Articles Posted in wage and hour lawsuit

Landing a promotion is often a cause to celebrate. However, those who land supervisory roles in some industries find that when they move from an hourly post to a salaried position, they lose their access to overtime pay. That means employers start working them for as many hours they can, and workers end up being paid less per hour for all their new responsibilities. wage and hour lawyer

Los Angeles overtime lawyers know this is very often illegal, and workers are encouraged to discuss their concerns with experienced wage and hour attorneys.

This issue is all the more pressing given a new proposal by President Trump’s U.S. Labor Department, setting the salary threshold (the minimum to which all workers are entitled) to $679 weekly, or little more than $35,000 annually as of next year. That might not seem awful, but the effect is that adopting this proposal would leave behind millions of workers behind that would have gotten a boost of overtime protections per regulations that had been finalized by the Obama administration in 2016. Continue reading

Residential health care workers are winning the right to secure unpaid wages in California in wage theft lawsuits. However, actually getting paid has proven a different story, one our Orange County employment attorneys have been monitoring closely.wage and hour lawyers

While much has been made of the elder abuse in nursing homes and residential care facilities, the story of caregivers gets less spotlight, but isn’t much brighter.

Recently, the Reveal Center for Investigative Reporting unearthed a host of working conditions described as “abusive,” likely not only to endanger patients but also subject workers to unfair conditions. It underscores the need for more substantial oversight of owner/operators of these for-profit facilities. Continue reading

Although federal labor laws cut employers a break when it comes to payment of “de minimus” work – that which is “trivial,” and only takes just a few minutes. In other words, the de minimum rule employers can compel workers to complete a minimal amount of work off-the-clock, rather than making them clock back in for an occasional couple minutes here-and-there.Los Angeles employment lawyer

However, a California Supreme Court decision last year held that defense was not applicable in the Golden State, as our lawmakers and courts expressly sought to provide greater protection for workers compared to federal law.

The state high court’s ruling in Troester v. Starbucks has proven a precedent, on which another federal appellate court ruling has been based. Continue reading

California law requires workers be paid overtime provided they are non-exempt salaried workers and log more than 40 hours in a given week.grocery store  employee wage theft

As noted by the California Department of Industrial Relations, the rate of overtime pay is 1.5 times one’s normal wages for every hour over 40, or all hours in excess of 8 in a given workday. Any hours in excess of 12 in a given workday must be paid at double the rate. With very few exceptions (based on the size of the company and traits of the industry) these are the rules.

California Wage Theft Alleged by Grocery Store Worker

Unfortunately, as our Orange County employment attorneys know, far too many employers skirt these rules. A wage and hour lawsuit recently filed against a grocery store chain in Berkley alleges the company systematically denied at least 50 of its workers fair overtime wages. The Daily Californian reports the worker has sought class action status for his claim, alleging numerous wage-and-hour law violations. Continue reading

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a $2.75 million settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by workers workers alleging their technology company employer shorted them anywhere from $250 to more than $53,000 each in overtime compensation.
Some 150 workers, all internal sales reps, cited alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (better known as FLSA) in their filing.

Does California’s Wage Order 7 require retailers to pay employees required to call ahead two hours before their “on-call shift,” even if those workers aren’t required to come in to work? That was the question recently at issue in the case of Ward v. Tilly’s Inc., wherein a California appellate court (in a divided opinion) reinstated a class action lawsuit against an Orange County retailer for alleged failure to do so. Orange County wage and hour lawyer

According to the complaint, workers say they were required to call in two hours before each previously-scheduled “on-call shift.” Orange County wage and hour lawyers know this is common practice among retailers, designed to optimize scheduling in an industry where staffing needs can fluctuate not only seasonally, but weekly, daily and sometimes hourly.

In this case, the employer in question did not consider those employees who called in an told not to report to work as having “reported for work” within the meaning outlined by the relevant Wage Order 7. The employees disagree.

The trial court sided with the employer and dismissed the claim, finding the only way an employee could “report for work” was by physically showing up for work at the store.  Continue reading

Back in November, the U.S. Department of Labor rescinded the controversial Obama-era 80/20 Rule, dictating how restaurants paid tipped workers, barring employers from taking tip credit from workers who spend more than 20 percent of their time doing non-tipped work. Now, Orange County fair wage attorneys understand a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri rejected the DOL’s guidance, finding it “unpersuasive and unworthy.”restaurant worker tips

The judge further stated that the Labor Department’s issuance of an opinion letter abruptly shifting gears on this issue after 10 years of consistently construing such regulation as limited by the 80/20 rule wouldn’t persuade the court to apply a new interpretation of litigation. Noting the DOL gave zero reasoning or evidence of any in-depth consideration for reversing its position, and it doesn’t stand up to the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, and characterized the November rule change as a “sudden surprise” and an “unjustified departure” from the agency’s previous guidance.

Per the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC s. 201, employers must pay workers at least $2.13 hourly for their wages, then take a tip credit in order to make up the difference between the worker’s wages and federal minimum wage. The 80/20 rule arose because tipped workers were spending an extensive amount of time carrying out non-tip-generating duties, like rolling silverware or setting tables. The updated guidance from the DOL was that the agency was no longer going to limit the amount of time workers could spend performing those duties.  Continue reading

Flight attendants for two major airlines based in the U.S. recently won a $77 million federal class action wage and hour lawsuit in California, which in addition to damages, restitution and penalties includes a $3,550-a-day interest for each day since last October, when plaintiffs had to submit an accounting of what they were owed. An estimated 1,400 flight attendants will receive pay for California wage and hour violations that included unpaid working hours, unpaid overtime, failure to receive accurate wage statements and denial of breaks as required by state statute.flight attendant wage law

The judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern Court of California had already granted judgment on the airline’s liability back in 2017, but an accounting of employee damages hadn’t been included in that ruling.

California wage and hour lawyers know the damage award in this employee lawsuit is important because the airlines had fought hard to assert federal deregulation trumped state law, and that the workers wrongly filed their claims in California – knowing they favor employees compared to other states – when in reality the claims didn’t arise in California but in many other parts of the world. The court did rule that passport expenses would not be reimbursed per a San Francisco statute (they lived and trained elsewhere) but the judge denied the other claims were improperly filed, citing executives’ policy decisions made exclusively from a California headquarters – standards that were followed globally company-wide.  Continue reading

A California wage theft lawsuit filed on behalf of 240 workers is being settled for $690,000, having been given the preliminary approval from a superior court judge recently. Final approval of the deal is expected in April, according to BerkleySide.com. As our Los Angeles restaurant wage theft attorneys know, the restaurant industry is notorious for a host of labor law violations, ranging from failure to pay overtime, denying meal breaks, skimming hours from time sheets or failing to pay for work-related responsibilities . The U.S. Department of Labor’s wage-and-hour division reported that roughly 84 percent of full-service restaurants investigated between 2010 and 2012 had violated labor law standards, including wage and tip violations.restaurant wage theft attorney

This class action litigation was pursued by workers such as prep cooks and dishwashers at a chain taco restaurant, where current and former employees say they were cheated out of fair wages and subjected to other labor law violations.

According to the initial complaint, Martinez et al v. Gordo Taqueria et al, the lawsuit alleges that for at lest four years, defendants had a practice of distributing plaintiffs’ tips at the end of each calendar year or occasionally sometimes periodically throughout, requiring workers to pool their tips and unlawfully divide them amongst themselves in an a fashion that was arbitrary.  Continue reading

Wage theft is a serious problem in California. As Los Angeles wage and hour lawyers, we have seen this play out in almost every industry and at nearly every level of employment, but it tends to occur most often to the most vulnerable workers. The fast-food industry is no exception. One way that companies try to sidestep the worst outcomes in these cases is to, where possible, bar workers from banding together in class action litigation. This is achieved through mandatory employment arbitration agreements, which have largely been upheld by the courts, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, via an early 20th Century law known as the Federal Arbitration Act.fast food wage theft

However, using this tactic in a series of California wage theft lawsuits may have backfired in the case of one national fast-food chain, according to The Los Angeles Times. The story begins as so many do: Large, chain employers cutting corners of labor laws and allegedly committing wage theft is fairly common, as is the practice of mandatory employment arbitration. What makes the recently-highlighted situation different is that in trying to shield itself from a class action litigation for wage theft, the company may have effectively shot itself in the foot.

This particular fast-food chain has some 2,300 restaurant locations nationally, and it’s been battling some 10,000 claims of wage theft for the last six years. Last summer, the company won its motion filed in a federal court in Colorado to compel some 2,800 workers who filed lawsuits to instead participate in mandatory employment arbitration. However, employment lawyers for the company may now be wondering if this was the smartest move because now it is facing tens of thousands of individual arbitration proceedings across the country – proceedings it is compelled to pay for itself and which could cost tens of thousands of dollars each. The alternative of a class action lawsuit may not seem so burdensome considering it would require a single group of lawyers in one location, rather than thousands scattered before abitrators across the U.S. As it now stands, according to The Times, approximately 150 claims have been filed. Continue reading