Medtrans LLC Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, Medtrans allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements.

The Case: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

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

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2024-6856

The Plaintiff: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

Sydney Kemp, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Medtrans LLC violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

The defendant in the case, Medtrans LLC, allegedly failed to provide employees with accurate and itemized wage statements, as required by California Labor Law. The complaint alleges that Medtrans engaged in multiple business practices in violation of labor law, including:

• Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

• Failure to Provide Overtime Pay

• Failure to Legally Required Meal Periods & Rest Breaks

• Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Pay Statements

• Failure to Reimburse Workers for Required Expenses

• Failure to Pay Sick Wages

Do All California Employers Need to Provide Itemized Wage Statements?

California employers must provide detailed wage statements for each wage payment to employees. These wage statements must include several specific pieces of information to comply with California Labor Code Section 226. Here are the required details that must be included on the wage statements:

• Gross Wages Earned

• Total Hours Worked

• Piece-Rate Units Earned/Any Applicable Piece Rate

• All Deductions

• Net Wages

• Pay Period (specific dates)

• Employee Name and Identifying Employee Number or the Last 4 of the SSN

• Employer's Name and Address

• Hourly Rates Used During the Pay Period

• Hours Worked at Each Pay Rate During the Pay Period

Failure to provide a wage statement with all of this information or providing inaccurate information can lead to penalties under California law. Employers must ensure they are in full compliance to avoid legal complications.

The Case: Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC

The Sydney Kemp v. Medtrans LLC case is pending in California Superior Court, San Joaquin County.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

NNT Express & Trytime Transport Face Allegations of Worker Misclassification

In recent news, NNT Express & Trytime Transport faces serious labor law violation allegations claiming they misclassified workers as independent contractors when they allegedly qualified to be classified as employees, potentially leading to significant legal consequences.

The Case: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014517-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiffs: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

The plaintiffs in the case, Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo, filed a class action complaint against NNT Express, Inc. and Trytime Transport, LLC ("NNT Express and Trytime Transport"), alleging misclassification of its employees as independent contractors. The plaintiffs filed on behalf of workers for NNT Express and Trytime Transport in California hired as independent contractors (from March 27, 2020, to the present).According to plaintiff allegations, the defendant violated the California Labor Code protections by allegedly misclassifying its California employees as independent contractors.

The Defendant: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

The defendants in the case, NNT Express & Trytime Transport, hire California workers to provide truck driving services to their customers. According to the class action lawsuit, the company controlled and directed their "independent contractors" work by scheduling their hours, providing job site info, issuing written company policies, distributing procedures for job performance and workplace conduct, etc.

The Case: Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport

Given the alleged practices of NNT Express & Trytime Transport in exerting significant control over the schedules, work details, and conduct of their truck drivers, these drivers arguably should not be classified as independent contractors but rather as employees. This distinction is critical under California labor law, particularly following standards set by the California Supreme Court's Dynamex decision and the subsequent Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which codifies the "ABC" test for determining worker status. According to this test, a worker is considered an employee unless the employer can prove their worker is not being controlled or directed in the performance of their job duties, that the worker completes tasks outside the usual course of the employer's business, and is independently established as a trade, occupation or business. The behavior of NNT Express & Trytime Transport, as described by the plaintiffs, suggests a level of control that would generally qualify their workers as employees, which would entitle them to the protections and benefits of labor law such as minimum wage, overtime compensation, rest periods, and other working conditions guaranteed by state labor laws. This type of worker misclassification undermines the legal rights of workers and can leave California companies open to significant legal liabilities and penalties for California Labor Law violations. The plaintiffs claim that NNT Express and Trytime Transport violated California Labor Code Sections §§ 204, 210, 221, 226.7, 226.8, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802 by failing to pay workers minimum wage and overtime wages, provide workers with meal periods and rest breaks, provide accurate, itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for necessary business expenses, and provide wages when they are due. The class action lawsuit, Clinton Simril and Eliaz Garcilazo v. NNT Express & Trytime Transport is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about how to file a California Class Action employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

WSH Management, Inc. Class Action Alleges Company Failed to Provide Overtime Pay

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, WSH Management, Inc. failed to provide their employees with overtime wages, violating California Labor Law.

The Case: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

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

The Case No.:24STCV10073

The Plaintiff: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Judy Lee, filed a class action complaint against WSH Management, Inc., claiming the company violated labor law when it failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Lee worked for WSH Management, Inc. from December 13, 2023, to December 28, 2023. As a non-exempt hourly employee, Lee was entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods and the payment of minimum wage and overtime wages for all the hours she worked.

The Defendant: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

The defendant, WSH Management, Inc., is a property management company operating out of California. The company faces numerous labor law violation allegations, including:

• pay minimum wages

• pay overtime wages

• provide required meal and rest periods

• reimburse for required business expenses

• provide accurate itemized wage statements

• provide wages when due

The allegations violate California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802.

The Case: Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc.

In the case Judy Lee v. WSH Management, Inc., the plaintiff alleges that standard practices and policies at WSH Management, Inc. were unlawful and failed to compensate employees for all time worked per labor law. According to the California class action lawsuit, WSH Management's employees allegedly could not take their off-duty meal breaks, and often, they weren't completely relieved of job duties and work responsibilities during their rest periods. Failing to provide the required meal breaks and rest periods violates labor law.

If you have questions about how to file a wage and hour class action lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Did USA Waste of California, Inc. Employees Receive Inaccurate Wages?

In recent news, USA Waste of California, Inc. has faced allegations that it failed to provide its employees with accurate wages.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24CV002366

The Plaintiff: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Justin Diridoni, filed a class action complaint alleging that USA Waste of California, Inc. violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendants: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

The defendant, USA Waste of California, Inc., faces numerous allegations of labor law violations, including:

• Failing to pay minimum wages

• Failing to pay overtime wages

• Failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failing to reimburse for required expenses

• Failing to pay sick wages

• Failing to pay wages when due

The alleged allegations would be a violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Such alleged conduct could give rise to civil penalties.

The Case: Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc.

According to case documents, USA Waste of California, Inc. workers were allegedly not granted the required ten-minute rest periods when working longer than four hours. Claims also indicate that on certain occasions, employees were mandated to work shifts exceeding five hours without being afforded a meal break, as per company policy. Consequently, these employees missed out on their meal breaks without receiving extra pay, following what is alleged to be the standard policy and practice of the defendant. The class action lawsuit, Justin Diridoni v. USA Waste of California, Inc., is currently pending in the Sacramento 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.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc. Facing a Lawsuit Claiming Wage Statement Violations

In recent news, Hunt Construction Group, Inc. allegedly failed to comply with labor law by providing workers with accurate itemized wage statements.

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

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

The Case No.: 24STCV09121

The Plaintiffs: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

Ruben Almader is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Hunt Construction Group, Inc., where he claims the company committed multiple violations of California Labor Codes. The allegations include:

• Failing to pay minimum and overtime wages.

• Not providing required meal and rest breaks.

• Inaccurate wage statements.

• Not reimbursing necessary expenses.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that Hunt Construction did not pay sick wages or wages when due, actions that could lead to significant civil penalties under state law.

The Defendant: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Hunt Construction Group, is implicated for allegedly failing to comply with California Labor Code § 226, which mandates that employers provide accurate and itemized wage statements to their employees. The lawsuit claims that the wage statements issued by Hunt Construction did not include essential details such as the applicable hourly rates, total hours worked, and the pay period during which the wages were earned. This omission has led to allegations that the company did not fulfill its legal obligations regarding employee wage documentation.

What Is An Accurate Itemized Wage Statement?

The requirements for an accurate itemized wage statement are stipulated by California Labor Code Section 226. The following details must be listed clearly to comply with state law and ensure full transparency for the employee:

1. Employee info: Name and SSN (last four digits) or an employee ID number

2. Employer info: legal name and address

3. Wages earned during the pay period (both Net and Gross)

4. Any hourly rates used to pay the employee during the current pay period

5. Total hours worked by the employee (unless the employee is salaried/exempt) and their applicable hourly rate

6. Any applicable piece rate and the number of units (if the employee is paid on a piece-rate scale)

7. All deductions from the wages

8. The current pay period

The Case: Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, Ruben Almader v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Mainspring Energy, Inc. Employees Make California Labor Law Violation Allegations

According to a recently filed California labor law complaint, Mainspring Energy, Inc. allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for the cost of using their cell phones to perform their job duties.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County

The Case No.:24-CIV-01894

The Plaintiff: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Edward Young, filed a class action complaint alleging that Mainspring Energy, Inc. violated multiple California Labor Codes. These violations include failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, not providing legally mandated meal and rest periods, and not reimbursing employees for necessary business expenses like using personal cellular phones for work. Young's case highlights systemic issues within Mainspring Energy concerning the treatment of employees and adherence to state labor laws, seeking civil penalties for these infractions.

The Defendant: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

The defendant, Mainspring Energy, Inc., is a corporation doing business in California providing clean energy. The plaintiff, Edward Young, was hired as a non-exempt hourly employee for Mainspring Energy, Inc. in September 2021.

The Case: Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc.

While employed at Mainspring Energy, Inc., Young, and other similarly situated employees were allegedly required to use their cell phones to complete their job duties. Since California Labor Code 2802 expressly states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." the plaintiff argues they are violating labor law. Edward Young v. Mainspring Energy, Inc., a class action lawsuit, is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you believe you may be a potential plaintiff in a similar case or have questions about filing an employment law lawsuit, please don't hesitate to get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their 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, empowering you to take action.

Did GT Independence Services, LLC Violate Labor Law?

In recent news, GT Independence Services, LLC has faced allegations that it violated labor law by failing to reimburse its employees.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

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

The Case No.: 37-2024-00014402-CU-OE-CT

The Plaintiff: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Annabelle Cruz, filed a class action complaint alleging that GT Independence Services, LLC violated the California Labor Code. Annabelle Cruz is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against GT Independence Services, LLC, where it is alleged that employees were not given ten-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, as required. The lawsuit also claims that employees, including Cruz, were compelled to work shifts longer than five hours without the mandated meal breaks, violating company policy without additional compensation. Furthermore, Cruz and other class members were reportedly not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, such as using personal cellular phones for work-related activities, contrary to California Labor Code 2802.

According to the lawsuit filed, GT Independence Services, LLC employees were, allegedly, from time to time, unable to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Additionally, employees were allegedly required from time to time to perform work as ordered by the company for more than five (5) hours during some shifts without receiving a meal break. As a result, employees forfeited meal breaks without additional compensation, according to Defendant's corporate policy and practice.

GT Independence Services, LLC also allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. California Labor Code 2802 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." During employment, Plaintiff and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their cellular phones as a result of, and in furtherance of, their job duties.

The Defendant: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The defendant in the case, GT Independence Services, LLC, specializes in facilitating self-directed care for individuals with disabilities, enabling them to manage their own care and hire support staff of their choosing. As an employer, GT Independence focuses on providing supportive work environments but has faced allegations regarding labor practices, including issues with rest periods and reimbursement policies.

The Case: Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC

The case Annabelle Cruz v. GT Independence Services, LLC is currently pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about filing an 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.