Gilmore Services Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

/

A recent lawsuit claims that Gilmore Services failed to provide employees with the meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Michael Halton vs. Gilmore Services

The Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV022470

The Plaintiff: Michael Halton vs. Gilmore Services

The plaintiff, Michael Halton, worked for Gilmore Services in California from December 2023 to April 2024. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Halton was entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wages, and accurate overtime pay. In November 2024, Halton filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in multiple labor law violations.

The Defendant: Michael Halton vs. Gilmore Services

The defendant, Gilmore Services, provides heating, ventilation, and air conditioning services. According to the plaintiff's claims, California employers failed to compensate their employees fully in compliance with labor law. Multiple labor law violation allegations are included in the California class action lawsuit, including:

  • Failure to provide meal breaks

  • Failure to provide rest periods

  • Failure to provide employees with accurate compensation for missed breaks

  • Failure to pay workers for all hours worked

  • Failure to provide compensation for "off-the-clock" work

  • Failure to provide accurate overtime wages

  • Failure to reimburse for business expenses

  • Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The plaintiff in the case claims the company engaged in systematic business practices that purposefully violated labor law to minimize the cost of payroll and increase profits.

What is Defined as "Time Worked" for California Employees?

For California employees, "time worked" encompasses any time when an employee is subject to the control of their employer, including the time an employee is permitted to work, whether or not they are performing work tasks, for example:

  1. time when an employee is on duty or required to be at a designated work area - whether or not they are actively completing job duties at the time or waiting for work that needs to be completed,

  2. any rest periods or meal breaks when an employee is not relieved of all their job duties, required to be "on call," or remain at a designated work area,

  3. travel time between job sites (the commute to and from work does not typically count as paid time),

  4. "Before" and "After" prep or clean up work such as setting up equipment or putting on protective gear, etc, or

  5. On-call time when an employee must stay on business premises or close to their workplace.

The Case: Michael Halton vs. Gilmore Services

In the case, Michael Halton vs. Gilmore Services, the plaintiff and other members of the California class seek an injunction to prevent repeat situations at the company with future employees and relief for the plaintiff and class members' lost wages.

If you have questions about filing a California employment law class action, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced class action attorneys are available at various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago to assist you.

Lawsuit Claims Universal Orlando Roller Coaster Caused Traumatic Brain Injury

/

In recent news, a woman filed a lawsuit against Universal Orlando, claiming that one of their roller coasters caused a traumatic brain injury that caused serious ramifications in her life.

The Case: Geriann Erwin Clem and Richard Clem vs. Universal City Development

The Court: Orange County Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit in Florida

The Case No.: 192961708

The Plaintiff: Clems vs. Universal City Development

The plaintiffs, Geriann Erwin Clem and Richard Clem (husband), sued Universal City Development (Universal Orlando), claiming that riding one of the amusement park's roller coasters caused Geriann Erwin Clem to suffer a traumatic brain injury. According to the complaint, Geriann claims she rode Universal Orlando's Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster on Feb. 11, 2023. Available material describes the ride as reaching speeds of 65 mph and including a climb at a 90-degree angle followed by a drastic drop. According to the plaintiff, while on the ride, her head "shook violently" and "slammed into the seat's headrest" throughout the ride.

The Defendant: Clems vs. Universal City Development

The defendant, Universal City Development (Universal Orlando), is a popular amusement park in Orlando, Florida. According to the plaintiffs in the traumatic brain injury case, the park failed to provide proper restraints for their Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster and did not provide enough warning before allowing customers on the ride that their heads would be shaken and slammed against the headrest repeatedly. According to the two plaintiffs, the warning signs posted on-site at the park were inadequate.

The Case: Clems vs. Universal City Development

The plaintiffs filed the case in Orange County, and the married couple sought "personal injuries and damages" over $50,000.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their traumatic brain injury 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.

Wage & Hour Violations: Did Soapy Joe's Violate Labor Law?

/

In recent news, Soapy Joe's is facing a lawsuit alleging they violated labor law's wage and hour requirements.

The Case: Makiya Epps & Tessie Haley vs. Soapy Joe's Group, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2022-00013622-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's

The plaintiffs, Makiya Epps and Tessie Haley, claim that Soapy Joe's engaged in a pattern of wage and hour violations as a part of their regular business practices. According to the class action lawsuit, the plaintiff believes that the company knowingly engaged in labor law violations to decrease employment-related costs.

Minimum Wage: How Employers Violate California Labor Law

In California, the minimum wage is set by state law (higher than the federal minimum) and varies depending on the business size and location. As of 2024, California employers who employ more than 25 employees are required to pay minimum wage of $15.50 per hour. However, some cities and counties have established a higher minimum wage applicable in their area. Employees should pay attention to make sure their employer is not paying an hourly wage less than the applicable minimum wage, making improper deductions from employee wages, requiring employees to work "off the clock," miscalculating wages for tipped employees (in California, tipped employees are paid the full minimum wage before tips, unlike various other states that allow a lower minimum wage). Labor law violations can lead to required back payment of wages, fines, interest (payable to the affected employees), and potential legal action from the state labor enforcement agencies.

The Defendant: Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's

The defendant, Soapy Joe's, faces multiple allegations of labor law violations, including failing to:

  • offer eligible employees required meal breaks and rest periods (off the clock)

  • pay minimum wage

  • pay accurate overtime wages

  • pay accurate sick pay and overtime pay rates

  • provide reimbursement for necessary business expenses

  • create and maintain accurate records and provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • pay wages on time

The plaintiff in the case alleges that the company's behavior violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802.

The Case: Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's

The case, Epps & Haley vs. Soapy Joe's, alleges Soapy Joe's violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay workers for all their work hours. The case is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court.

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.

Former Employee Claims California Air Cargo Company’s Practices Violate Labor Law

/

A former employee of Swissport Cargo Services claims the company’s business practices violate labor law and fail to provide the company’s employees with full payment for their work hours.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 24STCV31310

The Plaintiff: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The plaintiff, William Hayes, Jr., worked for Swissport Cargo Services from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024. During his time at the company, Hayes claims the company failed to record all hours he and other employees worked accurately. Inaccurate timekeeping practices allegedly led to inaccurate and incomplete wages and wage statements, which violates labor law. Hayes filed a California wage and hour class action lawsuit representing himself and other former employees who qualify for the class.

The Defendant: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The defendant, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., provides air cargo services in California. According to the lawsuit, the air cargo provider allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including:

  • failing to pay their workers the minimum wage required by law (in violation of Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

  • failing to provide their employees with an accurate itemized wage statement for each pay period (in violation of Labor Code § 226)

  • failing to provide employees with overtime wages when they work overtime (in violation of Labor Code § 510)

  • failing to provide employees with meal periods/rest breaks (in violation of Labor Code § 226.7 and 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Order)

  • failure to reimburse employees for necessary work expenses (in violation of Labor Code §2802)

  • failure to provide wages when due (in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203)

  • failure to provide sick pay wages (in violation of Labor Code §§ 201, 203, 233, and 246)

The plaintiff also claims the defendant engaged in unfair competition practices in violation of California Business & Professional Code §§ 17200.

What Qualifies as “Time Worked” for California Employees?

“Time worked” for a California employee is any time when the worker is subject to their employer’s control. Being “under an employer’s control” can refer to the time when an employee is allowed or permitted to work but not required to work, including active duty hours and any time the employee needs to remain on the worksite or business premises, wait for work to arrive or start, attend meetings, fulfill training requirements, etc. In addition, “time worked” for a California employee can refer to time when the employee was allowed to work and the work benefited the company/employer. If you have questions about how your employer defines “time worked,” contact an experienced employment law attorney to get answers for your job situation.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The plaintiffs in the case, William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P., seek compensation for their alleged lost wages, an injunction to prevent similar unlawful conduct in the future, and all other appropriate and legal equitable relief for the plaintiff and other class members who were economically injured by Swissport Cargo Services’ alleged unlawful conduct (past and present). The plaintiff filed the case in Los Angeles County Superior Court; it is currently pending.

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.

Swissport Cargo Lawsuit Alleges Wage and Hour Violations

/

In recent news, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. faces wage and hour violation allegations.

The Case: William Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV31310

The Plaintiff: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

The plaintiff, William Hayes, Jr. (a non-exempt hourly employee for Swissport Cargo from July 10, 2024, through August 30, 2024), filed a class action complaint alleging that Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

Swiss Cargo Services, L.P. provides air cargo services in California. A recent class action complaint alleges that the defendant, Swissport Cargo Services, L.P.:

  • Required their employees to work "off the clock" without paying them for their time (a violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

  • Failed to pay minimum wage (a violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1)

  • Did not provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement (a violation of California Labor Code § 226)

What Information Should Employers Provide on an Itemized Wage Statement?

Labor law is specific about the information that must be included in an accurate, itemized wage statement. To comply with California Labor Code Section 226(a), employers must include the following:

  • All applicable hourly rates during the pay period

  • Total hours worked

  • Applicable pay period in which the wages were earned

According to the class action lawsuit, the wage statements Swissport Cargo Services, L.P. provided their employees did not identify the necessary information.

The Case: Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo

According to the Hayes' complaint, off-duty meal breaks or rest periods were regularly interrupted for work, rounded employee time worked (to benefit the company), and required off-the-clock mandatory COVID-19 screening before clocking into work. The case, Hayes, Jr. vs. Swissport Cargo, is currently pending in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.

Boar’s Head Faces a Wrongful Death Claim Connected to Contaminated Products

/

Amid a Listeria outbreak, Boar's Head faces a wrongful death claim pointing to contaminated products.

The Case: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

The Court: Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida

The Case No.: 209401239

The Plaintiff: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

The plaintiff is Judith Adams, individually and as Personal Representative de son tort of the estate of Otis T. Adams, Jr, deceased. Otis T. Adams died after allegedly consuming Listeria-contaminated Boar's Head products. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) linked the Listeria outbreak to Boar's Head Deli products. Adams' surviving family members filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has linked this Listeria outbreak, which has affected 59 people and resulted in 10 deaths, back to Boar's Head deli products.

The Defendant: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

The defendant, Boar's Head, was founded in 1905. The company is a premier provider of high-quality deli products and promotes its brand as using only the finest ingredients. Boar's Head Deli products include a wide range of meat and cheese products. The Adams vs. Boar's Head wrongful death lawsuit highlights the outbreak's severity and raises food safety concerns, but it isn't the only incident. The Boar's Head Listeria outbreak is linked to dozens of incidents, including at least ten deaths.

The Case: Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head

Judith Adams vs. Boar's Head quickly increased scrutiny of both production and distribution practices at Boar's Head and in the industry as a whole. At the same time, the CDC's findings connect the Listeria outbreak to multiple Boar's Head products, suggesting the company may have experienced multiple lapses in food safety protocols. The situation generated a spotlight on public health in connection to industry standards for contamination prevention and could have widespread ramifications on food safety and handling practices. The Adams family filed the Boar's Head wrongful death lawsuit in October 2024.

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

Carl’s Jr. Employees Claim the Popular Burger Joint Didn’t Pay Overtime Wages

/

In recent news, former Carl’s Jr. employees claim that the popular burger joint did not pay them overtime wages in compliance with labor law.

The Case: Esther Sigala vs. Sun Gir Incorporated dba Carl’s Jr.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV27980

The Plaintiff: Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr.

The plaintiff, Esther Sigala, worked for the defendant at a California Carl’s Jr. location from 2006 to November 2023 as a non-exempt hourly employee. She filed the overtime class action alleging she and other employees in similar positions at the company were not fully compensated for their work due to uniform practices and policies in place at Carl’s Jr. According to Sigala, Carl’s Jr. retained (and continues to retain) wages she and other employees are due for the time they worked at the restaurant.

The Defendant: Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr.

The defendant, Sun Gir Incorporated, operates fast food franchises like Carl’s Jr. throughout California (including Los Angeles County). The class action complaint alleges the company failed to provide employees with legally compliant:

  • meal breaks

  • rest periods

  • minimum wage

  • overtime pay

  • sick pay

  • wage statements

  • personnel files

  • reimbursement for business expenses

How Are Overtime Pay Rates Determined for Eligible California Employees?

Overtime pay rates for eligible California employees are calculated using specific regulations set by the Labor Code. (California Labor Code is more protective than federal standards). For regular overtime, non-exempt employees are entitled to one and one-half times their regular pay rate for all hours worked over 8 (and up to 12) in one work day. This rate also applies for the first 8 hours an employee puts in on the seventh consecutive day working in one workweek. Employees earn double their regular pay rate for double time when they work more than 12 hours in one workday (for hours in excess of 12). Double-time rates also apply to hours over eight on the seventh consecutive day of work in one workweek. The employee’s “regular rate of pay” includes their hourly wage and other forms of remuneration like piecework earnings, commissions, etc. Expense reimbursements, gifts, discretionary bonuses, etc., are excluded from the “regular rate of pay” for overtime pay calculations.

The Case: Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr.

The plaintiff filed the case, Sigala vs. Carl’s Jr., in the Los Angeles County Superior Court where it is currently pending.

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.