Former Target Employee Claims Wrongful Termination

A former Target employee claims the massive box store wrongfully terminated her.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

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

The Case No.: 34-2022-00316991

The Plaintiff: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

Torres, the plaintiff and former Target employee in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging Target violated labor law. Torres claims that she was fired due to a disability and that Target failed to provide hourly, non-exempt workers with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

The defendant in the case, Target Corporation, 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 wages when due

The allegations constitute violations of various applicable Labor Codes, including California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged violations would give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation

According to the complaint and the plaintiff's allegations, Target wrongfully terminated Torres, an employee allegedly subject to protected activity. Torres claims that Target subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability. The company fired Torres after informing them of her disability, which led her to claim a causal link between the protected activity and Target's decision to terminate her employment.

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 Sunsweet Retaliate When Employee Notified HR of Discrimination?

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the court considered a case of alleged workplace retaliation when a Sunsweet worker spoke up about alleged discrimination and harassment at work.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

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

The Case No.: CVCS23-0000742

The Plaintiff: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, was a non-exempt hourly employee for Sunsweet Growers. Renteria-Hinojosa alleged that she submitted multiple complaints to HR and filed an EEOC charge due to sexual harassment and discrimination at work. According to the lawsuit, Renteria-Hinojosa was enduring harassment and discrimination daily when she reported for work. She claimed the company discriminated against her for being a “female dating other females” and that her complaints regarding the situation received no effective response. Eventually, Renteria-Hinojosa took a stressful leave from work (in April 2022) to escape the untenable situation. Renteria-Hinojosa also claimed Sunsweet’s non-exempt employees were not provided off-duty meal breaks because their work schedules were too rigorous. She filed a class action lawsuit citing California labor code violations.

The Defendant: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sunsweet Growers Inc., is a California employer. All California employers are required to comply with federal and state labor laws. According to California labor law, employers must provide their employees with a thirty-minute off-duty, uninterrupted meal break before the end of every 5th hour of work and a second meal break before an employee completes their 10th hour of work in one shift. According to the complaint, Sunsweet did not provide additional compensation to employees who missed their breaks.

The Case: Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

In Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., the plaintiff claims harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations based on missed meal breaks and rest periods. The failure to provide employees with the missed meal breaks and rest periods or additional compensation for missing them led to inaccurate wage calculations and inaccurate overtime wage distribution, constituting additional alleged labor law violations.

If you have questions about how to file a California workplace retaliation 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 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.