Did 250 Fourth Development Employees Receive Full Wages for their Work?

A recently filed California wage and hour lawsuit claims that 250 Fourth Development employees did not receive full hourly wages.

The Case: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

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

The Case No.: CGC-24-617951

The Plaintiff: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

The plaintiff in the case, Olga Pyanova, filed a class action complaint after her short time employed by the Defendants, from March 2024 to May 31, 2024. As an hourly, nonexempt employee, Pyanova was entitled to meal breaks and rest periods required by law, as well as payment of minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours worked. During her time at the company, Pyanova claims she was required to work off the clock during her off-duty meal breaks. Additionally, the plaintiff claims the defendant's day-to-day operating procedure utilizes a standard practice of "rounding" time worked to the employer's benefit. During the course of her employment, Pyanova claims she (and other similarly situated workers) was paid less than she would have been paid if the company paid her for the actual time recorded instead of the adjusted "rounded" hours. The company also allegedly required mandatory temperature checks and COVID-19 screenings before clocking in for a work shift, resulting in more unpaid "off the clock" hours. In addition to unpaid off-the-clock work, the plaintiff claims that the company's non-discretionary incentive program (incentive wages based on performance) was not included in the employees' rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rates and meal and rest break premium pay, which resulted in alleged underpayment of both overtime pay and meal and rest break premium pay.

The Defendants: 250 Fourth Development L.P.

The defendants in the case, 250 Fourth Development, L.P., SFCanopy, LLC, and Paradigm Hotels Group LLC, were joint employers of Pyanova, the plaintiff, based on her paycheck, employee handbooks, and standard policies and procedures. The employer/defendant allegedly failed to provide their California employees with full required meal breaks and rest periods. The missed meal breaks and rest periods allegedly resulted in missed wages for employees. The defendant faces several violation allegations:

1. Minimum Wage Pay Violations

2. Overtime Wage Pay Violations

3. Meal Break Violations

4. Rest Period Violations

5. Wage Statement Violations

6. Business Expense Reimbursement Violations

7. Timely Payment of Wages Violations

8. Sick Pay Violations

The Case: Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P.

In Olga Pyanova v. 250 Fourth Development L.P., the court must consider unpaid "off the clock" work issues and allegedly inaccurate timekeeping practices. In addition, the plaintiff's claims raise questions regarding reimbursement of necessary business expenses as workers needed to use their personal cell phones to complete their job duties.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Associate Mechanical Contractors Underpay their California Workers?

Mark Frey recently filed a California class action claiming Associate Mechanical Contractors's inaccurate time keeping system resulted in numerous labor law violations.

Details About the Class Action: Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors

The Case: Mark Frey v. Assoc. Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The Court: San Diego Superior Court

The Case No.: 24CU011410C

Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors: More About the Plaintiff

The plaintiff in the case, Mark Frey, filed a class action complaint in September 2024. According to the complaint, Frey (and other similarly situated California workers employed by the defendant) were underpaid because the company used an inaccurate timekeeping system to calculate their employee’s hours and pay.

The Defendant: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc., faces allegations that their timekeeping system used to calculate employee hours and total pay was inaccurate, resulting in minimum wage violations, overtime pay violations, meal break/rest period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, failure to pay sick wages, and failure to provide payment when it is due. All of the standard business practices listed constitute labor law violations.

Most of the labor law violation claims result from the company’s allegedly inaccurate timekeeping system. However, the plaintiff also states that he and other similarly situated employees were required to use their cell phones to perform their job duties, which he claims makes the employee’s personal cell phone a necessary business expense eligible for reimbursement.

The Case: Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

In Mark Frey v. Associate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. the court must consider the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the company’s inaccurate timekeeping system and resulting alleged labor law violations alongside the defendant’s response to determine if the company has standard business practices and policies that violate labor law.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Equinox Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations: Class Action Lawsuit Pending

Another business with significant operations in California faces allegations that their standard business practices violate labor law. Equinox workers claim the company violated multiple wage and hour laws, including failing to pay minimum wage.

The Case: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

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

The Case: CV0003780

The Plaintiff: Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC

Demarqus Wiggins is the plaintiff in the case. Wiggins filed a class action complaint in response to standard business practices he experienced at Equinox. The complaint alleges failures to provide eligible workers with timely, off-duty meal breaks and rest periods, minimum wage, etc.

Equinox, the Defendant, Facing Numerous Allegations:

The defendant in the case is Equinox San Rafael, LLC (aka Equinox). Equinox faces numerous allegations in the class action, each constituting a violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint includes the following allegations: failing to pay minimum wage, provide accurate overtime wages, offer meal breaks and rest periods, reimburse workers for business expenses, provide workers with accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to pay employees for the hours they worked at the time they are due.

(The class action allegations constitute violations of numerous sections of the California Labor Code).

More About the Case: Were Employees Required to Work "Off the Clock?"

The Demarqus Wiggins v. Equinox San Rafael, LLC class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Marin County Superior Court. California labor law and federal labor law (FLSA) require employers to pay every employee an established payday for a specified pay period at a rate at or above the designated minimum wage for all the hours worked in the specified pay period. Payment can be calculated using various methods: time, per piece, commission, etc. If employers provide payment based on time or the number of hours worked, "hours worked" is defined by the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." According to the plaintiff in the case, Equinox required workers to complete "off the clock" work or work completed before or after they "clock in" to work for their scheduled shift. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that Equinox employees were subject to standard business practices and policies that required working during off-duty meal breaks. Employees were allegedly not compensated with at least minimum wage for all the hours they worked in a pay period due to "off the clock" work, which is a labor law violation.

If you need to discuss filing a California employment law complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP for guidance. Their seasoned employment law attorneys from their San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago offices can assist you.

Calexico Logistics Company Allegedly Attempts to Prevent Investigation of Wage and Hour Violations

In recent news, a Calexico logistics company attempted to prevent the U.S. Department of Labor from investigating wage and hour violations by removing workers and hiding them at a local fast food location for hours until the investigators left the building. The U.S. Department of Labor obtained a preliminary injunction and court order that forbids the company from threatening or retaliating against its workers or attempting to interfere with the ongoing federal wage and hour violation investigation.

The Case: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

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

The Case No.:3:2024cv01081

The Allegations: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

While under investigation for wage and hour violations, a Calexico company allegedly attempted to prevent U.S. Department of Labor investigators from obtaining evidence necessary to support the allegations by:

• Removing workers and hiding them at a local fast-food restaurant for hours until the investigators left the building and

• Instructing employees to report to work across the border in Mexicali before firing them and then deleting all proof of their prior employment from the company’s databases.

The Preliminary Injunction: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

In response to the situation, the Southern District of California U.S. District Court issued an injunction and order on July 31, 2024. The preliminary injunction prohibits NGB Logistics Alliance from retaliating against any workers who may have spoken to investigators, interfering or obstructing employees from cooperating with the investigation, contacting or threatening employees’ family or friends regarding speaking with investigators, and destroying evidence related to the ongoing investigation.

The Case: Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc.

The preliminary injunction in the case, Julie A. Su v. NBG Logistics Alliance, Inc., follows an investigation into employment law violations. Investigators seek evidence that NBG Logistics Alliance paid individuals working at their California warehouses in pesos through a Mexico-based affiliate, Agencia Aduanal Guillermo Nogueira y Asociados S.C.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Bronx, Long Island Gas Stations’ Workers to Receive Over $1M in Back Wages

In recent news, the U.S. Department of Labor obtained a judgment ordering payment of over $1 million in back wages for gas station workers.

The Case: Julie A. Su, U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

The Case No.: 1:22-cv-02206-JHR-RWL

The Allegations: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The complaint alleged that the owner of 15 Bronx/Long Island gas stations, Jagjit Singh, willfully denied over one hundred employees full payment of their wages. The court found that the defendant was withholding overtime pay from their Bronx, Long Island gas station workers. The employees allegedly worked more than 40 hours weekly (including some workers putting in over 85 hours per week). Rather than paying the required overtime pay rates for any hours worked over 40 in one work week, the employer allegedly provided pay for all hours worked at the standard pay rate. Due to these standard business practices, some employees were also paid less than the federal minimum wage, and the company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to their employees. Some of the company’s locations had no employment and pay records before 2017, and some presented incomplete employment records.

The Defendant: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

The defendants in the case included 15 different gas station locations operating under various brands, including BP, Mobil, and Sunoco. The gas stations were located in Bronx, Nassau, and Suffolk counties.

The Case: U.S. Department of Labor vs. MBB Services Inc.

In response to a federal investigation, the court ordered the owner/president of the 15 gas stations to pay over $1 million in back wages and liquidated damages to current and former employees in the class. The recovery of back wages and damages sends a signal to employers intentionally violating federal overtime and wage and hour laws that doing so can have significant financial consequences. The federal court required Singh and his businesses running the specified 15 gas stations to pay back wages ($549,673), liquidated damages ($549,673), and civil money penalties ($75,655) to the Department of Labor due to the companies’ willful nature of the employment law violations.

If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Fiery Collision Resolved with $2M Settlement

In recent news, the family that filed a wrongful death lawsuit after they lost their brothers-in-law in a fiery collision received a $2 million settlement.

The Case: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton et al.

The Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County

The Case No.: MER-L-1631-19

The Incident: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton

On March 26, 2018, Arthur "Artie" Reed and Mark Leary were on an afternoon drive in Artie's car down Route 29 in Hopewell Township in New Jersey's Mercer County. The two brothers-in-law planned to pick up David, Mark's adopted son, from school. At around 12:54 pm, a truck driver lost control of his 2007 Mack dump truck northbound on Route 29 and collided head-on with Artie's vehicle as Artie and Mark traveled southbound. The collision left Artie's vehicle pinned under the dump truck, and both vehicles burst into flames with Artie and Mark trapped in the car, and neither survived the flames. Artie left behind his girlfriend of 13 years and two adult children. Mark, a firefighter and Marine, left behind his wife of 26 years and five children.

The Defendants: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton

Six years later, the families of Artie and Mark received some closure. The defendant in the case, DAT and the State of New Jersey, paid a $1,950,000 settlement resolving the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estates of the two brothers-in-law who were killed during a fiery collision in March 2018. The plaintiffs' counsel argued the horrific tragedy was caused by negligence on the part of the dump truck driver, the dump truck's owner, and the State of New Jersey (specifically citing the negligent design of that specific stretch of Route 29). The stretch of Route 29 where the fiery incident occurred included a shoulder, a clear zone, and a steep drop-off from the roadway to grass that fell below state and federal standards. The two men would still be alive if the roadway complied with the standards or the truck driver retained control of his vehicle.

The Case: Ashley Reed et al. v. James W. Bilton

A policy limits offer paid by DAT LLC's insurance company paid one million dollars of the settlement. (DAT LLC was forced to close following the fatal crash). The remaining $950,000 of the settlement was paid by the state. The settlement only came after a long, aggressively litigated case. The successful resolution of the wrongful death lawsuit means the families know that DAT LLC and the State of New Jersey were held accountable for their loss.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death suit, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

McDonald's Faces Meal & Rest Break Violation Allegations in California Class Action

A recent California class action alleges the rigorous work schedules of McDonald's employees meant skipping rest breaks and meal periods, which may have resulted in additional alleged labor law violations.

The Case: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. NJK Management Corp (McDonald's)

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

The Case No.: 24CV02523

The Plaintiffs: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

The plaintiffs in the case, Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins, filed a California class action complaint against NJK Management Corporation ("McDonald's"). The lawsuit alleges that McDonald's failed to provide the required meal and rest breaks and pay employees for all their time worked, violating the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

The defendant in the case, McDonald's, faces a string of employment violation allegations in the class action. According to the plaintiffs, the company violated California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 246, 351, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 when they failed to:

• pay employees minimum wages

• pay employees accurate overtime wages

• reimburse workers for necessary business expenses

• offer workers with meal periods/breaks

• provide accurate itemized employee wage statements

• provide employees with their wages when due

The Case: Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's

Due to frequently rigorous work schedules, McDonald's workers were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks and rest periods. When they did receive a meal break or rest period, they allegedly were not relieved of their job duties during the break. Instead, they were regularly interrupted to assist with work or complete job duties for the company. Ball and Duggins claim that working a 5-hour shift without a break for McDonald's employees was unsurprising. The plaintiffs also claim that working a 10-hour shift without their 1st and 2nd breaks was a regular occurrence. The two former McDonald's employees claim that during their time at the company, it was standard policy for employees to stay on call and basically on duty during their off-duty meal periods and rest breaks. As a result, McDonald's employees regularly forfeited their meal breaks. They were allegedly not provided additional compensation for doing so. The forfeiture of breaks without additional compensation is allegedly in line with strict corporate policy and standard practices at McDonald's. The case Dawn Ball and Melissa Duggins v. McDonald's is pending in California's Butte County Superior Court.

If you have questions about filing a California Class Action employment lawsuit, please reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Their experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.