.

Details of the Case: Eric R. Brant v. Schneider National Inc., et al.

While the U.S. District Court granted Schneider's motion to dismiss all claims on the pleadings, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Appeals Court found that the district court erred in basing its decision on the terms of Schneider's contracts because the economic reality of the working relationship is the critical factor when determining whether a person is an employee under the FLSA, not the terms of a written contract. Instead of basing the decision on the terms of the written agreement, the decision should be based on the behaviors, practices, and job requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that Brant had alleged legal, viable claims for relief under the FLSA, Wisconsin minimum-wage law, Wisconsin law of unjust enrichment, and the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations. TheU.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Precision Toxicology Agrees to $545,000 Settlement Resolving California Wage & Hour Class Action

In recent news, Precision Toxicology agreed to pay $545,000 to resolve California labor law violation claims in a wage and hour class action lawsuit.

The Case: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 19STCV46037

The Plaintiff: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Delia Borrego, alleges that Precision Toxicology, LLC failed to pay its employees the wages they were owed. A class action lawsuit alleged the company violated California labor laws by failing to provide all minimum and overtime wages and other benefits.

The Defendant: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case is Precision Toxicology, a part of Precision Diagnostics, a California-based laboratory that performs different tests using automated processes. While much of their testing is through automated processes, Precision Toxicology still employs approximately 411 workers to oversee the testing and monitor the automated processes.

More Case Details: Delia Borrego v. Precision Toxicology, LLC, et al.

California's state labor laws are some of the strictest in the country, guaranteeing employees the right to fair wages for hours worked, meal breaks and rest periods, benefits, etc. In addition to failing to pay wages, Precision Toxicology allegedly violated California state labor laws by failing to provide rest and meal breaks (or premiums to replace the value of missed breaks), reimburse business expenses, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and pay wages in a timely fashion upon separations. While Precision Toxicology did not admit wrongdoing, they agreed to resolve the allegations with a $545,000 settlement deal. The settlement benefits individuals working for Precision Toxicology in California between Dec. 24th, 2015, and November 3rd, 2021.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how to file 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, and Riverside.

Radiant Services Corp. Faces Class Action Alleging they Failed to Pay Wages

In recent news, Radiant Services Corp. faces allegations of failing to pay their workers adequate wages for hours worked.

The Case: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

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

The Case: 22STCV23115

The Plaintiff: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

The plaintiffs in the class filed suit on behalf of themselves and others employed by Radiant Services Corp. in California during the class period. The class action lawsuit is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the plaintiff, Radiant Services Corp. violated numerous labor codes including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Defendant: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

The defendant in the case is Radiant Services Corp., a full-service laundry and dry cleaning facility that completes linen services for hotels and hospitality facilities in California, including the county of Los Angeles, where the plaintiff worked. According to the plaintiff, the company engaged in the following labor code violations:

(1) failing to pay minimum wages;

(2) failing to pay overtime wages;

(3) failing to provide required meal and rest periods;

(4) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

(5) failing to pay wages when due; and

(6) failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

Details of the Case: Steve Martinez v. Radiant Services Corp.

California employers are required to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement. Wage statements must be in writing and must show gross wages earned, the total of all hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, any deductions made, net wages earned, the dates of the pay period the employee is receiving payment for, the employee's name and last four digits of their social security number (or employee ID), the employer's name and address, hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the number of hours the employee worked at each of the designated hourly rates. Allegedly, Radiant Services Corp. did not provide accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with legal requirements (according to California Labor Code Section 226).

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a California class-action 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.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed Against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Snap, Inc After 17-Year Old Suicide

Donna Dawley filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the makers of popular social media giants Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook after her son, Christopher Dawley, committed suicide at age 17.

The Case: Dawley v. Meta Platforms Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-00444

Plaintiff in the Case: Dawley v. Meta Platforms Inc et al

The plaintiff in the case, Donna Dawley, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. and Snap, Inc.("Defendants"), seeking monetary damages and other reliefs after her 17-year-old son's suicide. Dawley claims her son's death was caused by the Defendants' promotion of harmful content and that Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat are created to be used by minors and actively marketed to children like her son throughout the U.S. In the lawsuit. Dawley also claimed that the defendants are aware of the large number of minors under 13 years of age who use their platforms despite rules, terms, and agreements they claim they put in place to restrict use by children under age 13. Additionally, Dawley alleges that the defendants actively encourage advertisers to create ads targeting teenagers and children under 13 years of age.

Defendant in the Case: Dawley v. Meta Platforms Inc et al

The defendants in the case face allegations that they knowingly designed and marketed social media products that were intentionally and dangerously addictive to minors despite the knowledge that the use of the products is known to cause mental and physical harm to minor social media users.

The Case: Dawley v. Meta Platforms Inc et al

In 2012 CJ joined Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook. Over the next two years, CJ developed an addiction to social platforms, communicating at all hours of the night. His constant use of social media resulted in sleep deprivation, increased obsession with body image, etc. While CJ never showed outward signs of depression or mental depression, he went to his room on January 4, 2015, while his family was taking down Christmas decorations, texted his friend, posted on Facebook, and wrote a note to his family, and then shot himself (while holding his smartphone in his other hand). CJ's suicide led his parents, Chris and Donna Dawley, to sue some of the world's wealthiest, most powerful corporations. A risky, challenging, and potentially painful endeavor, the Dawleys seek to hold the companies responsible for exposing children to toxic products.

If you have questions about how to file a wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to get in touch with 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.