Community Hospice, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A former Community Hospice, Inc. employee filed a class action lawsuit claiming Community Hospice, Inc. failed to pay accurate overtime wages.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The Court: Stanislaus County Superior Court

The Case No.: CV-23-001773

The Plaintiff: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Tyeisha Travis, was employed by Community Hospice, Inc. from September 2019 through April 13, 2022. Travis was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Travis filed the class action for herself and other similarly situated employees qualifying as class members.

The Defendant: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Community Hospice, Inc., provides medical, nursing, emotional, spiritual, and educational support to individuals and their families and loved ones as they cope with life-threatening illness, disease, and grief.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

In the case, Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc., the defendant allegedly failed to pay employees accurate sick wages in violation of labor law. When employees earned non-discretionary incentive wages, it increased their regular rate of pay. However, when the employees were paid sick pay, the sick pay was issued at the lower base rate of pay instead of the adjusted rate after the non-discretionary incentive wage additions. While working for Community Hospice, Inc., employees used their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. The plaintiff claims their cell phones were a necessary job expense that the company failed to reimburse.

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.

Did St. Anne's Foundation Violate California Labor Laws?

In a recently filed California class action complaint, St. Anne's Foundation faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with meal breaks and rest periods, which violates California labor law.

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV14674

The Plaintiff: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The plaintiff in the case, Britney Clarke, is a Los Angeles County resident. The class is defined as hourly employees (current or former) residing in California employed by the defendant anytime between four years before the date of the complaint filing through the final resolution.

The Defendant: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The defendant in the case, St. Anne's Foundation, and Family Services, is a California corporation.

The Allegations: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to give employees their wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

According to court documents, Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services allegedly violated labor law. The case poses the question of whether any failure to pay wages was willful on the defendant's part and whether St. Anne's corporate policy or practice violated labor law by failing to pay them for all hours worked promptly and providing overtime pay at the appropriate overtime pay rate. According to the plaintiff, the company required them to work more than 8 hours in one day and more than 40 hours in one week. The plaintiff claims that there was a clear pattern of wage abuse during her employment.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action 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.

Did Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Violate California Labor Code?

In recent news, a class action complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court includes allegations that Prudent Security Solutions Inc. violated California Labor Code.

The Case: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Brian Bradford was employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. in Los Angeles from March to April 2022. He was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Lisa Bradford was also employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. from March to April 2022, but she was paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses.

The Defendant: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California.

The Case: Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

In the case, Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc., the plaintiffs claim that their employer violated several labor laws. California law requires employers to pay every employee on an established payday for all the hours they work during that pay period, at a pay rate no less than minimum wage. According to labor law, hours worked means time when the employee is subject to the employer’s control, which includes any time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. According to court documents, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly required workers to complete work before their shift, after their shift, and during off-duty meal breaks. The off-the-clock work was allegedly not compensated, resulting in minimum wage violation allegations.

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 wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Warby Parker Employee Files Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In a recently filed California class action complaint, a Warby Parker employee from Santa Clara County alleges numerous labor law violations.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV414694

The Plaintiff: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Chery, was an employee of Warby Parker in the county of Santa Clara. Warby Parker employed Chery as a non-exempt employee as of December 2019. Chery filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and qualifying class members citing numerous labor law violations.

Allegations: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

• Unfair Competition

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required breaks and meal periods

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate ittemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required work expenses

The Defendant: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The defendant in the case, Warby Parker, is a Delaware corporation conducting business in California. The defendant is a retailer of prescription eyeglasses, contact lenses, and sunglasses with locations throughout California.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

According to the court documents in Robert Chery v. Warby Parker, Chery filed the California class action alleging the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks for employees. The case is currently pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The plaintiff claims that a rigorous work schedule meant that employees were unable to take off duty meal breaks, and during meal periods that should have been off the clock, employees were allegedly not fully relieved of their work duties. According to Chery, the company would interrupt the employees during off-duty meal breaks so they could complete job-related tasks. According to teh plaintiff, employees were expected to work over 5 hours in one work shift without being provided an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Warby Parker did not provide a second off-duty meal break when employees completed shifts reaching 10 hours. Warby Parker allegedly expected workers to be on call and essentially on duty during their off-duty meal breaks. While employees allegedly forfeited their meal breaks, they were not provided additional compensation as company policy indicates they should.

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

DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Allegedly Violated Meal and Rest Break Law

In recent news, DWWH, Inc., dba Weir Canyon Honda, faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, started working for Weir Canyon Honda in July 2022. Ureno an hourly wage plus commission-based bonuses and non-discretionary bonuses. His employment status meant he was entitled to minimum wages, overtime pay, and compliance with meal and rest time break laws.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, owns and operates car dealerships in Orange County, California, and other locations throughout the state. Weir Canyon Honda faces a class action California lawsuit alleging they violated labor law. The defendant faces several labor law violation allegations:

(1) failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked

(2) failing to pay overtime wages when due

(3) failing to provide the legally required meal breaks and rest periods

(4) failing to provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement

(5) failing to pay wages on time; and

(6) failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a class action complaint alleging the company failed to provide workers with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods as required by law. The case is currently pending in the California's Orange County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California meal and rest break 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.

Did Apple Fail to Pay Overtime at the Correct Rate?

In a recent California overtime class action lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Apple's compensation practices violated labor law. Allegedly, Apple awards restricted stock units to their non-exempt employees. However, they allegedly do not incorporate the stock units into their regular pay rate for overtime pay calculations.

The Case: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

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

The Case No.: 5:23-cv-01353

What is a Class Action?

A class action is a legal proceeding. One or more plaintiffs may bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, which is referred to as the “class.” Any proceeds resulting from a class-action lawsuit first pay legal fees, and are then shared amongst the qualifying class members.

The Plaintiff: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francis Costa, filed a class action against Apple claiming that their policy of awarding stock units to non-exempt employees without including the value in their regular pay rate to calculate overtime pay rates violates labor law. Costa filed the California overtime class action in California federal court. According to the plaintiff, Apple "intentionally, willfully, and regularly" violated the FLSA. Costa hopes to represent a nationwide class of any current or former non-exempt workers employed by Apple within the past three years who were awarded restricted stock units that vested during the same period.

 The Defendant: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

The defendant in the case, Apple Inc., allegedly includes the restricted stock units awarded to the employee on the payroll record. Still, the payroll records do not reflect the value of the vested restricted stock units included in the overtime pay rate calculations.

 What Are Overtime Pay Rate Calculations?

 To calculate an employee's regular rate of pay, you would need to add up all compensation earned during the workweek (excluding overtime premiums), and divide it by the total number of hours worked during the same workweek. This includes all forms of compensation such as hourly pay, salaries, commissions, bonuses, and some types of non-discretionary payments.

 The Case: Costa et al. v. Apple Inc.

 The case, Costa et al. v. Apple Inc., argues that Apple violated labor law when they allegedly failed to include the value of vested restricted stock unit compensation  as part of the regular rate of pay when they calculated the employee's overtime pay rate. The plaintiff demanded a jury trial and requested an award of declaratory relief and an award of unpaid overtime wages and liquidation and statutory damages. A California federal judge approved a $30 million class action settlement in August. The settlement resolved claims Apple allegedly violated labor law by requiring workers to comply with off-the-clock bag checks before and after their work shifts.

 If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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

Dr. Pepper Faces the 3rd Overtime and Misclassification Lawsuit Since 2019

Keurig Dr. Pepper is facing another overtime and misclassification lawsuit, including allegations that the company failed to pay overtime wages by misclassifying their employees.

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-10425

The Plaintiff: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francisco Verdin, is a Keurig Dr. Pepper employee. Verdin was a Keurig Dr. Pepper warehouse supervisor for two years and then a forklift operator. Verdin claims he was paid a yearly salary despite frequently working over 40 hours in one week. Verdin said he sometimes worked as many as 60 hours in one week with no overtime compensation. Verdin filed an overtime class action lawsuit last month in Massachusetts federal court alleging the company misclassified their employees in both Pennsylvania and California as exempt from receiving overtime wages. According to the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and California labor law by allegedly not paying overtime wages to employees. In addition to the overtime wage allegations, plaintiffs allege wage statement violations, which often go hand in hand. Verdin also claims the company did not pay wages in a timely manner, which could result in waiting time penalties charged for record-keeping violations. The plaintiff alleges that the company violated unfair competition law by not providing accurate wages for hours worked by their employees.

The Defendant: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr, Pepper Inc.

The defendant in the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., faces four allegations:

•Failure to pay the wages due

•Failure to pay wages due in a timely fashion (resulting in "waiting time penalties")

•Misclassifying employees and violating record-keeping laws by incorrectly labeling employees as overtime exempt

•Violating unfair competition law by not paying employees accurate wages for the hours they worked

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The case, Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., is the third overtime lawsuit filed against Keurig Dr. Pepper since 2019.

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