Dr. Pepper Faces the 3rd Overtime and Misclassification Lawsuit Since 2019

Keurig Dr. Pepper is facing another overtime and misclassification lawsuit, including allegations that the company failed to pay overtime wages by misclassifying their employees.

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

The Case No.: 1:23-cv-10425

The Plaintiff: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Francisco Verdin, is a Keurig Dr. Pepper employee. Verdin was a Keurig Dr. Pepper warehouse supervisor for two years and then a forklift operator. Verdin claims he was paid a yearly salary despite frequently working over 40 hours in one week. Verdin said he sometimes worked as many as 60 hours in one week with no overtime compensation. Verdin filed an overtime class action lawsuit last month in Massachusetts federal court alleging the company misclassified their employees in both Pennsylvania and California as exempt from receiving overtime wages. According to the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and California labor law by allegedly not paying overtime wages to employees. In addition to the overtime wage allegations, plaintiffs allege wage statement violations, which often go hand in hand. Verdin also claims the company did not pay wages in a timely manner, which could result in waiting time penalties charged for record-keeping violations. The plaintiff alleges that the company violated unfair competition law by not providing accurate wages for hours worked by their employees.

The Defendant: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr, Pepper Inc.

The defendant in the case, Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., faces four allegations:

•Failure to pay the wages due

•Failure to pay wages due in a timely fashion (resulting in "waiting time penalties")

•Misclassifying employees and violating record-keeping laws by incorrectly labeling employees as overtime exempt

•Violating unfair competition law by not paying employees accurate wages for the hours they worked

The Case: Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.

The case, Francisco Verdin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., is the third overtime lawsuit filed against Keurig Dr. Pepper since 2019.

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

Logan's Roadhouse Faces Allegations they Did Not Provide Employees with Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, Logan's Roadhouse faces allegations that they did not provide their employees with breaks, which violates labor law.

The Case: Symba Rose v. LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, J and A Food Service, Inc.,

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

The Case No.: 23CV00426

The Plaintiff: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff in the case, Symba Rose (previously named Jamal Shabazz), was employed by Logan's Roadhouse (aka the Defendants) from July 2022 to August 2022 as a non-exempt hourly employee entitled to the protections offered employees by state and federal employment laws.

The Defendant: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The defendants in the case, LG Enterprises LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse, and J and A Food Service, Inc., were joint employers of the plaintiff, according to documents the company provided to the plaintiff. The plaintiff performed work for both, respectively, so both are considered jointly responsible by the plaintiff for actions leading to employment law violations as described in the lawsuit. Defendant owns, operates, or manages Logan's Roadhouse restaurants in California, including the Logan's Roadhouse in Butte County, where Symba Rose worked.

The Allegations: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

The plaintiff claims that they engaged in numerous employment law violations during his time with the restaurant. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 with practices and policies that resulted in:

• failing to pay minimum wages

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods

• failing to provide wages when due

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Symba Rose v. Logan's Roadhouse

According to court documents, Logan's Roadhouse employees, like the plaintiff, had rigorous work schedules, which allegedly left them unable to take off-duty rest breaks. In addition, they were not fully relieved of duty for their rest periods. Additionally, Logan's Roadhouse's and J and A Food Service's workers were allegedly not paid one hour of their regular working wage in place of missed breaks and rest periods.

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.

Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association Face Allegations They Failed to Pay Employee Wages

In recent news, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association face allegations they failed to provide their employees wages for all hours worked.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

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

The Case No.: 23STCV02200

The Plaintiff: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The plaintiff in the case, Devonte Rojo, worked for Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association in Los Angeles from January 2019 through February 2022. Rojo was a non-exempt employee paid hourly and entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and rest period/meal break protections provided by federal and state labor laws. Rojo filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant violated the labor code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime wages for overtime hours worked, failing to provide legally required rest periods, failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse employees for eligible business expenses, and failing to provide legally mandated meal breaks.

The Defendant: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

According to the complaint, the defendant in the case, Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association (Forest Lawn), were joint employers of Devonte Rojo, the plaintiff. Forest Lawn operates funeral businesses in Los Angeles and throughout California.

The Case: Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association

The case documents in Devonte Rojo v. Forest Lawn Mortuary & Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association allege that rigorous work schedules left Forest Lawn employees unable to take off-duty meal breaks and that the employees were not fully relieved from their job duties when they did take a break or meal break. Instead, the plaintiff claims employees were interrupted during off-duty breaks and meal periods to complete tasks for the company. Allegedly, employees were required to work more than five hours a shift without being provided their off-duty meal break as required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims Forest Lawn failed to offer a second off-duty meal period when employees were required to work 10 hours in one shift. Forest Lawn policy allegedly required employees to remain on call/duty during rest periods and meal breaks. Due to this uniform policy and practice at the company, employees were required to forfeit their meal breaks without receiving additional compensation as required by law.

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

Kelly Services Global, LLC Facing a PAGA-Only Action Alleging California Labor Code Violations

In recent news, aggrieved employees claim Kelly Services Global, LLC violated California Labor Code when failing to fully relieve employees for their rest periods and meal breaks, resulting in off-the-clock work.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court

The Case No.: 30-2023-01304927-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Yuri Fischer, was employed by the defendant, Kelly Services Gobal, LLC in California from June 2021 through June 2022 as a non-exempt employee, paid hourly. As an hourly, non-exempt employee, Fischer was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum wage and overtime wages due for all his time worked.

The Defendant: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

The defendant in the case, Kelly Services Global, LLC, is a limited liability company operating in California, providing management solutions and staffing services to top companies across numerous industries. According to the complaint, Kelly Services Global, LLC allegedly failed to fully relieve employees for legally required thirty-minute meal breaks and regularly required employees to work more than four hours without providing the legally required rest period (10 minutes). According to California state law, the off-duty rest periods must be free of work-related duties and employer control.

The Case: Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC

In the case Yuri Fischer v. Kelly Services Global, LLC, the plaintiff files seeking only to recover PAGA civil penalties for himself and current and class members. He does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699. The State of California can enforce state labor laws through employees suing under the PAGA as a proxy or agent of California state labor law enforcement agencies. Actions to recover civil penalties under PAGA are essentially law enforcement actions intended to protect the public and do not benefit private parties involved. PAGA-only actions do not seek to recover damages but seek to enforce Labor Code. The plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendant violated numerous labor laws. The case is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

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.

Ecolab Faces Allegations their Overtime Calculations Violate Labor Law

In recent news, Ecolab faces allegations that its standard overtime pay calculations violate the labor code.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior

The Case No.: 19STCV21322

The Plaintiff: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for Ecolab for several years before being promoted to route sales manager on April l5, 2018. As an Ecolab route sales manager, Lemm was the primary contact with customers on his. He visited them regularly to install, repair, and maintain Ecolab equipment, provide continuous training and customer service, and sell additional or supportive Ecolab products and parts. Route sales managers are nonexempt employees who are entitled to overtime compensation. Lemm regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours weekly in 2018 and 2019. Lemm's payment was calculated according to an annual Incentive Compensation Plan with compensation comprised of hourly wages and a nondiscretionary monthly bonus earned by meeting specific metrics. On June 19, 2019, Lemm filed a PAGA suit, alleging Ecolab improperly calculated the overtime due on the nondiscretionary bonus paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

The Defendant: Lemm v. Ecolab

The defendant in the case, Ecolab, provides sanitation and pest control services and supplies, commercial kitchen equipment and appliance maintenance, and food safety services. On July 25, 2019, Ecolab responded, denying Lemm's allegations.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

About two months later, on October 2, 2019, Lemm filed an amended PAGA notice, asserting additional claims for civil penalties associated with Ecolab's failure to pay all required wages, including reporting time and split shift wages. However, Ecolab successfully moved for summary judgment because its formulation of the overtime payment comported with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). On appeal, Lemm argued that the method by which Ecolab calculated overtime compensation owed on the monthly bonuses failed to comply with California law and that state law supersedes federal law because Lemm's claim was a state claim, and California provides greater protection for employees. However, the Second Appellate District confirmed the trial court's decision, explaining they weren't required to use the exact formula set down in Section 49 2.4 when using the nondiscretionary bonus for overtime calculations. Ecolab demonstrated to the court that as long as the overtime calculations did not include overtime on overtime, the amount of overtime pay was the same regardless of which overtime calculation option they used: the section 49.2.4 formula or the CFR 778.210 formula.

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.

Jeronimo Logistics LLC Faces a Wage and Hour Lawsuit

A recent California lawsuit alleges that Jeronimo Logistics LLC violated California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all their hours worked.

The Case: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01300011-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The plaintiff in the case, John Bruns, was employed by Jeronimo Logistics LLC from August 2021 to December 2021. Bruns received his last paycheck in January 2022. During his time with the company, Bruns was classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum, and overtime wages due for all hours worked.

The Defendant: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The defendant in the case, Jeronimo Logistics LLC, provides logistics and freight transportation for customers throughout California, including the County of Orange. They provide trucking, delivery services, messenger services, courier services, fulfillment services, and warehousing.

The Case: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The plaintiff, John Bruns, filed the California class action on behalf of himself and a California class to seek compensation for the losses they allegedly incurred during the specified class period due to Jeronimo Logistics LLC’s standard policy and business practices. The company reportedly implemented unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices by retaining employees’ wages due (in violation of both minimum wage requirements and overtime pay requirements), failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to reimburse employees for required work expenses.

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.

California Court of Appeal Holds that “Percentage Bonuses” Based on Regular and Overtime Hours Comply with Employment Law

In recent news, the California Court of Appeal held that percentage bonuses provided by employers that are based on a combination of regular and overtime hours comply with employment law.

 The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.:  B312232

The Background: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff in the case, Lemm, worked for EcoLab as a non-exempt sales manager. Lemm was given a specific route and regularly worked more than 12 hours daily and more than 40 hours in one week. EcoLab used a pay system with certain multipliers triggered when employees met specific metrics with the employee’s hourly rate of pay used as the base pay ((base wage + overtime wages + double-time wages) x 5%). EcoLab’s policy to pay 1.5x and 2.0x his hourly rate for qualifying overtime and double time hours was not disputed. This type of payment policy is typically referred to as a percentage bonus. Percentage bonus payment systems are authorized under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations.

Progression of the Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

The plaintiff, Lemm, argued that EcoLab should have used an overtime calculation method applicable to flat rate bonuses under California law. In contrast, EcoLab argued that their percentage bonus plan complied with California and federal law. The trial court sided with EcoLab, rejecting an alternate interpretation of California law requiring employers to pay overtime on overtime when using percentage bonus plans. Using this interpretation would have left California employers with percentage bonus plan systems in place significantly exposed. Lemm appealed.

The Case: Lemm v. Ecolab

On appeal, the court held that EcoLab’s percentage bonus plan complied with California employment law. The appellate court pointed out that the Ninth Circuit and several other California District Courts previously held that percentage bonuses were lawful methods to calculate additional overtime wages due to contingent compensation in California. The court also noted that paying a federal “percentage bonus” generated the same overtime pay as the “true-ups” generated by a formula published in the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement Manual or DLSE Manual (not a binding authority, but a type of underground regulation without the weight given to IWC wage orders). The formula Lemm argued should be used to calculate his pay is also in the same manual. It is the standard the California Supreme Court adopted as proper for flat sum bonus calculations. Requiring EcoLab to apply this formula on top of their existing percentage bonus would result in overtime on overtime contravening Labor Code section 510 and the Wage Orders. The findings in this case set forth a standard or roadmap for approaching sales-based compensation for California employees.

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