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.

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.

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.

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.