California Class Action Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

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, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

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

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

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

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

• Meal and Rest Period Violations

• Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

• Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

• Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

• Unreimbursed Business Expenses

• Wage Statement Violations

• Failure to Pay Wages on Time

• Unlawful Deductions

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

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

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.

Class Action Accuses VNA Hospice of Overtime Pay Violations

In the Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice class action, VNA Hospice is accused of violating overtime pay requirements governed by labor law.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice and Palliative Care of Southern California

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California

The Case No.: CIVDS1909598

The Plaintiff: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Carter, filed a class action lawsuit against VNA Hospice, claiming the company failed to compensate hourly employees with accurate overtime wages. According to Carter, the company allegedly failed to pay their non-exempt workers non-discretionary incentive wages calculated based on their performance on the job. The plaintiff argues that the bonuses should have been included in the employee’s regular pay rate for overtime wage calculation. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The defendant in the case, VNA Hospice, allegedly committed various California Labor Code violations by failing to pay its employees the proper overtime wages.

The Case: Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice

The case, Mark Carter v. VNA Hospice, includes claims that the company’s overtime calculations were not based on an accurate regular pay rate – leading to the plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of VNA Hospice being underpaid in overtime wages. The class action complaint seeks penalties for missed rest periods and meal breaks based on the company’s lack of standard policy and practices providing employees with legally mandated breaks, minimum wage, and accurate overtime pay.

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.

Bloom Energy Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations: Employees Claim They Don’t Receive Breaks

Bloom Energy, the defendant in a recently filed California labor law class action, is facing allegations that employees were not paid a full wage for all their work hours due to the employer's failure to comply with meal and rest break laws.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV419599

The Plaintiff: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The plaintiff in the case, Alexander Gilmore, was an employee at a Bloom Energy facility in Santa Clara from October 2022 through December 2022. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Gilmore was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wages, and accurate overtime wages. In his complaint filed on July 25, 2023, Gilmore alleged the company violated his and other similarly situated workers' rights under state and federal employment law.

The Class Members: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The California class for the case is defined as anyone currently employed or formerly employed by Bloom Energy in California as a non-exempt employee during the period beginning four years before the filing of Gilmore's complaint and ending on the date to be determined by the court.

The Defendant: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The defendant in the case, Bloom Energy Corporation, is a Deleware company conducting significant business in California. The company provides renewable energy and electric power solutions. According to the plaintiff, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice failed to compensate employees lawfully. According to the class action, Bloom Energy allegedly failed to provide eligible employees with legally compliant meal breaks and rest periods and to compensate the employees for the missed meal breaks and rest periods as required by law. As a result of this uniform policy and practice, the workers were allegedly not compensated for all hours worked, which led to additional alleged minimum wage, overtime pay violations, and accurate itemized wage statement violations due to the off-the-clock work.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

In Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, including current and former employees. The class action seeks compensation for class members' losses due to alleged labor law violations during the class period. The plaintiff in the case describes instances when they were required to work while clocked out for off-duty meal breaks as a regular occurrence and also claims that there were days when they did not even receive a partial lunch break during the midst of their full-time schedule. As a result, Gilmore and other class members forfeited minimum wage and overtime pay by regularly putting in hours that were not accurately recorded or compensated at the required minimum wage and overtime pay rates. According to the complaint, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice resulting in the alleged violations is notable in the defendant's business records. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.

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

Overtime Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Bluecrew Violated Labor Law

In a California class action lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the company failed to provide employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in inaccurate wages and overtime wages.  

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The Court: San Francisco Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-602240

The Plaintiff: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Dela Cruz, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that as a result of rigorous work schedules, he and other employees who qualify as California class members were sometimes unable to take their thirty-minute meal breaks and that at other times they were not fully relieved of work duties during the meal breaks they did take. According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that their employer sometimes failed to provide workers with their second meal break when they worked over 10 hours in one shift. 

When Do California Workers Get a Second Meal Break in One Work Shift? 

In California, workers are generally entitled to a second meal break if they work a certain number of hours in a single work shift. The specific rules for meal breaks in California are as follows: one meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work over 5 hours in one workday, and a second meal break (at least 30 minutes) for employees who work more than 10 hours in one workday with the second meal break provided no later than the end of the worker’s tenth hour or work. There are certain exceptions for specific industries, and employees can waive their second meal break if their total hours in the day do not exceed 12 hours (as long as they did not already waive their first meal break). When an employer does not provide an employee with the required meal break, the employee is typically required to pay the employee an additional hour at the regular pay rate for each day a meal break was not provided. 

The Defendant: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

The defendant in the case, Bluecrew, LLC, faced allegations of California labor law violations when an employee filed a class action complaint alleging that Bluecrew (and Bluecrew Staffing) allegedly:

1. Failed to pay minimum wage.

2. Failed to pay overtime wages.

3. Failed to provide legally mandated rest periods and meal breaks.

4. Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

5. Failed to reimburse their employees for necessary work expenses.

6. Failed to pay sick pay wages.

7. Failed to pay wages when due. 

The Case: Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC

Did Bluecrew violate California labor law? In the case Michael Dela Cruz v. Bluecrew, LLC, California’s San Fransisco Superior Court had to consider the plaintiffs’ argument that the company’s standard practices violated California labor laws.

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.

Did SAS Retail Services Fail to Reimburse California Employees for Work Expenses?

According to court documents, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly violated California labor law when they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses to complete their duties.

The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2022-01286330-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose, filed a class action lawsuit against SAS Retail Services, LLC, alleging the company violated the California Labor Code. According to the plaintiffs in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for the required business expenses necessary to complete their required job duties. The plaintiffs claim that while employed at SAS, they and other class members in similar situations with the company were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties.

The Defendant: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, SAS Retail Services, LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses. The plaintiffs also allege the company failed to pay the minimum wage and overtime wages required under California labor law.

Alleged California Labor Code Violations: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

California Labor Code §2802 states that California employers "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..." Plaintiffs argue that SAS Retail Services, LLC's policy violated Section 2802.

The Case: Epiphany Seaman and Courtney Rose v. SAS Retail Services, LLC

Overtime wage rates were allegedly calculated based on the employee's regular pay rate but failed to consider the non-discretionary bonus plaintiffs and other class members received as part of their pay. The incentive program that generated the non-discretionary bonuses was allegedly described to new and potential hires as part of an employee's compensation package. Due to the company's standard practice, the California employer allegedly violated minimum wage and overtime laws.

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.

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.