Did GK Management Co., Inc. Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, GK Management Co., Inc. employees claim their standard business practices violate California labor laws, including a failure to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses.

The Case: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23CECG04411

The Plaintiff: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Elizabeth Ruvalcaba, was employed by GK Management from July 2017 through September 2023. Ruvalcaba was a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to labor law protections, including legally required meal and rest periods, payment of minimum wage and overtime, etc.

The Defendant: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The defendant in the case, GK Management Co., Inc., is a privately owned real estate company doing substantial business in California that offers various services, including management, redevelopment, and acquisition of multifamily residential properties.

The Case: Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.

The defendant faces multiple labor law violation allegations in Elizabeth Ruvalcaba v. GK Management Co., Inc.. The class action seeks to compensate class members for losses incurred during the class period due to GK Management's alleged business practices that resulted in multiple alleged violations:

• failing to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses

• failing to pay sick wages

• failing to pay all wages when due

When Do Employers Need to Reimburse an Employee's Expenses?

According to California Labor Code 2802, California employers must reimburse employees for required business expenses for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to the plaintiff's allegations, the company required employees to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties without reimbursing them for the phone or phone service costs.

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.

I.P.S. Group, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

In recent news, I.P.S. Group, Inc. faces a lawsuit alleging numerous labor law violations, including a failure to provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00053220-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Daryoush Nejati, filed a class action complaint alleging that I.P.S. Group, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. Nejati started working for I.P.S. Group, Inc. in September 2019. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Nejati was entitled to all the protections of labor law, including minimum wages, overtime pay for overtime hours worked, and meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, I.P.S. Group, Inc., is a California company that provides parking services. The plaintiff alleges that I.P.S. standard business practices included numerous labor law violations:

• failed to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• failed to pay sick wages

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime

• failed to provide all wages when due

The Case: Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc.

Under California Labor Code § 226, every employer must provide each employee with an accurate itemized wage statement reflecting all applicable hourly rates during the designated pay period and the total hours worked. According to the plaintiff, I.P.S. Group, Inc. failed to include the required information on their wage statements. The case, Daryoush Nejati v. I.P.S. Group, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego 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 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.

Former Pfizer Director Alleged Wrongful Termination

A former Pfizer Analytics Director claims Pfizer fired him after he attempted to expose the company’s FCPA violations.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

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

The Case No.: 4:23-cv-03908-DMR

The Plaintiff: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The plaintiff in the case, Frank Han, a former director of global compliance analytics at Pfizer, filed a whistleblower suit claiming he was fired from his position with the drugmaker because he tried to expose FCPA violations at the company. According to Han, he raised compliance concerns and possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations to an immediate supervisor (along with additional colleagues) at Pfizer during a November 2021 virtual meeting. Before the meeting, Han received a higher-than-perfect score on his performance review. During his next performance review, he received a reduced score, and his supervisor advised him his performance wasn’t aiding the desired results. The meeting escalated, and his supervisor allegedly demanded Han quit. After Han’s request to report to a different supervisor was denied, he received another performance review with an even lower score. Running the complaints up the official chain at Pfizer resulted in an investigation. However, the result of the investigation was that Pfizer decided no further action was necessary. A month later, Han was fired.

The Defendant: Frank Han v. Pfizer

The defendant in the case, Pfizer, is a pharmaceutical giant. During Han’s work from 2019 to 2021, he claims he discovered evidence of payments of $168 million to potentially influential government officials (PIGOs) in China. The ex-Pfizer compliance officer attempted to address the possible violations indicated, but the following chain of events ended in his firing and a wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.

The Case: Frank Han v. Pfizer

In Frank Han v. Pfizer, the plaintiff originally filed his wrongful termination lawsuit in California state court. However, it was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit seeks lost wages, mental and emotional distress, legal fees, injunctive and declaratory relief, and interest, among other damages.

If you have questions about how to file a 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.

Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego Allegedly Failed to Provide Employees with Breaks

Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed claiming Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego violated labor law when they failed to provide their employees with meal breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00027035-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The plaintiff in the case, Stephanie Jones, was employed by Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego from July 2020 through November 2022. Jones was entitled to the regular rest breaks and meal periods provided under labor law as a non-exempt hourly employee. Jones filed a class action complaint alleging that during her time with the facility, she was not provided with meal breaks, which violated labor law.

The Defendant: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The defendant in the case, Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, is the owner/operator of a hospital in California. According to the plaintiff, the hospital engaged in standard business practices that required her and other employees to work “off the clock,” did not provide them with legally required off-duty meal breaks, and utilized a “rounding down” system to track employee hours that resulted in workers not being paid for all hours worked.

The Case: Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego

The case, Stephanie Jones v. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, focuses on multiple alleged labor law violations, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to pay all wages when due.

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.

Uber Eats Background Check Violations Lead to $3.35M Class Action Settlement

In recent news, Uber Eats resolved allegations that their background checks violated labor law with a $3.35 million class action settlement.

The Case: Aguilera et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. d/b/a Uber Eats

The Court: New York State Supreme Court for Kings County

The Case No.: 509275/2023

The Plaintiff: Aguilera et al. v. Uber Eats

The plaintiff in the case, Aguilera, claimed Uber Eats ran a criminal background check process for prospective drivers in New York City between October 24, 2015, and July 28, 2021, which violated labor law. The settlement class is divided into two groups:

Group 1: Consists of class members with serious convictions more likely to be considered job-related due to the nature of the conviction and the recent date of the conviction.

Group 2: Consists of class members with convictions less likely to be considered job-related.

The Defendant: Aguilera, et al. v. Uber Eats

The defendant in the case, Uber Eats, a prominent player in the food delivery service industry, has faced legal scrutiny in New York due to allegations of denying job opportunities to prospective drivers based on what is claimed to be a flawed background check process. This lawsuit stems from accusations that Uber Eats violated the rights of individuals seeking employment as delivery drivers in New York City.

The Case: Aguilera, et al. v. Uber Eats

The case, Aguilera et al. v. Uber Eats, was resolved with a $3.35 million settlement. Primarily, the settlement benefits prospective drivers who were denied the opportunity to be Uber Eats drivers in New York City based on the results of a criminal background check. The dispute in Aguilera et al. v. Uber Eats centers around the period spanning from October 2015 through July 202, when numerous applicants argued that they were unfairly denied opportunities to work for the Uber Eats platform based on the results of these background checks.

If you have questions about how to file an employment law 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.

Does Disney Pay Female Workers Less than Male Workers?

In recent news, Disney faces allegations that they pay their female workers less than male employees.

The Case: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

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

The Case No.: 19STCV10974

The Plaintiff: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, LaRonda Rasmussen, and at least 8,900 other women employed by Disney claim that the company pays female employees less than male employees. The female Disney employees requested class certification for a class of women employed by Disney in California who are nonunion and employed in positions below the level of vice president any time between April 2015 and the present. According to the lawsuit, Disney allegedly underpays women in middle management in comparison to their male coworkers. The complaint also claims Disney passes over women for promotions in favor of male coworkers.

The Defendant: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The defendant in the case, The Walt Disney Co. et al., argued that the plaintiffs failed to adequately identify and define “substantially similar” jobs performed by male and female Disney employees. However, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle rejected Disney’s argument. Instead, the judge agreed to certify the class of women under California’s Equal Pay Act. However, the judge failed to certify a larger class under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Case: LaRonda Rasmussen, et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al.

The case, LaRonda Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Co. et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County. A California federal judge determined Disney would have to face labor law claims brought against it by a class of women arguing they were paid less than their male coworkers at the company.

If you have questions about how to file an employment law 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.

Should Delta Pay OT Wages to Employees Who Swap Shifts?

In recent news, Delta faces a class action questioning whether their standard business practices regarding overtime payment to employees who swap shifts violate labor law.

The Case: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-05712-TWT

The Plaintiffs: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

Delta allows employees to swap their work shifts with co-workers trained to complete the same job duties, but according to the lawsuit, Delta does not pay overtime when employees who have swapped shifts then work extra time during a work period. The Delta employees included in the class are customer service employees at airports across the United States, reservation and sales representatives who may perform customer service duties from call center locations across the United States, and tower coordinators working at any of Delta’s eight hubs nationwide. The proposed class would potentially include tens of thousands of Delta workers denied overtime due to Delta’s standard business practices.

The Defendant: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

The defendant in the case, Delta Air Lines Inc., faces a class action lawsuit regarding failure to pay overtime to employees who have “swapped shifts.” When employees swap shifts, the shift is still worked, and the company receives the employee labor. Under Delta’s employee contract, swaps do not count toward overtime, and even if Delta employees work more because of a swapped shift, it does not result in overtime pay. Delta’s practice is built on the argument that if overtime is defined as work performed more than the standard “full time” scheduled hours, then swapped shifts, by definition, are not overtime, as they weren’t technically scheduled hours. Instead, they could technically consider the swapped shift a reallocated scheduled shift. However, the lawsuit argues that when an employee swaps a shift and ultimately works extra hours during that period, but does not receive overtime pay. When this occurs, Delta treats the swapped shift as unpaid time.

The Case: Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc

In the case, Goodyear v. Delta Air Lines Inc, the class argues that the Overtime Contract’s passive language indicates that when calculating overtime eligibility for Delta employees, the significant point is whether an employee’s scheduled hours in a specified work period were worked, not whether that employee was the one that worked them.

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