Titan Workforce Faces Class Action Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Titan Workforce faces allegations of Labor Code violations in a recent California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

The Court: San Joaquin Superior Court

The Case No.: STK-CV-UOE-2022-3036

Plaintiff in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

In Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce, the plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the defendant failed to comply with employment laws requiring that they provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods.

Defendant in the Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the class-action lawsuit, the defendant, Titan Workforce, violated California Labor Code referencing paying minimum wage, paying overtime wages, providing employees with meal breaks and rest periods, providing accurate itemized wage statements to employees, providing employees with wages when they are due, and reimbursing employees for business expenses. (See California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, 226.7, 246, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802).

The Case: Rodriguez v. Titan Workforce

According to the wage and hour class action lawsuit, Titan Workforce allegedly violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which may result in civil penalties. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to file suit to pursue civil penalties on behalf of themselves, as well as other employees and the State of California due to California Labor Code Violations. For legal purposes, aggrieved employee means any person employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed." (See California Labor Code Section 2699(c) for more info). Under PAGA, the aggrieved employee is “deputized” as a private attorney to enforce labor code.

If you have questions about how to file an overtime class action or PAGA lawsuit, 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.

Minor League Baseball Players Reach Settlement in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

In recent news, the minor league players reached a settlement agreement in the lawsuit alleging Major League Baseball teams violated minimum wage laws.

The Case: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:14-cv-00608-JCS

The Plaintiff: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

The plaintiff, first baseman/outfielder Aaron Senne, was a 10th round pick of the Marlins in 2009. In 2013, Senne retired. Senne along with two other retired players who were lower-round selections, Liberto (Kansas City infielder), and Odle (San Francisco pitcher), filed suit alleging the teams violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state minimum wage and overtime laws for a workweek estimated at around 50 to 60 hours.

Postponing the Hearing: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

A trial for the case was scheduled for June 1 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. However, lawyers for both sides filed a letter asking the Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero to postpone. The letter informed the court that the parties reached a settlement and agreed upon a confidential memorandum of understanding. At the time the letter was submitted to the court, the settlement documents were still being prepared.

The Case: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

While terms of the settlement were not yet filed with the court, and details were not offered, anonymous sources involved in the case indicated that the parties had recently discussed a settlement around $200 million.

Issues Being Considered: Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.

After years of arguing about whether the case should be given class-action status, it was sent back to the District Court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019. In March, the judge offered a pretrial ruling stating that the minor league players are year-round employees who work during training time, and he found that MLB violated Arizona’s state minimum wage law leaving them liable for triple damages. The judge also ruled that MLB failed to comply with California wage statement requirements and noted penalty awards of $1,882,650. The judge also ruled that MLB is a joint employer with minor league teams for players who “work” during spring training and minor league players should be paid for travel time to games in the California League and travel to practice in Arizona and Florida.

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.

Former Senior Vice Presidnet Receives Largest Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Verdict in LA County

When a former senior vice president filed suit against Farmers Insurance Group for wrongful termination, the result is believed to be the third-largest such verdict in the state and the largest in Los Angeles County.

The Case: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

The Court: CA Superior Court - Los Angeles County

The Case No.: CVPS2200395

The Plaintiff: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Rudnicki was employed at Farmers for 37 years at the time of his termination. He started as a trial attorney in 1979. According to his August 2017 complaint, he rose from supervising attorney to senior vice president in 2013. At that point, Rudnicki was being prepared to offer his deposition testimony in Coates v. Farmers Insurance Group Inc., an equal pay case in California federal court. His testimony included knowledge about past sex bias in the companies’ legal group and withheld pay data. Instead, farmers fired him in retaliation for the testimony he was prepared to offer in the class pay bias lawsuit by the companies’ female in-house lawyers. Rudnicki filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in response to the situation.

The Defendant: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

In the end, the Coates case was settled. And according to Rudnicki’s complaint, the number of women in management positions in the legal department rose significantly during his tenure as vice president.

Details of the Case: Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

The court’s findings in Andrew Rudnicki vs. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al. varied. Based on the merits of the wrongful termination lawsuit (and additional claims included in the complaint), a California Superior Court judge awarded Rudnicki over $155 million. Specifically, the jury found that Rudnicki’s role as a potential witness in the Coates case served as substantial motivation for his firing and awarded him $3.4M in past economic damages, $1M in future economic damages, and $1M in noneconomic damages. In addition, the jury found the retaliation in violation of multiple state laws. The jury did reject Rudnicki’s claim that age discrimination and disability discrimination played a part in his termination.

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 can assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Employee Sues PlayVS Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination

In recent news, PlayVS faces allegations that they engaged in pregnancy discrimination against a former employee.

The Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV08523

The Plaintiff: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Waynick, is a former quality assurance analyst for PlayVS. According to the complaint, Waynick started working for PlayVS in January 2021 and advised PlayVS that she was pregnant on June 10, 2021. Allegedly, once they were aware of her pregnancy, the company placed her in a performance improvement plan. When Waynick complained about the discriminatory situation to Human Resources, she claimed the company ignored her complaint. Waynick claims that she was bullied and treated with hostility in the workplace leading to extreme stress. Due to pregnancy complications, her doctor advised her to take a leave. Waynick claims she was locked out of her computer when she returned from her leave. Later that same day, she was terminated on August 16, 2021.

The Defendant: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Play Versus or PlayVS, is a high school esports platform. The company is being sued for wrongful termination by Waynick, a former employee who describes a pattern of harassment and a hostile workplace.

More About the Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

Waynick claims PlayVS violated five different counts of California labor, including discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, pregnancy leave violation, and wrongful termination.

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.

Did Panda Express Fail to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses?

According to a recent lawsuit, Panda Express allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, specifically the cost of using their personal cell phones to complete their required job duties.

The Case: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

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

The Case No.: CGC-22-598730

The Plaintiff: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

Jeffrey Lee, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Panda Express violated California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Panda Express allegedly:

• Failed to pay minimum wages

• Failed to pay overtime wages

• Failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failed to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failed to provide wages when due

Based on the allegations included in the complaint, the company allegedly violated employment law several times as defined in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Doing so gives rise to civil penalties.

The Defendant: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The defendant in the case, Panda Express, 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..." While employed by Panda Express, Jeffery Lee and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones and home offices to complete required job duties. However, the company allegedly did not reimburse them for using their personal items.

The Case: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The lawsuit, Jeffrey Lee vs. Panda Express, is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or 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.

Playstation’s Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Dismissed by California Court

California court recently dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims against Playstation. However, they did note that further testimonies from additional women could be heard in a second filing.

The Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: United States District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Emma Majo, is a former Sony IT Staffer. Majo worked in Sony’s PlayStation Network department as an IT security risk analyst for six years before she was fired. The case left the court determining whether Sony engaged in systemic gender discrimination and failed to implement an effective system to prevent pay discrimination. According to the complaint, Majo’s department showed a 60-40 gender split upon her hiring, but the department is now male-dominated. Details of Majo’s case hint at broader institutional gender discrimination issues.

The Defendant: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The defendant in the case, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, denies allegations of pay disparity, wrongful termination, and other gender-based discrimination. As a result, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Summary of the Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The United States District Court of North California granted PlayStation’s “motion to dismiss.” However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss was granted for most claims because the allegations were most conclusory. Some individual claims survived, but the court does not have jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the federal claim, so all claims are dismissed. The court pointed out that Majo did not fully explain the allegations in the complaint. Still, the court acknowledged that three of the state claims had merit and noted that adding the additional eight women’s testimonies could lead to additional allegations. In concluding the ruling, the court indicated that the plaintiff might file a second amended complaint within 28 days. It’s likely the amended complaint, including the additional eight testimonies, will follow and allow the court the opportunity to fully examine them from the outset.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California age discrimination 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.

Kronos Hack Leaves PepsiCo Vulnerable to Wage and Hour Claims

The recent Kronos hack seems to have left PepsiCo in a tough spot, facing wage and hour claims after employees filed a California wage and hour lawsuit.

The Case: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

The Court: Central District of California

The Case No.: 5:22-cv-00549

The Plaintiff: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, two PepsiCo workers, filed suit alleging the company failed to properly keep track of overtime hours their employees worked and provide overtime pay at accurate overtime rates after Kronos, an HR technology provider, was hacked in 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, awards of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalty damages, restitution, pre-, and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and costs, etc.

The Defendant: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

Kronos is one of the world’s largest human resources companies that work with their clients (other companies) to manage timekeeping and payroll information. In December 2021, Kronos was hacked. As a result, PepsiCo employees allegedly were not paid a full overtime premium for overtime hours worked. Instead, according to the complaint, PepsiCo issued paychecks based on scheduled hours or duplicated paychecks from pay periods before the Kronos cyber attack. In addition, plaintiffs claim PepsiCo paid based on estimates of time or pay, arbitrary calculations, or considerations other than the hours employees worked and their agreed upon pay rate. As a result, many employees allegedly received pay for fewer hours than they worked and at a lower wage.

The Case: Madriz v. PepsiCo, Inc., Naked Juice Co., and Tropicana Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs claim PepsiCo’s behavior was negligent and that the company should have immediately put various methods in place to keep track of employee hours and accurately calculate employee wages. Instead, plaintiffs argue the company chose not to. Based on this decision, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California wage laws such as the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act, and Unfair Competition Law.

If you have questions about California employment law or 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.