Allegations Indicate that Epic Healthcare Violated Meal & Rest Period Requirements

In recent news, Epic Healthcare faces employment law violation allegations with a former employee’s class action alleging that they failed to provide meal and rest periods required by employment law.

The Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV38980

The Plaintiff: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The plaintiff in the case, Tina Charnett, was employed by Epic Healthcare in California from January 2022 through May 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Charnett was entitled to the protections offered by state and federal employment laws regarding minimum wage, overtime pay, and meal break and rest period requirements. Charnett alleges that while employed by Epic Healthcare, she was required to perform off-the-clock work, complete job duties during “off-duty” meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

The defendant in the lawsuit, Epic Healthcare, allegedly used a non-discretionary incentive program that provided hourly employees with additional compensation or “incentive wages” based on performance. Hourly employees could earn incentive pay if they met designated performance goals created by the employer. However, when Epic Healthcare calculated the “regular rate of pay” used to determine overtime pay wages, they allegedly failed to include the incentive pay in the calculations, which resulted in alleged overtime pay violations.

Details of the Case: Tina Charnett v. Epic Healthcare Staffing

In addition to allegations that the defendant failed to provide off-duty meal breaks and failed to include incentive pay in overtime pay calculations, the plaintiff claims that the business practice and policies in use at Epic Healthcare and their affiliates incorporated a rounding system instead of paying employees for all the hours they worked. They also required that employees submit to a Covid-19 screening process (as a condition of employment), which required them to submit to temperature checks and system questionnaires before clocking in for their shift. Due to the company policies in place during her time at Epic Healthcare, Charnett claims she and other similarly situated employees forfeited minimum wage and overtime compensation.

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

Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants Face Allegations they Failed to Pay Workers

In recent news, Syufy Enterprises and Tomatina Restaurants face allegations that they violated California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

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

The Case No.: 22-CIV-04939

The Plaintiff: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Ricci, filed a class action complaint alleging multiple California employment law violations. The defendant employed Ricci from February 2020 through July 2021. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ricci was entitled to the protections provided by federal and state employment law for employees, including required meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and overtime wages. Ricci filed the class action seeking compensation for losses incurred due to the defendant's alleged employment law violations for herself and on behalf of eligible class members.

The Defendant: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises are defined as joint employers of the plaintiff according to the arguments presented in the complaint. Tomatina Restaurants are a popular Italian dining location with multiple locations in California.

The Case: Gina Ricci v. Tomatina Restaurants and Syufy Enterprises

According to Ricci, the plaintiff in the California class action, the staff's rigorous work schedule inhibited them from taking off-duty meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of duty for their required meal periods, and from time to time, they were interrupted during their off-duty meal periods to fulfill job duties "off the clock" for Tomatina restaurants and Syufy Enterprises. According to the plaintiff, employees were required to work shifts longer than five hours without receiving off-duty meal breaks, and the defendant failed to with second off-duty meal breaks when they worked more than ten hours in one workday. The company allegedly required that their employees stay on call (and essentially on duty) during what was supposed to be "off duty" meal periods. The standard business practice caused employees to forfeit meal breaks, and the company did not provide additional compensation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

1st-Time Right LLC Faces a Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Meal & Rest Break Violations

In recent news, 1st-Time Right LLC faces a California class action. The class action complaint alleges that the company violated California Labor Code by failing to comply with meal and rest break requirements and pay their employees for all the hours they worked.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

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

The Case No.: 22STCV36533

The Plaintiff: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jermaine Ford, a California resident, was employed by the Defendant from October 2021 through December 202. Categorized as a non-exempt employee paid hourly, Ford was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked.

The Defendant: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

The defendant in the case, 1st-Time Right, LLC, operates a staffing company throughout California, with operations in Los Angeles, where the plaintiff, Ford, was employed.

The Case: Jermaine Ford v. 1st-Time Right, LLC

Ford brings the class action on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees in the California class (current or former employees of 1st-Time Right, LLC in California classified as non-exempt employees at any time within the four years preceding the filing of the complaint (with an end date to be determined by the court). The plaintiff seeks compensation for losses incurred due to employment law violations during the class period. According to the complaint, the losses were incurred due to the defendant’s practices and policies that created a failure to fully compensate employees for their work. The plaintiff also alleges that 1st-Time Right, LLC illegally retained employee wages.

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

Freenome Holdings, Inc. Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Freenome Holdings, Inc. faces a PAGA-Only action alleging multiple California labor code violations.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-22-603540

The Plaintiff: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel De La Torre, as an “aggrieved employee,” acted as a private attorney general (under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. (“PAGA”) to file suit against Freenome Holdings. The PAGA-only action seeks to obtain PAGA civil penalties for himself and other aggrieved employees in similar situations with the company. California’s PAGA permits an individual to bring an action on behalf of himself and on behalf of others for PAGA penalties only; this is the precise and sole nature of this action.

The Defendant: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Freenome Holdings, Inc., is a corporation that provides clinical research services, as well as the development and creation of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of age-associated clinical conditions.

The Case: Daniel De La Torre v. Freenome Holdings, Inc.

Freenome Holdings, Inc. employed Torre from September 2021 through August 2022. During his time at the company, Torre was classified as a non-exempt employee and earned wages on an hourly basis. As such, Torre was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due according to employment law. According to the PAGA-only action, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff (and other similarly aggrieved employees that qualify under the class definition) wages due, engaged in practices that required employees to complete “off the clock” work, failed to provide mandatory off-duty meal breaks, required mandatory temperature checks and symptom questionnaires for COVID-19 screening before employees could clock in for shifts, engaged in an established company policy that rounded employee hours rather than providing payment for the actual hours employees worked, etc.

If you have questions about how to file a California PAGA-only action, 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.

Former Best Practice Medicine, LLC Employee Alleges Wrongful Termination

A former Best Practice Medicine, LLC employee filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the company fired him after he engaged in the protected activity of reporting alleged California Labor Code violations.

The Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The Court: Kern County Superior Court

The Case No.: BCV-22-102688

The Plaintiff: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jon Riley, was employed by Best Practice Medicine, LLC in California from April 2022 to August 2022 as a nonexempt hourly employee. While at the company, Riley reported labor law violations, citing off-the-clock work leading to minimum wage and overtime violations, missed meal and rest periods, etc. According to the plaintiff, his reporting of the alleged violations resulted in his termination (even though reporting this type of employment law violation is a protected act). Riley responded by filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit.

The Defendant: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

The defendant in the case, Best Practice Medicine, LLC, specializes in emergency medical education, mobile high-fidelity medical simulation, and clinical staffing.

Details of the Case: Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC

As a nonexempt, hourly employee, Jon Riley was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked. Best Practice Medicine, LLC allegedly failed to pay employees like Jon Riley for all the time they were under the company's control, including submitting to mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and temperature checks before workers were allowed to clock in for their shifts. The off-the-clock work didn't qualify for overtime premium payment, which allegedly resulted in minimum wage and overtime violations. According to the lawsuit, shortly after Riley complained to his supervisor about the alleged unlawful employment practices at the company, Best Practice Medicine, LLC terminated his employment. Based on this, there is an alleged causal link between the protected activity (reporting labor law violations) and the company's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The case, Jon Riley v. Best Practice Medicine, LLC, is currently pending in the Kern County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination 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.

Wingstop Faces Class Action Allegations of Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay Violations

In recent news, Wingstop faces allegations of California wage and hour and overtime pay violations.

The Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 22CV02669

The Plaintiff: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jamal Shabazz, worked at one of the Wingstop franchise locations owned by the defendant from February 2022 to March 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As a worker at a Wingstop franchise owned by the defendant, the plaintiff claims employees could not take off-duty meal breaks and that the company did not entirely remove them from responsibility for job duties during their off-duty meal periods. Shabazz alleges that employees on their off-duty meal breaks were regularly interrupted to perform work duties for the company. Employees were also required to work shifts longer than 5 hours without being provided an off-duty meal break and weren’t provided a second meal break period if they worked shifts longer than 10 hours. According to the lawsuit, employees were expected to be on call and available even when they were “off duty” for meal breaks. This business practice left employees forfeiting their meal breaks without additional compensation.

The Defendant: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Mann & Company, Inc., owns, operates, and manages a chain of Wingstop franchised restaurants in California, including in the county of Butte, where Jamal Shabazz, the plaintiff, worked.

Details of the Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc.

As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Jamal Shabazz was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all hours worked. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant engaged in several labor law violations: failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to issue employees their wages when they are due. These alleged activities would constitute violations of several California Labor Codes, including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. The case, Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. dba Wingstop, is currently pending in the Butte 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 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.

Is Failing to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses a Labor Law Violation?

In recent news, Logical Innovations, Inc. faces allegations of Labor Law violations after an employee's lawsuit claims they failed to reimburse for required business expenses.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV31929

The Plaintiff: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Atya Tarkington, was employed in California by the defendant from January 2020 to March 2022 as a non-exempt employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages. Tarkington filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the company failed to provide employees with off-duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by employment law. In addition, the plaintiff claims the company failed to provide appropriate overtime pay for the missed meal breaks, which resulted in lost wages for Tarkington and other eligible class members.

The Defendant: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The defendant in the case, Logical Innovations, Inc., and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, were joint employers of Atya Tarkington, the plaintiff. The defendants provide business development services for the federal government and clients in the commercial sector. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses that enabled the employees to complete their job duties.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The case, Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for business expenses required to complete their job duties. According to California Labor Code §2802, "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to court documents, Tarkington and other class members were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties. The company did not fully compensate them for the business expenses.

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