Amazon Settles for $3M in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In recent news, Amazon settled a California wage and hour class action lawsuit for $3 million.

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The Court: California Eastern U.S. District Court

The Case No.: 2:21-cv-01292-BAM

The Allegations: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs in the case, Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Patricia Salazar, filed a California class action lawsuit alleging that Amazon violated California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amazon’s California employees who worked overtime between July 22, 2017, and November 7, 2023, during the same workweek they received a signing bonus. In the original wage and hour complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Amazon violated California labor laws when they failed to include the signing bonus to determine the regular pay rate when calculating overtime pay. As a result, the workers were allegedly underpaid for their overtime.

The Defendant: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com Services Inc., et al., is a multinational tech company and the largest online retailer in the U.S. (selling many products, including books, music, movies, electronics, apparel, etc.).

The Case: Kryzhanovskiy et al. v. Amazon.com Services Inc., et al.

The California Eastern District U.S. District Court approved a $3 million settlement to resolve the overtime violation claims in September 2024. The class counsel’s $1 million attorneys’ fees were included in the settlement amount. The settlement was intended to return alleged unpaid overtime wages to eligible California workers.

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

Compass Group Wrongful Death Lawsuit Heads to Appellate Court

Compass Group USA, Inc. and plaintiffs claiming that negligence on the part of the facility and its workers led to wrongful death head to appellate court.

The Case: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

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

The Case No.: B330221

The Plaintiffs: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

The plaintiffs in the case, Celia Soria and Lilia Soria Trujillo, filed a wrongful death lawsuit revolving around the tragic death of Jaime Soria. The lawsuit is due to a tragedy on September 24, 2019. Jaime Soria battled spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy since birth. In September 2019, he was admitted to Antelope Valley Hospital with severe sepsis and aspiration pneumonia. Jaime was having difficulty swallowing and was placed on an NPO food restriction (nothing by mouth). However, a food tray was accidentally delivered to Jaime's hospital room. After being told it was safe, his mother fed him food from the tray. He immediately started to cough, gag, and vomit, which was aspirated into his lungs. He died two days later, and the plaintiffs claim Soria's death was due to alleged negligence by Compass Group USA.

The Defendants: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

The defendants in the case are the hospital, one of its nurses, Compass Group USA, Inc. (Compass), the food and nutrition manager (contracted with the hospital), and a Compass catering associate.

The Case: Soria v. Compass Grp. U.S.

The trial court determined certain allegations of the plaintiffs' complaint constituted binding admissions on the plaintiffs, and the jury was instructed accordingly. The trial court found the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. The jury's verdict (in favor of Celia) awarded $8 million in damages. Compass filed a JNOV (motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). They also filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied the JNOV motion while granting the motion for a new trial, finding that the damage award was excessive. After the Superior Court of LA County issued orders and a judgment, both parties appealed.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Discuss your situation today with one of the experienced wrongful death attorneys in our various law firm offices in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed in Response to Boston Police Officer’s 2022 Death

After the recent death of a Boston Police Officer, his brother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the officer's girlfriend and two Canton area bars.

The Case: Paul O’Keefe v. C&C Hospitality d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s, G&S Hospitality, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

The Court: Plymouth Superior Court

The Case No.: 2483 CV00692

The Plaintiff: Paul O'Keefe v. C.F. McCarthy's, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

In January 2022, 16-year veteran Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe and his girlfriend, Karen Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, went barhopping at C.F. McCarthy's and Waterfall Bar & Grill. Read dropped O'Keefe off at Brian Albert's, a fellow Boston police officer, for a party. O'Keefe was later found dead outside Albert's home. The autopsy indicated O'Keefe died of blunt force trauma and hypothermia. Prosecutors claim Read hit him with her SUV and then left the scene. Read's legal counsel claims O'Keefe was actually killed inside the home and then dragged outside. They argued that police investigators focused on Read because doing so allowed them to avoid considering other law enforcement officers as suspects. O'Keefe's brother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Read, the girlfriend, and two Canton, Massachusetts bars O'Keefe visited before going to the party at Albert's.

The Defendants: Paul O’Keefe v. C&C Hospitality d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s, G&S Hospitality, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

The defendants in the case are O'Keef's girlfriend, Karen Read, who dropped him off at his fellow officer's home after they went out drinking at two local Canton bars (and allegedly hit him with her vehicle before leaving), and two Canton, Massachusetts bars: C.F. McCarthy's and Waterfall Bar & Grill. Read claims she did not harm O'Keefe. O'Keefe's family members allege the bars served alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person. C.F. McCarthy's denies their involvement in the death of O'Keefe.

The Case: Paul O’Keefe v. C&C Hospitality d/b/a C.F. McCarthy’s, G&S Hospitality, Waterfall Bar & Grill, and Karen Read

O'Keefe filed the wrongful death lawsuit in August 2024 in Plymouth Superior Court. In addition to wrongful death, O'Keefe alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress.

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 available at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago to assist you.

Private California University Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A recent wage and hour case in LA County questions whether one of the local private colleges violated labor law. A former employee's class action alleges multiple violations.

The Case: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The Court: California's Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV00409

The Plaintiffs: Rosangela Torres v. Cogswell College, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Rosangela Torres, worked at the university from March 2022 through May 2023. During her employment, she claims that Cogswell College/University of Silicon Valley's employees had to face rigorous work schedules that prevented them from being fully relieved during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Allegedly, employees at the university were required to work without receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. Additionally, the plaintiff claims the employer did not provide the specified compensation for missed breaks as required by labor law.

California Labor Law Rest Period Requirements: What Should Employees Expect?

California employers must provide their workers with a ten-minute rest period for a 2-4 hour shift. Employers must provide are required to provide workers with two rest periods (of at least 10 minutes) for shifts worked between six and eight hours. When employees work a shift of more than 10 hours, employers must provide them with three rest breaks (of at least 10 minutes). When California employees don't receive their rest breaks, labor law requires employers to compensate them with one hour of pay.

The Defendant: Cogswell College, LLC

The defendant in the case, Cogswell College, LLC, is also called the University of Silicon Valley. Torres, a former employee, alleges that the university's standard business practices violate labor law.

The Allegations: Included in the Class Action

• Failing to provide employees with off-duty rest periods and meal breaks

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to reimburse 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

The plaintiff claims that employees were subjected to numerous wage and hour violations due to overburdened work requirements and inadequate staffing at the university. The case is currently pending in LA County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California class action lawsuit, please 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 San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

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.