Do Distributors of Tastykake & Wonderbread Qualify for an Exemption?

/

The high court recently decided that distributors of baked goods like Tastykake and Wonderbread to various retailers could qualify for an exemption Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). An exemption would allow them to proceed with their wage and hour action.

The Case: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The Court: U.S. Supreme Court

The Case No.: 23-51

The Plaintiff: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, distributors of products made by Flower Foods, argued that they were misclassified as independent contractors and denied overtime pay and other paycheck protections they should have received if the company had appropriately classified them as employees.

The Defendant: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The defendant in the case, LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, argued that the FAA required that the suit be resolved out of court due to an arbitration clause in the distributors’ contract. However, the plaintiffs counter-argued that they were exempt from the act as workers engaged in interstate commerce (exemption found in Section 1 of the FAA exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”).

The Case: Bissonette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

The question before the high court was whether or not the exemption applied to bakery workers or if it was only applicable to workers in the transportation industry. While a May 2022 ruling ruled that workers weren’t exempt because they primarily made money by selling baked goods, Judge Roberts noted the court’s last decision on a Section 1 exemption, Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the court decided that the exemption application depends on a worker’s attributes - not those of the business they work for or the industry they work in. The judge pointed out that the language used in the exemption referenced the “worker” being “engaged” in commerce, which focuses on the performance of work rather than the industry of the company or employer.

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

Did Alakor Healthcare LLC Pay Employees an Accurate Wage?

/

In recent news, former employees have questioned whether Alakor Healthcare paid their workers an accurate wage.

The Case: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

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

The Case No.: 24STCV04927

The Plaintiff: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

Eugene Zaldivar, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Alakor Healthcare LLC violated the California Labor Code. Alakor Healthcare, LLC employed Zaldivar from November 16th, 2016, through May 22nd, 2023.

The Defendant: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

The defendant in the case, Alakor Healthcare, LLC, is a limited liability company that provides healthcare services throughout California. According to the lawsuit, Alakor Healthcare, LLC violated these labor laws:

  • Paying Minimum Wage

  • Paying Overtime Hours

  • Failing to Provide rest periods and meal breaks

The case., Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC, is currently pending in the LA County Superior Court of the State of California.

The Case: Eugene Zaldivar v. Alakor Healthcare, LLC

According to the complaint, workers at the Alakor Healthcare LLC Boeing facility were not provided with the mandated ten-minute rest periods if they worked more than four hours. Furthermore, there were instances where, as per the company's directives, employees worked shifts exceeding five hours without being provided a meal break. Consequently, these workers missed out on their meal breaks without receiving extra pay, following what is said to be the defendant's standard practice and policy. This purported misconduct breaches various sections of the California Labor Code.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact 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.

Interglobo Logistics Class Action Brings Up Meal, and Rest Breaks Claims

/

In recent news, Interglobo has been accused of violating meal and rest break labor laws. The class action lists multiple labor law violations.

The Case: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

The Case No.: 24STCV04814

The Plaintiff: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The plaintiff in the case, Rogan Ghazarian, claims that Interglobo Logistics allegedly failed to pay its employees' wages accurately for all their hours. Ghazarian filed the class action complaint on behalf of himself and others in a similar situation with the company.

The Defendants: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The case, Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics, allegedly violated numerous Sections in the California Labor Codes: §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, & 2802. The allegations listed in the complaint include:

  • Failing to pay minimum wage

  • Failing to pay overtime wages

  • Failing to provide employees with regular meal breaks and rest periods

  • Failing to pay wages when due

  • Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • Failing to reimburse workers when they purchase a necessary work expense using their own money

Why Would a California Employee Refuse to Provide Legally Required Breaks and Rest Periods?

There are various reasons why some California employers may not adhere to the state's rest break and meal period regulations. 1) a misinterpretation of California's labor laws can lead employers to mistakenly believe they are in compliance when they are not. 2) Additionally, understaffing might lead some employers to prioritize business needs over compliance, attempting to limit employees' access to breaks. 3) Furthermore, in competitive industries with thin margins, some employers might view the strict enforcement of break periods as a financial burden that affects their bottom line. 4. Lastly, there's also the issue of workplace culture; in environments where taking breaks is implicitly discouraged or where there is a lack of enforcement mechanisms, employees might feel pressured to skip rest periods and meal breaks. These practices, however, expose employers to significant legal risks and penalties.

The Case: Rogan Ghazarian v. Interglobo Logistics

The Interglobo Logistics class action lawsuit is currently pending in the LA County Superior Court of the State of California.

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

Did EquipmentShare Violate Wage and Hour Law?

/

In recent news, EquipmentShare faces allegations that its standard policies and practices violate labor law.

The Case: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The Court: United States District Court-Central District of California

The Case No.: 37-2024-00009472-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The plaintiff, Kevin Dion Cocroft, filed a class action lawsuit citing Equipmentshare.com Inc. (EquipmentShare) was violating labor law by allegedly failing to provide employee meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The defendant in the case, EquipmentShare.com, Inc., is a California Corporation that owns and operates construction equipment rental companies throughout the state of California, including the county of San Diego, where Kevin Dion, the plaintiff, was employed. The class action lawsuit makes multiple labor law violation claims:

  • violating minimum wage law

  • violating overtime wage law,

  • violating meal and rest break requirements

  • falling to reimburse workers for necessary work expenses

  • failing to provide an accurate, itemized wage statement

  • falling to provide wages when due

The above allegations would be in violation of California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

Rigorous work schedules and understaffing allegedly prevented employees from taking off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When the employees did take one of their breaks, they were generally not completely relieved of their job duties. In California, non-exempt employees are entitled to a 10-minute paid rest period for every four hours worked or a major fraction thereof, with the rest period ideally falling in the middle of the work period. Additionally, these employees must be provided with a 30-minute meal break if they work a shift longer than 5 hours and a second meal break if they work over 10 hours. Employers cannot require employees to work during these breaks and must relinquish control over their activities. Failure to comply with these provisions can lead to significant penalties for employers, including payment of one hour of pay for each day a rest or meal period is not provided.

The Case: Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Kevin Dion Cocroft v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc., is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing a California employment law lawsuit, please contact 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.

Does Stater Bros. Markets Provide Workers with Required Breaks?

/

A lawsuit filed recently in California alleges that Stater Bros. Markets failed to provide employees with the meal breaks and rest periods required by labor law.

The Case: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

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

The Case No.: CIVSB2332884

The Plaintiff: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

The plaintiff in the case, Wafa Mowannes, filed a class action complaint against Stater Bros. Markets in March 2024 for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. Mowannes filed the class action wage and hour lawsuit in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of California.

The Defendant: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

The defendant in the case, Stater Bros. Markets, faces numerous labor law violation allegations. The allegations in the class action lawsuit include:

  • failing to pay minimum wage

  • failing to pay overtime wages

  • failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods

  • failing to reimburse workers for job-related necessary expenses

  • failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • failing to pay wages when they’re due

  • provide all tips and gratuities

The allegations included in the California wage and hour class action would violate multiple California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

Are All California Employees Eligible for Meal and Rest Breaks?

Under state labor laws, most California employees are entitled to meal and rest breaks. These breaks are mandated to ensure workers have enough time for meals and rest during their shifts. However, certain exemptions exist for specific categories of workers, such as those in executive, administrative, or professional roles, who may be exempt from these requirements. In general, California labor laws are designed to protect the well-being and rights of employees. If you are unsure if labor law provides protection for your rights in your current employment, reach out to an experienced labor law attorney to find out.

The Case: Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets

California labor law requires employers to pay employees on an established payday for each pay period and comply with the applicable minimum wage for all hours an employee works during a pay period. According to the lawsuit, Stater Bros. Markets allegedly required workers to complete work before and after their scheduled shifts and to continue completing job duties while on their off-duty meal breaks. The company also allegedly did not provide the required additional compensation for the time employees spent completing “off-the-clock” work or for the missed off-duty meal breaks. As a result, the company failed to pay employees for all hours worked in accordance with minimum wage requirements. The wage and hour class action lawsuit, Wafa Mowannes v. Stater Bros. Markets, is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to respond to an employer’s labor code violations, please contact 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.

TSC Staff Faces Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime in California Class Action

/

In recent news, The Service Companies/TSC Staff face allegations of wage and hour violations in a recent California class action lawsuit.

The Case: Oscar Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

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

The Case No.: 24STCV01889

The Plaintiffs: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The plaintiff in the case, Almanza, filed a class action complaint against The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff. According to court documents, the plaintiff claims the defendant failed to provide workers with meal and rest breaks required by labor laws.

The Defendant: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

The defendant in the case, The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff, allegedly failed to provide meal and rest breaks to employees. According to the class action lawsuit, the defendant allegedly violated numerous California Labor Codes (§§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations include:

  • failing to pay minimum wage

  • failing to pay overtime wages

  • failure to provide required meal and rest periods

  • failing to reimburse workers for required work expenses

  • failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

  • failing to provide wages when due

The Case: Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff

Due to strenuous work schedules, the defendant’s employees were allegedly unable to take off-duty breaks, and during the off-duty breaks they did take, they were not fully relieved from their work duties. According to the class action lawsuit, workers were sometimes required to work more than four hours without a ten-minute rest period. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that due to understaffing, the staff that was scheduled tended to be overburdened, so from time to time, The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff denied employees their first rest periods of 10 minutes (minimum) for shifts from 2-4 hours, both first and second rest periods during shifts between 6-8 hours, and first, second, and third rest breaks during shifts lasting ten or more hours. When employees did not receive their rest periods, the company allegedly failed to provide them one hour of wages in place of the break as labor law requires. The case, Almanza v. The Service Companies, Inc. dba TSC Staff, is currently pending in the Los Angeles 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 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.

Did Heritage Bank Violate Wage and Hour Laws?

/

In recent news, Heritage Bank faces a class action lawsuit. The case was filed under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nicole Demarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.: RG20080970

The Plaintiffs: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The plaintiffs in the case, Demarinis and Patire, are current and former Heritage Bank of Commerce employees. The plaintiffs brought the case under PAGA (California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004), claiming the company engaged in wage and hour Labor Code violations.

The Defendant: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

The defendant in the case, Heritage Bank, put an arbitration agreement in place with the plaintiffs in which they waived their right to bring claims against each other in any class or representative proceeding. Heritage Bank argued that the denial of arbitration was erroneous because the waiver provision was enforceable for nonindividual PAGA claims.

The Case: Demarinis v. Heritage Bank

However, the court found that the provision violated public policy by requiring plaintiffs to abandon their right to bring PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three affirmed the decision made by the trial court rejecting the bank’s argument to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claims based on a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the court found that the waiver provision’s nonseverablity clause and “poison pill” provision precluded severance of the unenforceable nonindividual PAGA claims waiver by stating that if the waiver provision is unenforceable, the full arbitration agreement is null and void. As a result, the court decided the unenforceability of the waiver provision rendered the entire agreement null and void, which affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

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.