Catholic Charities Facing Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (from now on, "Catholic Charities") faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa (from now on, "Catholic Charities")

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

The Case No.: 23CV00371

The Plaintiff: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The plaintiff in the case, Kimberlee Keller, claims Catholic Charities violated numerous labor laws.

The Defendant: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The defendant in the case, Catholic Charities, faces allegations of violating California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802. According to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to:

• pay minimum and overtime wages

• provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods

• provide employees with wages when due

• provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements (listing applicable wage rates and hours worked)

• reimburse employees for required business expenses

The Case: Kimberlee Keller v. Catholic Charities

The combination of rigorous work schedules and unlawful business practices and policies, workers for Catholic Charities were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks. When they did take their meal breaks, they were not fully relieved of job duties. Instead, they were interrupted from time to time during meal breaks to complete tasks for the company. In addition, employees were allegedly not provided with their rest periods as required by law. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California meal break and rest period 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.

Determining Duty of Care and Workers’ Comp Exclusivity for California Employers

A recent California case questioned whether or not the California Workers’ Compensation Act blocks an employee’s spouse’s negligence claim and whether California employers owe a duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to spouses of employees.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The Court: Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-09355-MMC

The Plaintiff: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Kuciemba, started working for Victory Woodworks, Inc. (Victory) on May 6, 2020, at a San Francisco construction site. Two months later, a group of employees from another job site were transferred to the San Francisco site without the company’s compliance with precautions required by the county’s health order. After exposure to the new workers, Robert became infected. He carried the virus home and exposed his wife, Corby. Corby was hospitalized for several weeks and, at one point, was even kept alive on a respirator. The Kuciembas sued Victory in 2020, alleging negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and public nuisance.

The Defendant: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

The defendant in the case, Victory, moved to dismiss. When the district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. On June 22, 2022, the appeals court agreed to answer the certified questions regarding workers’ compensation exclusivity and the duty of care.

The Case: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks

In today’s case, the Supreme Court of the State of California issued an opinion addressing two questions of California law to determine the scope of an employer’s liability when an employee’s spouse is injured by transmission of the virus1 that causes the disease known as COVID-19. First, if an employee contracts COVID-19 and brings the virus home to their spouse, does the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA; Lab. Code, § 3200 et seq.) bar the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer? And second, does a California employer owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members? The court determined that the answer to both questions is no. The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not prevent the spouse’s negligence claim against their California employer. However, recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would create an intolerable burden on California employers (violating public policy). Considering this, the California Supreme Court determined that California employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

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

Is a Personal Cell Phone a Reimburseable Work Expense for California Employees?

A recent complaint filed in Madera County Superior Court raises the question of cell phones as a reimbursable work expense. Allegedly, Paleowest, LLC failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone usage and home office usage even though both were required to complete their job duties.

The Case: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The Court: Madera County Superior Court

The Case No.: MCV088135

The Plaintiff: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Brandy Hale, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees. In the class action, Hale claims that the defendant, Paleowest, LLC, violated California Labor Code. During her employment from January 2018 through May 2022, the company allegedly failed to reimburse employees for personal cell phone usage and home office usage, even though she claims both were required to complete job duties. The company classified Hale as a non-exempt hourly employee. However, Hale claims that she (and other employees) were not paid for all their hours, were required to work while clocked out, did not receive required off-duty meal breaks, were required to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screening without pay, and were also shorted pay due to the company’s policy to “round” employee hours.

The Defendant: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

The defendant in the case, Paleowest, LLC, offers cultural, prehistoric, architectural, ethnographic heritage, and paleontological resource management services.

The Case: Brandy Hale v. Paleowest, LLC

According to the class action wage and hour lawsuit, Paleowest, LLC allegedly failed to reimburse employees for necessary expenses needed to complete their job duties (like their cell phone and home office) and failed to comply with multiple California Labor Codes. As a result, Hale, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that she and others similarly situated at the company were required to forfeit minimum wage, overtime pay, and off-duty meal breaks (without appropriate compensation). Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Paleowest, LLC’s practice, and policy not to provide payment to employees for all time worked can be seen in their own records. Failing to include employee incentive pay earned through the company’s rewards program as part of the “regular rate of pay” for overtime pay calculations shorted employees on overtime pay compensation. Hale argues that incentive pay would be included as part of the regular rate of pay since management and supervisors both describe the incentive program as part of the compensation package when outlining the benefits of employment for new employees.

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

Lowe’s Succeeds in Getting PAGA Claims Dismissed Based on Viking River

When the court compels individual PAGA claim arbitration, what happens to the non-individual PAGA claims?

The Case: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

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

The Case No.: 2:2021cv00087

The Plaintiff: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

Maria Johnson’s individual PAGA claim alleged Lowe’s failure to provide paid sick leave and accurate wage statements to employees. The plaintiff, Maria Johnson, argued that the waiver was unenforceable in her situation because it was a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims. However, the court disagreed based on findings in Viking River. In Viking River (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana), the court found that PAGA actions are representative either because they are brought by employees acting as representatives (proxies of the state) or because they are predicated on code violations sustained by other employees. According to the court, Johnson’s severability provision was similar to the condition considered in Viking River and therefore warranted identical results. As in Viking River, the court enforced the agreement to send individual PAGA claims to arbitration, compelling Johnson’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration. Also, based on Viking River, the court found that once the individual PAGA claims were compelled to arbitration, her non-individual PAGA claims should be dismissed due to lack of standing.

What is a PAGA Claim:

PAGA (enacted in 2004) enables employees to bring actions against employers violating the California Labor Code to recover civil penalties. PAGA claims can be filed on behalf of the individual employee and on behalf of other allegedly victimized employees working for the same employer. Until recently, the court held that categorical waivers of PAGA standing could not be enforced, and claims could not be separated into arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims.

The Defendant: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

In the Johnson case, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley granted Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration of Johnson’s individual PAGA claim for the alleged failure to provide paid sick leave or accurate wage statements.

Relevant Provisions in the Arbitration Agreement: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

The most relevant provisions of the arbitration agreement being considered in this case included the following:

• Controversies “arising out of [the plaintiff’s] employment … shall be settled by binding arbitration.”

• Employees may bring claims “solely on an individual basis,”…not on a representative basis under PAGA.

• “[I]f a court of competent jurisdiction finds the … Representative Action Waiver unenforceable for any reason, then the unenforceable waiver provision shall be severable from [the] Agreement, and any claims covered by any deemed unenforceable waiver provision may only be litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction, but the remainder of the agreement shall be binding and enforceable.”

The Case: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

On September 21, 2022, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order compelling arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and dismissing the remaining representative PAGA claims. The court’s actions can be considered a straightforward application of the Supreme Court of the United States’ June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Viking River). However, the California Supreme Court has since granted review in a case that might complicate California courts’ application of Viking River.

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.

Halsey Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Multiple Employment Law Violations

A recently filed lawsuit alleges that Halsey engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Ashley D. Frangipane aka Halsey, Leaving Things Behind Touring, Halsey Music LLC (hereafter referred to as Halsey)

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

The Case No.: 22STCV18905

The Plaintiff: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The plaintiff in the case, Ashley Funches, is the former nanny for Halsey, the “Without Me” singer. Funches claims Halsey forced her to work “around the clock on consecutive days with little to no day of rest” and failed to pay overtime – and then fired her when she sought time off for medical care. According to Funches, she sent Halsey a text message informing Halsey that she might need to have a medical procedure completed that would require her to take a leave of absence from work. Allegedly, the only response Funches received to the message came days later, and instead of responding to the request for time off, Halsey fired Funches with no warning. Funches filed her complaint on June 9th, 2022 in Los Angeles court.

The Defendant: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The defendant in the case, Halsey, is the “Without Me” singer facing a new lawsuit claiming she fired her nanny after she requested time off to have a medical procedure completed. The well-known star describes the claims as “baseless.”

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The case, Ashley Funches v. Halsey, will consider various claims of California labor law violations including failure to pay overtime wages, and alleged discrimination based on disability.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can a California Trial Court Stay a Later-Filed PAGA Action Due to Overlapping Claims?

Does a trial court have the discretion to apply the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction to stay a later-filed PAGA action if it has claims that overlap with a PAGA action filed earlier?

The Case: Shaw v. Superior Court

The Court: Cal. App. 5th

The Case: 78 Cal. App. 5th 245 (2022)

The Plaintiff: Shaw v. Superior Court

The plaintiffs in the case conceded that their PAGA-only action arose from facts and theories that already existed in a second PAGA action filed earlier, and pending in Los Angelus County. The trial court granted a motion to stay the legal action until a decision could be made on a petition for judicial coordination with the Los Angeles PAGA lawsuit. When the petition for judicial coordination was denied, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. The court felt it was warranted according to the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction that states when 2 or more courts have subject matter jurisdiction, the first court that asserts jurisdiction usually retains it (to the exclusion of the other courts).

The Court’s Decision: Shaw v. Superior Court

When the California Court of Appeal denied the petition for judicial coordination holding that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction warranted a stay of the action, and the trial court did not err in applying the doctrine. The language and purpose of PAGE left the court disagreeing with the Plaintiffs’ arguments that PAGA repudiated the judge-made exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine. In addition, the court rejected the argument regarding applying the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine to PAGA claims promoting reverse auctions. Instead, the court believes the doctrine stays following suits and prevents defendants from picking and choosing between plaintiffs. The court also pointed out that anytime there are multiple plaintiffs authorized to bring a PAGA claim, the possibility of a reverse auction exists, so the application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine would not increase the likelihood of a reverse auction.

The Conclusion: Shaw v. Superior Court

The court in the case concluded that the Plaintiffs argument that staying duplicative PAGA suits leads to frivolous filings was not convincing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the trial court acted outside their bounds of reason when determining that the countervailing policies raised by the plaintiffs did not outweigh the policies that support the application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine in the case.

If you have questions about California employment law or need 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

When Can the ABC Test be Applied?

In a recent California employment law case, the question is asked, “When can the ABC test be applied? Do workers need to establish they were hired before the ABC test applies?”

The Case: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The Court: Calif. App. 5th

The Case No.: C087709 Super. Ct. No. 34201600190824 COEDS

The Plaintiff: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., are unlicensed flooring installers. The plaintiffs worked for Roussos Construction installing floors. According to court documents, there were three people who worked “between” the plaintiffs and the company, Roussos. The plaintiffs refer to these three individuals as “supervisors.” Roussos referred to these three individuals as “subcontractors.”

The Defendant: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

Roussos Construction is a general contractor. At trial, Roussos maintained that they use independent contractors (the three referred to by plaintiffs as supervisors and by the company as subcontractors) licensed to perform work outside of Roussos Construction’s contractor’s license, and that the subcontractors hired the plaintiffs, paid the plaintiffs, and are responsible for complying with applicable labor laws in regards to the plaintiffs.

The Case: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The parties involved in the case, Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., disagreed about appropriate jury instruction with Roussos arguing that the ABC Test used to determine employee vs. independent contractor status can only be applied after it is established that the workers were hired by Roussos or by Roussos’ agent. The plaintiffs in the case argued that case law does not establish a “hiring test” alongside the ABC Test articulated in the Dynamex Ops. W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court opinion that led to the adoption of the ABC Test in California. In the end, the trial court agreed with the defendant, instructing the jury to make a predicate finding of whether or not Roussos Construction was the hiring entity. After receiving this instruction, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts.

Do Workers Need to Establish They Were Hired Before the ABC Test Applies?

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the wage and hour counts involving the ABC Test holding that there was no “threshold hiring entity test” created or intended by the Dynamex court. In conclusion, the Court of Appeals found that workers do not need to establish they were hired before the ABC Test can be applied.

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