Kelly Services Global Faced Allegations of California Labor Law Violations in PAGA-Only Lawsuit

In a PAGA-Only action filed in Orange County Superior Court, Kelly Services Global faced allegations of multiple California labor law violations. 

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01304927-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Yuri Fischer, filed a lawsuit against Kelly Services Global, LLC, alleging they violated multiple California labor laws and seeking penalties for the alleged violations. According to the plaintiff, Kelly Services Global, LLC allegedly failed to provide off-duty thirty-minute meal breaks (as required by employment law when an employee works a certain number of hours). Employees were allegedly not fully relieved from their job duties during their breaks. The plaintiff also claimed that employees were sometimes required to work more than four hours in one shift with their ten-minute rest period (also required by employment law).

What Is An “Off Duty Rest Period?”

According to the California Supreme Court, an off-duty rest period is when a worker is relieved from all their job duties and work-related duties and during which they are outside their employer’s control.

The Defendant: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The defendant in the case is Kelly Services Global, LLC. According to court documents, the defendant allegedly failed to provide their workers with all the legally required meal breaks and rest periods required by law. Additionally, the employer allegedly failed to compensate for the missed meal breaks and rest periods. The allegations constitute violations of multiple California Labor Codes: §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The case, Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, was originally filed in Orange County Superior Court. California’s PAGA action is a mechanism that allows employees to sue as the proxy or agent of California’s state labor law enforcement agencies to enforce labor law. When a PAGA-only action is filed, it acts as a law enforcement action on a fundamental level to protect the public. The PAGA-only action was not designed to benefit private parties. Rather than seeking to recover damages or restitution, its purpose is to create an opportunity to deputize regular citizens as private attorneys general to enforce California labor law.

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.

Did Ashley Home Store Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, Ashley Home Store employees questioned whether or not the popular furniture store violated California labor laws.

The Case: Ricardo Brito v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (which does business as Ashley Home Store)

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

The Case No.: 23STCV14586

The Plaintiff: Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store

The plaintiff in the case, Ricardo Brito, filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to compensate employees for all the hours they worked. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of Ashely Home Store employees and former employees who worked at a California Ashley Home Store location and were paid on commission (either in whole or in part) or on a piece rate basis between June 22, 2019, through the present. According to the plaintiffs, some workers should have also received hourly compensation for the time they spent completing non-production-related duties. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that Ashely Home Store did not compensate employees for missed meal breaks.

The Defendant: Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store

According to their website, the defendant in the case, Ashley Home Store, employs more than 35,000 team members across the globe. The popular furniture store has locations around the globe, including California.

The Case: Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store

The Ricardo Brito v. Ashley Home Store case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Ashley Home Store engaged in unfair compensation violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802. The specific violations listed in the complaint include failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods or appropriate compensation for missed meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to provide wages when due, and failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

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.

Sea West Services Faces Allegations of Wage and Hour Violations

A lawsuit filed recently claims Sea West Services violated California’s Labor Code when they allegedly failed to provide their workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

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

The Case No.: 23CV038585

The Plaintiff: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Jose Ruelas, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, Sea West Services, faces allegations that they violated numerous employment laws, including California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the company violated employment law by

(1) failing to pay minimum wages;

(2) failing to pay overtime wages;

(3) failing to provide required meal and rest periods;

(4) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

(5) failing to pay wages when due;

(6) failing to reimburse employees for required expenses; and

(7) failing to pay sick pay.

The Case: Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC

In the case Jose Ruelas v. Sea West Services, LLC, the court will consider the application of state and federal labor codes. In California, employers must pay their employees on the established payday for each pay period, no less than minimum wage, for all hours worked during the pay period. According to the plaintiff, Sea West Services, LLC failed to compensate workers for work they needed to complete before and after their scheduled shifts and off-duty breaks. The off-the-clock work went uncompensated.

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.

Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego Faces Wage and Hour Violation Allegations

San Diego's Rady Children's Hospital faces wage and hour violation allegations.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00027035-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

Jones, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

The defendant in the case, Rady Children's Hospital, faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• Failure to pay minimum wages

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failure to pay sick wages

• Failure to pay wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego restricted their employees' activities, preventing unconstrained walks. Employees could not leave work premises during their rest periods. Since the applicable California Wage Order requires employers to provide employees with off-duty rest periods, and California's Supreme Court defined "off duty" as time when an employee is relieved from all work-related duties and free from employer control, this alleged behavior constitutes a labor law violation. The case, Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children's Hospital, is currently pending in the San Diego 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.

Verizon Faces Another Overtime Lawsuit

There is no shortage of overtime lawsuits when it comes to Verizon.

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-01257

The Plaintiff: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Santillan, and more than 500 employees, claimed they were denied overtime, meal and rest breaks, and expense reimbursements. The plaintiffs claim that the company’s standard practices violated California labor law and federal labor laws.

The Defendant: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case is Verizon Connect Inc. et al. Verizon Communications Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications giant. Antonio Hiram Santillan originally filed the complaint in May 2021, alleging that Verizon Connect (a Verizon subsidiary) failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rate calculations and failed to either provide or compensate workers for mandatory meal breaks. Santillan worked as a salaried, non-exempt Verizon employee from January 2020 to December 2020. Santillan’s San Diego putative class action alleged that Verizon:

• failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate

• failure to provide all meal periods

• failure to pay all wages

• failure to reimburse business expenses

• failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements

• unfair business practices

The Case: Santillan v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al.

The parties attended mediation on January 30, 2023, and reached a settlement agreement between Verizon and hundreds of current and former employees. In June 2023, U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff granted preliminary approval of the $1.6 million settlement to resolve the California labor wage and hour class action lawsuit. The judge ruled that the settlement represented an acceptable resolution for the case. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the class would receive about half their expected damages with expectations that class members would see $1,800 payouts.

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

Female Disney Employees File Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

A group of female Disney workers filed a lawsuit accusing Disney of sexual discrimination and demanding that Disney provides employees equal pay for equal work regardless of gender.

The Case: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The Court: Superior Court for County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 19STCV10974

The Plaintiff: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiff in the case, Laronda Rasmussen, and a group of current and former female Disney employees claimed they were paid more than $150 million less than men in similar middle management positions. The women claimed the alleged pay difference violated the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California’s Equal Pay Act. According to the plaintiffs, Disney regularly underpays their female employees, skips over them for promotions, gives them extra work with no additional compensation, and fails to provide them with sufficient support staff to enable them to succeed.

The Defendant: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The defendant in the case, The Walt Disney Company, underwent statistical studies that seem to support the gender pay inequality claims. David Neumark, a professor at California Irvine, labor economist, and gender pay gap expert, analyzed Disney’s human resource data from April 2015 through December 2022 and determined female Disney employees were paid about 2% less than male employees. From 2015 to 2017, the study discovered an even greater gender difference in starting pay (4.36%). When Disney stopped using their prior salary policy that affected starting pay for new hires, the starting pay disparities dropped to 1.3%.

The Case: Laronda Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company

The plaintiffs filed their discrimination lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, demanding equal pay for equal work. The plaintiffs hope the judge will certify their four-year-old civil suit as a class action. Approximately 12,500 current and former female Disney employees in California could be affected from 2015 to the present. LaRonda Rasmussen, a manager of product development for Disney, originally filed the suit. Rasmussen claimed that six male employees were paid between $16,000 and $40,000 more than her for similar job duties.

If you have questions about how to file a California 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.

Elon Musk’s X Faces Discrimination and Breach of Contract Allegations

In recent news, X (previously known as Twitter) faces discrimination and breach of contract allegations.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The Court: U.S. District Court, State of Deleware

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-00780-UNA

The Plaintiff: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The plaintiff in the case, Chris Woodfield, filed a workplace discrimination and breach of contract lawsuit on July 18th in Delaware. In addition to breach of contract and discrimination allegations, Woodfield alleged the company engaged in fraud. According to Woodfield, X targeted women, older employees, and employees of color in the mass layoffs. Woodfield also claims that the company stalled attempts to address the dispute through arbitration, specifically claiming that the company failed to pay the required fees to initiate arbitration of the issues. Like the California ERISA violation lawsuit the company faces, the Woodfield v. Twitter/X lawsuit claims the company owes former employees more than $500 million.

The Defendant: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The defendant in the case, Twitter/X, engaged in multiple layoffs after new ownership/management took over the social media giant. Nearly 4,000 workers were laid off (layoffs occurred in November 2022, twice in December 2022, and again in February 2023). According to court documents, HR officials at the company repeatedly told Musk and employees that any laid-off employees would be eligible for severance pay as determined in their 2022 agreement when X merged with Twitter.

The Case: Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X

The case, Chris Woodfield v. Twitter/X, makes it clear how important it is for employers to be transparent about their severance benefits. Employers must communicate the reasons behind any layoffs clearly to all affected employees and explain the severance packages they receive in detail. Employers and employees benefit from a consistent severance pay policy that clearly outlines the criteria for determining any potential severance pay package based on pre-determined factors like time at the company, job title/level, performance history, etc. The clearly outlined policy must then be followed with a consistent application of the policy to all employees to avoid discrimination.

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