Matco Ends Wage Theft Class Action with $15.8M Settlement

Matco Tools Corp., a tool company, recently agreed to pay their franchisees $15.8 million to resolve a class action alleging the corporation misclassified them as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime and other benefits.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:19-cv-00463

Plaintiffs in the Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The specified settlement between the two parties in Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al. stemmed from Matco franchisee John Fleming suing the Ohio-based mechanic tools manufacturer (and its parent company, Fortive Corp) in Jan. 2019. Fleming claimed he and other franchisees were misclassified as independent contractors. Fleming was a Matco franchise owner from 2012 to 2018. The defendant argued the case should be dismissed as Fleming was not a franchise owner at the time of the filing, but the court disagreed and certified the class action. The allegations included in the complaint will be resolved by the proposed settlement, which will see plaintiffs (the affected franchisees) each receiving over $40,000 in cash/debt relief.

Defendant in the Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

Matco Tools Corp. has agreed to a $15.8 million settlement with franchisees. The settlement would resolve claims that the company misclassified their franchisees as independent contractors to skimp on costs associated with fulfilling California labor law benefits requirements like overtime, meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and timely payment of wages upon termination.

The Case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corporation et al.

The franchisees claimed that the tools company wrongly classified them as independent contractors when they were employees, denying them the right to overtime pay and other benefits. After a years-long battle, the parties agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs stating that going to trial could be a risk, so settling before trial was their preferred option. Under the settlement terms, Matco will pay the class of about 273 franchisees $13.5 million and relieve more than $2.3 million worth of debt.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how to file an overtime class action, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Bamia 2 LLC Facing Allegations They Failed to Pay Overtime Wages

Bamia 2 LLC faces allegations they violated employment law by failing to pay their employees overtime wages they were due.

The Case: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-598895

The Plaintiff: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

The plaintiffs, Valenzuela and Manjarrez, filed suit on behalf of themselves and on behalf of similarly situated individuals in this California Overtime class action. The plaintiffs in the case demand a jury trial alleging multiple violations of the California Labor Code and federal employment laws.

The Defendant: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

The Defendant in the case, Bamia 2 LLC, faces allegations that they:

• Violated the labor code by engaging in business practices constituting unfair competition

• Failed to pay minimum wage

• Failed to pay overtime wages

• Failed to provide required meal periods

• Failed to provide required rest periods

• Failed to reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenditures

• Failed to provide accurate wage statements

• Failed to provide wages when due

The Case: Valenzuela and Manjarrez v. Bamia 2 LLC

The allegations in the case stem from accusations that Bamia 2 LLC allegedly did not accurately record their employees' time on the job. According to the plaintiffs in the case, Bamia 2 LLC did not pay employees for all the time they spent under the employer's control. Specifically, the case references the time employees were required to spend submitting to mandatory Covid-19 screening before they could clock in for work. Based on the off-the-clock time employees logged, the company record of employee hours is inaccurate. The company's allegedly inaccurate time records resulted in both wages below minimum wage requirements and inaccurate overtime wage calculations. The case is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California. The alleged conduct and resulting violations could give rise to civil penalties.

If you have questions about inaccurate overtime pay calculations, minimum wage violations, or other employment law violations, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Are TopGolf Tipped Restaurant Workers Owed Unpaid Wages?

In recent news, a former TopGolf employee filed a lawsuit claiming that tipped bartenders and servers were underpaid because TopGolf allegedly employs illegal tipping policies.

The Case: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

The plaintiff worked for TopGolf as a tipped worker. Batiste claims that tip workers at TopGold were not informed of the company’s intention to apply a tip credit to hourly wages and were forced to give up chunks of their tips to kitchen staff whose job duties included clearing, washing dishes, etc. without customer interaction. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that tipped workers were required to complete a significant amount of untipped job duties; some related to their serving or bartending responsibilities and some unrelated. Some of the untipped duties required were cleaning the restaurant, setting up areas for private events, prepping silverware, restocking condiments, etc. Tipped workers were paid sub-minimum wage with no tip income as a supplement during these “extra” duties.

The Defendant: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

The defendant in the lawsuit, TopGolf International, Inc. and TopGolf USA Spring Holdings, LLC, allegedly employed servers, known as “bayhosts,” and bartenders that supplemented sub-minimum hourly wages with tips. However, the tipped restaurant workers were allegedly required to spend a significant (unlawful) amount of time completing non-tipped duties. The tipped workers were also required to surrender portions of their tips to distribute amongst kitchen staff.

Details of the Case: Batiste v. TopGolf International, Inc. et al.

Employers that pay workers less than federal minimum wage are required to adhere to strict tip credit requirements as determined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, TopGolf unlawfully attempted to take advantage of the tip credit provision set down by FLSA without following the requirements determined by the same legislation.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys can assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Barton Associates Faces Allegations of Misclassified Healthcare Workers as Independent Contractors

In a recent class-action lawsuit, Barton Associates faces allegations of depriving workers of overtime wages by misclassification as independent contractors.

The Case: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

The Court: California Central District Court

The Case No.: 2:22-CV-01011

The Plaintiff: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Baxley, is a licensed nurse practitioner. Baxley claims “substantial overtime” was a regular occurrence while working for Barton in Pomona, California. While the plaintiff frequently put in more than eight hours a day and 40 hours in one week, she was allegedly not paid at the appropriate overtime pay rate for her overtime hours.

The Defendant: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Barton Associates, Inc., is a healthcare staffing provider. The plaintiff claims the company did not provide healthcare workers with an off-duty meal break when they worked more than five hours or a second off-duty meal break when they worked more than 10 hours in one day. The company also failed to provide workers with their 10-minute rest period during a two- to four-hour shift, a second rest period during six- to eight-hour shifts and a third rest period during any shifts that lasted more than 10 hours. According to the lawsuit, the company also allegedly failed to properly pay healthcare workers for breaks they forfeited. According to the complaint, Barton willfully failed to timely provide wages due when employment ended (within 72 hours).

More About the Case: Baxley v. Barton Associates, Inc.

Barton Associates, Inc. is listed as the defendant in a recent proposed class action claiming they deprived their employees of overtime wages based on misclassification. According to the lawsuit, Barton has “knowingly, willfully and flagrantly” misclassified their healthcare workers as independent contractors so the company could avoid California labor law requirements to pay time and a half for overtime hours. Plaintiffs in the suit argue that properly classifying them as employees would entitle them to overtime rates for overtime hours, in addition to other employee protections like meal breaks and rest periods.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Lawsuit Claims Citrix Violated Wage and Hour Law and Overtime Law

According to a recent lawsuit, Citrix Systems did not pay their employees for time spent completing mandatory pre-and post-shift tasks. Additionally, Citrix workers were allegedly denied proper overtime wages.

The Case: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

The Court: North Carolina’s Eastern District Court

The Case No.: 5:21-CV-00088

The Plaintiff: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

Cirillo, the plaintiff in the case, is a former inside sales rep at the company’s Raleigh, North Carolina location. Cirillo alleges that she and other workers in similar situations weren’t paid for the time they spent completing mandatory pre- and post-shift tasks or for overtime.

The Defendant: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

The defendant in the case, Citrix Systems Inc., is a software development company employing more than 8,100 global workers. More than 2,000 of their employees are inside sales reps at the Raleigh location. According to the complaint, Citrix Systems Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state employment law by failing to appropriately pay employees, and retaliating against the plaintiff in the case.

Situations in the Workplace that Allegedly Violate Labor Law:

• According to the complaint, Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc., a number of business practices, policies, and situations in the workplace constituted a violation of labor law including:

• Requiring employees to report only scheduled shift times regardless of the number of hours actually worked

• Required “pre-shift” tasks required in order to be “work ready” such as checking emails, logging in to various programs, etc.

• Requiring employees to work through unpaid lunch breaks

• Requiring post-shift tasks (like shutting down computers, finishing paperwork, sending emails and touching base with clients and potential customers (including clients in other time zones)

• Failing to include nondiscretionary commissions as part of the workers’ regular rates of pay when calculating overtime pay rates

Summary of the Case: Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc.

Cirillo v. Citrix Systems Inc. proposed collective and class action, also alleges Citrix failed to inform the plaintiff, Cirillo, of her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and retaliated against her after she sustained a workplace injury that necessitated that she work from home for an extended period. In summary, the plaintiff, who worked for Citrix from summer 2018 through the beginning of 2020, alleges she was wrongfully terminated from her position.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California employment law complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Ex In-N-Out Employee Claims Wrongful Termination After Reporting Safety Violations

An ex In-N-Out Burger employee claims he was wrongfully terminated by In-N-Out Burger, a California restaurant chain. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims he was fired in retaliation after reporting a number of alleged COVID-19 safety violations.

The Case: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

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

The Case No.: 21 STCV1 7 045

The Plaintiff: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

The plaintiff in the case, Becerra, is a former In-N-Out Burger employee. Becerra claims that he noticed some apparent Covid-19 safety violations, and reported them to the company. According to the allegations, Becerra was terminated shortly thereafter in retaliation. The plaintiff worked as a butcher for the company from July 2015 through May 25, 2020.

The Defendant: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

The defendant, In-N-Out Burger, a popular California restaurant chain, alleged Becerra has “falsely used his sick time” and accused him of lying about suffering from asthma. In-N-Out claims that the plaintiff’s reporting of alleged Coronavirus safety violations in February 2020 was the final straw, and Becerra was fired 3 months later. Becerra claims that he was improperly written up by the company and that he was actually fired in retaliation for reporting the Covid-19 safety violations.

The Case: Becerra v. In-N-Out Burger

Additionally, the plaintiff claims that he was improperly disciplined multiple times during his employment when he needed to take protected time off. According to the plaintiff, even when he provided valid reasons supported by documentation for protected time off, In-N-Out would write him up for the approved leave. For example, after a domestic violence incident on January 5, 2018, the plaintiff reached out to the InNOutCares team to report the situation and request a couple of days off to recover. HR reassured him that the missed days would not count against him/would be excused. However, the plaintiff was actually written up and disciplined for the “uncovered” absences. He also claims that the supporting documents regarding the domestic abuse were deleted from his employee file.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination 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 located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Home Depot Faces Class Action Alleging Failure to Pay Wages for Off the Clock Work

A recent California class-action lawsuit claims Home Depot failed to pay employees for every hour worked and provide workers with appropriate meal periods and rest breaks.

The Case: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Court: California Central District Court

The Case No.: 3:22-CV-00276

The Plaintiff: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Plaintiff in the case, a former Home Depot employee, claims Home Depot has a policy to round down employees’ clock-in and clock-out times for their work shifts, and meal periods. As a result, Home Depot workers allegedly lose hours resulting in not being paid for all hours worked. When employees work a shift at closing, they’re required to clock out, wait at the door for other workers to clock out, and then wait for management to arm the alarm system before leaving. The complaint argues that the policies and procedures in place at Home Depot amount to time employees work that they are not paid for.

The Defendant: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Defendant in the case, Home Depot, allegedly retained control over their employees and their activities during the time they spent waiting for the standard closing procedure. The company’s round-down policy also allegedly shaved off up to a quarter-hour at a time.

Summary of the Case: White v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

In effect, the Defendant retained control of their employees/the plaintiffs without paying wages for the time. Therefore, the plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked time they were not compensated for which violates California Labor Code. As a result of their policies and business practices, Home Depot allegedly owes employees for unpaid minimum wage hours, as well as unpaid overtime hours (for those who worked more than 40 hours in one week or 8 hours in one day).

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help filing a California class-action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.