Kronos Cyber Attack Sparked a String of Employment Law Complaints

The string of very similar employment law complaints filed following the December 2021 Kronos cyber-attack clearly shows how third-party security breaches can cause significant problems. These problems aren't only felt by the company that was hacked, but often by all the businesses depending on their products or services in their own business practices.

2022 Wage and Hour Class Actions Stemming from Kronos Cyber Attack:

The following is a sampling of the wage and hour class actions filed against companies who used the Kronos payroll and timekeeping software during the December 2021 ransomware attack. Plaintiffs in the cases allege that the Kronos hack resulted in overtime pay violations for hourly workers. The string of litigation shows clearly that third-party cyber-breaches can lead to significant consequences in the form of labor and employment law claims.

Henderson v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2:22-cv-00414)

Parrish v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (4:22-cv-00284)

Ellis et al v. PepsiCo, Inc. (3:2022cv01895)

Mitchell v. Baptist Health System, Inc. (3:2022cv00383)

Holbert et al. v. The Giant Company LLC (1:2022cv00501)

Details of the Wage and Hour Class Action Cases:

In early April, Johnson Controls, Inc. was sued on behalf of a putative class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the Eastern District Court for the District of Wisconsin. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.(a subsidiary of PepsiCo) was also sued in early April on behalf of a putative class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees, but this case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. PepsiCo itself has been sued three times so far in connection to the Kronos breach. First, at the end of March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees. Second in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees (also at the end of March). And third, Ellis et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In early April, Baptist Health System was sued on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. And The Giant Company was sued (also in the first week of April) on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs Cite Similar Allegations in the String of Wage and Hour Lawsuits:

The various lawsuits stemming from the Kronos data breach in December 2021 include similar wording and allegations stating that after being made aware of the situation, defendants could have implemented systems to record hours and pay wages until the issues resulting from the hack were addressed, but they didn't take action. Some of the complaints also indicated that the defendants let the financial consequences of the Kronos hack fall on their frontline workers and that average American workers rely on their full wages paid in a timely manner to make ends meet in their day-to-day lives. Class actions seek to recover unpaid wages and damages as well as penalties and interest.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, 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.

Prime Healthcare Anaheim Faces PAGA Only Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violations

A former Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC employee filed a PAGA Only complaint alleging that the company violated numerous labor laws during their years of employment. 

The Case: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

The Court:   Orange County Superior Court,

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

According to the plaintiff in the case, Franco, the defendant allegedly failed to provide employees with fully relieved thirty-minute meal breaks required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the employer sometimes required employees to work more than 4 hours without receiving the required ten-minute rest period mandated by labor law. According to the California Supreme Court, an “off-duty” rest period is defined as time when an employee is relieved from their work-related duties and free from their employer’s control. 

The Defendant: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

The defendant in the case is Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC. The company operates an acute care hospital in Orange County, California. The company employed Salvatore from 1980 to June 5, 2021, classified as a non-exempt employee (paid hourly). As an hourly employee, Salvatore was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for the time she worked with the company. According to the plaintiff, Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC required employees to perform off-the-clock work, interrupted their meal breaks and rest periods with tasks and assignments, undergo mandatory drug testing and other exams off-the-clock that were a condition of employment, etc. 

More Details of the Case: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

According to case documents, Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC allegedly engaged in numerous labor code violations. The lawsuit against Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC is pending in the Orange County Superior Court. As a PAGA only complaint, Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC utilizes the mechanism put in place by the State of California, allowing an employee to act as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agency to sue seeking civil penalties. The action is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect California workers. PAGA actions aim not to recover damages or restitution but to allow aggrieved employees to act as deputized citizens to enforce Labor Code. 

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how to file a California PAGA-only 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, and Riverside.

Former Employee Alleges Autonomous Labs Violated California Labor Law

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Autonomous Labs Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide California workers with overtime wages, minimum wage, and meal and rest periods required by law.

The Case: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

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

The Case No.: CIVSB220474

The Plaintiff: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Autonomous Labs Inc from March 2017 to September 2021 and was classified as a non-exempt employee paid through an hourly wage, commission-based compensation, and non-discretionary bonuses. Plaintiff claims that the company violated the law by failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages for hours worked. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Autonomous Labs’ conduct violated PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA enables aggrieved employees to act on behalf of themself, other workers, and California state in filing to recover civil penalties. Under PAGA, aggrieved employees are essentially deputized as private attorneys to enforce the employment law. An aggrieved employee is defined as an employee of the alleged violator against whom one or more of the alleged labor law violations was committed (refer to California Labor Code Section 2699(c)).

The Defendant: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The defendant in the case, Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc., faces a class-action lawsuit. (Autonomous, Inc. operates its business in California under the name Autonomous Labs Inc. or Autonomous Labs). While Autonomous, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, the company operates under the name Autonomous Labs Inc in California - and conducts (and continues to conduct) a significant amount of business in California.

Case Details: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The complaint is currently pending in San Bernadino County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Autonomous Labs allegedly violated California Labor Code numerous times. The allegations of labor code violations are based on the plaintiff’s claims that the company failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide employees with minimum wages, failed to provide employees with rest periods and meal breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for business expenses, made unlawful deductions, and failed to provide wages due in a timely manner.

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

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.