Dyncorp Faces Allegations of Employment Law Violations

Dyncorp International LLC faced claims that its wage statements violated labor law, failing to allow employees to easily and quickly identify the number of hours they worked and the rate of pay applicable for hours worked during that pay period.

The Case: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The Court: United States District Court, Central District of California

The Case No.: CV 19-07091DDP

The Plaintiff: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Fierro, worked for Dyncorp International LLC ("Dyncorp) at the Point Mugu Naval Air Station ("Point Mugu") from December 2016 to July 2019. Fierro alleged that Dyncorp violated California labor law by failing to provide accurate wage statements showing applicable pay rates and hours worked for specific shift premiums.

The Defendant: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

The defendant in the case, Dyncorp, contends that, notwithstanding the omissions, the plaintiff did not demonstrate injury as required by law. Under Labor Code Section 226(a)(9), wage statements must accurately itemize "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee . . . ." Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)(9). However, only an "employee suffering injury" due to a deficient wage statement is entitled to recover statutory penalties. Dyncorp argued that the missing info from the wage statements could be identified using "grade school math," so there was no injury. On this basis, the defendant moved for summary judgment.

Details of the Case: Fierro v.Dyncorp Int'l LLC

In an order dated Jan 31, 2022, the court denied Defendant Dyncorp International LLC ("Dyncorp") 's Motion for Summary Judgment. While Dyncorp's argument had precedent, the court found the claim that the missing info could be derived using "grade school math" inaccurate. After examining two example wage statements, there was insufficient information to determine specific pay rates. Dyncorp argued that the "missing fact that dispels this seeming discrepancy" was available in other discovery documents (two collective bargaining agreements) that indicated a "shift differential premium" applicable to specific types of paid time off (i.e., vacation, holidays, jury duty, and personal paid leave). Dyncorp argued that considering that additional information and understanding, the wage statements can then be used to calculate the number of "Shft $2.05" hours worked in the given pay period and the pay allocated for them. Ignoring that the calculations needed to determine the necessary info were, once again, not as simple as Dyncorp claimed, the wage statements were still insufficient. The law requires wage statements employees can use to "promptly and easily determine" the number of hours worked at each applicable rate "from the wage statement alone." (Section 226, Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(2)(B)(I)). The court denied Dyncorp's move for summary judgment.

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

Amazon Manager Loses Misclassification Suit Seeking Overtime Pay for Non-Exempt Work

A former Amazon Level 4 Shift Manager recently lost a case in which he claimed Amazon misclassified him as exempt when he spent most of his time completing nonexempt work.

The Case: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 17-cv-03820-JSW

The Plaintiff: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

Ortiz, a former Level 4 Shift Manager, handled logistics for the night shift (aka the "Night Sort") at three different Amazon delivery stations from February 1, 2016, until he was terminated on December 11, 2016. Mr. Ortiz alleged that Amazon failed to pay him overtime and provide mandatory rest and meal breaks, violating California's Labor Code.

The Defendant: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The defendant in the case, Amazon, classifies Level 4 Shift Managers as exempt employees. On December 11, 2016, Amazon terminated Mr. Ortiz for violating safety protocols. (According to court documents, Mr. Ortiz was injured after falling off a conveyor belt. During the litigation, Mr. Ortiz admitted that he asked Mr. Lopes (an associate) to lie about the accident and report that the fall occurred on the stairs rather than the conveyor belt, as standing on the conveyor belt in the first place was against Amazon's safety protocols. Mr. Ortiz defended this request claiming he requested it in a "moment of panic." Amazon asserts that the plaintiff is subject to the executive exemption (Labor Code section 515(a) and Wage Order 7-2001).

Details of the Case: Ortiz v. Amazon.com

The main question before the court was how much time Mr. Ortiz spent doing nonexempt work. Mr. Ortiz claimed he spent the majority of his time completing nonexempt duties. However, the Court concluded that Mr. Ortiz's credibility on this issue was undermined by witnesses that directly contradicted his testimony (Mr. Lopez and Mr. Abdelaziz). Witnesses corroborating Mr. Ortiz's claim indicated they performed nonexempt tasks for less than 50% of their shifts. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's allegation was undermined by some of the representations on his own resume and social media posts that did not accurately reflect when and why he left his job at Amazon. The court concluded that Amazon met its burden to show that the plaintiff was subject to the executive exemption and not entitled to overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks as mandated for nonexempt employees.

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

$30M Apple Employee Bag Search Lawsuit Settlement Receives Approval

In 2021, Apple agreed to pay retail workers in California $30 million to settle claims that their bag check policy caused violations of California employment law.

The Case: Amanda Frlekin, Aaron Gregoroff, Seth Dowling, Debra Speicher; and Taylor Kalin v. Apple Inc.

The Court: United States District Court Northern District of California

The Case No.: 15-17382

The Plaintiff: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

In an incredibly long, drawn-out lawsuit that Apple employees first filed in 2013, plaintiffs claimed that Apple forced their retail workers to a mandatory search before leaving their job each shift. The mandatory search allegedly included their purses, bags, backpacks, briefcases, and personal Apple smart devices. The plaintiffs estimated that time spent waiting for the search and allowing search ranged from around five to twenty minutes. According to the plaintiffs, some employees even waited up to 45 minutes. Apple allegedly provided no compensation for this time as employees were required to clock out before their exit search according to Apple policy.

The Defendant: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Apple, Inc., is well known and needs no definition. Apple claimed the exit searches were necessary to prevent theft. On the other hand, employees brought up the amount of time spent waiting and enduring the mandatory searches with no pay.

Details of the Case: Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.

In July 2015, the district court certified the class defined as "all Apple California non-exempt employees who were subject to the bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present." This case asked the question, "Is time spent on the employer's premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as "hours worked" within the meaning of Wage Order 7?" A California judge dismissed the class action suit in 2015, but the plaintiffs appealed. When the appeals court was asked the same question, they turned to the California Supreme Court to clarify the law. In February 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled that Apple must pay their retail workers for their time spent for mandatory exit searches. In November 2021, Apple agreed to a $30 million settlement to resolve the matter, and U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup approved the settlement in summer 2022. The class members total approximately 12,000 current and former California Apple store employees.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action suit, 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.

Jet Blue and California Flight Attendants Agree to Settle Claims

In recent news, JetBlue is working toward a settlement to resolve litigation brought by California flight attendants alleging noncompliance with California work rules.

The Case: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 15-cv-01203

The Plaintiff: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The two lead plaintiffs were JetBlue flight attendants. The workers alleged that JetBlue did not grant them overtime pay or provide accurate wage statements of hours worked as flight attendants. Court documents show the plaintiffs filed suit in 2015.

The Defendant: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

The defendant in the case, JetBlue, found itself facing litigation, including allegations it violated California work rules requiring meal breaks and rest periods for California employees working for companies in California. In addition, the plaintiffs accuse the major airline of failing to pay them overtime pay for hours they worked over 8 hours in one workday. After several different rulings in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, the two parties decided on a settlement during private mediation on June 2, 2022.

Details of the Case: Booher v. Jet Blue Airways

If approved, the proposed settlement motion would require JetBlue to pay “$3.6 million for claims from 568 different class members. The amounts distributed to each class member are established based on:

• the time employed with JetBlue and

• the category of harm that applies to each situation (harm from not receiving a proper pay statement, not receiving proper overtime pay, and receiving appropriate pay for work late upon termination from the company).

If you have questions about how to file 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Zero Motorcycles Settles Wage and Hour Claims with $425K Class Action Settlement

To resolve wage and hour claims that the company failed to provide workers with proper wages, Zero Motorcycles agreed to pay a $425,000 settlement.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The Court: Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Cruz

The Case No.: 19-CV-03725

The Plaintiff: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are employees of Zero Motorcycles. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the company violated California law by failing to calculate correct regular pay rates and forcing employees to perform off-the-clock work. Allegedly, these labor law violations resulted in the company paying their employees less than minimum wage and inaccurate overtime wages. The plaintiffs also claim that the company denied them rest and meal breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, separation wages, and related penalties (all of which constitute labor law violations).

The Defendant: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The defendant in the case, Zero Motorcycles, manufactures and sells various motorcycles. The models they offer vary from street bikes to dual sport bikes. According to Zero Motorcycle's website, the California-based company specializes in high-performance electric technology. However, in the plaintiff's class action lawsuit, the company is accused of failing to pay its employees properly.

The Case: Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc.

The wage-and-hour class action lawsuit, Gutierrez v. Zero Motorcycles Inc., listed several alleged labor law violations: paying their employees less than minimum wage, paying inaccurate overtime wages, denying employees their rest and meal breaks, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to offer separation wages promptly, etc. The class action also included claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Zero Motorcycles did not admit to any wrongdoing, but they did agree to pay the $425,000 settlement to resolve the alleged California labor law violations. The wage and hour settlement benefits those who worked for Zero Motorcycles in California between Dec. 16th, 2015, and June 13th, 2021. The settlement terms allow class members to collect a payment based on the number of workweeks they worked during the class period, so workers who completed a more significant number of workweeks during the class period will be eligible for a higher settlement payment. The proposed settlement agreement also includes a $30,000 payment to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency for PAGA violations. The court scheduled a final approval hearing for the settlement for July 26th, 2022.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.

$100M Riot Games Workplace Gender Discrimination Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the court granted preliminary approval to the proposed $100 million settlement to resolve workplace gender discrimination claims against Riot Games.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 18STCV03957

The Plaintiff: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

In 2018, the plaintiffs in the case, Melanie McCracken and Jess Negrón, filed a class action lawsuit against Riot Games in California federal court, arguing their former employer violated the California Equal Pay Act due to the allegedly hostile workplace. The female employees claimed Riot Games fostered a workplace culture of gender discrimination and harassment.

The Defendant: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The defendant in the case, Riot Games, was founded in 2006. The company develops, publishes, and supports player-focused games worldwide. In 2009, the company released its debut title, League of Legends, which received worldwide recognition. League has since become the most-played PC game in the world and a significant component in the explosive growth of esports.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

Previously, McCracken and Negrón agreed to a $10 million settlement with Riot Games. However, California's Department of Fair Employment Housing (DFEH) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement halted the settlement after determining the amount inadequate for the case. The new settlement agreement calls for Riot Games to pay at least $80 million of the settlement in compensation to current and former female employees and contractors (employed by Riot Games between November 6th, 2014 to the present). According to the agreement, Riot Games will also put $6 million in a cash reserve for the next three years to fund programs designed to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. The settlement agreement also requires Riot Games to hire third-party experts to ensure it improves its workplace culture by incorporating compliance audits and gender-equity analyses for the company. Judge Elihu M. Berle, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, approved the $100 million settlement on July 22nd, 2022. The settlement resolves claims that Riot Games' workplace was filled with systemic gender discrimination and harassment against female employees and temp workers. Under the agreement, approximately 1,065 female Riot employees and about 1,300 temp contract workers will receive a minimum of $80 million (with an additional $20 million paid in attorneys fees).

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

$1.8M Settlement Could Resolve Background Checks FCRA Class Action Claims

G4S Secure Solutions recently agreed to a settlement totaling almost $1.8 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming they violated federal law with unfair background checks.

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The Court: Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida

The Case No.: 21-ca-005587

The Plaintiff: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Lonita Johnson, claims G4S Secure Solutions violated federal law with its employee applicant background checks. According to the court documents, the plaintiff alleges that while the company used a background check form when obtaining background checks, it did not comply with disclosures and other requirements under the federal FCRA.

The Defendant: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The defendant, G4S Secure Solutions, is a part of G4S Global. The company offers security services, cash solutions, consulting services, and care and justice services around the globe. Consider a few examples of the type of professional services the company provides:

• Estonia border security

• A Turkish bank's security upgrade

• Creating a safety standard for a European car manufacturer

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

Under FCRA, employees and job applicants are guaranteed certain rights. The FCRA holds employers to several standards when requesting, running, or taking employment action based on background checks. Employers must obtain written permission before running a background check and include disclosures in compliance with FCRA requirements. Employers/prospective employers are also limited in what they can ask about a job applicant or employee's background. According to the lawsuit, Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., G4S Secure Solutions violated these and other FCRA requirements when they requested and ran background checks on employees and applicants. G4S Secure Solutions did not admit any wrongdoing, but they did agree to resolve the allegations with a class action lawsuit settlement of $1,758,625. The settlement benefits G4S Secure Solutions employees and applicants to whom the company provided an FCRA disclosure and authorization fund since July 21st, 2019. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for the proposed settlement for Sept. 28th, 2022.

If you have questions about FCRA background check violations or need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.