Did Tesla Retaliate Against Employees for Opposing Harassment?

In recent news, a federal lawsuit alleges black Tesla employees endured open hostility and racial discrimination.

The Case: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-04984

Background: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

In this widely publicized case, the complaint alleged that electric car maker Tesla, Inc. violated federal law when they tolerated the ongoing widespread racial harassment of their black employees. In addition, the lawsuit claims that Tesla retaliated against some workers for opposing the harassment. According to case documents, the harassment continued from at least 2015 through 2023, with the black employees at Tesla’s Fremont, California facilities enduring various racial slurs, pervasive stereotyping, racial abuse, and general hostility while fulfilling their jobs at the busy manufacturing plant. Incidents allegedly occurred casually in high-traffic areas and worker “hub” areas. Black employees also allegedly encountered graffiti (showing variations of the N-word, swastikas, nooses, threats, etc.) on their desks, office furniture, factory equipment, bathrooms, elevators, and new vehicles just rolling off the Tesla facility’s production line.

Workplace Retaliation Claims: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Tesla Inc., also faces allegations of retaliation. During the EEOC investigation, evidence suggested that employees who objected to the discriminatory behavior and racial harassment at the Tesla facility suffered various forms of workplace retaliation, from a change in job duties to termination or transfer. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial harassment. It also requires employers who receive harassment complaints to respond promptly by investigating the claim and taking appropriate action to stop the retaliatory acts or harassment.

The Case: EEOC v Tesla, Inc.

In EEOC v Tesla, Inc., the parties failed to reach a pre-litigation settlement. After the failed attempt to resolve the situation pre-litigation, the EEOC filed a discrimination lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages and back pay for any affected Tesla employees. The suit also seeks injunctive relief to reform Tesla’s employment practices and prevent future acts of discrimination.

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

Sysco San Francisco, Inc. Allegedly Failed to Reimburse Employees for Work Expenses

In recent news, employees filed a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging Sysco San Francisco, Inc. violated California labor law.

The Case: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23CV039442

The Plaintiff: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Williamson, filed a class action complaint alleging that Sysco San Francisco, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to offer employees itemized wage statements and reimbursement for work expenses. The plaintiffs also allege that the employer failed to pay sick wages. The allegations indicate violations of numerous California Labor Code Sections, including 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s).

The Defendant: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sysco San Francisco, Inc., allegedly failed to reimburse their workers even though the company allegedly required workers to use their cell phones for business purposes.

The Case: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

According to the complaint, Sysco San Francisco, Inc. allegedly did not reimburse employees for necessary work expenses like using their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. California Labor Code 2802 states that employers must “indemnify [an] employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties…” The case is currently pending in the Alameda 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.

Did Navy Federal Credit Union Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, the Navy Federal Credit Union faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00034395-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Maureen Coffey, filed a class action complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union. Coffey alleged the defendant failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of labor law in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802.

The Defendant: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

The defendant in the case, Navy Federal Credit Union, faces allegations that they failed to pay minimum wages, pay accurate overtime wages, provide employees with required meal and rest periods, provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse employees for required business expenses. The credit union’s standard policy left workers on-call and on-duty during their off-duty meal periods, so employees regularly forfeited their breaks without receiving the legally required additional compensation.

The Case: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Due to rigorous work schedules, Navy Federal Credit Union employees were allegedly unable to take their off-duty meal breaks. They were also, at times, not fully relieved of their job duties during their meal periods. The case, Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the complaint, employees were regularly interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks so they could complete tasks for the credit union. The plaintiffs also claim they were not provided off-duty meal breaks during shifts of more than five hours. Employees further claimed that when working shifts of ten hours, the credit union did not provide a second off-duty meal break.

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 Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center Violate Meal and Rest Break Law?

In recent news, a class action complaint alleges Twin Palms Healthcare Center violated wage and hour labor law by failing to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

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

The Case No.: 23STCV20411

The Plaintiff: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The plaintiff in the case, Mary Franklin, filed a class action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the complaint, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center's employees engaged in rigorous work schedules that prevented them from taking off-duty rest breaks. Plaintiffs also claim they were not fully relieved of duty during their rest periods. Plaintiffs in the case allege they were sometimes required to work through their work periods due to their overburdened work schedules. In addition to failing to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, allegations indicate that the employer did not provide employees who missed their breaks and meal periods with the one-hour wage required instead of a break.

The Defendant: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The defendant in the case, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center, faces several allegations in the class action complaint, including failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse employees for required business expenses. The alleged violations fall under numerous California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802 and 2804.

When Do California Employees Get Rest Breaks and Meal Periods?

In California, employees are entitled to rest breaks and meal periods under certain circumstances, depending on their work shifts and total hours worked.

Rest Breaks: Employees are entitled to a paid rest break of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked. Rest breaks are paid breaks; employees should receive their regular pay rate during this time.

Meal Periods: Employees are entitled to an unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes when they work more than five hours in a workday. Employees who work more than ten hours in a workday are entitled to a second unpaid meal period of at least 30 minutes. Meal periods are unpaid, and employees are fully relieved of their duties.

The Case: Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center

The case, Mary Franklin v. Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. At the center of the case is the allegation that due to their allegedly rigorous work schedules and inadequate staffing, Windsor Twin Palms Healthcare Center's employees were sometimes allegedly denied their rest periods by their employer without receiving additional payment in place of a break as employment law requires.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Employees Allege Matrix Providers Failed to Pay for Time Worked

In recent news, employees allege that Matrix Providers failed to pay workers for all the time worked.

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00036339-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia, filed a class action complaint alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Matrix Providers, Inc., allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alleged violations include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses

• failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• failed to pay wages when they were due

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California labor law, employers must pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period. Labor law also requires that employers pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all the hours worked in each payroll period (no matter how their payment is calculated (time, piece rate, commission, etc.)).

How Does California Labor Law Define “Hours Worked?”

California defines "hours worked" as when an employee is subject to the control of an employer and is required to be on the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace. This definition includes all time an employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not the work is done voluntarily. In essence, hours worked in California encompass not only the time spent actively performing job duties but also time when an employee is under the employer's control or direction, even if they are not actively engaged in work. Matrix Providers allegedly required workers to complete tasks before clocking in and after their scheduled shifts were completed, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The class action claims Matrix Providers failed to compensate workers for time spent “working” under the employer's control while they were technically off-the-clock. In doing so, Matrix Providers allegedly failed to pay its workers minimum wage for all hours worked.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Balance Staffing and Draxlmaier Face Allegations of Meal Break Violations

In recent news, Balance Staffing and Draxlmaier face meal break and rest break violation allegations.

The Case: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al.

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

The Case No.: 23CV042695

The Plaintiff: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Ricardo Barahona Mayorg, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, Balance Staffing Workforce LLC, and several connected entities (collectively referred to as Balance Staffing here). The class action complaint also makes allegations on behalf of Balance Staffing employees who worked for Draxlmaier. Plaintiffs claim that the company failed to accurately pay employees' wages for all their time worked in violation of California labor codes.

The Defendant: Ricardo Barahona Mayorga v. Balance Staffing Workforce, et al. 

The defendant in the case, Balance Staffing (and Draxlmaier), allegedly violated California Labor Law when they engaged in the following illegal business practices:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide the required meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to pay wages when due

• failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

Are California Employers Required to Provide Wage Statements to Employees?

Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements to employees is one of the most common employment law violations. California Labor Code Section 226 is the specific law that requires California employers to provide employees with wage statements (a.k.a. itemized wage statements). Under Section 226, wage statements must include certain information:

• total hours worked (unless the employee is on salary)

• gross wages earned during the pay period

• number of piece-rate units earned/applicable piece rate (if an employee is paid on a piece-rate basis)

• any deductions from wages (taxes, insurance premiums, retirement, etc.)

• net wages earned

• pay period dates

• employee’s name and employee identification number or last four digits of social security number

• employer’s name and address (including main office or principal place of business)

 The requirement to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements is designed to create transparency and compliance with labor laws.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour 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.

Dangerous Snow Sled Allegedly Results in Injuries and Death

In recent news, the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy filed a wrongful death lawsuit after the decedent sustained injuries and later died due to the use of a defective snow sled.

The Case: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The Court: California Central District Court.

The Case No.: 2:23-cv-02588

The Plaintiff: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy, filed claims that Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, the decedent, suffered injuries and died after using a defective snow sled manufactured and sold online by Weanas, Inc. The plaintiff purchased the allegedly defective sled for $29.76. The dangerous snow tube was labeled as Weanas 47-inch Snow Sled.

The Defendant: Kolodny-Nagy et al v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Weanas, Inc., is the manufacturer and seller of the Weanas 47-inch snow sled purchased by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant concealed or suppressed material facts. As the designer, manufacturer, and distributor of the snow tube, Weanas allegedly failed to complete adequate testing before placing their product on the market. The snow sled also allegedly failed to include proper warnings and instructions.

The Case: Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al.

In the case Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Weanas, Inc. et al., the plaintiff’s counsel argues that the defendant failed to test their product properly, failed to provide adequate warnings of danger or instructions for proper use, and as a result of the dangerous defective design, injury, and death occurred. The plaintiffs’ counsel also argued that the defendants sold the dangerous snow tube to the plaintiffs after other consumers who purchased the product complained about safety issues. According to court documents, other Weanas customers reported that the Weanas 47-inch Snow Sled was dangerous and caused injuries before the product was delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also indicated that the company did not attempt to contact them to warn them of the potential dangers or problems other consumers were reporting about the product. Instead, the company promoted the product as safe for multiple people up to 500 pounds. The plaintiffs’ counsel claims the defendant acted knowingly and maliciously and that their actions resulted in severe physical, mental, and emotional injuries after the out-of-control snow tube crashed into a rock on a hill the plaintiffs were sledding, which ultimately resulted in the death of Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy. The plaintiffs claim the defendant’s actions caused them to suffer property damage, wrongful death and survivor damages, and significant physical, mental, and emotional injuries due to the loss of their wife/mother, Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy, and other injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs.

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.