McCurtain Co. Faces Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleging Unreasonable Force

In recent news, an Alabama woman filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging McCurtain County and its Sheriff's Department were responsible for her husband's death.

The Case: Barbara Barrick v. McCurtain County and County Sheriff's Dept.

The Court:

The Case No.: CIV-23-129-GLJ

The Plaintiff: Barbara Barrick v. McCurtain County and County Sheriff's Dept.

The plaintiff in the case, Barbara Barrick, is the widow of a man who died while in the McCurtain County Sheriff's Department's custody. Barrick claims the community's treatment of both Native Americans and African Americans creates a divide amongst locals and has for quite some time. According to the lawsuit, sheriff's deputies found Bobby Barrick beaten and bound at a convenience store on March 13th, 2022. Several vigilantes had assaulted the 45-year-old Barrick. The lawsuit also states that the deputies proceeded to handcuff Barrick and use unreasonable force, even going so far as using Tasers while Barrick was restrained. Deputies were allegedly instructed to turn off their body-worn cameras when they were removing Barrick from the back of the vehicle. As deputies and an Oklahoma game warden laid on top of the restrained Barrick, they determined that he had stopped breathing and no longer had a pulse. After they noted this, Barrick had a seizure. He was then transported to McCurtain Memorial Hospital, where he was placed on a ventilator before later being transported to Paris Regional Medical Center for more treatment. Barrick died five days later.

The Defendant: Barbara Barrick v. McCurtain County and County Sheriff's Dept.

The defendant in the case, McCurtain County and McCurtain County Sheriff's Dept., allegedly delayed or denied multiple requests for information related to the incident. The failed public records requests account for much of the case's controversy. The complaint claims the McCurtain County Sheriff's Department has a history of allowing its officers to use unnecessary, unreasonable, and excessive force even when those being arrested post little to no threat, resulting in a long history and unhindered custom of excessive force.

The Case: Barbara Barrick v. McCurtain County and County Sheriff's Dept.

According to court documents, Barrick allegedly broke a door at an Eagletown, Oklahoma store and then climbed on a vehicle. After vigilantes beat him, they restrained him. Sheriff's deputies reported to the scene to find Bobby tied up. The deputies allegedly responded by handcuffing him and then detaining him using unnecessary force. The officers allegedly turned off their body cameras when the interaction became physical. Accounts of the events varied between the officers on the scene and the EMTs and firefighters who also reported to the scene. An EMT and a firefighter on the scene both stated that they heard Bobby yell, "They're trying to kill me," as the officers were trying to remove him from a police vehicle. Court documents also state that the officers tased Bobby multiple times while he was handcuffed and pulled him out of the vehicle by his feet, so he fell from the vehicle to land face down in the parking lot. Bobby's wife, Barbara Barrick, is seeking $2 million in damages.

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.

Wife Files Wrongful Death Action Against Phoebe Putney Health System After Husband’s Death

In recent news, a woman filed a wrongful death action against a medical facility, claiming their negligence caused her husband undue pain and suffering and eventually caused his death.

The Case: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

The Court: Superior Court of Dougherty County, State of Georgia

The Case No.: SUCV2023000885

The Plaintiff: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

The plaintiff in the case, Sandra Pinkney Parker, was the wife of deceased Anthony Owens Parker. Parker demanded a jury trial to address claims that the defendant, Phoebe Putney Health System, caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and the eventual death of her deceased husband. Anthony Owens Parker.

The Defendant: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

The defendant in the case, Phoebe Putney Health System, presented several defenses arguing they are not liable for the death of Parker, responding to 59 complaints from the original filing individually. Specifically, Phoebe Putney Health System Inc. claimed they did not employ any nurse, physician, advanced practice provider, or other healthcare provider who provided medical care or treatment to Anthony Owens Parker and, therefore, should be released from the lawsuit.

What is the Legal Definition of an Employee?

Under common-law rules, any person who performs services is an employee. If the individual or organization benefits from the services and can control what will be done and how it will be done, the worker is an employee. If an employer retains the right to control the details of how a worker performs specific duties or services, they are working with an “employee.” Determining liability for services provided for wrongful death or traumatic brain injury cases can be difficult when the employer/employee relationship is not direct. For example, if a company utilizes the services of another company or accepts temp workers, etc.

The Case: Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System

In the case Sandra Pinkney Parker v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Parker seeks to recover on behalf of Anthony Owens Parker’s estate for his pain and suffering and eventual death on June 6, 2022. She also seeks medical, burial, and other related expenses incurred as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant. However, the defendant claims that employees of their company did not provide the healthcare/services provided to Parker, so they are not liable.

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.

Did Cen Cal Builders & Developers Fail to Provide Workers with Legally Required Breaks?

In recent news, Cen Cal Builders & Developers faced numerous labor law violation allegations.

The Case: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

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

The Case No.: 23CECG04411

The Plaintiff: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

The plaintiff in the case, Evangelina Lozano, was employed by the defendant from September 2022 through November 2022. Lozano was classified as a non-exempt hourly employee, which made her eligible for the protections of California labor laws and federal labor laws, including the right to legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wages, accurate overtime wages, accurate itemized wage statements, etc.

The Defendant: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

The defendant in the case, Cen Cal Builders & Developers, operates a general contracting business throughout California, including Fresno, where the plaintiff worked. According to the plaintiff, Cen Cal Builders & Developers failed to pay minimum wage, pay overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, provide accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse workers for necessary business expenses.

When Do Employers Need to Provide Meal Breaks and Rest Periods?

California law requires that employees provide their non-exempt employees with one unpaid 30-minute meal break and two paid 10-minute (minimum) rest breaks during each 8-hour shift, with employees receiving their off-duty meal break before the end of their fifth hour of work. Employees working a 2-4 hour shift should receive one paid 10-minute rest break. Employees who work 10 hours or more should receive three paid, ten-minute rest periods. Employees who cannot take their breaks are to be compensated in compliance with labor law.

The Case: Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers

In Evangelina Lozano v. Cen Cal Builders & Developers, Lozano alleges that the general contractor’s policies and practices for meal breaks and rest periods violated labor law. Additionally, the violation of meal break and rest period regulations created wage and hour violations that allegedly left employees uncompensated for all their hours. The Cen Cal Builders & Developers class action lawsuit is pending in the Fresno County Superior Court in 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 San Francisco Aids Foundation Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, plaintiffs in a lawsuit claim that the San Francisco Aids Foundation violated California labor law.

The Case: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

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

The Case No.: CGC-23-609040

The Plaintiff: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against San Francisco Aids Foundation for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Ellenberg-Wiley was employed by the San Francisco Aids Foundation from September 2021 through October 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ellenberg-Wiley was entitled to the protections of California Labor Law and federal labor laws, including legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and accurate overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.

The Defendant: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The defendant in the case, San Francisco Aids Foundation, is a California nonprofit corporation operating sexual health clinics throughout California, including the San Francisco location where Ellengerg-Wiley worked. The organization faces several allegations in the Ellenberg-Wiley’s class action lawsuit, including:

• failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• failed to compensate workers for missed meal breaks and rest periods accurately

• failed to compensate workers for all time worked

• failed to provide compensation for off-the-clock work

• failed to pay overtime at the correct regular rate of pay

• failed to provide meal rest premiums at the regular rate

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failed to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The lawsuit alleges San Francisco Aids Foundation violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all of their time worked. The San Francisco Aids Foundation class action lawsuit is pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

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.

Catholic Charities Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (from now on, "Catholic Charities") faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (from now on, "Catholic Charities")

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

The Case No.: 23CV00371

The Plaintiff: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The plaintiff in the case, Kimberlee Keller, claims Catholic Charities violated numerous labor laws.

The Defendant: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The defendant in the case, Catholic Charities, faces allegations of violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. According to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to:

• pay minimum and overtime wages

• provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• provide employees with wages when due

• provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements (listing applicable wage rates and hours worked)

• reimburse employees for required business expenses

The Case: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The combination of rigorous work schedules and unlawful business practices and policies, workers for Catholic Charities were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks. When they did take their meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of job duties. Instead, they were interrupted from time to time during meal breaks to complete tasks for the company. In addition, employees were allegedly not provided with their rest periods as required by law. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

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.