Did Medical Management International, Inc. Fail to Reimburse Employees for Work Expenses?

/

In recent news, a California lawsuit alleges that Medical Management International, Inc. violated labor law when they failed to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses.

The Case: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV007705

The Plaintiff: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Amber Wolfing, who was engaged as a non-exempt hourly employee by the defendant in August 2019, initiated a class action lawsuit against Medical Management International. She claims that the company's illegal policies and practices resulted in the failure to adequately compensate their employees, as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Medical Management International, Inc., which offers veterinary healthcare services across California, is the defendant in the case brought by the plaintiff, Amber Wolfing. Wolfing alleges that during her employment, she was compelled to work during her off-duty meal breaks and also before shifts, performing mandatory COVID checks and temperature screenings without pay. Additionally, she contends that the company habitually engaged in "rounding" employees' clock-in and clock-out times in a manner that consistently benefited the employer, consequently leading to underpayment for the actual hours worked by employees.

What is "Time Worked" According to California Labor Law?

Under California labor law, "time worked" is defined as any period during which an employee remains under an employer's control, encompassing all instances where the employee is either actively working or is allowed to work, regardless of necessity. Instances of "time worked" include:

  • Periods when the employee is on duty, present on the employer's premises, or stationed at a designated work location.

  • Times when the employee is allowed to work, even if they are not engaging in their primary job functions.

  • Moments when the employee must remain on the employer's premises or at a specific location controlled by the employer, which limits their ability to engage in personal activities.

This broad definition ensures that employees in California receive compensation for all time spent under employer directives, not limited to just productive work time. It includes time spent waiting, on standby, traveling under certain conditions, and performing other duties as dictated by the job and level of control exercised by the employer. This approach guarantees that workers are paid for all the time their freedom is restricted by job requirements.

The Case: Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc.

Amber Wolfing alleges that due to the routine practice of rounding employee work hours at Medical Management International, Inc., she, along with other members of the class action in California, were deprived of their rightful minimum wage, overtime compensation, and legally mandated meal breaks, contrary to both federal and California Labor Laws. She argues that the defendant's failure to compensate employees for all hours worked is demonstrable through the company's own business records. The case, Amber Wolfing v. Medical Management International, Inc., is presently active in the Solano County Superior Court in 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: Axlehire, Inc. Faces Multiple California Labor Code Violation Allegations

/

In recent news, a PAGA-only action alleges Axlehire engaged in multiple California labor code violations.

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

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV055896

The Plaintiffs: Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte v. Axlehire Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Pablo Acosta and Colleen Duarte, filed a lawsuit against Axlehire, Inc., alleging the companies violated the Labor Code.

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

The defendant in the case, Axlehire Inc., faces allegations of multiple labor code violations. The company allegedly failed to provide workers with legally required meal breaks and rest periods. From time to time, employees were required to work more than four hours without a ten-minute break, as employers are required to provide employees according to labor law.

California Wage Order Requires Employers to Offer Employees Off-Duty Rest Periods:

California mandates that employers provide their employees with a ten-minute off-duty break for every four hours of work. The California Supreme Court defines an "off-duty rest period" as a time during which employees are not only relieved from their work responsibilities but are also free from any control exerted by their employer.

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

This lawsuit is classified as a PAGA-only action, wherein the State of California leverages such suits to uphold state labor laws by allowing employees to act as representatives or proxies of state labor law enforcement agencies. Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), pursuing penalties is fundamentally a regulatory enforcement action aimed at safeguarding public interests rather than securing private benefits. Through PAGA, employees like the plaintiffs in this case, Acosta and Duarte, are essentially empowered to act as private attorneys general to address and penalize non-compliance with the California Labor Code. Their suit, which seeks penalties for alleged violations by Axlehire, is currently under consideration in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime 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.

Did SpaceX Foster Gender Discrimination and Serial Sexual Abuse?

/

In recent news, a former SpaceX employee claims that SpaceX fostered gender discrimination and rampant sexual abuse of female employees.

The Case: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

The Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 24ST CV05506

The Plaintiff: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

The plaintiff in the case, Michelle Dopak, is a former SpaceX employee. Hired in 2017, Dopak worked as a Production Coordinator. During her time with the company, Dopak resided in Los Angeles County. Dopak claims during her time working for the defendant, she experienced rampant sexual discrimination, including being passed over for well-deserved promotions, being denied amenities at work that were offered to others, etc. Complaints regarding the situation and rampant rumors being spread about female workers allegedly resulted in no effective action. According to the plaintiff, the initially difficult situation escalated to a male supervisor requiring sexual favors in exchange for job security and promotion opportunities. In addition, the plaintiff claims women who did receive job opportunities or promotions were offered pay significantly lower than their male counterparts. Eventually, Dopak was allegedly coerced by a married supervisor into a sexual relationship that resulted in a pregnancy. When Dopak told her supervisor of the pregnancy, he allegedly offered her $100,000 to get an abortion. When she didn’t take the offer, he then made every attempt to evade child-support payments. Dopak claims the company higher-ups assisted him in his efforts in an attempt to silence her.

The Defendant: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

SpaceX, the defendant in this lawsuit, was established in 2002 by Elon Musk with the ambitious objective of making space travel more affordable and establishing a sustainable colony on Mars. The company, known for manufacturing and operating the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, as well as the Dragon and Starship spacecraft, is now facing allegations in the Dopak v. SpaceX case. The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, workplace retaliation, and disability-based discrimination. The plaintiff, Dopak, alleges that after returning from a medical leave taken in September 2022 due to workplace harassment and emotional distress, she was subjected to excessively long and unreasonable work hours by her new supervisor.

The Case: Michelle Dopak v. SpaceX

In the case documents, Dopak claims that SpaceX higher-ups retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Dopak filed the lawsuit in California Superior Court on Tuesday (March 5, 2024). Dopak and two other female SpaceX colleagues took their concerns regarding the sexual harassment and gender discrimination to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell in August 2018, but saw no responding action or investigation to resolve the situation. The Dopak v. SpaceX lawsuit is one of several making similar claims against the company. Another recent employment lawsuit claims the company discriminated against refugees or asylum recipients seeking employment. In October 2023, a former SpaceX engineer filed a proposed class action lawsuit claiming gender discrimination and discrimination against minorities.

If you are considering pursuing a workplace discrimination lawsuit in California, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their team of seasoned employment law attorneys is available to assist you from their offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Lax Security Protocols Result in the Death of Concert Attendees?

/

In recent news, two nurses attending an EDM festival were allegedly killed by another concert attendee, even though security measures in place should have prohibited him from having a weapon on site.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

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

The Case No.: 20-cv-01613-HSG

The Plaintiff: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The plaintiff in the case, Bautista-Perez, initiated a lawsuit in March 2020 against the Defendants Juul and Coalition, alleging that these entities were their legal employers and they failed to adhere to various state and federal labor laws. The plaintiffs argued that Juul employees had control over their wages, hours, and working conditions and that they were supervised partly by Coalition employees, establishing an employer-employee relationship. They claimed that the defendants did not provide compliant pay statements, failed to pay for all hours worked, and did not issue immediate payment upon discharge. Their legal action included claims under the California Labor Code and FLSA. Later, they expanded their claims to include penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Despite the court initially denying the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismissing Juul's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, the plaintiffs persisted by filing a Second Amended Complaint to continue pressing their allegations and seeking redress for the claimed labor law violations.

The Defendant: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

The defendant in the case, Juul Labs, is a foreign stock corporation known for manufacturing electronic cigarettes, found itself entangled in legal proceedings stemming from its involvement in the Yes on C Campaign during San Francisco's November 5, 2019, municipal election. The campaign aimed to pass Proposition C, which sought to overturn a local ordinance that suspended the sale of e-cigarettes. To manage this campaign, Juul contracted Long Ying International, Inc., a San Francisco-based campaign operator led by CEO David Ho. Long Ying and Ho then employed approximately 365 workers, including the named plaintiffs, to carry out canvassing, phone banking, and administrative tasks. These workers, classified as independent contractors, were required to sign a standard independent contractor agreement. The lawsuit brought against Juul and its associates centers on allegations that Juul, by exerting control over the campaign workers' wages, hours, and working conditions, effectively acted as their employer, thereby violating multiple state and federal labor laws, including failures in providing compliant pay statements and ensuring payment for all hours worked.

The Case: Bautista-Perez v. Juul Labs

In the lawsuit involving Juul Labs, Inc., centered on its management of the Yes on C Campaign and the subsequent employment practices, plaintiffs accused Juul and Coalition of misclassifying campaign workers as independent contractors, among other violations of state and federal labor laws. The legal proceedings saw the plaintiffs moving to conditionally certify the class while Juul and Coalition sought dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court, however, denied the dismissal motions and granted conditional class certification. In an effort to resolve the matter, the court stayed the proceedings in June 2021 to facilitate mediation, which led to a settlement in August 2021. The settlement agreement, preliminarily approved in February 2022, was finalized with the court granting final approval to a $1.75 million settlement. This amount included $400,000 in penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), $525,000 for attorneys' fees, $14,568.49 for litigation costs, and service awards totaling $17,000 for the three named plaintiffs. The resolution marked the conclusion of the dispute, with the court directing the parties to implement the settlement terms and file a stipulated final judgment.

California Nurses Face Significant Risks of Misclassification:

The resolution of the lawsuit involving Juul Labs and its campaign workers underscores a broader legal issue prevalent in California—misclassification of workers. This challenge extends significantly to the healthcare sector, particularly nurses. The case of Juul, where workers were misclassified as independent contractors despite performing roles akin to regular employees, mirrors the risks that nurses face across the state. Nurses, often hired as independent contractors by healthcare facilities, find themselves in precarious positions without the full benefits and protections afforded to regular employees, such as overtime pay, health benefits, and workers' compensation. This legal precedent highlights the ongoing issues of labor misclassification and serves as a crucial reminder for healthcare institutions to evaluate their employment practices carefully. Correctly classifying workers is essential for legal compliance and protecting the rights and well-being of nurses, who are vital to the functioning of California's healthcare system.

If you have questions about filing 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.

AC Pro and Material Supply Faces Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime Pay

/

In recent news, AC Pro and Material Supply faced allegations they failed to comply with overtime pay requirements in violation of labor law.

The Case: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

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

The Case No.: CIVSB2407304

The Plaintiff: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

Alsha Jackson, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint against AC Pro Inc. and Material Supply Inc. (from now on, collectively, "AC Pro and Material Supply Inc."). According to the lawsuit, the company allegedly failed to provide meal and rest breaks following labor laws.

The Defendant: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

The defendant in the case, AC Pro Inc., is a family-owned heating and air conditioning distributor with many locations throughout Southern California, Southern Nevada, and Arizona. In addition to its distribution locations, the company manufactures custom metal parts from two plants - one in California. According to the lawsuit, AC Pro and Material Supply Inc. allegedly violated multiple California Labor Codes (including Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558 , 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations include:

  • Failing to Pay Minimum Wage

  • Failing to Pay for Overtime Hours

  • Failing to Provide rest periods and meal breaks

  • Failing to Provide Wages When Due

  • Failing to Provide Itemized Wage Statements

  • Failing to Reimburse Workers for Business Expenses

Which California Workers Are in Danger of Wage Theft?

Any California worker can be a victim of wage theft. Still, the workers most likely to become victims of wage theft often work in restaurants, construction, the hospitality industry, car washes, farming, nail salons, warehousing, or the clothing industry. These are the same industries that were most gravely affected during the pandemic, leaving workers in these industries vulnerable to the losses that can occur when employers engage in overtime pay violations or minimum wage violations. For example, workers lost almost $2 billion from unpaid minimum wage in 2015 (according to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank).

The Case: Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Alsha Jackson v. AC Pro Inc., is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime lawsuit, don't hesitate to 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.

Did USA Waste of California, Inc. Employees Receive Inaccurate Wages?

/

In recent news, USA Waste of California, Inc. has faced allegations that it failed to provide its employees with accurate wages.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV002366

The Plaintiff: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Diridoni, filed a class action complaint alleging that USA Waste of California, Inc. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendants: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The defendant, USA Waste of California, Inc., faces numerous allegations of labor law violations, including:

  • Failing to pay minimum wages

  • Failing to pay overtime wages

  • Failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

  • Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • Failing to reimburse for required expenses

  • Failing to pay sick wages

  • Failing to pay wages when due

The alleged allegations would be a violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Such alleged conduct could give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

According to case documents, USA Waste of California, Inc. workers were allegedly not granted the required ten-minute rest periods when working longer than four hours. Claims also indicate that on certain occasions, employees were mandated to work shifts exceeding five hours without being afforded a meal break, as per company policy. Consequently, these employees missed out on their meal breaks without receiving extra pay, following what is alleged to be the standard policy and practice of the defendant. The class action lawsuit, Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc., is currently pending in the Sacramento 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.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. Facing a Lawsuit Claiming Wage Statement Violations

/

In recent news, Hunt Construction Group, Inc. allegedly failed to comply with labor law by providing workers with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09121

The Plaintiffs: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

Ruben Almader is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Hunt Construction Group, Inc., where he claims the company committed multiple violations of California Labor Codes. The allegations include:

  • Failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

  • Not providing required meal and rest breaks.

  • Inaccurate wage statements.

  • Not reimbursing necessary expenses.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that Hunt Construction did not pay sick wages or wages when due, actions that could lead to significant civil penalties under state law.

The Defendant: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Hunt Construction Group, is implicated for allegedly failing to comply with California Labor Code § 226, which mandates that employers provide accurate and itemized wage statements to their employees. The lawsuit claims that the wage statements issued by Hunt Construction did not include essential details such as the applicable hourly rates, total hours worked, and the pay period during which the wages were earned. This omission has led to allegations that the company did not fulfill its legal obligations regarding employee wage documentation.

What Is An Accurate Itemized Wage Statement?

The requirements for an accurate itemized wage statement are stipulated by California Labor Code Section 226. The following details must be listed clearly to comply with state law and ensure full transparency for the employee:

1. Employee info: Name and SSN (last four digits) or an employee ID number

2. Employer info: legal name and address

3. Wages earned during the pay period (both Net and Gross)

4. Any hourly rates used to pay the employee during the current pay period

5. Total hours worked by the employee (unless the employee is salaried/exempt) and their applicable hourly rate

6. Any applicable piece rate and the number of units (if the employee is paid on a piece-rate scale)

7. All deductions from the wages

8. The current pay period

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.