Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Fiery Collision Resolved with $2M Settlement

In recent news, the family that filed a wrongful death lawsuit after they lost their brothers-in-law in a fiery collision received a $2 million settlement.

The Case: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton et al.

The Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County

The Case No.: MER-L-1631-19

The Incident: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton

On March 26, 2018, Arthur "Artie" Reed and Mark Leary were on an afternoon drive in Artie's car down Route 29 in Hopewell Township in New Jersey's Mercer County. The two brothers-in-law planned to pick up David, Mark's adopted son, from school. At around 12:54 pm, a truck driver lost control of his 2007 Mack dump truck northbound on Route 29 and collided head-on with Artie's vehicle as Artie and Mark traveled southbound. The collision left Artie's vehicle pinned under the dump truck, and both vehicles burst into flames with Artie and Mark trapped in the car, and neither survived the flames. Artie left behind his girlfriend of 13 years and two adult children. Mark, a firefighter and Marine, left behind his wife of 26 years and five children.

The Defendants: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton

Six years later, the families of Artie and Mark received some closure. The defendant in the case, DAT and the State of New Jersey, paid a $1,950,000 settlement resolving the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estates of the two brothers-in-law who were killed during a fiery collision in March 2018. The plaintiffs' counsel argued the horrific tragedy was caused by negligence on the part of the dump truck driver, the dump truck's owner, and the State of New Jersey (specifically citing the negligent design of that specific stretch of Route 29). The stretch of Route 29 where the fiery incident occurred included a shoulder, a clear zone, and a steep drop-off from the roadway to grass that fell below state and federal standards. The two men would still be alive if the roadway complied with the standards or the truck driver retained control of his vehicle.

The Case: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton

A policy limits offer paid by DAT LLC's insurance company paid one million dollars of the settlement. (DAT LLC was forced to close following the fatal crash). The remaining $950,000 of the settlement was paid by the state. The settlement only came after a long, aggressively litigated case. The successful resolution of the wrongful death lawsuit means the families know that DAT LLC and the State of New Jersey were held accountable for their loss.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death suit, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

McDonald's Faces Meal & Rest Break Violation Allegations in California Class Action

A recent California class action alleges the rigorous work schedules of McDonald's employees meant skipping rest breaks and meal periods, which may have resulted in additional alleged labor law violations.

The Case: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. NJK Management Corp (McDonald's)

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

The Case No.: 24CV02523

The Plaintiffs: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

The plaintiffs in the case, Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins, filed a California class action complaint against NJK Management Corporation ("McDonald's"). The lawsuit alleges that McDonald's failed to provide the required meal and rest breaks and pay employees for all their time worked, violating the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

The defendant in the case, McDonald's, faces a string of employment violation allegations in the class action. According to the plaintiffs, the company violated California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 351, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 when they failed to:

• pay employees minimum wages

• pay employees accurate overtime wages

• reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• offer workers with meal periods/breaks

• provide accurate itemized employee wage statements

• provide employees with their wages when due

The Case: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

Due to frequently rigorous work schedules, McDonald's workers were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When they did receive a meal break or rest period, they allegedly were not relieved of their job duties during the break. Instead, they were regularly interrupted to assist with work or complete job duties for the company. Ball and Duggins claim that working a 5-hour shift without a break for McDonald's employees was unsurprising. The plaintiffs also claim that working a 10-hour shift without their 1st and 2nd breaks was a regular occurrence. The two former McDonald's employees claim that during their time at the company, it was standard policy for employees to stay on call and basically on duty during their off-duty meal periods and rest breaks. As a result, McDonald's employees regularly forfeited their meal breaks. They were allegedly not provided additional compensation for doing so. The forfeiture of breaks without additional compensation is allegedly in line with strict corporate policy and standard practices at McDonald's. The case Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's is pending in California's Butte County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California Class Action employment lawsuit, please reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Host Healthcare Faces California Overtime Class Action

Host Healthcare faces allegations of California labor law violations in a recently filed California overtime class action lawsuit.

The Case: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CU001979C

The Plaintiff: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Samantha Brodish, filed a class action complaint against Host Healthcare, Inc. and Host Healthcare, LLC. Brodish alleges that rigorous work schedules at the company resulted in numerous California Labor Code violations, including failing to provide appropriate meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Host Healthcare, Inc., faces numerous allegations of employment law violations, including failing to:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• reimburse workers for required business expenses

• provide wages when due

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

The allegations constitute violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Samantha Brodish v. Host Healthcare, Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Host Healthcare workers were subjected to rigorous work schedules that regularly prevented them from taking off-duty rest breaks. When employees did take their breaks and meal periods, they were allegedly often not fully relieved of their job duties. The lawsuit specifically alleges that due to overburdened work duties, inadequate staffing, and poor scheduling, Host Healthcare employees were regularly required to:

• Work more than four hours without a break

• Work through their first break (aka rest period) during 2-4 hour shifts

• Work through their first and second rest periods during 6-8 hour shifts

• Work through their first, second, and third breaks during ten-hour+ shifts

Additionally, Brodish claims the company did not provide workers one hour of wages to compensate them for the missed breaks as required by labor law. Brodish filed the class action in San Diego County Superior Court, and the case is currently pending.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime lawsuit or need to discuss company policies that violate overtime law, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Los Angeles empowering you to take action.

Did El Centro Regional Medical Center Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, a phlebotomist filed a California lawsuit alleging El Centro Regional Medical Center engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Ctr.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

The Case No.: 04-24-2024

The Plaintiff: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The plaintiff in the case, Falestine Abdelmuti, was employed as an hourly, nonexempt phlebotomist from approximately June 2020 through April 2021, working at the defendant's El Centro location. She alleges she was not paid for hours the Center failed to record due to a standard "rounding" timekeeping system and that she was also not paid for the time she spent traveling to complete mandatory physical examinations and testing. Furthermore, Abdelmuti alleges the Center failed to pay her for work duties she performed off the clock before and after scheduled shifts.

The Defendant: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The defendant in the case, El Centro Reg'l Med. Center (Center) is a municipal hospital established by the City of El Centro and governed by a board of trustees, a public agency. Alleged employment law violations include:

• Minimum wage law violations

• Overtime pay violations

• Meal and rest break violations

• Necessary expense reimbursement violations

• Other wage and hour-related violations

The Case in Superior Court: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The Superior Court ruled the plaintiff's first cause of action filed because it asserted only a claim of unpaid wages, not a failure to pay minimum wages, and that Abdelmuti could not maintain a PAGA claim for penalties because applicable Labor Code provisions did not apply to the defendant, a public entity employer.

The Case on Appeal: Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Center

The plaintiff in the case, Falestine Abdelmuti, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's order, contending the trial court erred by its ruling. She argued that her complaint properly pleaded the claims regardless of the Center's status as a public entity employer. The appeals court agreed, concluding that Abdelmuti's complaint adequately stated the two causes of action. The appellate court also concluded that since Section 1197.1 specifically imposes specified civil penalties on "[a]ny employer . . . who pays or causes to be paid to any employee a wage less than the minimum fixed by an applicable state or local law, or by an order of the commission ...." and Abdelmuti pleaded a PAGA claim for the Center's alleged minimum wage law violations, sections 1194 and 1197.1 provide for civil penalties. On appeal, the Superior Court's judgment was reversed and remanded with directions.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Skilled employment law attorneys can assist you at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Top Performer Claims Age Discrimination &Wrongful Termination

After finding himself out of a job after a company restructure, a top performer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to age discrimination.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

The Case No.: B318216

The Plaintiff: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The plaintiff in the case, Gregory J. Kasparian, is a former employee of Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company (Hydrafacial). Kasparian, a resident of Georgia with a 2nd home in Pennsylvania, started working with the company in 2012 at the age of 51. After an interview in California, he was hired and held the position of Corporate Account Director (CAD), running the East Coast domestic sales team. Kasparian was a top performer who produced consistently good sales numbers. During his last 18 months with the company, Kasparian sold just under $1 million of “rolling sales” and was encouraged as a top achiever during the last two years of his time with the company, even earning a spot in the coveted “Presidents’ Club,” a revenue based performance award. Hydrafacial terminated Kasparian’s employment in July 2018 due to a corporate realignment. At that time, Kasparian was 57 years old. About five other employees in corporate account sales were let go - all over 40. Kasparian sued his former employer in Los Angeles County Superior Court for age discrimination and related causes of action, and causes of action based on Labor Code violations and breach of contract stemming from Hydrafacial's alleged failure to pay him earned commissions.

The Defendant: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The defendant in the case is Edge Sys. (aka Hydrafacial). The company designs, manufactures, promotes, and sells aesthetic products and technology. The company’s corporate office is located in Long Beach, California. While the company maintains various regional sales areas throughout the nation, the only physical locations they maintain are in the state of California. Vice President of Sales Dan Watson was the plaintiff’s supervisor at Hydrafacial from March 2017 until Kasparian’s employment was terminated.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

Before Hydrafacial’s realignment, there were three CADs: Kasparian (age 57), Tracie Wertz (age 53), and Dan Townsley (age 39). Kasparian claims his numbers were higher than both Wertz and Townsley, and he had seniority over both, yet he was the only one of the three that wasn’t offered a new position in the company. Kasparian alleged Hydrafacial failed to pay his full commissions, and terminated him to avoid having to full the obligation. The two parties entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Hydrafacial and against Kasparian that the court signed and filed on November 29, 2021. On appeal, the court found that Kasparian failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that his age was a substantial motivator for his termination. The appellate court concluded the trial court properly granted summary adjudication and affirmed the judgment in favor of respondent Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company.

If you have questions about filing a wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact 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.

FedEx Worker Claims Wrongful Termination, Harassment, and Discrimination

In a recent case, a FedEx worker appealed the trial court’s decision in a wrongful termination case.

The Case: Freem v. The Superior Court

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

The Case No.: 06-07-2024

The Plaintiff: Freem v. The Superior Court

The plaintiff in the case, Mitchell Freem, worked for FedEx for 18 years, starting as a part-time material handler loading packages and ending his career as a senior vehicle technician for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), reporting to Fleet Manager Andrew Sweet. Freem filed a California employment law complaint alleging Sweet harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against him because of his age. Freem also claimed FedEx wrongfully terminated his employment.

The Defendant: Freem v. The Superior Court

The Defendant in the case, FedEx, also faces allegations that Freem’s employment was wrongfully terminated in May 2018. Freem claims that FedEx’s reasons for terminating his employment were a pretext for age discrimination and Freem’s reporting of unlawful conduct in the FedEx workplace. FedEx claimed they terminated Freem’s employment due to falsified time cards, repair orders, and DOT PM forms that indicated completed work on specified FedEx vehicles that he had not performed. Freem claims his handling of the documentation was a direct result of instruction and harassment from his supervisor. FedEx argued there was no evidence supporting Freem’s wrongful termination claim that FedEx’s reasons for terminating his employment were untrue. The Defendant also argued that the internal complaint lodged by Freem regarding Sweet’s behavior listed multiple comments the supervisor made, and none were based on age and did not seem severe enough to be considered harassment. FedEx claims Freem failed to present evidence of harassment or discrimination and that following Freem’s internal complaint, the company investigated and found no evidence of harassment, discrimination, or workplace retaliation. The company further claims that it took reasonable steps to prevent such actions.  

The Case: Freem v. The Superior Court

In May 2022, FedEx and Sweet moved for summary judgment, each seeking judgment in their favor on the employment law complaint. Freem appealed the trial court’s decision, claiming the court incorrectly granted summary adjudication on his claims for age discrimination, harassment based on age, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  

On Appeal: Freem v. The Superior Court

On appeal, the court found that Freem presented no evidence that any harassment was based on Freem’s age, that Freem did not come close to carrying his burden of presenting evidence supporting claims that age discrimination motivated his termination of employment and that the record does not show any evidence that FedEx intentionally discriminated based on age. It was noted that while the Defendant submitted various evidential pieces to refute claims of discrimination and harassment and support the stated reasons behind the firing of Freem, Freem failed to provide any evidence to the contrary other than vague declarations. For example, Sweet reviewed security video of the shop where Freem worked and compared it to the entries on Freem’s time cards with an Excel spreadsheet documenting the discrepancies he noticed. Freem stated that the discrepancies could be explained by a standard policy/practice of supervisors encouraging techs to alter their billing to eliminate “fluff” and calling the evidence into question by pointing out that the video itself was no longer available for verification. However, he did not provide evidence to contradict the defense’s claims. The appellate court found that Freem’s harassment and discrimination claims were not viable based on the evidence provided and that the trial court was correct in granting FedEx and Sweet’s motion for summary adjudication regarding the FEHA claims.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Joe’s Pizza on Sunset Faced Overtime Pay and Minimum Wage Violation Allegations

California pizza delivery driver sues for overtime and minimum wage pay violations and wins but ends up seeking an appeal when the trial court denies the attorney fees and costs request.

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

The Case: 03-25-2024

The Plaintiff: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Gramajo, worked as a pizza delivery driver for Joe's Pizza from February 2014 to June 2015. In February 2018, Gramajo sued Joe's Pizza for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, citing multiple California Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc., faced numerous employment law violation allegations in the case including:

• Failure to pay minimum and overtime wages (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 558, 1194)

• Failure to provide rest and meal periods (Lab. Code, §§ 512, 226.7)

• Failure to pay wages due (upon termination) (Lab. Code, §§ 201, 202, 203)

• Failure to reimburse for business expenses (Lab. Code, § 2802)

• Unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).

The Case: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

The trial for Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc. was set after close to four years of litigation and discovery, with Gramajo seeking $26,159.33 in unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, waiting time penalties, and unreimbursed expenses. After completing a seven-day trial, the jury found in favor of Gramajo on both the minimum wage and overtime causes of action and awarded Gramajo $2.17 in unpaid minimum wages and $3,340 in unpaid overtime wages. In total, Gramajo recovered:

• $7,659.63 (of unpaid minimum and overtime wages)

• $2,115.59 in statutory interest

• $2,100 in waiting time penalties (at a daily wage rate of $70 per day for thirty days according to Labor Code section 203)

• $2.17 in liquidated damages

• $100 in statutory penalties

Following the verdict, Gramajo moved for attorney fees totaling $296,920 and $26,932.84 in costs. The trial court denied Gramajo's fee request, granting Joe's Pizza's motion to tax costs, ultimately awarding Gramajo nothing, claiming the plaintiff acted in bad faith by inflating his damages figure, including claims he had no intention to pursue to justify the filing of an unlimited civil proceeding. The trial court also argued that the case was severely over-litigated.

Seeking Attorney Fees and Costs On Appeal: Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the law entitled him to reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)) and that the trial court abused its discretion when turning to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), to support their denial of his litigation costs. The appeals court found the plaintiff was entitled to an award of reasonable litigation costs (Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a)), and denying all costs by relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a) was in error. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the defendant's motion to tax costs was reversed and remanded to the trial court. The trial court will determine a "reasonable" attorney fee and costs award for the plaintiff. The appellate court did not express an opinion on the reasonableness of the plaintiff's attorney fees and costs requests or whether or not the case should have been filed in limited jurisdiction.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys can assist you from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices.