Do Corporate Pilots Get FLSA Overtime Pay Protections?

A group of corporate pilots recently filed a lawsuit questioning why they were not paid overtime when working more than eight hours in one day or forty hours in one workweek.

Case Details: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., U.S. District Court of Nevada, Case No.: 110 F.4th 1136 (9th Cir. 2024)

The Plaintiff: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

Sean Kennedy and the other plaintiffs were full-time corporate pilots for Sands from March 27, 2014 through March 27, 2017. During that time they received a salary ($125,000 and $160,000 annually). According to the pilots, they allegedly often worked more than eight hours per day and forty hours per workweek without receiving overtime pay. The group filed claims for unpaid overtime and retaliation under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standard Act).

The Defendant: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

The defendant, Sands Aviation, LLC, provides aviation services for executives and patrons of Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Las Vegas Sands, LLC.

The Allegations: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

On March 27, 2017, the Sands pilots filed the overtime lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime (violating 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)) and retaliation (violating 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)).

The Case: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

After hearing the case during an eight-day bench trial, the district court judge decided in favor of Las Vegas Sands Corp. on the grounds that the pilots qualified as “highly compensated exempt employees” (according to definitions provided by the FLSA)) who primarily performed non-manual labor and regularly made significant discretionary decisions. The district court further noted that even if the pilots were not exempt from overtime based on salary and job duties, waiting time between flights did not constitute “work” requiring overtime payment under FLSA since the pilots could engage freely in personal activities during wait times. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on appeal.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime pay lawsuit, contact the knowledgeable employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. They're ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Can a Co-Worker’s Social Media Post Create a “Hostile” Work Environment?

A recent lawsuit's hostile work environment claims hinged on the social media posts of a co-worker. The court was left to decide if a co-worker's social media activity can legally constitute a hostile workplace environment. The court's arguments led to much-needed clarity on the complex connection between workplace harassment and social media.

Case Details: Okonowsky v. Garland, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No.: 109 F.4th 1166 (9th Cir. 2024)

Federal Prison Psychologist Alleges Hostile Work Environment:

During her time employed as a federal prison psychologist, one of Lindsay Okonowsky's colleagues, corrections Lieutenant Steven Hellman, shared a series of sexually explicit and derogatory Instagram posts on his social media account, specifically denigrating his female coworker. Hellman made hundreds of derogatory social media posts denigrating women in general but specifically targeted his coworker, Okonowsky, including jokes about raping her. The negative Instagram posts were visible to other prison coworkers and some of the prison’s management personnel. The situation scared Okonowsky and made her uncomfortable going to work daily.

Seeking Resolution: Reporting Harassment to Management 

Okonowsky first sought a resolution of the situation by bringing the matter to the attention of her superiors at the federal prison, as well as the human resources manager. According to the lawsuit, instead of starting an investigation, she was advised to "toughen up" or "get a sense of humor." In fact, the hostile work environment claim wasn't taken seriously until months after the fact when a new warden took over at the federal prison.

Defining a Hostile Work Environment: Does Social Media Activity Apply?

The plaintiff argues that the string of derogatory social media posts constituted a hostile work environment and that her employers failed to properly investigate when she filed her complaint. Labor law requires employers to investigate complaints. However, in addition to fulfilling legal obligations, employers should investigate to ascertain the facts and prevent future instances of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. Failing to investigate leaves employees at risk of a potentially damaging work environment.

Okonowsky v. Garland: From District Court to Appellate Court

Initially, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant because Hellman, Okonowsky's colleague at the prison, was using his personal social media account, which they defined as outside of the workplace. The district court found that Hellman's online activity didn't fit the requirements needed to qualify as harassment under Title VII because the posts occurred outside of the workplace, were not directly sent to Okonowsky, and were not shown to her in the workplace. Using this definition, the court found that workplace harassment rules did not apply. However, on appeal, the district court's decision was reversed. The Ninth Circuit court clarified that it's not about when or where the conduct occurs but about the audience. And in the case of Okonowsky v. Garland, the audience included Okonowsky, the plaintiff, and her coworkers (including management personnel). In addition, the behavior overflowed into the workplace, which left Okonowsky feeling unsafe at work and uncomfortable going to work because of the series of Instagram posts. In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit panel held that Hellman's Instagram posts denigrating his female coworker could qualify as unlawful harassment. The court's rejection of the notion that only conduct occurring in the physical workplace can be actionable was firm - noting the ready use of social media to harass and bully both inside and outside the "workplace."

If you have questions about filing a California hostile work environment 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.

Can One Racist Slur Create a Hostile Work Environment in California?

In another landmark decision, the California Supreme Court recently clarified that under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), even a single instance of a racial slur (like the n-word) can create a hostile work environment. This ruling only increases the employers' responsibility to prevent and address workplace harassment.

Case Details:

Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office

Supreme Court of California

Case No.: 16 Cal. 5th 611 (2024)

The Harassment and Retaliation Claims of Twanda Bailey

According to Twanda Bailey, a Black employee at the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, a colleague used the n-word in a conversation with her. After reporting this, Bailey alleges the District Attorney's Office HR manager blocked her formal complaint, intimidated her, and threatened her with retaliation, stating Bailey was "going to get it." Bailey's lawsuit claims she faced both racial harassment from a coworker and retaliation from HR for reporting it.

The Defendant: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office

The defendants in the case are the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, former District Attorney George Gascón, and the City and County of San Francisco. The defendants acknowledged that a meeting between Bailey and her colleague, Saras Larkin, took place. However, Larkin denied using the racial slur. Although Larkin denied using the n-word, the city reminded her of its harassment policy. The city then determined that a single instance of alleged misconduct, even if true, did not meet the legal standard for a hostile work environment under FEHA. A known close relationship between Larkin and the personnel officer handling the situation raises questions, though the city claims an investigation was undertaken.

The Allegations: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office

According to the lawsuit, Twanda Bailey claims the DA's Office violated FEHA (California's Fair Employment and Housing Act). She claims:

Racial Harassment: Bailey alleges she was subjected to racial abuse when a coworker called her the n-word.

Workplace Retaliation: After reporting her co-worker's racist language, Bailey claims the human resources manager took a series of retaliatory actions. First, she allegedly blocked Bailey's complaint, then engaged in intimidation and threats. Bailey claims the retaliation stopped her from pursuing a resolution for the original harassment claim.

Case History: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office

Trial Court (Superior Court of San Francisco City and County): Granted summary judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco. The trial court found that a co-worker's single use of the n-word wasn't "severe or pervasive" enough to create a hostile work environment. They also found that Bailey had not offered sufficient proof that she suffered an adverse employment action.

Court of Appeal: Affirmed the trial court's decision.

Supreme Court of California: Reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. The Supreme Court held that:

• A single, severe instance of a racial slur can create a hostile work environment, depending on the totality of the circumstances.

• The severity of harassment must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position.

• Actions that effectively block an employee's ability to report and address harassment (like the alleged obstruction by HR) can constitute an adverse employment action.

There were genuine disputes of material fact regarding both the harassment and retaliation claims, requiring a trial.

Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office: Why It Matters?

The California Supreme Court's decision is a reminder that even an isolated incident of racial language can result in severe legal consequences. The court broadened the scope of potential employer liability under FEHA, emphasizing the "totality of circumstances" and the perspective of a "reasonable person" in the plaintiff's position. Additionally, the court's ruling shows that hindering a worker's ability to report instances of harassment can be defined as retaliation. Employers should take all racial harassment reports seriously and conduct thorough and impartial investigations followed by appropriate corrective action to avoid recurrences. Failing ot do so could mean significant consequences (financial penalties, damaged reputation, litigation, etc.)

Do you need to file a California harassment lawsuit? Let the knowledgeable employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP help. We're ready to assist you in any of our various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Hogan Truck Leasing Class Action Looks at Meal Break Violations Affecting Wages

A California worker recently filed a class action complaint allegint that Hogan Truck Leasing's standard operating practices failed to provide workers with the required off duty meal periods and rest breaks.

The Case: Luther Hill v. Hogan Truck Leasing

The Court: California's County of San Bernardino Superior Court

The Case No.:CIVSB2500366

California Labor Law Mandates Meal Breaks and Rest Periods for Eligible Employees

The plaintiff in the case, Luther Hill, filed a class action complaint against Hogan Truck Leasing. Hill alleged the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks during his time at the company. According to Hill, the Hogan Truck Leasing employees' rigorous work schedules prevented workers from taking off-duty meal breaks and kept them from being fully relieved of their job duties for rest periods. In addition, when an employee missed their off-duty breaks, they were allegedly not provided with one hour of wages in lieu of the break (as required by labor law).

Did Hogan Truck Leasing Fail to Pay Workers for All Time Worked?

According to the plaintiff, Hogan Truck Leasing's standard practices failed to provide workers with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods. As a result of this standard practice, the plaintiff alleges that Hogan Truck Leasing failed to pay its employees for all their hours.

Allegations Stemming from Alleged Meal Break and Rest Period Practices

According to the Hill's allegations, Hogan Truck Leasing violated numerous California labor laws governing:

• Minimum wage requirements

• Overtime pay requirements

• Meal break/rest period requirements

• Timely payment of wages

• Accurate itemized wage statements

• Reimbursement of necessary business expenses

The Case: Luther Hill v. Hogan Truck Leasing

Luther Hill filed the California class action lawsuit in California's San Bernardino County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California meal break lawsuit, let Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP help. 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.

Fifth Circuit Affirms DOL's Authority to Increase Salary Threshold for Overtime Exemptions

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Department of Labor's (DOL) authority to raise the overtime exemption salary threshold for overtime exemptions (Mayfield v. United States Dep't of Labor). A significant ruling, the decision could directly impact Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) employee protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Case Details: Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Case Number: 117 F.4th 611 (5th Cir. 2024)

Challenging Overtime Rules & Taking the DOL to Court:

The plaintiffs in the case (Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor) case were employers who challenged the Department of Labor's (DOL) authority to establish minimum salary thresholds for executive, administrative, and professional employee overtime exemptions (EAP Exemptions). The plaintiffs are challenging the DOL's regulations, saying the agency went beyond its legal authority and interfered with their business and employment decisions.

Department of Labor Fights to Maintain Worker Protections

The defendant in the case was the U.S. Department of Labor. The federal agency responsible for enforcing labor standards and FLSA protections, the DOL issued regulations updating the minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions, which would extend overtime protections to more salaried employees, which led the plaintiffs to seek legal clarification defining the extent of the DOL's legal authority.

Battling Over Overtime Pay: How Did the Courts Weigh In?

The key question in Mayfield v. United States Dep't of Labor was whether the DOL had the authority to change the salary levels used to determine which executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) employees are exempt from overtime. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the DOL's power to set and adjust salary thresholds for overtime exemptions. This ruling upheld the 2019 Minimum Salary Rule, allowing the DOL to increase the minimum salary required for employees to be classified as exempt.

What Makes it a Landmark Decision: Mayfield v. DOL

In a landmark decision, the Fifth Circuit Court upheld the federal government's authority to enforce stricter wage and hour rules. This decision significantly affects overtime pay calculations for many workers. Therefore, employers must stay up-to-date with changing federal rules to avoid lawsuits and ensure fair pay for their employees.

California's Overtime Rules and the Federal Standard

California employers should remember that while the Mayfield decision clarifies the federal government's power to set overtime exemption salary thresholds, California often has stricter wage and hour laws in place. California's minimum salary for exempt employees is typically higher than the federal minimum. As of January 1, 2025, the minimum wage for California's exempt employees is $16.50 (applicable to all employers regardless of size). This means that even if an employee meets the federal salary threshold under the Mayfield ruling, they might still be entitled to overtime pay under California law. Employers in California must always comply with the law that provides the greatest benefit to the employee, which is often California law in this context.

If you have questions about filing a California overtime 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.

Evergreen Environmental Services Class Action: California Employer Allegedly Failed to Pay All Wages

Antonio Melgarejo recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Evergreen Environmental Services violated labor code. According to the California class action, the California employer failed to provide employees with required off duty meal breaks and rest periods, which resulted in additional alleged violations.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

The Case No.: 24STCV34126

Why Did Melgarejo File the California Class Action?

The plaintiff, Antonio Melgarejo, filed the class action complaint on behalf of himself and other workers in similar positions at the company. Melgarejo claims that Evergreen failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods; which are both required by labor law.

The Defendant: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The defendant, Evergreen Environmental Services, allegedly required their workers to complete job tasks before and after their scheduled shift. Additionally, workers were required to fulfill job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. According to the plaintiff, Evergreen Environmental Services did not compensate the employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods or for mandatory "off the clock" work. As a result, the California employer faces allegations of numerous labor law violations.

What Happens When California Employers Don't Comply with Labor Laws?

When California employers fail to comply with labor laws, they can face legal consequences. In this class action, the plaintiff included numerous labor law violation allegations, including those pertaining to minimum wage, overtime wages, timely payment of wages, meal breaks/rest periods, accurate itemized wages statements, and reimbursement of required business expenses. The plaintiff claims that the California employer's actions potentially violated multiple California Labor Codes.

The Case: Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services

The plaintiff filed the California class action, Antonio Melgarejo v. Evergreen Environmental Services, in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? 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.

The Reversal in a Far-Reaching Toxic Exposure Case

In a far-reaching toxic exposure case, the District Court's dismissal was reversed on appeal when the Supreme Court of Nevada ruled in favor of the injured plaintiffs.

The Case: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al.

The Court: Nevada Supreme Court

The Case No.: 85569

The Plaintiff: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The plaintiffs, Melinda Adkins et al., worked at Clark County Government Center (CCGC), where they were allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals. The exposure eventually led to personal injury and wrongful death claims after numerous Clark County employees contracted terminal cancer, and the exposure led to multiple employee deaths. According to the complaint, toxic chemicals were released on a Union Pacific property. After the CCGC opened on the same property in 1995, their on-site workers started to get sick. Workers also noticed black soot accumulating in air vents and workstations. However, Clark County reassured their workers - insisting the site was safe. In 2020, experts established the connection between the CCGC workers' illnesses and the toxic exposure linked back to when Union Pacific Railroad Company owned the property. Plaintiffs argue that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and toxic exposure until 2020 when experts established the connection. Wrongful death claims continued to arbitration.

In District Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

In Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court, the plaintiffs' first amended complaint was dismissed after the court concluded that the claims were time-barred since the statute didn't specify discovery-rule tolling. (The court ruled that the discovery rule didn't apply to the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

In Appellate Court: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision after a review. The Supreme Court held that the discovery rule (NRS 11.190(4)(e) could apply despite the specific language referencing discovery-rule tolling emphasizing that fairness and justice require a claim not accrue until the claimant is aware or "should be" aware of the possibility of a claim based on reasonable diligence. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs raised issues of fact about their awareness of the cause of action and the concealment of relevant information (on the part of the defendant). The Supreme Court also found the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling and remanded the case for additional proceedings.

Supreme Court of Nevada's Reversal: Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company

The Nevada Supreme Court's reversal of the district court's dismissal in Adkins et al. vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. made it possible for the plaintiffs to proceed with their personal injury and wrongful death based on toxic exposure claims. Based on the Supreme Court's findings, the case could proceed to discovery and trial. The findings on appeal emphasized the applicability of the discovery rule and equitable tolling. The decision allowing the plaintiffs' claims to move forward despite the initial statute of limitations dismissal was a notable victory for the plaintiffs that reinforced the protections the law offers for individuals harmed by corporate negligence.

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