Did San Francisco Aids Foundation Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, plaintiffs in a lawsuit claim that the San Francisco Aids Foundation violated California labor law.

The Case: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

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

The Case No.: CGC-23-609040

The Plaintiff: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against San Francisco Aids Foundation for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Ellenberg-Wiley was employed by the San Francisco Aids Foundation from September 2021 through October 2022. As a non-exempt, hourly employee, Ellenberg-Wiley was entitled to the protections of California Labor Law and federal labor laws, including legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wage payment, and accurate overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.

The Defendant: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The defendant in the case, San Francisco Aids Foundation, is a California nonprofit corporation operating sexual health clinics throughout California, including the San Francisco location where Ellengerg-Wiley worked. The organization faces several allegations in the Ellenberg-Wiley’s class action lawsuit, including:

• failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• failed to compensate workers for missed meal breaks and rest periods accurately

• failed to compensate workers for all time worked

• failed to provide compensation for off-the-clock work

• failed to pay overtime at the correct regular rate of pay

• failed to provide meal rest premiums at the regular rate

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary business expenses

• failed to provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements

The Case: Andrew Ellenberg-Wiley v. San Francisco Aids Foundation

The lawsuit alleges San Francisco Aids Foundation violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all of their time worked. The San Francisco Aids Foundation class action lawsuit is pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

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 employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech Face Wage and Hour Allegations

In recent news, Henley Pacific, Devon Industries, and JDL Tech face wage and hour allegations. Did they fail to provide their workers with payment for the hours they worked?

The Case: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00047610-CU-OE-CTL,

The Plaintiff: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

Devin Moore, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint against Henley Pacific LA LLC, Henley Pacific LLC, Henley Pacific RE LLC, Henley Pacific SD LLC, Henley Pacific South LLC, Devon Industries, Inc., and JDL Tech USA LLC. Moore alleged the company failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

The defendant in the case, Henley Pacific, Devon Industries, and JDL Tech, faces allegations of violating California labor law. Under California law, employers must pay employees no less than minimum wage on their established payday for the period designated, and they must pay them for all hours they worked during the payroll period. According to the court documents, the defendant allegedly required workers to work before clocking in for their shift and after clocking out from their shift. They also allegedly required workers to perform job duties during their off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Plaintiffs claim the company did not compensate for the time employees worked while off the clock or during their breaks. By failing to track all the employees’ work hours, the company failed to provide minimum wage for all hours worked, pay employees accurately for overtime, etc.

The Case: Devin Moore v. Henley Pacific, Devon Industries and JDL Tech

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the defendants allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to:

1. pay minimum wages

2. pay overtime wages

3. provide required meal breaks and rest periods

4. pay wages when due

5. provide accurate itemized wage statements

6. reimburse employees for required expenses

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. 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.

Sysco San Francisco, Inc. Allegedly Failed to Reimburse Employees for Work Expenses

In recent news, employees filed a California wage and hour lawsuit alleging Sysco San Francisco, Inc. violated California labor law.

The Case: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 23CV039442

The Plaintiff: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Williamson, filed a class action complaint alleging that Sysco San Francisco, Inc. violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to offer employees itemized wage statements and reimbursement for work expenses. The plaintiffs also allege that the employer failed to pay sick wages. The allegations indicate violations of numerous California Labor Code Sections, including 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s).

The Defendant: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Sysco San Francisco, Inc., allegedly failed to reimburse their workers even though the company allegedly required workers to use their cell phones for business purposes.

The Case: Ryan Williamson v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc.

According to the complaint, Sysco San Francisco, Inc. allegedly did not reimburse employees for necessary work expenses like using their personal cell phones to complete their job duties. California Labor Code 2802 states that employers must “indemnify [an] employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties…” The case is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court of the State of California.

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 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 Navy Federal Credit Union Violate California Labor Law?

In recent news, the Navy Federal Credit Union faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00034395-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

The plaintiff in the case, Maureen Coffey, filed a class action complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union. Coffey alleged the defendant failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of labor law in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 2802.

The Defendant: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

The defendant in the case, Navy Federal Credit Union, faces allegations that they failed to pay minimum wages, pay accurate overtime wages, provide employees with required meal and rest periods, provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, provide wages when due, and reimburse employees for required business expenses. The credit union’s standard policy left workers on-call and on-duty during their off-duty meal periods, so employees regularly forfeited their breaks without receiving the legally required additional compensation.

The Case: Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Due to rigorous work schedules, Navy Federal Credit Union employees were allegedly unable to take their off-duty meal breaks. They were also, at times, not fully relieved of their job duties during their meal periods. The case, Maureen Coffey v. Navy Federal Credit Union, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the complaint, employees were regularly interrupted during their off-duty meal breaks so they could complete tasks for the credit union. The plaintiffs also claim they were not provided off-duty meal breaks during shifts of more than five hours. Employees further claimed that when working shifts of ten hours, the credit union did not provide a second off-duty meal break.

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 employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Employees Allege Matrix Providers Failed to Pay for Time Worked

In recent news, employees allege that Matrix Providers failed to pay workers for all the time worked.

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 37-2023-00036339-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia, filed a class action complaint alleging the defendant failed to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Defendant: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Matrix Providers, Inc., allegedly violated numerous labor laws, including violations of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. Alleged violations include:

• failing to pay minimum wage

• failing to pay overtime wages

• failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks

• failed to reimburse employees for necessary job expenses

• failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• failed to pay wages when they were due

The Case: Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc.

The case, Daniela Rivas-Mulia v. Matrix Providers, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California. Under California labor law, employers must pay their employees on the designated payday for each pay period. Labor law also requires that employers pay their employees no less than the applicable minimum wage for all the hours worked in each payroll period (no matter how their payment is calculated (time, piece rate, commission, etc.)).

How Does California Labor Law Define “Hours Worked?”

California defines "hours worked" as when an employee is subject to the control of an employer and is required to be on the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace. This definition includes all time an employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not the work is done voluntarily. In essence, hours worked in California encompass not only the time spent actively performing job duties but also time when an employee is under the employer's control or direction, even if they are not actively engaged in work. Matrix Providers allegedly required workers to complete tasks before clocking in and after their scheduled shifts were completed, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The class action claims Matrix Providers failed to compensate workers for time spent “working” under the employer's control while they were technically off-the-clock. In doing so, Matrix Providers allegedly failed to pay its workers minimum wage for all hours worked.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour 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 Claims DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda Violated Labor Law

In an April 2023 California class action, plaintiffs claimed DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda violated employment law when they failed to provide legally mandated off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

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

The Case No.: 30-2023-01316346-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The plaintiff in the case, Alejandro Estrada Ureno, worked for Weir Canyon Honda in California since July 2022. As an employee paid through a combination of hourly/commission-based compensation, Ureno was entitled to protection under state and federal employment law, including payment of minimum wage and accurate overtime pay and receiving legally required meal breaks and rest periods. In the class action filed in April 2023, Ureno claims Weir Canyon Honda’s standard practices and policies did not lawfully compensate employees.

The Defendant: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

The defendant in the case, DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, is a California corporation that owns and operates car dealerships in California, including the dealership in Orange County that employed Ureno.

The Allegations: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

Ureno made numerous labor law violation allegations in the California class action.

• Meal and Rest Period Violations

• Regular Pay Rate Violations (Overtime, Double Time, Meal and Rest Break Premiums, and Sick Pay)

• Commission and Piece-Rate Violations

• Off-the-Clock Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations

• Unreimbursed Business Expenses

• Wage Statement Violations

• Failure to Pay Wages on Time

• Unlawful Deductions

The Case: Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda

In Alejandro Estrada Ureno v. DWWH, Inc. dba Weir Canyon Honda, Ureno seeks class action certification, an order preventing the defendant from engaging in similar labor law violations moving forward, an order seeking compensation and restitution for unpaid overtime wages and other unlawfully retained sums allegedly due the class members, and meal and rest break compensation for missed breaks.

If you have questions about how 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Bloom Energy Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations: Employees Claim They Don’t Receive Breaks

Bloom Energy, the defendant in a recently filed California labor law class action, is facing allegations that employees were not paid a full wage for all their work hours due to the employer's failure to comply with meal and rest break laws.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23CV419599

The Plaintiff: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The plaintiff in the case, Alexander Gilmore, was an employee at a Bloom Energy facility in Santa Clara from October 2022 through December 2022. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Gilmore was entitled to legally required meal and rest periods, minimum wages, and accurate overtime wages. In his complaint filed on July 25, 2023, Gilmore alleged the company violated his and other similarly situated workers' rights under state and federal employment law.

The Class Members: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The California class for the case is defined as anyone currently employed or formerly employed by Bloom Energy in California as a non-exempt employee during the period beginning four years before the filing of Gilmore's complaint and ending on the date to be determined by the court.

The Defendant: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

The defendant in the case, Bloom Energy Corporation, is a Deleware company conducting significant business in California. The company provides renewable energy and electric power solutions. According to the plaintiff, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice failed to compensate employees lawfully. According to the class action, Bloom Energy allegedly failed to provide eligible employees with legally compliant meal breaks and rest periods and to compensate the employees for the missed meal breaks and rest periods as required by law. As a result of this uniform policy and practice, the workers were allegedly not compensated for all hours worked, which led to additional alleged minimum wage, overtime pay violations, and accurate itemized wage statement violations due to the off-the-clock work.

The Case: Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation

In Alexander Gilmore v. Bloom Energy Corporation, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, including current and former employees. The class action seeks compensation for class members' losses due to alleged labor law violations during the class period. The plaintiff in the case describes instances when they were required to work while clocked out for off-duty meal breaks as a regular occurrence and also claims that there were days when they did not even receive a partial lunch break during the midst of their full-time schedule. As a result, Gilmore and other class members forfeited minimum wage and overtime pay by regularly putting in hours that were not accurately recorded or compensated at the required minimum wage and overtime pay rates. According to the complaint, Bloom Energy's uniform policy and practice resulting in the alleged violations is notable in the defendant's business records. The plaintiff demands a jury trial.

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