Twitter Facing California Class Action Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violation

Another former Twitter employee recently filed a California labor complaint alleging that the social media platform giant violated labor law when they failed to give the required notice to employees before companywide layoffs.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01788

The Plaintiff: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eitan Adler, is a former Twitter employee. The software engineer's LinkedIn profile indicates he worked full-time at Twitter for over 7 ½ years. Adler was laid off on November 15, 2022. According to the complaint, Adler did not receive 60 days of advance written notice (required by the federal and California WARN Act). Adler also claims he did not receive pay in place of the legally required notice. On top of that, Adler brings another claim under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of California and other aggrieved California employees in similar situations. California's PAGA allows workers to sue on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the state for California labor law violations.

The Defendant: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Twitter, has dropped from approx. eight thousand employees to about 2,000 employees since the new owner, Musk, took over the business. According to Adler, Elon Musk's near-immediate mass layoff has affected more than half of Twitter's workforce. In addition, Twitter is facing five additional suits in the same San Francisco federal court with similar allegations that are currently pending, claiming Twitter targeted female workers in layoffs, discriminated against employees with disabilities, those who criticized the company, tried to organize strikes, etc.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

According to court documents, Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al., Twitter did not provide the necessary notice for companywide layoffs to Adler and other employees. However, Twitter did provide the required notice under federal and California WARN Acts to many employees affected by the mass layoffs. As of April 13, when Adler filed the complaint, 75% of Twitter's workforce had been laid off. While numerous other suits were filed, this lawsuit stands apart because Adler opted out of the arbitration agreement between Twitter and their workers, and he asserted PAGA claims.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action complaint, 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.

California Plaintiffs and Five Guys Fifth Agreement Nears Settlement

In recent news, California plaintiffs and Five Guys are near a settlement (based on their fifth agreement).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Fresno Division

The Case No.: 1:17-cv-00762-JLT-EPG

The Plaintiff: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Jeremy R. Lusk, was an hourly, non-exempt manager in training at one of the Five Guys California locations from August to November 2016. He filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated labor law when they denied their workers' overtime pay and legally mandated breaks and rest periods. Preliminary approval was granted in September 2022 for a settlement based on the fifth agreement between the two parties.

The Defendant: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., is faced with a number of allegations.

• Failed to provide paid meal breaks and rest breaks for workers because it was too busy.

• Failed to pay workers legally mandated overtime pay.

• Required workers to work off the clock (requiring workers to clock out and then continue to complete required work duties like counting money in the cash register, etc.)

• Failing to reimburse employees for the use of personal cars in the course of completing their job duties (like traveling to and from other restaurant locations for pick-ups, supply runs, etc.)

• Failed to pay workers for overtime work.

• Failed to provide workers with accurate wage statements.

• Obtained authorization to conduct background checks using a disclosure form that did not comply with the law (FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), CCRAA (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act), and ICRAA (Investigating Consumer Reporting Agency Act).

The Case: Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc.

The case, Jeremy R. Lusk v. Five Guys Enterprises, Inc., reached a fifth proposed settlement of $1.2 million that would involve 2,206 class members. The two parties await final approval of the settlement.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.

Community Hospice, Inc. Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

A former Community Hospice, Inc. employee filed a class action lawsuit claiming Community Hospice, Inc. failed to pay accurate overtime wages.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The Court: Stanislaus County Superior Court

The Case No.: CV-23-001773

The Plaintiff: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Tyeisha Travis, was employed by Community Hospice, Inc. from September 2019 through April 13, 2022. Travis was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Travis filed the class action for herself and other similarly situated employees qualifying as class members.

The Defendant: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Community Hospice, Inc., provides medical, nursing, emotional, spiritual, and educational support to individuals and their families and loved ones as they cope with life-threatening illness, disease, and grief.

The Case: Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc.

In the case, Tyeisha Travis v. Community Hospice, Inc., the defendant allegedly failed to pay employees accurate sick wages in violation of labor law. When employees earned non-discretionary incentive wages, it increased their regular rate of pay. However, when the employees were paid sick pay, the sick pay was issued at the lower base rate of pay instead of the adjusted rate after the non-discretionary incentive wage additions. While working for Community Hospice, Inc., employees used their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. The plaintiff claims their cell phones were a necessary job expense that the company failed to reimburse.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime 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.

Did St. Anne's Foundation Violate California Labor Laws?

In a recently filed California class action complaint, St. Anne's Foundation faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with meal breaks and rest periods, which violates California labor law.

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV14674

The Plaintiff: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The plaintiff in the case, Britney Clarke, is a Los Angeles County resident. The class is defined as hourly employees (current or former) residing in California employed by the defendant anytime between four years before the date of the complaint filing through the final resolution.

The Defendant: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

The defendant in the case, St. Anne's Foundation, and Family Services, is a California corporation.

The Allegations: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to give employees their wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services

According to court documents, Britney Clarke v. St. Anne's Foundation and Family Services allegedly violated labor law. The case poses the question of whether any failure to pay wages was willful on the defendant's part and whether St. Anne's corporate policy or practice violated labor law by failing to pay them for all hours worked promptly and providing overtime pay at the appropriate overtime pay rate. According to the plaintiff, the company required them to work more than 8 hours in one day and more than 40 hours in one week. The plaintiff claims that there was a clear pattern of wage abuse during her employment.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action complaint, 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.

Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Faces Wage and Hour Class Action

In recent news, Prudent Security Solutions Inc. faces a wage and hour class action citing multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

The Plaintiff: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Prudent Security Solutions Inc. employed Brian Bradford from March 2022 to April 2022. Bradford was a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses and was eligible for federal and state labor law protections, including minimum wage, overtime wage, meal breaks, and rest periods.

The Defendant: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

The defendant in the case, Prudent Security Solutions Inc., provides security services throughout California, including Los Angeles.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly committed various labor code violations, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses, failing to pay wages when due, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to pay vacation wages when due, failing to make lawful deductions, failing to pay wages during employment promptly, and failing to pay sick pay.

California Labor Law: Minimum Wage

According to California law, employers must pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked during the designated pay period on an established payday. The relevant wage order defines "hours worked" as the time during "which an employee is subject to the control of an employer," including the time the employee is suffered or allowed to work, even if they are not required to work.

The Case: Brian Bradford and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc.

According to the plaintiff, Prudent Security Solutions required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts and during "off-duty" meal breaks. The plaintiffs also allege Prudent Security Solutions failed to compensate employees for time employees spent under the employer's control "off-the-clock." As a result, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly failed to provide employees with the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour 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.

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC Faces a California Class Action Complaint

Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC faces a class action complaint alleging that they violated California Labor Law.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

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

The Case No.: 23CV-00403

The Plaintiff: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The plaintiff in the case,  Juan Romero, filed a class action complaint alleging that Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC violated labor law. The alleged violations include:

• failure to pay minimum wage

• failure to pay overtime wages

• failure to provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• failure to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

• failure to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failure to pay sick wages

The Defendant: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

The defendant in the case, Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, produces, markets, and distributes various dairy products. According to the plaintiff, the company allegedly failed to reimburse their employees for required business expenses. 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 the plaintiff, Juan Romero, he and other eligible California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

The Case: Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

In the case Juan Romero v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, the defendant faces allegations of numerous labor law violations. The claims included in the complaint violate Labor Code sections §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). The alleged conduct could result in civil penalties.

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.

DCH Torrance Imports Inc. Faces Class Action Alleging Labor Code Violations

In recent news, a lawsuit alleges that DCH Torrance Imports Inc. violated the labor code by failing to provide their employees with timely rest breaks and meal periods.

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. ("DCH Toyota of Torrance")

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

The Case No.: 23STCV02400,

The Plaintiff: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiff in the case, Aaron Castro, filed a class action complaint against the defendant, DCH Torrance Imports Inc (DCH Toyota of Torrance). Castro was employed by the defendant in the case since December 2012 as a non-exempt employee paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses. As a non-exempt employee, Castro is entitled to labor law protection, including minimum wages, overtime pay, rest periods, and meal breaks, as determined by federal and state labor laws. Allegedly the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods and engaged in uniform practices and policies that failed to fully compensate employees for their time and, in doing so, violated California State Labor Law.

The Defendant: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The defendant in the case, DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (Toyota of Torrance), is a California corporation that owns, operates, or manages auto dealerships throughout California, including the location in Los Angeles county where the plaintiff, Aaron Castro, worked. California law requires all employers to pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period, to provide employees no less than the established minimum wage for hours worked, and to calculate hours worked as the time during which an employee is "subject to the control of an employer" including the time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. Allegedly, DCH Toyota of Torrance required employees to perform off-the-clock work before and after their scheduled shifts and during their meal breaks and rest periods. The company also allegedly failed to compensate employees for the time spent under the employer's control when performing off-the-clock work. This alleged uniform practice at the company resulted in the claimed violations of minimum wage and overtime law.

The Allegations: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

According to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, DCH Toyota of Torrance, allegedly violated numerous labor laws (California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802) when they engaged in the following business practices and activities:

Failing to pay minimum wages

Failing to pay overtime wages

Failing to provide required meal and rest periods

Failing to pay wages when due

Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

Failing to reimburse employees for required expenses

The Case: Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc. (DCH Toyota of Torrance)

The plaintiffs and class members seek an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in future repeat labor law violations and relief for economic injuries incurred due to DCH Toyota of Torrance's allegedly illegal business practices and policies. The case, Aaron Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime 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.