Allegations Claim 7-Eleven Failed to Provide Workers with Required Breaks

In recent news, 7-Eleven faces allegations that they failed to provide workers with legally mandated rest breaks and meal periods.

The Case: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00045550-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

The plaintiff in the case, Crystal Jourden, filed a class action against 7-Eleven, alleging the failure to provide employees with meal and rest breaks in compliance with labor law. According to the plaintiff, the workers’ rigorous work schedules and 7-Eleven’s staffing practices and uniform policies and procedures left employees unable to take their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When they took a meal break, employees were allegedly not relieved of their job duties. According to the plaintiff, workers might be interrupted during their off-duty meal break to complete tasks for the company. The plaintiff claims that the forfeiture of meal breaks and rest periods did not result in additional compensation from 7-Eleven. Jourden was employed at a San Diego 7-Eleven location from April 2020 through May 2023 as an hourly, non-exempt employee.

The Defendant: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

The defendant in the case, 7-Eleven, is a Texas corporation that operates several convenience stores throughout California, including one in San Diego County, where Jourden worked. According to the wage and hour lawsuit, 7-Eleven allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802 when they failed to:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• provide wages when due

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

• reimburse for required business expenses

The Case: Crystal Jourden v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (7-Eleven)

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against 7-Eleven for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest breaks for workers. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that 7-Eleven violated the California Labor Code when meal break and rest period violations resulted in a failure to provide payment for all the hours their employees worked. The case is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

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.

Workers Claim Uglyfighters dba Harley Davidson Didn’t Provide Meal and Rest Breaks

In recent news, Harley Davidson faces allegations that they violated labor law by failing to provide workers with legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

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

The Case No.: 23CHCV02986

The Plaintiff: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Rivas, alleges that Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson) engaged in a practice and pattern of wage and hour violations to decrease the company's employment-related costs. Rivas was employed at one of the defendant's California locations from March 2022 through March 2023. He was partly paid an hourly wage and party non-discretionary bonuses and commissions. Due to his employment status, Rivas was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages for all the hours he worked.

The Defendant: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

The defendant in the case, Uglyfighters Motorcycles dba Harley Davidson, owns and operates motorcycle dealerships throughout California. The company allegedly failed to provide accurate employee wages for all the time worked. According to the plaintiff's claims, the company's systematic violations of California wage and hour laws included:

• Failing to provide employees with compliant meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to offer breaks and rest periods free of job duties

• Failing to pay all wages due (minimum wage, sick pay, regular pay, and overtime pay)

• Failing to pay employees within seven days of the payroll close date

• Failing to pay employees for all the hours they worked

• Failing to maintain accurate records

• Failing to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to provide wages in a timely manner

• Failing to timely pay wages upon termination of employment

The Case: Daniel Rivas v. Uglyfighters Motorcycles, LLC (dba Harley Davidson)

The lawsuit alleges that Uglyfighters Motorcycles dba Harley Davidson violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay their employees for all their hours. As a result of the workers' rigorous work schedules and the company's inadequate staffing practices, plaintiffs claim they were regularly unable to take their thirty-minute off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, when workers did take a meal break, they were often not relieved of work duties during the break. (Of note: the nature of the work performed does not qualify for the limited and narrowly construed "on duty" meal period exception). For example, workers were often required to stay on-site during their meal break, or if they left the job site, they were required to be accessible by phone/text to manage work-related communications. Workers were also regularly not provided with rest periods as required by labor law, and employees were not reimbursed for allegedly necessary business expenses for cell phones, home computers, and internet. The plaintiffs' claims were all necessary to complete their required job duties. Additionally, employees should have been provided with itemized, accurate wage statements. For example, the company often included Vacation Pay, Sick Pay, and Personal Day Pay in the computation of total hours worked, which violates California Labor Law.

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.

Staffing Solution Company Faces Overtime Violations Class Action Allegations

In recent news, Libra Staffing and Samuel Hale face class action allegations. Plaintiffs allege the company engaged in wage and hour violations and overtime violations.

The Case: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV25896

The Plaintiff: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Aurora Gonzalez, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, citing overtime pay violations. Gonzalez was employed by the defendants in April 2022 and worked for them through May 2022. Gonzalez was paid on an hourly basis as a non-exempt employee and, as such, was entitled to all legally required meal breaks and rest periods as well as the payment of minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime wages as outlined by labor law for all hours worked over 8 in one day or 40 in one workweek.

The Defendant: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

The defendant in the case, Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company that conducts a substantial amount of business in Los Angeles County, where the plaintiff works. Samuel Hale operates a professional employer organization that provides various business services, including administrative tasks, payroll services, benefits administration, etc. Libra Staffing and Samuel Hale are listed as joint employers of Aurora Gonzalez in Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC. Gonzalez’s class action complaint alleges that Libra Staffing and Samuel Hale utilized uniform policies and practices that failed to compensate employees for all their hours worked fully.

The Allegations: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

According to the class action allegations, the defendant failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to compensate employees for missed meal and rest periods accurately, failed to provide payment for all hours worked, failed to compensate employees for off-the-clock work, failed to pay workers for overtime hours at the correct regular rate of pay, failed to pay workers meal rest premiums at the regular rate, failed to reimburse workers for business expenses, and failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements to their employees (showing hourly wage rates applicable during the designated period, and all hours worked). Plaintiffs in the case argue that the defendant's uniform practices and policies were purposefully designed to avoid full payment for workers for all hours worked, which was economically damaging to workers while allowing the company to create an unfair advantage over competitors in compliance with labor laws.

The Case: Aurora Gonzalez v. Libra Staffing Inc. and Samuel Hale, LLC

Gonzalez filed the wage and hour and overtime pay class action seeking relief for herself and members of the class who were economically injured due to the defendant’s uniform practices and policies about payroll record-keeping practices, wage payment, and overtime pay calculation policies. The case is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech Face Wage and Hour Allegations

In recent news, Henley Pacific, Devon Industries, and JDL Tech face wage and hour allegations. Did they fail to provide their workers with payment for the hours they worked?

The Case: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00047610-CU-OE-CTL,

The Plaintiff: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

Devin Moore, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint against Henley Pacific LA LLC, Henley Pacific LLC, Henley Pacific RE LLC, Henley Pacific SD LLC, Henley Pacific South LLC, Devon Industries, Inc., and JDL Tech USA LLC. Moore alleged the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

The defendant in the case, Henley Pacific, Devon Industries, and JDL Tech, faces allegations of violating California labor law. Under California law, employers must pay employees no less than minimum wage on their established payday for the period designated, and they must pay them for all hours they worked during the payroll period. According to the court documents, the defendant allegedly required workers to work before clocking in for their shift and after clocking out from their shift. They also allegedly required workers to perform job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiffs claim the company did not compensate for the time employees worked while off the clock or during their breaks. By failing to track all the employees’ work hours, the company failed to provide minimum wage for all hours worked, pay employees accurately for overtime, etc.

The Case: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to:

1. pay minimum wages

2. pay overtime wages

3. provide required meal breaks and rest periods

4. pay wages when due

5. provide accurate itemized wage statements

6. reimburse employees for required expenses

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Publix Facss Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime

In recent news, Publix faces allegations of overtime violations, with more current and former employees coming forward with similar complaints after the suit was initially filed.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The Court: U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida

The Case No.: 8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-C

The Plaintiff: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, Hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case are Christopher Roberts, Caitlin Throckmorton, Brandy Moore, Carter Hubbs, and Jessica Schafer. At the last check, approx. 20 past and current Publix managers (at varying management levels) were listed as plaintiffs in the potential overtime class action. The potential class action lawsuit was originally filed in October and included allegations that Publix did not pay their hourly employees for hundreds of overtime hours. According to the lawsuit, workers routinely worked before and after their shifts and on unpaid meal breaks. The class action applies to Publix store workers in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.

The Defendant: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The defendant in the case, Publix Supermarkets, Inc., operates over 1,300 stores in seven states, employing over 250,000 employees. Publix is headquartered in Lakeland. According to the allegations, Publix managers and assistant managers were paid hourly rates. Still, they worked before and after clocking out to complete mandatory job duties. Some of these mandatory job duties managers were allegedly expected to perform off the clock included:

• walking departments with supervisors

• organizing

• cleaning

• restocking

• assisting customers

According to the class action allegations, managers were also routinely interrupted while they were on unpaid breaks so they could handle work matters. They were also allegedly expected to handle work matters when they were not at work - they were simply contacted by call or text. They were not provided any compensation when they were expected to complete these tasks off the clock and while completely off duty.

The Case: Roberts, Throckmorten, Moore, hubbs, and Schafer v. Publix

The plaintiffs in the case estimate that they worked an average of at least five unpaid overtime hours weekly without being provided with any means of recording their hours or receiving payment for the job duties they completed while outside the store or off the clock.

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

Student Files Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit After a Pep Rally Stunt Escalates

In recent news, a a former student claims he suffered traumatic brain injuries after a pep rally gone wrong.

The Case: Carter v. Kern County School District

The Court: Superior Court of Kern County, Bakersfield

The Case No.: S1500CV275395

The Plaintiff: Carter v. Kern County School District

The plaintiff in the case, Bret Mitchell Carter, was student body president and a senior at Bakersfield High School who agreed to wear a chicken suit for a school pep rally before a championship game against Clovis West High School in the Valley Conference. The Clovis mascot was a gold eagle, and Carter dressed up in a chicken suit to mock the other school’s mascot at Bakersfield High School during the pre-game events. Before Carter approached the midcourt circle for a routine with the Bakersfield mascot as planned, he was attacked by several junior varsity football players who rushed from the crowd to “wrestle” with the giant chicken. The initial play fighting was quickly followed by additional students joining in from the crowd who started kicking and stomping Carter in the chicken suit. Other students eventually pulled the students attacking Carter off of him, and the attack allegedly lasted about 12 seconds. Following the incident, eleven students were suspended based on their involvement in the incident during which Carter sustained head injuries. Carter sued Kern High School District, the operator of Bakersfield High School.

The Defendant: Carter v. Kern County School District

The defendant in the case is Kern High School District, the operator of Bakersfield High School, where the plaintiff was a student at the time of the incident. According to court documents, the varsity players were told about the routine, but the junior varsity players were not. Carter argued that the school officials encouraged the stunt but failed to break up the attack quickly. The school claimed that security personnel on site delayed intervening in the incident because they were confused regarding the routine and what it entailed.

The Case: Carter v. Kern County School District

Due to the incident, Carter sustained multiple abrasions, and his face was severely swollen. He was taken to an urgent care facility after the incident for stitches and to check for a potential concussion. Three days after the incident, Carter was still struggling to recover. He was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury impacting his frontal lobes, containing most of the dopamine-sensitive neurons in the cerebral cortex. The dopamine system is associated with reward, attention, short-term memory tasks, planning, and motivation. As such, Carter claimed the injuries he sustained in the attack left him suffering migraine headaches, psychological issues, and a hormone deficiency that damaged his pituitary gland. According to the plaintiff’s legal counsel, Carter was a successful student before the incident, but he changed after the attack. The plaintiff’s counsel pointed out Carter’s near-failing college grades, his need for growth hormone therapy for the remainder of his life, his need for special education classes, and ongoing counseling. The plaintiff’s counsel requested $45 million in damages. The defense counsel argued that Carter didn’t file suit against the district until three years after the incident and that he wasn’t diagnosed with a brain injury until after he filed. They also argued that Carter was treated by doctors multiple times in the three years between the incident and the filing, but he didn’t display symptoms consistent with a head injury. On June 29, 2016, the jury returned a verdict, finding the school district 100 percent at fault for the incident while also rejecting any fault on the part of Carter or the other students. The school district agreed to tender its full $10.5 million insurance policy limits to settle the case.

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

Defective Swing Set on Playground Leads to Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit

In the case of Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association, the plaintiff was allegedly injured by a defective swing set on a playground.

The Case: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The Court: U.S. District Court of Nevada

The Case No.: 2:19-CV-1152 JCM (VCF)

The Plaintiff: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The plaintiff in the case, Carl Thompson, was allegedly injured by a defective swing set on a neighborhood playground. In March 2014, Thompson sued the swing set manufacturer, the installer, and Lamplight Homeowner’s Association.

The Defendant: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The defendant in the case, Lamplight Village @Centennial Springs Homeowners Association (“Lamplight), allegedly installed swing sets made with defective parts on their neighborhood playground. According to court documents, the top bar of the playground swing set repeatedly broke and fell. The homeowner’s association would repair the swing set only to have the same part on the swing set break again. Lamplight sought and received a replacement from the swing set manufacturer. When the replacement swing set’s top bar also broke, the swing set manufacturer sent a second replacement swing set. When the second replacement swing set’s top bar broke, the top cross bar swung down and allegedly struck the plaintiff, Thompson, in the head, crushing his skull and causing bleeding in his brain.

The Case: Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association

The case, Carl Thompson v. Lamplight Village Homeowners Association, went to trial, where the court considered the case of a teenager who suffered a traumatic brain injury allegedly caused by a swing set when the top crossbar broke and hit him in the head as it fell. The court found in favor of the plaintiff awarding $20 million ($10 million compensatory and $10 million punitive).

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