Global Paratransit Allegedly Provided Employees with Incomplete Wages

According to a recently filed complaint, Global Paratransit, Inc. allegedly failed to record their employees' hours worked accurately, and as a result, employees claim they received inaccurate wage statements and incomplete wages for the time they worked.

The Case: Alejandro Galindo vs. Global Paratransit, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24STCV31314

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Galindo vs. Global Paratransit, Inc.

The plaintiff, Alejandro Galindo, was employed by the defendant in the case from December 21, 2023 to June 28, 2024. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Galindo was entitled to the protections provided by labor law, including meal breaks, rest periods, minimum wage, overtime pay, etc. Galindo filed a class action on behalf of himself and other employees at the company in similar work situations.

The Defendant: Alejandro Galindo vs. Global Paratransit, Inc.

The defendant, Global Paratransit, Inc., provides transport services throughout California. According to the plaintiff, Galindo, Global Paratransit, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. According to the class action complaint, the company allegedly required their workers to complete off-the-clock work by having them work during their "off-duty" meal breaks and requiring completion of mandatory COVID-19 screening tests before clocking in for a shift. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the company engaged in a standard practice of rounding the time their employees worked - always to the company's benefit. As a result, employees claim Global Paratransit, Inc. paid workers less than they would have received if they were paid for their actual hours worked.

What to Do If Your Employer Doesn't Record Your Hours Correctly and Pays You Less Than You Earned?

If you suspect that your employer is not recording your hours correctly and, as a result, you're being paid less than what you've earned, you should first gather documentation that supports your claim. Helpful supporting documents include:

• Timesheets

• Emails referencing your hours, scheduling, etc.

• Witness statements that support your claim

It's usually a good idea to discuss your concern with the HR department or your direct supervisor to request clarification; you could see a quick response, including adjusted pay for inaccurately recorded hours. If the problem isn't addressed internally, consult with an employment law attorney. An experienced attorney can help you discuss the process to file a complaint and recover your unpaid wages.

The Case: Alejandro Galindo vs. Global Paratransit, Inc.

The plaintiff filed the case, Alejandro Galindo vs. Global Paratransit, Inc., in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court where it is currently pending.

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

Alameda County Superior Court to Consider Claims Armorous Violated Labor Law

Do Armorous business practices violate labor law? A former employee's class action complaint brings the question to the attention of the Alameda County California Superior Court, where the issues will be considered.

The Case: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CV096396

The Plaintiff: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous

The plaintiff, Brandon Stocker, was employed by Armorous from August 2023 through April 2024 as a non-exempt hourly employee eligible for labor law protections. After noticing uniform policies and practices in place at the company that failed to comply with minimum wage, meal break/rest period, and overtime pay requirements, Stocker filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit to seek relief for his own and other employees' economic injuries.

The Defendant: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous

The defendant, Armorous, is a California corporation that owns and operates a security company. According to the class action complaint, the company failed to labor law compliant meal breaks and rest periods, failed to compensate employees for missed meal breaks and rest periods accurately, failed to pay workers for all their time worked, failed to provide compensation for off the clock work, failed to calculate overtime pay rates accurately, failed to provide workers with the required itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses.

How Should California Employers Compensate for Missed Meal Breaks?

Non-exempt California employees are entitled to a 30-minute meal break if they work more than five hours in one day and a second 30-minute break if they work over ten hours. The breaks must be uninterrupted and free of all work duties. California employers who fail to provide an eligible employee with their legally required, off-duty meal break must compensate them for the missed break. According to labor law, the required compensation is one additional hour of pay at the worker's regular rate for each day a meal break isn't provided.

The Case: Brandon Stocker v. Armorous

According to the class action lawsuit, Armorous allegedly violated Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

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

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.

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.

California Workers Claim Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. Violated Labor Law

A recent employment law case discusses labor law violation allegations after California workers claim Live Nation Worldwide failed to reimburse them for business expenses.

The Case: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

The Court: California Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2024-01435581-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiffs: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

The plaintiff in the case, Byron Gonzales, was an hourly employee eligible for labor law protections. As such, he was entitled to receive minimum wage, overtime pay, accurate, itemized wage statements, rest periods, and meal periods. Gonzales claims during his employment, the company's employees in similar circumstances allegedly required employees to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Gonzales filed a class action lawsuit for himself and other workers in similar positions, alleging that Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to reimburse workers for required business expenses.

Labor Code Requires Under California Labor Code 2802, California employers are required to "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…"

The Defendant: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

The defendant in the case is Live Nation Worldwide. Workers at the company claim they failed to reimburse their employees for necessary business expenses (including using personal cell phones). Allegedly, this standard business practice also resulted in inaccurate and incomplete wages and wage statements. California employers are required to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. To fulfill this requirement, the statements must include 1) applicable hourly rates, 2) total hours worked, and 3) the applicable pay period in which the wages were earned (Labor Code §226(a)). According to the plaintiff, Live Nation's wage statements failed to comply with labor code requirements.

The Allegations: Included in the Class Action

• Wage Statement Violation: Live Nation allegedly did not provide employees with an accurate itemized wage statement (violating California Labor Code §226).

• Business Expense Reimbursement Violation: Live Nation allegedly failed to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses (California Labor Code 2802).

Status of the Case: Byron Gonzales v. Live Nation Worldwide

Gonzales filed the Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. class action lawsuit in California's Orange County Superior Court. The case is currently pending.

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.