California Labor Code Lawsuit Alleges RFI Enterprises Failed to Pay Overtime

A California Labor Code lawsuit was recently filed against RFI Enterprises. According to the suit, the company wrongfully denied their employee overtime.

Plaintiff, Brian P., was employed at RFI Enterprises’ San Jose location. The company is a multi-systems integrator established in 1979 that does business across the nation with offices in California, Washington and Nevada. They install and monitor fire and life safety solutions. They offer a number of different systems: life safety systems, electronic access control, intrusion detection, closed circuit television, alarms, and fire safety. Their monitoring center provides 24/7 support to their various systems.

According to California labor law, employers are required to pay overtime. The required overtime pay rate is one and a half times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked over eight in one day or 40 in one week. According to the plaintiff in this case, the company did not factor wage premiums or shift differential pay into the regular rate of pay used to calculate their overtime pay rates.

According to the overtime lawsuit against RFI Enterprises, the company calculated overtime pay rates that were based on the employees’ base hourly rate of pay. This resulted in a lower overtime pay rate below the minimum overtime pay rate required by law. California labor law also requires that employers provide their employees with accurate wage statements. The plaintiff in the case also alleges that the employer was in violation of this regulation.

Not only does the plaintiff claim that the company was in violation of overtime pay rates and the regulation requiring that they provide accurate wage statements, but that the company did so maliciously and intentionally. According to the complaint, the company was unwilling to current their unfair business practices.

RFI Enterprises, the Defendants, allegedly engaged and have continued to engage in both unfair and unlawful business practices as detailed above. The plaintiff proposes to represent a class of employees in the California class action. A subclass has also been proposed to represent employees paid shift differential pay after Jan. 12, 2017.

If you fear your employer is in violation of California labor code or you have questions about what makes an employee exempt from overtime, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Stericycle Employment Class Action Suit Settled for $2 Million

A preliminary settlement agreement has been reached between the parties of the Stericycle employment class action lawsuit. The suit was brought against Stericycle, Inc., a medical waste company, with workers alleging that the company refused to provide them with required meal and rest breaks, did not pay overtime for overtime hours worked, and failed to compensate workers for time they were required to spend changing into their “work clothes.”

Approximately 985 California employees make up the class. The class was originally represented by plaintiff Sergio Gutierrez. He filed the putative class action in summer of 2014. Since that time, Gutierrez passed away. Two other plaintiffs were put forward as replacements: Kenneth Moniz and Kevin Henshaw. Both are expected to receive up to $10,000 for time and effort spent bringing the action and in exchange for general release of claims. This is in accordance with the proposed $2 million settlement as stated in the agreement.

According to the complaint, Stericycle utilized a practice of “rounding” payroll times which shorted their workers’ wages, and employees were not completely compensated for their time spent dressing in the required work clothing (donning and doffing). The company also allegedly did not include all worker bonuses in their overtime rates, failed to provide compensation for vested vacation payments, and didn’t offer required meal and rest periods to their workers as is required by employment law. 

Stericycle employs staff at more than 28 California locations and handles the collection, processing and disposal of medical waste. Class members include Stericycle employees working out of any California Stericycle location from August 14, 2010 through September 18, 2017. According to the motion for approval, Stericycle offered individual settlement amounts to certain class members (starting in 2015) attempting to minimize the lawsuit’s exposure. Those settlements payments amount to a total of $460,000. Individuals who took money from Stericycle under individual settlement deals will be provided with a reduced portion of the settlement for their worked shifts covered by prior corporate agreements with Stericycle.

Workers involved in the suit also claim that the company uses a point system to reward employees for avoiding incidents in the workplace. Points under the Stericycle system were converted to cash credits that could then be used on Amazon. Plaintiffs contend that these amounts should have been calculated into the regular rates of pay used to come up with overtime pay rates.

If you have questions or concerns about your employer’s overtime calculation, or if you are not being paid overtime in accordance with state and federal employment law, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Exotic Dancers Wage Row Results in $8.5M Deal

A number of former Spearmint Rhino exotic dancers urged a California federal judge to give final approval to a $8.5 million deal in order to settle their suit alleging that the chain of nightclubs limited their compensation to tips.  Lead plaintiffs in the case, Lauren Byrne, Bambie Bedford, and Jennifer Disla, claimed that the nightclub didn’t pay them overtime wages, provide them with minimum wage or provide them with required meal and rest breaks during their time dancing in the establishment.

Final settlement approval in the class and collective action would resolve the allegations of tip misappropriation. Out of 8,000 class members, 50 chose to opt out and only a few others in the group objected to the settlement proposed as a resolution to the matter.

Dancers included in the suit were located throughout the country. Counsel for the class spoke to them regarding the allegations and disputed facts of the case and considered information pertaining to the case provided by defendants’ counsel including business structure, agreements in place, locations of the club, number of clubs involved in the case, number of dancers and other entertainers working at the various locations, applicable statute of limitations, and the number of days each dancer worked at the establishments. All this research and analyses was completed prior to engaging in settlement discussions.

According to the motion, the final approval of the proposed settlement would end litigation over all claims against the Spearmint Rhino nightclubs brought by the plaintiffs in regard to state wage and hour law violations, and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the dancers, the deal amount specified was $8.5 million, but could increase to $11 million if certain conditions were met.

A group of exotic dancers currently working the defendants’ clubs came forward the same day that the final settlement approval was requested to ask the court to find that they are not employees. They stated that they could have chosen to work as “employees,” but did not because they wanted to avoid the level of control the nightclubs had over actual employees. They argued that the plaintiffs are all former entertainers who no longer need to consider this aspect of the issue. They have no further interest in preserving their choice to perform without being subject to the rules, regulation, control and scrutiny of an employee.

If you have questions about wage and hour violations or if you are not being paid overtime you are due, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Grub-Hub Drivers Officially Ruled Contractors and The Gig-Economy is Taking Notice

A recent ruling declared Grub-Hub drivers independent contractors officially and the gig-economy is taking notice. The ruling has the potential to affect Uber litigation as it is also hinging on employment status questions. The significant court decision was handed down by a federal judge asked to rule whether drivers for GrubHub Inc. are actually independent contractors or employees. Since Uber Technologies Inc. has a similar business model that depends on pairing customers with products/services through a smart phone app, it’s not surprising that employment law litigation facing both parties includes similar issues.

The first of its kind ruling was delivered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco. According to the ruling, a gig-economy driver does not qualify for employee protections under California law. Her ruling was based on her interpretation of California law on the matter. She did note that the law, as it stands, is an all-or-nothing proposition and the advent of the gig economy’s low wage workforce engaging in low skill, high flexibility, episodic jobs may mean the legislature will need to readdress the issue. 

The GrubHub suit was filed by Raif Lawson. Lawson worked as a food-delivery driver for less than six months while he pursued an acting/writing career. He claimed GrubHub violated California labor laws by not reimbursing him for expenses, failing to pay minimum wage and failing to pay overtime pay for hours worked in excess of either per day or 40/week.

Determining whether Lawson was an independent contractor or an employee hinged on pinning down how much control GrubHub exerts over their drivers’ work lives. GrubHub argued that Lawson held the reins as he decided when, where and how frequently he performed deliveries. Lawson’s attorney contended that GrubHub exerted control over drivers by expecting them to be available to accept assignments during shifts they sign up for and to remain in prescribed geographical regions.

GrubHub is happy with the ruling, as are many other gig-economy front runners facing similar litigation and questions of misclassification. They feel the ruling validates the freedom that GrubHub drivers enjoy. They also stated that the would make sure drivers would retain the advantage of flexibility that made working with GrubHub advantageous.

If you have questions about misclassification in the work place or if you need the help of an experienced California employment lawyer, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Former Employee Files Suit Against Beverly Hills Hotel Alleging Racism

The family that owns the Four Seasons Hotel Los Angeles at Beverly Hills, 300 S. Doheny Drive, is looking at a bit of legal trouble after a former employee filed suit against the wife of the hotel owner. Jennie Lam’s lawsuit claims that she was harassed about her Asian heritage and was then fired in 2016 after she complained about the situation. Lam was employed as a floral designer and plant care specialist at the hotel beginning in February 2015. Her technical employer was For All Seasons Landscapes, which is located inside the hotel.

Defendants included in the lawsuit are: Beverly Cohen, the Robert & Beverly Cohen Family Trust, For All Seasons Gardenscapes Inc., and Veronica Rodriguez. (Veronica Rodriguez is a former co-worker of Lam).

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on allegations of race discrimination and harassment, age discrimination (the wife allegedly referred to her as “the little Chinese girl”), whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Lam claims she was repeatedly singled out by Cohen due to her race. Allegedly, Cohen once advised Lam, “Chinese, Vietnamese, whatever you are, just work or you will not have a job.”

Lam also claims she was made to work in temperatures over 100 degrees inside a heated greenhouse without the appropriate (or any) rest or meal breaks. When she complained about the working conditions, she was allegedly told that the heat was good for someone her age and good for her skin and that “Asian people are meant to work hard.” Lam’s lawsuit also indicates that she was made to dig through trash cans for old flowers to use in arrangements and also forced to clean the defendant’s penthouse balcony.

Rodriquez is included in the lawsuit because she allegedly made similarly racially charged, negative remarks to Lam such as, “I don’t like you, whatever the hell your background is, Vietnamese or Chinese…”

Lam eventually saw negative effects on her health. In April 2016, she had a panic attack and started to shake when Cohen ordered her to use a saw to cut branches into shorter lengths and use them in a floral arrangement. Lam protested that she wasn’t trained for that type of work, and a co-worker performed the duty. According to Lam, he severely cut one of his fingers during the process. As Lam left Cohen terminated her employment.

If you have been wrongfully terminated or if you are experiencing a hostile work environment, please contact one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.