wage and hour lawsuit

California Meal & Rest Break Violations: Should Companies Also Face Pay Stub & Waiting Time Penalties?

January 7, 2022 | by Nassiri Law

The California Supreme Court is slated to decide a case expected to settle a long-running debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest break violations.

Employers, employees and labor law attorneys should be closely watching the case of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Petition for review of the case came after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the original trial court judgment.

The state high court is being asked to resolve two primary questions:

Does a violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (requiring premium wage payment for meal and rest period violations) give rise to additional claims for paystub penalties and waiting time penalties when companies pay an employee regular wages for breaks?
What interest rate applies for unpaid premium wages under the law?

As our Orange County wage and hour lawyers can explain, it has to do with what additional penalties are owed when employers fail to meet their legal pay obligations to workers deprived of meal and rest breaks, as afforded under the law.

How This California Employment Law Case Arose

This is a class action lawsuit filed by the primary plaintiff on behalf of himself and other current/former employees of a private security company (government contractor) who alleged that violations of meal break and rest break laws entitled them also to derivative remedies under laws pertaining to wait time penalties and pay stub penalties. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Lawsuit Yields Increase in Farmworker Pay

December 22, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

A California wage lawsuit has yielded an increase in pay for California’s guest farmworkers and U.S. farmworkers in 2022.

The wage increase is based on the USDA’s annual survey findings on farm labor, which are used to ascertain the rate of pay for seasonal, temporary agricultural workers in farms across California and the U.S. through the H-2A program. The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or agents who meet specific regulatory criteria to bring foreign nationals to the U.S. to fulfill seasonal agricultural jobs. Here in California, there are tens of thousands who work in these positions.

Wages for farmworkers are based on the USDA’s yearly analysis of farmworker pay across various regions of the U.S. However as our Orange County wage and hour employment attorneys can explain, this latest wage increase was frozen by former President Donald Trump, who sought to help farmers recover from lost profits and fallow fields following the early 2020 shutdowns of the COVID pandemic. The action would have locked in federal minimum wages for H-2 visa farmworkers, with the intention of saving growers roughly $1.6 billion over the course of a decade. Trump’s freeze was lauded by top agricultural companies, who said the move was critical in keeping their farms running and grocery stores stocked in a situation that otherwise would have significantly disrupted food supply chains.

On the worker side, though, the action was broadly derided. For one thing, growers were boasting significantly higher profit margins. For example, farmers of plants and livestock in Fresno County alone indicated a record year for gross total production, valued at nearly $8 billion. Furthermore, farmworkers were officially designated during the pandemic as essential workers – meaning they risked their lives to work. Farmworkers already are among the lowest paid workers in the U.S.

California alone has over 3,000 certified H-2A slots, accounting for more than 10 percent of these positions nationally. Employers typically offer these workers the absolute bare minimum wage. Those are the workers that are going to benefit from this wage adjustment, which on average nationally is expected to go up 6 percent next year compared to this year’s rates.

Companies that work with H-2A employees are required to pay the state’s minimum wage, but that can’t be lower than the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), which is the average wages for crop/livestock workers in a given region. H-2A workers in California earned $14.77 last year. Next year, they’ll be earning $17.51. Continue Reading ›

California Garment Workers Gain Added Wage Protection With SB 62 Passage

November 30, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

A new garment worker wage protection law passed in California is expected to have reverberations throughout the entire fashion industry nationally, and perhaps globally.

Senate Bill (SB) 62, also now known as the Garment Worker Protection Act, alters the way employees in the garment manufacturing industry are paid. Specifically, it prohibits companies from paying its garment manufacturing workers by the piece or unit or by piece rate, except when such a payment arrangement is approved as a result of a collective bargaining agreement. Instead, garment manufacturers must be paid no less than the applicable minimum wage. The law also broadens the definition of who is part of the clothing making industry for the purposes of enforcing wages. The definition now includes not only direct employers, but brand guarantors (those who contract with other firms to have garments made).

Garment makers and contractors who breach their duties as employers under the law may be subject to statutory, per-employee damages for every pay period. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Theft Criminalized as a Type of Grand Theft

October 28, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

Employers who intentionally commit wage theft in California could find themselves facing criminal grand theft charges. Assembly Bill 1003, a new law recently signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, allows employers of all sizes to be held criminally accountable for intentionally stealing workers’ wages or tips. Individual owners, managers, and executives may be found personally responsible in criminal court.

The law establishes a new type of grand theft. Any company that steals more than $950 from a single employee or $2,350 from two or more employees over a consecutive, 12-month stretch will potentially face criminal charges.

What’s more, the law also encompasses protections for independent contractors as well as employees. That means hiring entities would face equal consequences for theft of wages involving independent contractors as they would employees. As our Los Angeles wage and hour theft attorneys can explain, that significantly broadens the scope compared to most other California and federal employment laws.

Grand theft is punishable either as a misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) or felony (up to 3 years in prison). Fines are often imposed as a result of the penalties as well. The new law allows wages, tips, or other compensation that are subject to a prosecution may be recovered as restitution. It should be noted, however, that civil litigation may still be the best way to recover all damages. If your employer is arrested for wage theft, it’s important to discuss your legal options with an attorney.

Employers should take decisive steps now to ensure their policies are fair and lawful to ensure they do not run afoul of the new law. Continue Reading ›

California Non-Profit Wage Theft Case Settled for $170k

September 5, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

A California non-profit wage theft lawsuit was settled recently for $170,000, according to Palo Alto Weekly. The organization is responsible for providing street cleaning services in communities around the Bay area. The class action claim was filed by a former employment specialist at the group, who alleged that she and others were routinely denied fair wages.

According to the wage and hour lawsuit, the workers were not paid for overtime, denied break and lunch time compensation, and received late wage payments post-termination or resignation. Additionally, workers alleged employee misclassification, categorizing some workers as salaried and thus “exempt” from overtime pay under the California Labor Code. The pay rate for “salaried” employees, plaintiffs asserted, fell below the statutory level that would qualify them as exempt employees.

As our Los Angeles wage and hour lawyers can explain, California labor laws do apply to non-profit agencies, unless the individual in question is a volunteer, not an employee. As of Jan. 1, 2021, the statewide minimum wage in California is $14 hourly for companies with 26 or more employees and $13 hourly for those with 25 for fewer. However, some local ordinances set forth higher minimum wage rate than state law. For example, the minimum age in Los Angeles is $15 hourly for companies with 26 or more employees and $14.25 hourly for those with fewer. Where local minimum wage rates higher than state rates, employers must comply with the local law. Continue Reading ›

Officials Target California Wage Theft Among Low-Income Workers

June 16, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

Wage theft is a problem among all income tiers, but it’s especially pronounced in the low-earning brackets – particularly immigrant workers, many in industries deemed essential at the height of the pandemic. Now, elected officials in Southern California are working on a number of proposals that would aim to curb these workplace abuses.

Among the changes, subcontractors of San Diego County would be required to publicly disclose certain employment information, including whether they are providing workers’ compensation insurance as required to their employees.

The measures come in response to numerous complaints of employee exploitation that include workers alleging they have not been paid for all the hours they worked and being denied the opportunity to stay home on days when they were injured or sick. Workers have been reticent to report such violations, fearing it may get them fired or possibly even deported. Continue Reading ›

California Wage Theft Lawsuit Alleges Overtime Violations

May 8, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

A Riverside wage and hour lawsuit alleges an employer failed to properly calculate overtime or compensate him for time spent each shift undergoing mandatory temperature screenings.

In the case of Solis v. The Merchant of Tennis, plaintiff further alleges non-exempt employees weren’t given the opportunity to take duty-free rest breaks, which is required pursuant to Wage Order No. 7 of the California Labor Code. Lastly, plaintiff asserts the company failed to fully and promptly compensate him all due wages when his employment was terminated.

These violations, plaintiff alleges, also amounted to violations under the California Unfair Competition statute. Plaintiff is seeking class action or collective status.

As our Riverside employment attorneys can verify, wage and hour disputes aren’t uncommon. Labor law violations in California in fact occur with some regularity. The question is what we can prove and how many violators are held accountable. Continue Reading ›

Two California Employee Meal Break Lawsuits to Watch This Year

February 21, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

Two workplace meal break cases are headed to the California Supreme Court this year and are being closely watched by Los Angeles employment lawyers. One has the potential to greatly increase the sum of employer penalties for meal break violations, while the other may require a more advanced calculation – and higher premiums – for requiring workers to work through meal breaks.

Meal break violations are the source of many California employment lawsuits. Labor Code Section 512 states that employers can’t employ someone to work for more than five hours daily without providing them a meal period of at least 30 minutes – except if the total amount of work for the day is no more than 6 hours. (In that case, the meal period can be waived by mutual consent.) If the employee works more than 10 hours daily, than a second meal period of at least 30 minutes is required, except if the total number of hours worked is no more than 12. A second meal period can be waived by mutual consent – but only if the first meal period in was not waived.

There are a few exceptions, but for the most part, this is widely applicable. During the meal break, employees who aren’t fully relieved of all duties are considered to be “on duty,” and are only allowed when the nature of work prevents an employee from being relieved and it is to compensated at the regular rate of pay. Employees must agree to this in writing, and these agreements must indicate the employee can revoke the agreement at any time. If the employer requires the employee to remain on site during meal breaks, then that time must be paid – even if the worker is fully relieved of all duties. If an employer doesn’t provide a meal break, the employer must pay an additional premium of one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each work day that the meal period isn’t provided (though this isn’t counted as hours worked for tallying overtime).

Over the last couple years, state appellate courts have taken on numerous cases that have involved those on-duty meal period agreements, as well as the method for calculating premium pay when employers fail to provide a compliant meal period. Continue Reading ›

Top 3 Ways California Companies Violate Wage and Hour Laws

January 7, 2021 | by Nassiri Law

California provides numerous protections for workers’ wage and hours. Most employers strive to pay their workers fair wages for the hours they work, but end up making mistakes and violate these laws. As our Orange County wage and hour lawyers can explain, even unintentional violations can have serious consequences for the business and owner. Companies have a legal obligation to be aware of their duties.

Here, we outlined the Top 3 Wage and Hour Mistakes made by employers. Continue Reading ›

Court: California Retail Workers Must Be Paid for Bag Check Wait Times After Shifts

November 22, 2020 | by Nassiri Law

After nearly a decade of legal battles, employees for Apple received a ruling in their favor when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that California’s minimum wage law entitles them to be paid for the time they spend waiting to be searched and being searched when they leave the retail store.

Our Los Angeles employment attorneys recognize this case could have far-reaching implications for employees in retail and other industries.

The class action case, Frliken et. al. v. Apple Inc., covers retail workers for Apple Inc. and was first filed in 2009. Key to the appellate court’s decision was the fact that Apple has a policy that requires employees who carry bags to work to undergo package and bag searches by supervisors or security staff at the end of each shift as a loss prevention method. Such actions are legal (so long as they aren’t applied in a way that is discriminatory) but employees can’t be expected to wait for and undergo these searches on their own time/at their own expense, the court ruled. Continue Reading ›