Fedex Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. faces allegations of California labor code violations in a recent PAGA-only action.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIV-SB-2305596

The Plaintiff: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that FedEx Ground failed to provide their employees with all the legally required meal and rest periods (or compensate them for missed meal and rest periods). Ortiz-Dixon filed the lawsuit alleging violations of numerous labor laws including: § 2699, et seq. §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California labow law suit seeks penalties for the defendants’ multiple alleged violations.

The Defendant: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The defendant in the case, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., allegedly failed to fully relieve their workers (plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees) of the legally required 30-minute meal breaks. In addition, from time to time, FedEx also allegedly required workers to work more than four hours without providing them with the legally required ten-minute rest periods. “Off duty” rest periods are defined by the California Supreme Court as when an employee is relieved from all their work-related duties and not under their employer’s control.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

In the case, Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a PAGA-only action. PAGA is a mechanism California workers can use to enforce state labor laws as a proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is essentially a law enforcement action designed to protect the public, not for the benefit of private parties. PAGA actions enforce Labor Code with citizens deputized as private attorneys general and not as a means of recovering damages or restitution for a private party.

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

California Class Action Alleges Marriot Owes Banquet Servers Tips

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Schulman tentatively found that Marriot owed banquet servers close to $9M.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-16-550454

The Plaintiff: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are two former banquet servers for the hotel and conference space, Marriott. During their busy season, the largest ballroom seats up to 5,000 people. The class action focuses on the time between January 2012 and April 2017 when Marriott added a mandatory service charge to customers’ food/beverage bills. From January 2012, the service charge was 23%. Marriott increased the charge to 24% from November 2015 through April 2017. During this five-year period, Marriott distributed 70-72% of the mandatory service charge to their banquet staff. They retained the remainder. Plaintiffs in the case allege this standard practice equates to the employer skimming between 30 and 28% of the total. The plaintiffs filed as a class action, and considering normal turnover, the class of servers is likely to total about 150 people.

The Defendant: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The defendant in the case, Marriott International Inc., revised the billing format to break the mandatory charge into a “staff charge” and a “house charge” in April 2017. The Ordono case only focuses on the period prior to this change, but those arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs find this change telling.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

In the case, John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc., the judge tentatively found that the plaintiffs were entitled to $8.97 million because a reasonable customer may assume the mandatory service charge is a gratuity that goes to their server. California Labor Code 351 states that tips or gratuities belong to the employee, and employers may not take them or deduct any portion of them from the worker’s pay.

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.

Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s Face Allegations of Labor Law Violations in California Class Action

In a recently filed class action lawsuit, two major department stores face allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act violations, multiple California labor law violations and a violation of California’s unlawful business practices statute.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-00768

The Plaintiff: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

Six plaintiffs filed the complaint on February 21, 2023, Ha Nguyen, Alex Bhagatram, Alicia Taylor, Soraya Lodin, Teyani Cisneros, and Michael Webster. The plaintiffs worked at Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s California locations as sales associates or inventory control specialists. The group filed a proposed class action in California federal court attempting to represent over 1,100 current and former hourly employees in similar situations at Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s locations in California throughout the past four years. The plaintiffs allege that the stores regularly require off-the-clock work, fail to provide off-duty meal breaks, etc.

The Defendant: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s (Bloomingdale’s is a subsidiary of Macy’s), regularly deducted 30 minutes for meal breaks (even though employees often worked through their meal breaks), did not reimburse workers for necessary use of their personal cell phones, personal computers or internet to complete job duties.

Labor Law Requires Employers to Pay Minimum Wage and Provides Breaks:

As of January 1, 2023, the minimum wage is $15.50 per hour for all California employers. Some cities/counties have higher minimum wages than the state’s rate. California Labor Low also requires employers to offer their nonexempt employees working more than five hours an off-duty 30-minute lunch break, plus 10-minute breaks every four hours, and a second 30-minute off-duty meal break if the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours.

The Case: Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC, et al.

According to the court documents in Nguyen et al. v. Bloomingdale’s LLC et al., workers were not paid for all hours worked because they were not compensated for the meal breaks the company failed to provide. The company also allegedly calculated overtime pay rates incorrectly (using the employee’s lower hourly base rates instead of the higher rate, including their sales commission). The stores also allegedly failed to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the hourly employees, so the employees’ wage statements didn’t reflect the correct amount of gross/net wages.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour class action, 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 Prudent Security Solutions Inc. Violate California Labor Code?

In recent news, a class action complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court includes allegations that Prudent Security Solutions Inc. violated California Labor Code.

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

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23STCV04656

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

The plaintiffs in the case are Brian and Lisa Bradford. Brian Bradford was employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. in Los Angeles from March to April 2022. He was an hourly, non-exempt employee. Lisa Bradford was also employed by Prudent Security Solutions Inc. from March to April 2022, but she was paid hourly plus non-discretionary bonuses.

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

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

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

In the case, Brian and Lisa Bradford v. Prudent Security Solutions Inc., the plaintiffs claim that their employer violated several labor laws. California law requires employers to pay every employee on an established payday for all the hours they work during that pay period, at a pay rate no less than minimum wage. According to labor law, hours worked means time when the employee is subject to the employer’s control, which includes any time the employee is permitted to work, even if they are not required to work. According to court documents, Prudent Security Solutions allegedly required workers to complete work before their shift, after their shift, and during off-duty meal breaks. The off-the-clock work was allegedly not compensated, resulting in minimum wage violation allegations.

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.

Warby Parker Employee Files Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit

In a recently filed California class action complaint, a Warby Parker employee from Santa Clara County alleges numerous labor law violations.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 21CV414694

The Plaintiff: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The plaintiff in the case, Robert Chery, was an employee of Warby Parker in the county of Santa Clara. Warby Parker employed Chery as a non-exempt employee as of December 2019. Chery filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and qualifying class members citing numerous labor law violations.

Allegations: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

• Unfair Competition

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Failure to provide legally required breaks and meal periods

• Failure to provide wages when due

• Failure to provide accurate ittemized wage statements

• Failure to reimburse employees for required work expenses

The Defendant: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

The defendant in the case, Warby Parker, is a Delaware corporation conducting business in California. The defendant is a retailer of prescription eyeglasses, contact lenses, and sunglasses with locations throughout California.

The Case: Robert Chery v. Warby Parker

According to the court documents in Robert Chery v. Warby Parker, Chery filed the California class action alleging the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks for employees. The case is currently pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The plaintiff claims that a rigorous work schedule meant that employees were unable to take off duty meal breaks, and during meal periods that should have been off the clock, employees were allegedly not fully relieved of their work duties. According to Chery, the company would interrupt the employees during off-duty meal breaks so they could complete job-related tasks. According to teh plaintiff, employees were expected to work over 5 hours in one work shift without being provided an off-duty meal break. Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that Warby Parker did not provide a second off-duty meal break when employees completed shifts reaching 10 hours. Warby Parker allegedly expected workers to be on call and essentially on duty during their off-duty meal breaks. While employees allegedly forfeited their meal breaks, they were not provided additional compensation as company policy indicates they should.

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

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.

Did Pacific Production Plumbing Violate California Labor Law?

A recent California lawsuit alleges that Pacific Production Plumbing violated employee protections outlined in federal and state labor law.

The Case: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

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

The Case No.: 37-2022-00006167-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The plaintiff in the case, Thomas E. Weathermon III, filed a class action complaint against Pacific Production Plumbing. In the complaint, Weathermon alleged that Pacific Production Plumbing failed to provide their employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods as required by law.

The Defendant: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The defendant in the case, Pacific Production Plumbing, provides plumbing services to private, commercial, and construction customers throughout California, including San Diego, where the plaintiff worked.

The Case: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

In the case Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing, the defendant allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802 by engaging in practices and policies that resulted in:

• failing to pay employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked

• failing to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked

• failing to provide required meal and rest periods as mandated by employment law

• failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to all employees

• failing to provide wages when due

• failing to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

PAGA Violation: Thomas E. Weathermon III v. Pacific Production Plumbing

The lawsuit also alleges Pacific Production Plumbing violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties for themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. PAGA "deputizes" aggrieved employees as private attorneys general, allowing them to take action to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of California (Cal. Lab. Code section 2699(c)).

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.