California Class Action Lawsuit Alleges TriCom Networks, Inc. Failed to Provide Required Meal and Rest Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, California employees allege TriCom Networks, Inc., their employer, violated the labor code.

The Case: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00001267-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Coleman Bud Mathews IV, started working for TriCom Networks, Inc. in December 2021. He was employed there as an hourly, non-exempt employee through May 2022. During his time with TriCom Networks, Inc., Mathews claims that the company’s policy and standard practices regarding the payment of minimum wage, the calculation and payment of overtime, and required meal breaks and rest periods violated employment law. Mathews filed a class action.

The Defendant: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The defendant in the case, TriCom Networks, Inc., is a California that employed the plaintiff during the class period. According to the class action lawsuit, TriCom Networks allegedly violated various California Labor Codes.

The Allegations: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The allegations included in the class action fall under California Labor Code Sections §§ s 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California employer allegedly failed to:

1. pay minimum wages

2. pay overtime wages

3. provide employees with required rest periods and meal breaks

4. reimburse employees for required business expenses

5. provide accurate itemized wage statements*

*According to California Labor Code Section 226, employers must provide workers with an accurate itemized wage statement (in writing) that includes the employee’s gross wages earned, total hours worked, piece rate, and the number of piece-rate units earned (if applicable), any deductions taken, net wages, the dates specifying the pay period, the employee’s name, the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or employee id number, the employer’s name and address, hourly rates of pay (any that are in effect and applicable to the current pay period) and the numbers of hours paid at each hourly rate for the employee.

The Case: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The plaintiff claims that during the time spent employed by TriCom Networks, Inc., meal break violations, rest period violations, unreimbursed business expenses, wage statement violations, off-the-clock work resulting in minimum wage and overtime pay violations, unlawful rounding practices, timekeeping manipulation, etc. resulted in losses for the plaintiff and others in similar situations with the company. The class action seeks compensation for these losses.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Veni-Express, Inc. Fail to Pay Employees All Wages Due?

In recent news, an employee claims that Veni-Express, Inc. failed to pay employees all the wages they were due for hours worked.

The Case: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2022-00047732-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Yesenia Medina, is a mobile phlebotomist employed in California from January 2022 through June 2022 by Veni-Express, Inc. According to the complaint, the plaintiff did not receive minimum wage or legally required rest breaks. During her employment, the company allegedly put a piece rate pay system in place for conducting the visits assigned by the company (that the plaintiff describes as illegal). Under the piece rate system, Medina claims the company failed to pay minimum wage and also failed to pay for all hours worked, including time spent traveling to and from visits, time spent filling out charts and paperwork before and after completing the assigned visits, and time the company required Medina be on call.

Alleged Violations of Employment Law: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

• Unfair competition (violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq; 2)

• Failure to pay minimum wage (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197 & 1197.1; 3)

• Failure to pay overtime wages (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510 et seq; 4)

• Failure to provide required meal periods and rest periods (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512 and the applicable wage order)

• Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (violating Cal. Lab. Code § 226; 7)

• Failure to provide wages when due (violating Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 AND 203. 8)

• Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act

The Defendant: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Veni-Express, Inc., offers mobile phlebotomy, specimen collection, onsite drug testing, and DNA collection services throughout California, including San Diego County, where the plaintiff, Medina, worked.

The Case: Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc.

The case, Yesenia Medina v. Veni-Express, Inc., is brought on behalf of current and former California employees of Veni-Express who received payment for their work using the piece rate basis from November 28, 2018, to the time of the filing. The plaintiff alleges that some of the employees receiving piece rate payment were entitled to separate hourly compensation for the time they spent performing other, non-production related job duties as instructed by Veni-Express during their work shifts. Medina also claims the employees are entitled to one hour of compensation pay for their missed rest periods.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced class action attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Is Failing to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses a Labor Law Violation?

In recent news, Logical Innovations, Inc. faces allegations of Labor Law violations after an employee's lawsuit claims they failed to reimburse for required business expenses.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV31929

The Plaintiff: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Atya Tarkington, was employed in California by the defendant from January 2020 to March 2022 as a non-exempt employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages. Tarkington filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the company failed to provide employees with off-duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by employment law. In addition, the plaintiff claims the company failed to provide appropriate overtime pay for the missed meal breaks, which resulted in lost wages for Tarkington and other eligible class members.

The Defendant: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The defendant in the case, Logical Innovations, Inc., and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, were joint employers of Atya Tarkington, the plaintiff. The defendants provide business development services for the federal government and clients in the commercial sector. According to the plaintiff, the company failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses that enabled the employees to complete their job duties.

The Case: Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC

The case, Atya Tarkington v. Logical Innovations, Inc, and Logical-R Joint Venture LLC, allegedly failed to reimburse employees for business expenses required to complete their job duties. According to California Labor Code §2802, "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." According to court documents, Tarkington and other class members were allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones, vehicles, and home offices to complete their job duties. The company did not fully compensate them for the business expenses.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced class action attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Mosaic Sales Solutions Settles Expense Reimbursement Class Action Lawsuit for $148K

In recent news, Mosaic Sales Solutions agreed to settle a class action expense reimbursement lawsuit for $148K.

The Case: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

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

The Case No.: 19STCV30088

The Plaintiff: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The plaintiff in the case filed the class action on behalf of individuals who worked as brand ambassadors for Mosaic Sales Solutions in California between Aug. 27, 2015, and June 30, 2021. The class definition includes about 3,100 Mosaic workers. According to the California class action lawsuit, Mosaic Sales brand ambassadors were required to cover business expenses like cellphone costs, other communication device and service expenses, mileage expenses, and more. The company did not reimburse them for the business expenses. Mosaic Sales allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse their brand ambassadors for business expenses.

The Defendant: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

The defendant in the case, Mosaic Sales Solutions, is a marketing agency offering numerous services such as brand design, commerce support, business strategies, online marketing, and more. Mosaic’s brand ambassadors provide the company with information on various products at different retail locations. The data brand ambassadors gathered was used to optimize sales for the company.

Details of the Case: Coyle v. Mosaic Sales

Mosaic Sales allegedly violated California labor law by failing to reimburse brand ambassadors for business expenses. Under California state law, employers must reimburse employees for costs or losses incurred “in direct consequence” of their job duties. Mosaic Sales Solutions agreed to pay $148,000 to resolve the class action lawsuit claiming they violated employment law by failing to reimburse brand ambassadors for business expenses.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with 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.

Merrill Settles Employee Misclassification Collective Action for $3.4M

In recent news, Merrill settled an employee misclassification collection action for $3.4 million.

The Case: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The Court: Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida

The Case No.: 50-2022-CA-007445-XXXX-MB

The Plaintiff: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

The plaintiffs in the case filed a collective action on behalf of Financial Solutions Advisors employed by Merrill between Aug. 3, 2020, and Aug. 10, 2022. The class action lawsuit alleged the company misclassified an entire class of employees as exempt from overtime laws, which resulted in lost wages. In the case, the plaintiffs claim the defendant encouraged their FSA employees to work over 40 hours per week but did not pay them the overtime pay they earned. They allegedly enacted a company-wide policy that classified all Merrill FSAs as exempt from federal overtime protections. The plaintiffs claim the defendant willfully misclassified FSAs as exempt, failed to record the time the FSAs worked, and failed to pay FSAs proper overtime wages as required by labor law.

The Defendant: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

According to the class action, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith is one of the world's largest banks and brokerage firms. Also known simply as Merrill, the group is the investment and wealth management division of the well-known financial institution Bank of America. Merrill denies it violated the law and that FSAs were compensated correctly.

The Case: Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

Employee misclassification is common in today's workplaces, and rules about who is exempt or non-exempt and what types of work are eligible for overtime can vary depending on state laws. Merrill set up a fund of $3.4 million to resolve the misclassification and overtime class action. The $3.4 million settles the collective action lawsuit alleging the company violated the FLSA. The amount each class member receives is based on the number of weeks the employee worked during the applicable time period. Once a class member becomes part of the collective action in Hill v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, they cannot sue Merrill for any claims relating to the lawsuit. Merrill denies the alleged employment law violations, stating that the settlement agreement avoids additional litigation expenses.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced class action attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$1.8M Settlement Could Resolve Background Checks FCRA Class Action Claims

G4S Secure Solutions recently agreed to a settlement totaling almost $1.8 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming they violated federal law with unfair background checks.

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The Court: Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida

The Case No.: 21-ca-005587

The Plaintiff: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Lonita Johnson, claims G4S Secure Solutions violated federal law with its employee applicant background checks. According to the court documents, the plaintiff alleges that while the company used a background check form when obtaining background checks, it did not comply with disclosures and other requirements under the federal FCRA.

The Defendant: Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The defendant, G4S Secure Solutions, is a part of G4S Global. The company offers security services, cash solutions, consulting services, and care and justice services around the globe. Consider a few examples of the type of professional services the company provides:

• Estonia border security

• A Turkish bank's security upgrade

• Creating a safety standard for a European car manufacturer

The Case: Lonita Johnson V. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

Under FCRA, employees and job applicants are guaranteed certain rights. The FCRA holds employers to several standards when requesting, running, or taking employment action based on background checks. Employers must obtain written permission before running a background check and include disclosures in compliance with FCRA requirements. Employers/prospective employers are also limited in what they can ask about a job applicant or employee's background. According to the lawsuit, Lonita Johnson V. G4s Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., G4S Secure Solutions violated these and other FCRA requirements when they requested and ran background checks on employees and applicants. G4S Secure Solutions did not admit any wrongdoing, but they did agree to resolve the allegations with a class action lawsuit settlement of $1,758,625. The settlement benefits G4S Secure Solutions employees and applicants to whom the company provided an FCRA disclosure and authorization fund since July 21st, 2019. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for the proposed settlement for Sept. 28th, 2022.

If you have questions about FCRA background check violations or need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Costco $3.2M ERISA Class Action Settlement Granted Final Approval

On July 18th, 2022, the court granted final approval to the $3.2 million settlement agreement parties reached in March 2022 to resolve class action allegations. The class action alleged that Costco mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-00937

The Plaintiff: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Soulek, filed the class action on behalf of plan participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees of the Costco 401(k) Retirement Plan. Eligible class members are retirement plan account participants as of the class certification date or participants who had a plan account on or after the last business day of a month on or after May 30th, 2014, with an account balance of $1,000 or more for at least 12 months beginning during the class period. The class period is from May 30th, 2014, through March 17th, 2022. The plaintiff's class action accused Costco of mismanagement resulting in the 401(k) plan incurring administrative and investment management fees that were higher than necessary.

The Defendant: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

The defendant in the case, Costco, is a sizeable membership-based chain of wholesale stores that sell various products (groceries, electronics, pet products, household goods, basic office supplies, and more). According to the company's website, the chain's membership is currently at more than a million members (or shoppers).

The Case: Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.

In March 2022, the parties involved in the case, Soulek v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., reached a $3.2 million class action lawsuit settlement agreement to resolve claims that the company mismanaged the 401(k) plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Costco denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to the settlement to resolve the class action ERISA claims. The Court granted the settlement final approval on July 18th, 2022. Under the terms of the Costco 401(k) settlement agreement, the company agreed that current plan participants would be eligible for an administrative fee reduction, with a maximum total value of $3.2 million. Former plan participants and current eligible participants (those who cease having a plan account by the settlement's effective date) can claim payment through the settlement agreement. Settlement payments to former plan participants are calculated on the number of quarters their plan account balance exceeded $1,000 during the class period. The amount is determined based on an allocation plan included in the settlement agreement.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an ERISA 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.