Did PetVet Care Centers Fail to Accurately Record their Employees’ Hours?

PetVet Care Centers is facing labor law violations after a worker filed a lawsuit claiming the company does not record their employees' full hours worked, resulting in inaccurate wage payment and missed overtime pay.

The Case: Renee Ramirez v. PetVet Care Centers, LLC

The Court: Santa Barbara County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 24CV05042

California Class Action Alleging Labor Law Violations: The Plaintiff

Renee Ramirez, the plaintiff, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, PetVet Care Center employees were not paid for all their hours. The plaintiff claims workers were required to work off the clock without compensation. Since the off-the-clock work was unpaid, it did not qualify for overtime premium payment, resulting in alleged violations of the minimum wage and overtime pay.

The Defendant: Renee Ramirez v. PetVet Care Centers, LLC

The defendant in the case, PetVet Care Centers, LLC, allegedly failed to accurately record the time worked by their employees, which resulted in alleged inaccurate wages and missed overtime pay for their workers. However, the list of allegations does not end there. The plaintiff also claims that PetVet Care Centers' standard business practices resulted in additional labor law violations:

• Failing to pay minimum wage

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide required meal periods

• Failing to provide required rest periods

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• Failing to pay sick wages

• Discrimination violations

• Retaliation violations (FEHA and Labor Code)

The Case: Renee Ramirez v. PetVet Care Centers, LLC

Renee Ramirez v. PetVet Care Centers, LLC is currently pending in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime or wage and hour 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 Pureserve Building Services Deny Meal Breaks to their Employees?

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint alleging Pureserve Building Services violated labor law.

The Case: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

The Court: California's Monterey County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV003470

The Plaintiff: Petra Rios Files Class Action Complaint

The plaintiff, Petra Rios, claims that Pureserve Building Services's standard business practices violated labor law. Californian workers are protected in the workforce through both federal and state labor laws. According to Rios's class action complaint, the company failed to provide their California workers with meal breaks and rest periods in compliance with labor law.

The Defendant: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

Pureserve Building Services, Inc., the defendant, allegedly failed to pay their employees for all their work hours. The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action complaint include:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods

• Failing to pay wages when due

• Failing to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

The class action's allegations constitute violations of multiple California Labor Code Sections, including 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 558, 1194, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

What Makes a Wage Statement Accurate and Itemized?

When discussing wage statement requirements, labor law refers to them as "accurate" and "itemized." Details regarding the wage statement requirements clearly state that they must include certain information:

• Pay period (dates for which the employee is being paid)

• Gross wages earned during the pay period

• Total hours worked during the pay period

• Piece rate along with the number of units earned (if applicable)

• Any deductions

• Net wages earned during the pay period

• Employee name and last four digits of their Social Security Number or an Employee Identification Number

• Name and address of employer

• Hourly rates (all applicable/in effect during the current pay period)

• Number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate (if applicable)

Failing to provide an employee with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing violates California Labor Code Section 226.

The Case: Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc.

The case was filed in September 2024 in California's Monterey County Superior Court. Petra Rios v. Pureserve Building Services, Inc. is currently pending.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact 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.

Did 250 Fourth Development Employees Receive Full Wages for their Work?

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that 250 Fourth Development employees did not receive full hourly wages.

The Case: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

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

The Case No.: CGC-24-617951

The Plaintiff: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

The plaintiff in the case, Olga Pyanova, filed a class action complaint after her short time employed by the Defendants, from March 2024 to May 31, 2024. As an hourly, nonexempt employee, Pyanova was entitled to meal breaks and rest periods required by law, as well as payment of minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours worked. During her time at the company, Pyanova claims she was required to work off the clock during her off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the plaintiff claims the defendant's day-to-day operating procedure utilizes a standard practice of "rounding" time worked to the employer's benefit. During the course of her employment, Pyanova claims she (and other similarly situated workers) was paid less than she would have been paid if the company paid her for the actual time recorded instead of the adjusted "rounded" hours. The company also allegedly required mandatory temperature checks and COVID-19 screenings before clocking in for a work shift, resulting in more unpaid "off the clock" hours. In addition to unpaid off-the-clock work, the plaintiff claims that the company's non-discretionary incentive program (incentive wages based on performance) was not included in the employees' rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rates and meal and rest break premium pay, which resulted in alleged underpayment of both overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay.

The Defendants: 250 Fourth Development L.P.

The defendants in the case, 250 Fourth Development, L.P., SFCanopy, LLC, and Paradigm Hotels Group LLC, were joint employers of Pyanova, the plaintiff, based on her paycheck, employee handbooks, and standard policies and procedures. The employer/defendant allegedly failed to provide their California employees with full required meal breaks and rest periods. The missed meal breaks and rest periods allegedly resulted in missed wages for employees. The defendant faces several violation allegations:

1. Minimum Wage Pay Violations

2. Overtime Wage Pay Violations

3. Meal Break Violations

4. Rest Period Violations

5. Wage Statement Violations

6. Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

7. Timely Payment of Wages Violations

8. Sick Pay Violations

The Case: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

In Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P., the court must consider unpaid "off the clock" work issues and allegedly inaccurate timekeeping practices. In addition, the plaintiff's claims raise questions regarding reimbursement of necessary business expenses as workers needed to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour 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.

Did Associate Mechanical Contractors Underpay their California Workers?

Mark Frey recently filed a California class action claiming Associate Mechanical Contractors's inaccurate time keeping system resulted in numerous labor law violations.

Details About the Class Action: Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors

The Case: Mark Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The Court: San Diego Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU011410C

Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Frey, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, Frey (and other similarly situated California workers employed by the defendant) were underpaid because the company used an inaccurate timekeeping system to calculate their employee’s hours and pay.

The Defendant: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc., faces allegations that their timekeeping system used to calculate employee hours and total pay was inaccurate, resulting in minimum wage violations, overtime pay violations, meal break/rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to provide payment when it is due. All of the standard business practices listed constitute labor law violations.

Most of the labor law violation claims result from the company’s allegedly inaccurate timekeeping system. However, the plaintiff also states that he and other similarly situated employees were required to use their cell phones to perform their job duties, which he claims makes the employee’s personal cell phone a necessary business expense eligible for reimbursement.

The Case: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

In Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the company’s inaccurate timekeeping system and resulting alleged labor law violations alongside the defendant’s response to determine if the company has standard business practices and policies that violate labor law.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour 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.

Equinox Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations: Class Action Lawsuit Pending

Another business with significant operations in California faces allegations that their standard business practices violate labor law. Equinox workers claim the company violated multiple wage and hour laws, including failing to pay minimum wage.

The Case: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

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

The Case: CV0003780

The Plaintiff: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

Demarqus Wiggins is the plaintiff in the case. Wiggins filed a class action complaint in response to standard business practices he experienced at Equinox. The complaint alleges failures to provide eligible workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wage, etc.

Equinox, the Defendant, Facing Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Equinox San Rafael, LLC (aka Equinox). Equinox faces numerous allegations in the class action, each constituting a violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint includes the following allegations: failing to pay minimum wage, provide accurate overtime wages, offer meal breaks and rest periods, reimburse workers for business expenses, provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay employees for the hours they worked at the time they are due.

(The class action allegations constitute violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code).

More About the Case: Were Employees Required to Work "Off the Clock?"

The Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Marin County Superior Court. California labor law and federal labor law (FLSA) require employers to pay every employee an established payday for a specified pay period at a rate at or above the designated minimum wage for all the hours worked in the specified pay period. Payment can be calculated using various methods: time, per piece, commission, etc. If employers provide payment based on time or the number of hours worked, "hours worked" is defined by the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." According to the plaintiff in the case, Equinox required workers to complete "off the clock" work or work completed before or after they "clock in" to work for their scheduled shift. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Equinox employees were subject to standard business practices and policies that required working during off-duty meal breaks. Employees were allegedly not compensated with at least minimum wage for all the hours they worked in a pay period due to "off the clock" work, which is a labor law violation.

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

Calexico Logistics Company Allegedly Attempts to Prevent Investigation of Wage and Hour Violations

In recent news, a Calexico logistics company attempted to prevent the U.S. Department of Labor from investigating wage and hour violations by removing workers and hiding them at a local fast food location for hours until the investigators left the building. The U.S. Department of Labor obtained a preliminary injunction and court order that forbids the company from threatening or retaliating against its workers or attempting to interfere with the ongoing federal wage and hour violation investigation.

The Case: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

The Case No.:3:2024cv01081

The Allegations: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

While under investigation for wage and hour violations, a Calexico company allegedly attempted to prevent U.S. Department of Labor investigators from obtaining evidence necessary to support the allegations by:

• Removing workers and hiding them at a local fast-food restaurant for hours until the investigators left the building and

• Instructing employees to report to work across the border in Mexicali before firing them and then deleting all proof of their prior employment from the company’s databases.

The Preliminary Injunction: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

In response to the situation, the Southern District of California U.S. District Court issued an injunction and order on July 31, 2024. The preliminary injunction prohibits NGB Logistics Alliance from retaliating against any workers who may have spoken to investigators, interfering or obstructing employees from cooperating with the investigation, contacting or threatening employees’ family or friends regarding speaking with investigators, and destroying evidence related to the ongoing investigation.

The Case: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

The preliminary injunction in the case, Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc., follows an investigation into employment law violations. Investigators seek evidence that NBG Logistics Alliance paid individuals working at their California warehouses in pesos through a Mexico-based affiliate, Agencia Aduanal Guillermo Nogueira y Asociados S.C.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour 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.

Bronx, Long Island Gas Stations’ Workers to Receive Over $1M in Back Wages

In recent news, the U.S. Department of Labor obtained a judgment ordering payment of over $1 million in back wages for gas station workers.

The Case: Julie A. Su, U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-02206-JHR-RWL

The Allegations: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The complaint alleged that the owner of 15 Bronx/Long Island gas stations, Jagjit Singh, willfully denied over one hundred employees full payment of their wages. The court found that the defendant was withholding overtime pay from their Bronx, Long Island gas station workers. The employees allegedly worked more than 40 hours weekly (including some workers putting in over 85 hours per week). Rather than paying the required overtime pay rates for any hours worked over 40 in one work week, the employer allegedly provided pay for all hours worked at the standard pay rate. Due to these standard business practices, some employees were also paid less than the federal minimum wage, and the company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to their employees. Some of the company’s locations had no employment and pay records before 2017, and some presented incomplete employment records.

The Defendant: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The defendants in the case included 15 different gas station locations operating under various brands, including BP, Mobil, and Sunoco. The gas stations were located in Bronx, Nassau, and Suffolk counties.

The Case: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

In response to a federal investigation, the court ordered the owner/president of the 15 gas stations to pay over $1 million in back wages and liquidated damages to current and former employees in the class. The recovery of back wages and damages sends a signal to employers intentionally violating federal overtime and wage and hour laws that doing so can have significant financial consequences. The federal court required Singh and his businesses running the specified 15 gas stations to pay back wages ($549,673), liquidated damages ($549,673), and civil money penalties ($75,655) to the Department of Labor due to the companies’ willful nature of the employment law violations.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.