Ecolab Faces Allegations their Overtime Calculations Violate Labor Law

In recent news, Ecolab faces allegations that its standard overtime pay calculations violate the labor code.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior

The Case No.: 19STCV21322

The Plaintiff: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for Ecolab for several years before being promoted to route sales manager on April l5, 2018. As an Ecolab route sales manager, Lemm was the primary contact with customers on his. He visited them regularly to install, repair, and maintain Ecolab equipment, provide continuous training and customer service, and sell additional or supportive Ecolab products and parts. Route sales managers are nonexempt employees who are entitled to overtime compensation. Lemm regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours weekly in 2018 and 2019. Lemm's payment was calculated according to an annual Incentive Compensation Plan with compensation comprised of hourly wages and a nondiscretionary monthly bonus earned by meeting specific metrics. On June 19, 2019, Lemm filed a PAGA suit, alleging Ecolab improperly calculated the overtime due on the nondiscretionary bonus paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

The Defendant: Lemm v. Ecolab

The defendant in the case, Ecolab, provides sanitation and pest control services and supplies, commercial kitchen equipment and appliance maintenance, and food safety services. On July 25, 2019, Ecolab responded, denying Lemm's allegations.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

About two months later, on October 2, 2019, Lemm filed an amended PAGA notice, asserting additional claims for civil penalties associated with Ecolab's failure to pay all required wages, including reporting time and split shift wages. However, Ecolab successfully moved for summary judgment because its formulation of the overtime payment comported with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). On appeal, Lemm argued that the method by which Ecolab calculated overtime compensation owed on the monthly bonuses failed to comply with California law and that state law supersedes federal law because Lemm's claim was a state claim, and California provides greater protection for employees. However, the Second Appellate District confirmed the trial court's decision, explaining they weren't required to use the exact formula set down in Section 49 2.4 when using the nondiscretionary bonus for overtime calculations. Ecolab demonstrated to the court that as long as the overtime calculations did not include overtime on overtime, the amount of overtime pay was the same regardless of which overtime calculation option they used: the section 49.2.4 formula or the CFR 778.210 formula.

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.

ADP Facing Fired Manager’s Disability Bias and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

In recent news, a former manager filed a mental disability discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit alleging ADP violated labor law.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

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

The Case No.: 3:2022cv00898

The Plaintiff: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff in the case, Nathaniel Rutledge, was a manager for ADP from March 2019 until the company terminated his employment on August 27, 2021. After the death of his brother, Rutledge was instructed to join a video call with ADP’s Director of Associates, Sonya Everett, and Lead Investigative Security Agent, Michael Paulhus. Everett told Rutledge they were conducting a wellness check because there were indications Rutledge was “struggling.” According to the plaintiff, they did not indicate what prompted the situation. They immediately began asking a series of questions that felt like an interrogation, repeatedly demanding the plaintiff turn on the camera even though he wasn’t feeling well and was uncomfortable doing so. After Rutledge said he didn’t want to continue the call without being told what the meeting was about, the company placed him on leave and advised him he was required to obtain clearance from their Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider before returning to work. Rutledge assured the EAP counselor he had no mental issues that affected his work, but the counselor recommended Rutledge see a therapist anyway. He did not, and two days later, the counselor sent a letter to the defendant notifying them of Rutledge’s non-compliance. When Rutledge was again invited to a video call the same day, he declined, stating that the last one made him very uncomfortable. Rutledge was fired the next day. The company claimed his refusal to take the video call was insubordinate. The company claimed they terminated his employment because he refused to participate in ongoing psychological treatment.

The Defendant: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

The plaintiff Rutledge filed disability harassment, wrongful termination, and emotional distress claims. The defendant in the case, ADP, is a payroll services company.

The Case: Nathanael Rutledge v. ADP

FEHA explicitly prohibits an employer from harassing an employee because of a mental disability. To successfully argue a disability harassment claim, the plaintiff must show the following:

(1) they are a member of a protected class

(2) they were subject to unwelcome harassment

(3) the unwelcome harassment was based on their protected status

(4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with their work performance (by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment); and

(5) the defendants in the case are liable for the harassment

However, for the case to move forward, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant regarded them as disabled, thus creating a protected class and making them a part of the protected class. The defendant’s immediate motions to dismiss were denied.

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.

Did a Translation Firm Fail to Pay Its Interpreters Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay?

According to a recent California wage and hour lawsuit, a translation firm allegedly failed to pay its interpreters the minimum wage and overtime pay they earned and to provide proper meal and rest breaks.

The Case: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

The Court: Eastern District Court of Northern Carolina

The Case No.: 5:22-cv-08076

The Plaintiff: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce, was hired in March 2020 as an interpreter for Langugae Line Services Inc. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant violated labor law by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime pay as required, and violating meal and rest time break requirements. Boyce filed the wage and hour lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Northern Carolina, and the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen but was reassigned to a US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman, outside the San Jose Division under the Caseload Rebalancing Pilot Program.

The Defendant: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

The defendant in the case, Language Line Services Inc and On Line Translation Inc. share an address in Monterey, California. According to court documents, they allegedly failed to give workers accurate wage statements, reimburse necessary and reasonable business expenses, pay minimum wages earned by workers, and pay overtime wages due for overtime hours worked.

The Case: Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce v. Language Line Services Inc.

According to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce alleges. Language Line Services Inc. engaged in multiple labor law violations, 29 USC § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act.

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.

Job Candidate Claims Discrimination: Is Workday’s AI Job Screening Tool Biased?

In recent news, Workday faces a lawsuit claiming that their AI job screening tool discriminates against certain job applicants.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 23-cv-00770

The Plaintiff: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Derek Mobley, is a black man over 40 years old who suffers from anxiety and depression. Mobley claims he has applied to 80-100 job openings for companies using Workday's AI job screening tool since 2018. While Mosey holds a bachelor's degree in finance from Morehouse College and an associate's degree in network systems administration from ITT Technical Institute, his application was declined for every job. Mosley filed a class action complaint seeking to represent others who have also been affected by the screening tool's algorithm.

The Defendant: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Workday, Inc., the defendant in the case, is an HR and payroll SaaS firm. Workday's software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform is designed to help organizations manage their workforce and financial operations. One of the critical features of Workday's platform is its user interface, which is designed to be intuitive and user-friendly. The platform also uses machine learning and artificial intelligence to help automate routine tasks and provide insights into data. Workday's customers range from small and medium-sized businesses to large enterprises across various industries. The company is headquartered in Pleasanton, California. In the California discrimination lawsuit, Workday is accused of building algorithms for their AI job applicant screening tool that result in discrimination against Black applicants in their 40s.

The Case: Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

Mobley v. Workday, Inc. alleges that Workday unlawfully uses an algorithm-based job applicant screening system to determine if an employer should accept an application for employment with the decision based on the applicant's age, race, or disability.

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.

Wrongful Death Allegations Claim TikTok Directed Kids to Dangerous Content

Parents of a 10-year-old who died after attempting to participate in a "blackout challenge" seen on TikTok filed a wrongful death lawsuit citing TikTok should have known their platform was directing children to harmful content.

The Case: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

The Court: US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

The Case No.: 22-cv-01849

The Plaintiff: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

In 2021, a ten-year-old was found hanging from a purse strap in a closet of her Pennsylvania home. Following her child's death, the mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that TikTok recommended the "blackout challenge" video to the child on her TikTok account's "For You Page."

The Defendant: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

Versions of the Blackout Challenge have been posted across various platforms encouraging viewers to record themselves choking to the point of passing out. The "challenge" has been blamed for the deaths of multiple children in recent years, with additional wrongful death lawsuits with similar allegations against TikTok pending in federal courts in Oakland and Los Angeles.

The Case: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

The judge ruled that TikTok was not liable for the child's death who watched a blackout challenge video. According to US District Judge Paul Diamond's ruling, even if TikTok recommended the video on the child's For You Page, federal law shielded TikTok from liability in Nylah Anderson's death. Judge Diamond said TikTok couldn't be sued for wrongful death due to sharing a blackout challenge video on their platform because promoting a video to a user is shielded from liability under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was added to the 1996 law to protect online content providers from being buried under massive litigation due to user-posted content shared on their online platforms. The plaintiffs disagreed with the judge's interpretation of Section 230, arguing that it was not intended to allow social platforms to send dangerous content to children. The Andersons intend to continue advocating for increased protection for children from the dangers presented by the social media industry.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death 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.

Hayward, California Resident Alleged Uber Driver Caused Traumatic Brain Injury

Last month a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit filed in Alameda Superior Court was resolved when the two parties agreed to a settlement.

The Case: Sanchez v. Hamzat

The Court: Alameda Superior Court

The Case No.: 22CV007178

The Plaintiff: Sanchez v. Hamzat

The plaintiff in the case, Sanchez, and his 15-year-old brother were skating around the neighborhood on motorized longboards in Hayward, California on February 22, 2020, when an Uber driver hit them. According to the plaintiffs, the incident occurred at an intersection with a green light. One of the plaintiffs, Sanchez, sustained a traumatic brain injury and a fractured ankle. The injuries required multiple surgeries. Sanchez’s 15-year-old brother was traumatized by the incident, having seen his older brother be run over by the vehicle. The police found the two brothers at fault because they were not in the crosswalk. The plaintiff was scheduled to start a new job as a TSA agent at SFO only days after the incident occurred, but his injuries left him unable to work. The traumatic brain injury lawsuit was filed in Alameda Superior Court on February 17, 2022.

The Defendant: Sanchez v. Hamzat

The defendant in the case, Hamzat, was the Uber driver allegedly responsible for the incident. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs are at fault because they were in the intersection, the light was red, they were not wearing bike helmets (as required by California Vehicle Code Section 21292), and they did not use a lamp (as required by California Vehicle Code Section 21293).

The Case: Sanchez v. Hamzat

Despite a police report that indicated the plaintiffs were at fault, their legal counsel argued that they were in the vehicle lane in compliance with California Vehicle Code Section 21294. The law states electric motorized longboards can use the vehicle lane when the posted speed limit is 30mph or less. During the case, evidence indicated that the plaintiffs entered the intersection during a green light, and it turned red before they could exit the intersection. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendant was in a hurry, which caused him to violate the law by failing to yield to the plaintiffs who were already in the intersection (California Vehicle Code Section 21800(a)). On February 17, 2023, the two parties resolved the case when they agreed to a settlement.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury 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.

Former Dollar General Store Employee Claims Age & Disability Discrimination

The case Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC involved a dispute between a former employee, Galarsa, and her former employer, Dolgen California LLC, a retail company that operates Dollar General stores in California.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

The Case No.: F082404 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2021)

The Plaintiff: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Galarsa, the plaintiff in the case, claimed she was wrongfully terminated from her job and discriminated against based on her age and disability. Dolgen California LLC hired Galarsa in 2008 as a store manager and later promoted her to district manager. In 2014, she was diagnosed with a medical condition that required her to take medical leave for several months. Upon her return to work, she got a demotion from district manager to store manager, resulting in reduced pay and benefits. Galarsa alleged that her demotion was a form of discrimination based on her age and disability and that her subsequent termination was in retaliation for her complaints about the demotion.

The Defendant: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Dolgen California LLC argued that Galarsa was terminated for failing to meet the company's performance expectations and that her demotion resulted from her inability to perform her job duties.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of Galarsa, awarding her over $1.7 million in damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. Dolgen California LLC appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict and that the damages awarded were excessive. However, the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support Galarsa's claims of discrimination and retaliation and that the damages awarded were reasonable, given the circumstances seen in the case documents. Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of avoiding discrimination based on age and disability and the potential consequences of retaliating against employees who raise concerns about discriminatory practices.

If you have questions about how to file a California age discrimination 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.