Cogswell College Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

Cogswell College/University of Silicon Valley faces allegations of labor law violations after plaintiffs claimed they did not provide the legally required meal and rest periods.

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

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

The Case No.: 22STCV00409

The Plaintiff: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rosangela Torres, recently filed a lawsuit alleging that Cogswell College (also known as the University of Silicon Valley) violated the California Labor Code when they allegedly failed to pay employees for all their time worked. According to the complaint, the defendant allegedly violated 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. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff described a workplace setting in which employees engaged in rigorous work schedules that prevented them from taking rest breaks off duty. Torres also alleged that employees were not fully relieved of their work duties during their rest periods.

The Defendant: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

Cogswell College, LLC, the defendant in the case, allegedly violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods (as required by law). According to the plaintiff, Torres, Cogswell College engaged in numerous behaviors that violate labor law, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide meal and rest periods

• Failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses

• Failing to provide wages when due

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

According to details provided in the case, the labor law violations arose from issues with understaffing and overtasking the existing workforce. As a result, the company allegedly sometimes required employees to work through their 4-hour, 8-hour, and even 10+ hour work shifts without their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rest break. Torres also claims that the college did not provide employees who were not provided with their legally mandated rest breaks with the one-hour wage payment instead of a break. The case, Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

PAGA-Only Action Filed Against Formel D USA, Inc.

In recent news, a PAGA-only action was filed against Formel D USA, Inc.

The Case: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01369309-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Oddae Alghazali, alleges that Formel D USA, Inc. violated Labor Code § 2699. Alghazali filed a PAGA-only action seeking penalties for the alleged violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Formel D USA, Inc., faces a PAGA-only action based on allegations that they failed to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks. And that by doing so, they failed to provide their workers with payment for all hours worked. According to the lawsuit filed by Alghazali, Formel D USA, Inc. failed to provide employees with legally required meal and rest breaks when they (from time to time) required employees to work in more than four (4) hours without being provided a ten (10) minute rest period. According to the California Wage Order, California employers must provide their employees with off-duty rest periods.

The California Supreme Court determined that for a rest period to qualify as an “off-duty rest period,” it must fulfill two requirements: 1. the employee must be relieved of all their job duties, and 2. the employee must be free from the employer’s control.

The Case: Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc.

The case, Oddae Alghazali v. Formel D USA, Inc., is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court. PAGA-only actions like the one in this case allow the State of California to enforce state labor laws through individual employees who file a lawsuit as the proxy of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. PAGA-only actions are essentially law enforcement actions intended to protect the public rather than benefit private parties. Therefore, a PAGA-only action does not seek to recover damages or restitution but acts as a means of “deputizing” citizens as private attorneys general so they can step in to help the state enforce the California Labor Code.

If you have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

Axlehire Faces Labor Code Violation Allegations in PAGA-Only Action

In recent news, Axlehire faces labor code violation allegations in a PAGA-only action filed in Alameda Superior Court.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, State of California

The Case No.: 23CV055896

The Plaintiff: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

California Labor Law requires California employers to provide their employees with off-duty rest periods during which they are relieved of all their work-related duties and are free from the employer’s control. Acosta and Duarte allege that they were occasionally required to work four-hour shifts without a 10-minute break (the minimum required for a 2-4 hour work shift according to labor law). The plaintiffs in the case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte claim that Axlehire, Inc. failed to provide their employees with meal and rest breaks in violation of labor law. The plaintiffs filed a PAGA-only action seeking to recover PAGA civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other current/former Axlehire employees with a similar experience.

The Defendant: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Axlehire, Inc., hires individuals to assist them in providing delivery services to clients. Axlehire, Inc. allegedly failed to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks in compliance with federal and state labor law, which resulted in an alleged loss of wages for the Axlehire employees.

The Case: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc.

California enacted the PAGA to permit individuals to bring an action on behalf of themselves and others for PAGA penalties only, which is the nature of the action in Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc. The case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire, Inc., includes allegations that constitute violations of various California Labor Codes (§§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 226(a), 226.7, 226.8, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Sizzler Violate Labor Law by Failing to Provide Breaks to Employees?

In recent news, Sizzler faces allegations that they failed to provide their employees with rest periods and breaks required by labor law.

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

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

The Case No.: 24STCV01215

The Plaintiffs: Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Gayo, filed a class action complaint against BMW Management, Inc. and BMW Management, LLC (the two entities jointly operate Sizzler restaurants and will collectively be referred to as "Sizzler") for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

The defendant in the case, BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC, faces multiple allegations that their standard business practices do not comply with labor law. California labor law requires all employers to pay their employees on an established payday for each pay period and pay no less than minimum wage for all hours an employee works in the payroll period. According to the plaintiff, Sizzler allegedly required employees to complete job-related tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and during off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Sizzler did not compensate its employees for any of the resulting off-the-clock work. This standard practice resulted in Sizzler failing to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. In full, the plaintiffs claim that Sizzler engaged in numerous labor law violations:

• failed to pay minimum wage

• failed to pay overtime wages

• did not provide required meal and rest periods

• failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• failed to pay wages when due

• did not provide accurate itemized wage statements

• did not provide workers with all tips and gratuities

What is the Definition of "Hours Worked" for a California Employee?

To interpret California labor law, "hours worked" is the time during which an employee is subject to their employer's control, including all the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not "required to do so."

The Case: Daniel Gayo v. Sizzler

In the case, Daniel Gayo v. BMW Management, Inc., BMW Management, LLC (otherwise known as Sizzler), the plaintiff alleges Sizzler violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay its employees for all time worked. According to the lawsuit, Sizzler allegedly engaged in numerous labor law violations (violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). 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 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.

PAGA-Only Action Claims Golden 1 Credit Union Engaged in Labor Code Violations

In recent news, Golden 1 Credit Union faces allegations they violated the labor code. According to the PAGA-Only action, the company failed to provide employees with the required meal and rest breaks outlined by employment law, which resulted in alleged wage loss for their affected workers.

The Case: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV001448

The Plaintiff: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Freyja Monday, was employed by Golden 1 Credit Union from March 7, 2022 through August 24, 2023. Monday was paid hourly plus incentive pay based on employee performance. Monday claims the incentive pay was not considered part of regular pay when calculating overtime rates, even though management and supervisors described the incentive pay as part of the compensation package when recruiting new employees. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the credit union allegedly sometimes required the plaintiff (and other similarly situated workers) to work without the rest periods and meal breaks employers must provide under labor law. Monday filed a lawsuit against The Golden 1 Credit Union, citing multiple allegations of labor code violations.

Under the California Wage Order, employers must provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The Supreme Court defined "off-duty" rest periods as time during which the worker is relieved of all job duties and is free of the employer's control.

The Defendant: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

The defendant in the case, The Golden 1 Credit Union, is a credit union in California. According to the lawsuit, the company did not comply with multiple labor codes, including alleged violations of: Labor Code § 2699, et seq., seeking penalties for DEFENDANT's alleged violation of California Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union

According to court documents, Freyja Monday v. The Golden 1 Credit Union, the California-based credit union failed to include incentive pay described as part of the regular compensation package upon hire in the regular overtime pay rate and missed meal break premium calculations. As a result of this standard practice, Monday and other similarly situated employees of The Golden 1 Credit Union claim they were not provided with accurate wages and overtime pay for all the hours they worked. The case is currently pending in the Sacramento 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.

Wildcat Discovery Technologies Faces Overtime Wage Pay Allegations

In recent news, a California company has been accused of violating California labor laws due to standard business practices that allegedly left employees without their minimum wages and accurate overtime wage payments.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00055145-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The plaintiff in the case, Albert Ajero, was employed by the defendant from November 2022 through May 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee protected by labor law. Ajero filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Wildcat Discovery Technologies, Inc. (from now on, "Wildcat Discovery Technologies") failed to provide meal and rest breaks (as required by labor law).

The Defendant: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The defendant in the case, Wildcat Discovery Technologies, is a Deleware company that operates a substantial amount of business in California, providing technology services. According to allegations in the class action lawsuit, Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Violations included the failure to:

pay minimum wages

pay overtime wages

provide required meal and rest periods

reimburse for required business expenses

provide accurate itemized wage statements

provide wages when due

What is a Class Action, and Why Would a Plaintiff File a Class Action Complaint?

A class action lawsuit is a legal proceeding where a group of people facing similar grievances against an employer collectively bring a claim to court. This approach allows individuals, often employees or former employees, to pool their resources, streamline legal processes, and share the costs and benefits of the litigation. It's an effective legal tool for addressing widespread issues within a workplace, ensuring that justice is accessible even when individual claims might be too small to pursue independently.

The Case: Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies

The lawsuit, Albert Ajero v. Wildcat Discovery Technologies, alleges Wildcat Discovery Technologies violated the California Labor Law by failing to pay employees for all their time worked. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing 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.

University Healthcare Alliance Faces Allegations of Overtime Law Violations in Class Action

University Healthcare faces allegations that they failed to pay overtime in compliance with federal and state labor laws.

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.: 23-CIV-05931

The Plaintiff: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The plaintiff in the case, Amanda Nunez, worked for University Healthcare Alliance in California from February 2023 to October 2023 as a nonexempt hourly employee. According to the plaintiff, she and other employees in similar positions with the company were not provided with mandatory breaks and off-duty meal periods that California employers are required to provide their employees under labor law. The plaintiff claims that the company’s standard practices left employees without rest periods/meal breaks, completing off-the-clock work, being interrupted to fulfill job duties when receiving an off-duty meal break, etc. The plaintiff alleges that employees were not provided with minimum or accurate overtime wages due to these and other standard business practices at University Healthcare Alliance.

The Defendant: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

The defendant in the case, University Healthcare Alliance, is a corporation that provides healthcare services in California. According to the class action lawsuit, University Healthcare Alliance allegedly failed to provide proper rest periods and off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the company allegedly failed to accurately record their employees time worked, utilizing a “rounding” method to track employee time worked as a standard business practice that plaintiffs claim resulted in the inaccurate payment of minimum and overtime wages paid to their employees.

• failure to pay minimum and overtime wages

• failure to provide mandated meal and rest periods

• failure to deliver wages when due

• failure to issue accurate wage statements

The Case: Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance

Amanda Nunez v. University Healthcare Alliance is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the California overtime class action lawsuit, from time to time, University Healthcare Alliance employees were allegedly required to work five (5) hours during a shift without receiving an off-duty meal break. According to the complaint, the company allegedly failed to pay their employees for all the hours under the employer’s control, including the time University Healthcare required them to submit to mandatory COVID-19 screening before being allowed to clock in to work for their shifts. The time spent completing the mandatory screenings resulted in off-the-clock work not qualifying for overtime premium payment calculations.

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 help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.