California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc. Faces Overtime Pay Allegations

A class action overtime lawsuit recently filed in California (Case No. 19STCV14719) alleges that California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc. failed to pay overtime. Security guards employed at the company filed the proposed class action complaint against the security services company.

Plaintiffs in the suit claim that California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc. failed to provide meal and rest periods for employees.

The Proposed Class Action Against California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc.: Overtime Violations

•    The company failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to security staff.

•    Failed and Continued to Fail to Accurately Calculate and Pay Employees for Overtime Hours

•    Intentionally and Knowingly Failed to Compensate Employees at the Correct Rate of Pay for Overtime as a Matter of Company Policy

According to the proposed class action’s allegations, California Protection and Investigation Services, Inc.’s security guards claim they were unable to take off duty meal breaks because their work schedules were too rigorous and did not allow for the required meal breaks.

To comply with California labor laws, employers must provide employees who work for more than five hours during a shift with a thirty-minute uninterrupted meal break before the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work. They must also provide the employee with a second uninterrupted meal break when an employee is working a shift of 10 hours. According to the complaint, the security company did not provide additional compensation to the security guards who forfeited their mandatory meal breaks even though additional compensation is required by law in this situation.

If you have questions about what to do when your employer is violating California Labor Code or if you are not being provided with proper overtime compensation, please get in touch with the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP today.

Wavedivision Holdings, LLC Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Alleged Meal and Rest Break Violations

Wavedivision Holdings, LLC, a video, internet and phone services company, faces a class action lawsuit alleging that they failed to provide required overtime wages, legally required off-duty meal breaks and mandatory rest periods to their California employees. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw filed the class action on February 9, 2018.

The class action against Wavedivision Holdings, LLC is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 18CIV00684.

Allegations in the class action include:

·      Failure to lawfully calculate overtime

·      Failure to pay overtime

·      Refusing to allow employees to take off duty meal and rest breaks

·      Refusing to fully relieve employees of job duties for meal periods

Details in the lawsuit indicated that employees were sometimes unable to take off duty meal breaks or rest periods. When they were provided with meal breaks, they were sometimes not fully relieved of their job duties. According to allegations made in the class action lawsuit, Wavedivision Holdings employees were required to work over five hours in a shift with no off-duty meal break; a violation of California labor law.

California labor law requires that all employers offer their employees who are working shifts over five hours in length with an uninterrupted meal break of at least thirty minutes before the employee’s fifth hour of work is completed. California employers are required to provide a second uninterrupted meal break for employees who work ten hours.

According to the lawsuit, class members were paid using a non-discretionary incentive program. Under the program, Wavedivision Holdings offered employees hourly compensation with additional incentive compensation if they were able to successfully meet performance goals put in place by the company. Yet when the company calculated the overtime rate of pay for these same employees, the company allegedly did not include the incentive compensation as part of the “regular rate of pay.” In doing so, the company or Defendant, Wavedivision Holdings LLC, was miscalculating their employees’ overtime pay rate as a matter of policy.

If you have questions about how to file a class action lawsuit or how to qualify as a member of a class action lawsuit, please get in touch with one of the experienced class action and employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

California Exxon Subcontractor On-Call Claim Settled for $2.3M

In recent news, an electrical subcontractor for ExxonMobil Corp. and Freeport McMoRan Oil & Gas agreed to a settlement to resolve employment law violation claims related to on call workers without pay. The $2.3 million settlement will resolve allegations that workers were due back pay after they were on duty at all hours and were not allowed to leave the offshore oil and gas platforms.

102 workers were involved in the claims based on both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law. The proposed class action lawsuit listed Ardent Companies, Inc. as the Defendant. Allegations were made that the Defendant in the case required their employees to remain on-call at all times: during meal breaks, during rest periods, when they were not scheduled for a shift. The lead plaintiff in the case claimed that while employees were provided meals and lodging as a condition of their employment, the value of those benefits wasn’t included in their “regular rate” of pay when calculating any overtime pay due to workers.

The Defendant, Ardent, argued that the workers were appropriately compensated for their time and that California state wage and hour law requirements were not applicable to the situation because the platforms where the employees fulfilled their job duties were located in federal waters and that employees were able to leave the platform upon request.

The plaintiffs’ case was supported by a pending case scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in April. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs, Ltd. They held that state minimum wage and overtime law were applicable to the case rather than FLSA in reference to the oil platform workers involved in the case working on the Outer Continental Shelf. A decision on this case is expected in June.

This is good news for California workers as California employment laws tend to offer more protection to employees than their federal counterparts – and on-call work is no exception to this trend. Under FLSA, employees are generally considered on call if they are required to remain on the job site/the employer’s premises. Employees who are to remain on call at home or who are required to leave a message where they can be reached, are not (in most cases) considered on call according to federal law. Exceptions may occur in situations where there are additional constraints on the employee’s freedom.

California state employment law, on the other hand, entitles employees to pay under a wider scope of circumstances. For instance, California state court recently expanded the requirements with the finding that on-call workers may be entitled to pay even when they are not scheduled to work (see Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., B280 151 (Cal. App. Ct. Feb. 4, 2019)). In the Tilly’s case, workers who were required to call in hours before their shift to verify if they were scheduled or not, were not paid unless they were actually called in to work. The court agreed with the plaintiffs in the case that employees calling in hours before their shift constituted “reporting for work” and as such, they were entitled to pay under state law even though, ultimately, they were not required to work their shift.

If you have questions about California wage and hour law or if you need to discuss wage and hour or overtime requirements, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

$4M Settlement in Rangoon Ruby Chain Restaurant Wage Theft Suit

Workers at Rangoon Ruby chain restaurant who claimed they were on call but denied overtime wages will receive a settlement. The Burmese restaurant agreed to pay $4 million to about 300 workers to settle the California wage theft lawsuit. The settlement amount represents the money owed in unpaid wages plus penalties to workers.

What is Overtime? The federal overtime provisions are included in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless an employee is exempt, they are covered by the Act and employers should provide them with overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rate of pay.

The workers who filed suit against Rangoon Ruby described their unpaid overtime work as being “on call.” The restaurant chain owners, Max Lee and John Lee, operates in San Francisco, San Carlos, Burlingame, Belmont, and Palo Alto (where the same management team also runs Burma Ruby Burmese Cuisine). The workers alleged the work requirements left them frustrated and tired and working extra hours without extra pay.

Another plaintiff in the case claimed that the working conditions at Rangoon Ruby left her feeling ill. When she sought time off to see a doctor, Rangoon Ruby management denied her time off request. When she went to the doctor anyway, the restaurant docked her pay even though state law requires employers to provide workers with one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. Other workers claimed they were summoned for unscheduled shifts without overtime pay in order to cover delivery orders. Since many of the workers were housed in dormitories by Rangoon Ruby, the situation was particularly sensitive because they relied on the restaurant not only for work, but for housing as well.

This settlement agreement is one in a string of victories for restaurant workers in the Bay Area. If you are not being paid overtime wages or if you need to discuss what your rights are in the workplace, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Is Kellogg the First of Many to Exploit Supreme Court Arbitration Victory?

A group of former Kellogg employees are suing the cereal giant claiming that the company shouldn’t have sued them earlier in 2018. Kellogg sued the employees for suing the company. It’s a bit confusing.

Kellogg targeted the group of former employees for defying their arbitration agreements and in doing so, they announced a clear warning to all their employees: not to sue the company. The complicated case has hearings scheduled for February and will be watched by many as one of the first instances when U.S. employees with grievances seek justice after the recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent that is making waves.

Last year a Kellogg employee out of Nevada filed suit against the company in federal court. The suit was filed on behalf of co-workers who were not provided with federally mandated overtime pay. Kellogg denied the accusations and they were able to successfully petition the judge to move the case to arbitration by bringing up the arbitration agreement signed by the employee that required disputes to be handled in arbitration rather than court.

This type of arbitration agreement usually ends up limiting the rights of employees in comparison to the legal rights they would have in the court system. Arbitration also promotes quick and efficient dispute resolution and discourages litigious lawyers’ fighting for plaintiffs. Others claim that the arbitration process limits transparency and removes the right to sue as a class and takes leverage away from employees seeking resolution.

What arbitration means for employees and employees depends on who you ask, but no one can argue that arbitration agreements have become more and more common at U.S. companies in recent years. Thanks to a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that quashed attempts to curb them, companies are embracing them more and more actively.

This past May, in a 5-4 ruling, the high court’s Republican-appointed majority held that arbitration agreements that require workers to sign away rights to file a lawsuit as part of a class can be enforced for workplace disputes. Proponents of arbitration insist that this is extremely detrimental to the enforcement of both federal minimum wage and overtime laws. Months later, Kellogg began filing breach of contract claims against former employees that signed onto the overtime lawsuit alleging violations of continued employment agreements that included an agreement that delayed the firing of workers during corporate restructuring in exchange for arbitration of claims.

Kellogg filed suit alleging that the original plaintiff was in breach of contract because he filed an employment claim in court against the company. Kellogg seeks punitive damages and legal costs. Former employees were shocked by Kellogg’s response and their attorneys have sued the company in return alleging that Kellogg’s claims against their former workers are actually illegal because they constitute retaliation as described in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

If you are a victim of retaliation in the workplace or if you need help obtaining overtime pay from your employer, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

Is Uber Refusing to Honor the Arbitration Clause in its Terms in Conditions?

More than 12,000 Uber drivers filed a California lawsuit claiming that Uber purposefully delayed arbitration requests. Uber drivers are considered contractors by the company. The drivers claiming that Uber is delaying arbitration requests are making an assortment of complaints, including: minimum wage violations, failure to pay overtime, etc. At the rate the complaints are being processed by the company, it would be a decade before all the complaints were heard.

Uber, like thousands of other companies, requires their drivers to sign an arbitration agreement that limits dispute resolution to company-direct handling instead of going through the court system. Uber’s 21-page terms and conditions does include an option to opt-out of the clause, but it has to be done within 30 days of signing the original agreement and it must be done in writing.

Drivers dealing with the potentially decades long delay are getting fed up with decreasing pay and their questionable status as independent contractors (instead of employees who enjoy more protections through employment law). 12,501 of Uber’s drivers have filed a California lawsuit including allegations that Uber ignored requests for arbitration. According to the suit, there have been 300 pages of partners requesting arbitration and only 47 have been appointed arbiters. Of those appointed arbiters, only six have seen the arbitration process move forward.

Legal counsel involved in the case suggest that this is a typical trend amongst corporations in this situation and has been for decades in the U.S. They insert this type of clause in a mandatory arbitration agreement specifically to block class action lawsuits. When asked about the case, Uber declines to comment. Originally, the case was brought as a class action lawsuit in multiple states addressing driver status as independent contractors vs. employees. Complaints (in numerous states) range from failure to pay overtime, to minimum wage violations, to failure to provide sick leave, etc., which would all be required if the drivers were classified as employees.

If you need to discuss how to qualify for a California class action lawsuit or if you need to file a lawsuit due to overtime violations or minimum wage violations, please get in touch with one of the experienced California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.

#MeToo Movement Brings to Light a Growing Problem with Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

In the wake of the recent #MeToo movement, many are starting to speak out about the fact that mandatory arbitration agreements may be particularly bad for women. When the #MeToo movement resulted in more and more female workers coming forward to report instances of sexual harassment in the workplace at companies like Fox and the Weinstein Company, many of them quickly realized that they would not be able to seek justice in the courts because of arbitration agreements they were required to sign as employees. 

For instance, Gretchen Carlson, former Fox News anchor, signed a required mandatory arbitration agreement. She sued former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment and received an undisclosed settlement. But she was not able to sue Fox News for their rose in allowing the sexual harassment to continue. Dozens of other women who experienced similar situations at Fox found themselves in the same situation.

As more women come forward to speak out about sexual harassment on the job, many are putting the pressure on Congress to take action and restrict or even eliminate arbitration clauses from US workplaces.

Recent Legislative Actions:

October 2017 – The Mandatory Arbitration Transparency Act was introduced. The Act prohibits businesses from including a confidentiality clause in arbitration agreements in connection with discrimination claims.

December 2017 – The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act was introduced exempting sexual harassment cases from mandatory arbitration.

February 2018 – 56 state attorneys general (5 from US territories) weighed in with a letter urging congressional leaders to vote on the bills.

March 2018 – The Arbitration Fairness Act was proposed, which would let workers and consumers decide where they should pursue their legal claims.

October 2018 - The latest bill, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act, would prohibit employers from banning class-action claims.

If you need to speak with an experienced California employment law attorney because you are experiencing labor law violations and aren’t sure how to seek justice, please get in touch with us at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP.