Farmers Group Victorious Against Age Discrimination Claims

/

A California jury sided with Farmers Group stating that California employment laws do not apply because the insurance agents filing discrimination claims are independent contractors.

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are former California-based insurance agents claiming that they were discriminated against for their age. The plaintiffs allege that Farmers Group fired them based on their age so they could replace them with younger, “more productive” workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence showing Farmers Group saved 440% on commissions by replacing established agents.

The Defendant: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Farmers Group Inc., argued that the insurance agents were independent contractors, not employees and that labor law did not apply to independent contractors. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue that Farmers Group imposed performance standards, office requirements, etc., that effectively “controlled” as they would an employee, the defendant argued that the evidence showed they were independent contractors:

  • Farmers Group argued that the agents could not state what Farmers Group does

  • I couldn’t identify their “sales managers.”

  • Filed their own taxes

  • Declared themselves sole proprietors or independent contractors to the IRS

  • And dedicated their office equipment, supplies, etc., on their taxes as a sole proprietor/independent contractor would

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

In the case, James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Farmers Group Inc. was cleared of discrimination and wrongful termination allegations. The eight-week trial was followed by two days of deliberations. Still, the former California-based insurance agents claiming the company discriminated against them for their age so they could replace them with younger workers had their claims dismissed when jurors determined the four plaintiffs were, in fact, independent contractors, so Farmers did not violate California labor law.

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

California Class Action Alleges Marriot Owes Banquet Servers Tips

/

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Schulman tentatively found that Marriot owed banquet servers close to $9M.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-16-550454

The Plaintiff: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are two former banquet servers for the hotel and conference space, Marriott. During their busy season, the largest ballroom seats up to 5,000 people. The class action focuses on the time between January 2012 and April 2017 when Marriott added a mandatory service charge to customers’ food/beverage bills. From January 2012, the service charge was 23%. Marriott increased the charge to 24% from November 2015 through April 2017. During this five-year period, Marriott distributed 70-72% of the mandatory service charge to their banquet staff. They retained the remainder. Plaintiffs in the case allege this standard practice equates to the employer skimming between 30 and 28% of the total. The plaintiffs filed as a class action, and considering normal turnover, the class of servers is likely to total about 150 people.

The Defendant: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The defendant in the case, Marriott International Inc., revised the billing format to break the mandatory charge into a “staff charge” and a “house charge” in April 2017. The Ordono case only focuses on the period prior to this change, but those arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs find this change telling.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

In the case, John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc., the judge tentatively found that the plaintiffs were entitled to $8.97 million because a reasonable customer may assume the mandatory service charge is a gratuity that goes to their server. California Labor Code 351 states that tips or gratuities belong to the employee, and employers may not take them or deduct any portion of them from the worker’s pay.

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.

Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s Face Allegations of Labor Law Violations in California Class Action

/

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, two major department stores face allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violations, multiple California labor law violations and a violation of California’s unlawful business practices statute.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-00768

The Plaintiff: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

Six plaintiffs filed the complaint on February 21, 2023, Ha Nguyen, Alex Bhagatram, Alicia Taylor, Soraya Lodin, Teyani Cisneros, and Michael Webster. The plaintiffs worked at Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s California locations as sales associates or inventory control specialists. The group filed a proposed class action in California federal court attempting to represent over 1,100 current and former hourly employees in similar situations at Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s locations in California throughout the past four years. The plaintiffs allege that the stores regularly require off-the-clock work, fail to provide off-duty meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s (Bloomingdale’s is a subsidiary of Macy’s), regularly deducted 30 minutes for meal breaks (even though employees often worked through their meal breaks), did not reimburse workers for necessary use of their personal cell phones, personal computers or internet to complete job duties.

Labor Law Requires Employers to Pay Minimum Wage and Provides Breaks:

As of January 1, 2023, the minimum wage is $15.50 per hour for all California employers. Some cities/counties have higher minimum wages than the state’s rate. California Labor Low also requires employers to offer their nonexempt employees working more than five hours an off-duty 30-minute lunch break, plus 10-minute breaks every four hours, and a second 30-minute off-duty meal break if the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

According to the court documents in Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC et al., workers were not paid for all hours worked because they were not compensated for the meal breaks the company failed to provide. The company also allegedly calculated overtime pay rates incorrectly (using the employee’s lower hourly base rates instead of the higher rate, including their sales commission). The stores also allegedly failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the hourly employees, so the employees’ wage statements didn’t reflect the correct amount of gross/net wages.

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.

AT&T’s $575K California Class Action Settlement

/

After facing allegations of labor law violations, AT&T agreed to resolve the California class action with a $575K settlement.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

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

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-0172 JLT HBK

The Plaintiff: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The plaintiff in the case, Razo, filed suit claiming that AT&T violated labor law. California’s labor laws are some of the strictest in the U.S. California businesses must comply with labor law requirements or risk facing legal actions and potential consequences under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that allows California workers to seek penalties on behalf of the state’s labor regulator.

The Defendant: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The defendant in the case, AT&T Mobility, is a phone company providing cell service to California residents, as well as internet service and TV plans. According to a class action lawsuit against AT&T, the company wrongfully classified certain employees as non-exempt. As a result, these employees were allegedly denied benefits such as minimum wage and overtime wages. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim AT&T’s actions violated California labor laws. AT&T agreed to pay the $575,000 as part of a settlement to resolve the California class action claims alleging they failed to pay California workers minimum wage and overtime wages for all their hours worked in in violation of labor laws.

The Case: Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility

The case, Razo et al. v. AT&T Mobility, is settled. The settlement goes to eligible class members who worked for AT&T Mobility in the state of California as non-exempt employees from November 2nd, 2021 through September 21st, 2022. AT&T agreed to the $575,000 class action settlement, but the company did not admit any wrongdoing. However, the settlement does resolve the allegations. The $575,000 settlement includes a $7,500 payment to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency under PAGA.

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.

Mother of Boy in Juvenile Detention Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit

/

The mother of a boy in juvenile detention filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the 16-year-old died of a fentanyl overdose while in custody.

The Case: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

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

The Case No.: 23-cv-0321-H-AGS

The Plaintiff: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

The plaintiff in the case, Brenda Arguelles, is the mother of a 16-year-old boy who died of a fentanyl overdose while in custody at a juvenile detention center in San Diego, California. Brenda Arguelles' son was a minor at the time of his death, so he is not named. The boy was set for release on September 26, 2021. However, before he could be released, there was an incident. On September 5, he was checked into the on-site clinic's emergency room amid allegations of fentanyl use and vomiting. According to the complaint, he was returned to his cell at the detention center the next day, and his mother was not notified of the incident. On September 7, the boy was known to have entered the cell of another detainee, a fentanyl dealer at the detention center. The boy was discovered dead of a fentanyl overdose the next morning. Ms. Arguelles filed the wrongful death lawsuit seeking answers and hoping to hold the County accountable for failing closely supervise her son while in their custody.

The Defendant: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

The defendant in the case, the County of San Diego, faces allegations that they failed in their duties to closely supervise the minor while he was in their custody. The child's mother also alleges that the detention center failed to protect the juvenile from buying/selling drugs and that his health was not adequately monitored and treated.

The Case: Brenda Arguelles v. County of San Diego

In addition to seeking answers and hoping to hold the individuals who failed to fulfill their duty to supervise her son and keep him safe while in the custody of the detention center, Arguelles' complaint alleged:

1) A lack of appropriate safety checks at the juvenile detention center (which may have been enough to save the 16-year-old's life).

2) The failure to prevent the trade/sale of fentanyl inside the detention center.

3) Poor maintenance of the boy's prescription medication and overall health while in the detention center, and a lack of communication regarding both with his mother.

4) General lack of communication; (the mother claims she received no response to multiple calls to the facility regarding her son).

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please 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.

California Plaintiffs and Five Guys Fifth Agreement Nears Settlement

/

In recent news, California plaintiffs and Five Guys are near a settlement (based on their fifth agreement).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Fresno Division

The Case No.: 1:17-cv-00762-JLT-EPG

The Plaintiff: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jeremy R. Lusk, was an hourly, non-exempt manager in training at one of the Five Guys California locations from August to November 2016. He filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated labor law when they denied their workers' overtime pay and legally mandated breaks and rest periods. Preliminary approval was granted in September 2022 for a settlement based on the fifth agreement between the two parties.

The Defendant: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., is faced with a number of allegations.

  • Failed to provide paid meal breaks and rest breaks for workers because it was too busy.

  • Failed to pay workers legally mandated overtime pay.

  • Required workers to work off the clock (requiring workers to clock out and then continue to complete required work duties like counting money in the cash register, etc.)

  • Failing to reimburse employees for the use of personal cars in the course of completing their job duties (like traveling to and from other restaurant locations for pick-ups, supply runs, etc.)

  • Failed to pay workers for overtime work.

  • Failed to provide workers with accurate wage statements.

  • Obtained authorization to conduct background checks using a disclosure form that did not comply with the law (FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), CCRAA (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act), and ICRAA (Investigating Consumer Reporting Agency Act).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., reached a fifth proposed settlement of $1.2 million that would involve 2,206 class members. The two parties await final approval of the settlement.

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.

Texas Man Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Ex-Wife

/

In recent news, a Texas man filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his ex-wife and her two friends who assisted her in obtaining an abortion.

The Case: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The Court: Galveston County - 56th District Court

The Case No.: 23-CV-0375

The Plaintiff: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The plaintiff in the case, Marcus A. Silva, resided in Galveston County and was previously married to defendant Brittni Silva until their divorce in February of 2023. The Galveston County man sued three women under the wrongful death statute, alleging they helped his ex-wife terminate her pregnancy.

The Defendant: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The defendants in the case, Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia, include the plaintiff’s ex-wife and two women he alleges assisted her in arranging to have an abortion in the summer of 2022. According to Silva, his now ex-wife allegedly discovered she was pregnant in July 2022, a month after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. She allegedly conspired with two friends who helped her arrange to obtain abortion-inducing medication so she could terminate the pregnancy illegally.

The Case: Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia

The case, Marcus A. Silva v. Jackie Noyola; Amy Carpenter, formerly known as Amy Symmank; and Aracely Garcia, is the first case of its kind to be brought since the state’s near-total ban on abortion in the summer of 2022. Under Texas law, someone who assists a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion commits the crime of murder and can be sued for wrongful death (See Texas Penal Code § 1.07; id. at § 19.02; id. at § 19.06 (murder statute); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001 et seq. (wrongful-death statute). After learning of the defendant’s involvement, Marcus Silva brought suit against them for wrongful death and conspiracy.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please 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.