California Employment Lawyers Blog

In a recent blog, our Anaheim, California employment and labor lawyers discussed a September employee misclassification ruling by a U.S. District Court Judge in Indiana who found FedEx ground drivers to be independent contractors and not employees under Kansas law. Judge Robert L. Miller's ruling reportedly shocked drivers, as it was in direct conflict with a 2007 California appellate decision.

FedEx drivers across the country have long been accusing the shipping company of employee misclassification, for being classified as independent contractors instead of employees which they allege violates their wage and hour rights, and the right to full benefits.

According Bloomberg, earlier this month, Judge Miller again sided mostly with FedEx in the multi-district class-action lawsuit, ruling that drivers should be classified as independent contractors and not employees--which would save the shipping company a potential rise in operating costs as well as overtime and back wage damages. These cases are reportedly part of a multidistrict litigation, where lawsuits filed in courts across the country are allowed to be consolidated in front of a single judge, in this case Judge Miller, for pretrial hearings. Miller's rulings reportedly address whether FedEx drivers presented that they were clearly misclassified under each individual state's laws.

Continue reading "Another Fed Ex Ruling Finds Drivers to be Independent Contractors, Not Employees" »

In a blog from earlier this year, our Riverside, California wage and hour attorneys discussed a wage and hour investigation performed by the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division, after employees alleged that their employer, Upper Crust, LLC, failed to pay the low wage workers for overtime payments that were ordered by the DOL, after a 2009 DOL investigation required that the Massachusetts pizza chain pay around $350,000 in back wages.

Last week, in the second suit filed this year against the company by former employees, a former operations manager of Upper Crust accused the pizza chain of retaliation in a lawsuit, after he went to the DOL, reporting the company for wage and hour law violations.

Patrick Joyce had reportedly worked for seven years at Upper Crust, and according to his lawsuit, he told both the owner's business partner and general manager that employees were regularly working beyond 70 hours a week, receiving a flat rate of pay totaling $455, with no overtime compensation. In January, Joyce contacted the DOL, and accused the company of unethical and illegal practices.

The Boston Globe reports that Joyce felt he was a target because he came forward as a whistleblower to the DOL. He claimed that after reporting the company for unethical practices, he was accused of being involved in a store robbery, and had several hundred dollars in wages withheld from his final check out of retaliation. Joyce reportedly told the owner that if his wages was not paid to him, he would the pizza company to the DOL. Joyce claims in his lawsuit that he was threatened, and even filed an incident report with the Boston Police Department. Joyce is reportedly seeking around $150,000 in damages.

Continue reading "Upper Crust Sued Again for Retaliation and Wage and Hour Violations" »

As our Chino Hills, California labor and employment lawyers have reported in a recent wage and hour lawsuit blog, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is committed to protecting the welfare of the nation's workforce, by holding employers across the country accountable for adhering to federal wage and hour laws, so workers receive the wages to which they are legally entitled.

In a recent case investigated by the DOL, a federal district court in Indiana has entered a consent order and judgment that requires Kevin Misch and his company, Kevin Misch Trucking and Excavating, Inc. of Wheatfield, Indiana, to repay $50,952 in back wages to the company's thirty-one employees.

The FLSA is enforced by the DOL's Wage and Hour Division, and according to the investigation, Kevin Misch violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) by neglecting to compensate employees one and one-half their regular pay rate for any hours worked beyond 40 in a week.

The judgment requires the company to repay any workers who were employed by the company from November 1, 2003 to May 27, 2007, for back wages that include both overtime compensation and interest. The company and owner are also prohibited from violating FLSA laws in the future.

Continue reading "Judge Orders Trucking Company to Repay Employees $51K in Back Wages" »

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently recovered over $430,000 in overtime pay, minimum wages, liquidated damages and interest for employees of a restaurant in New York City, after the restaurant was accused in a lawsuit of violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, filed by the DOL, that our Anaheim labor attorneys have been following, Back Stage Eatery and two of its officials allegedly violated federal labor laws by failing to pay workers at least the federal minimum wage, requiring employees to work over 40 hours in a workweek without proper overtime compensation, and failing to maintain accurate records of the number of hours each employee worked, and the compensation they received.

As our Newport Beach employment attorneys have discussed in a previous blog, according to the FLSA, covered employees must at least be paid $7.25, the federal minimum wage, as well as one and one-half times their regularly hourly pay rates for any hour worked over 40-hours in a week. The FLSA also requires that employers maintain proper records of employees' hours worked, wages, and other conditions of employment. Under the FLSA it is against the law for employers to retaliate against employees who stand up for their wage and hour rights.

According to Maria Rosado, the director of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division district office in New York City, this lawsuit demonstrates the DOL's continuing commitment to American workers, to ensure that they are paid their legally entitled wages. The consent judgment orders the defendants to pay a total of $435,913 in damages, back wages, and interest. The judgment also bans the defendants from any future violations of the FLSA's overtime pay, recordkeeping, minimum wage and anti-retaliation requirements. The defendants are also required to maintain a timekeeping system that accurately records the hours that employees work, as well as training sessions for employees on how to use the electronic system.

Continue reading "New York City Restaurant Ordered to Pay Employees $436K in Back Wages" »

In recent news that our Santa Ana, California employment lawyers have been following, a group of Costco employees who were allegedly forced to work overtime hours without receiving any payment, have been allowed by a federal judge in California to move forward as a California class action and according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a conditional collective action nationwide.

According to the original lawsuit, employees of Costco allege that at the end of their work shifts, they were locked in the store until managers finished their duties, such as taking jewelry out of the store display cases, and emptying cash registers.

The employees claim that they were typically locked in the store at the end of their shifts for ten to thirty minutes, without receiving any form of overtime payment-- a violation of federal and California wage and hour laws.

The WSJ reports that approximately one quarter of Costco's warehouses are based in California, and the suit affects California workers who were employed from May 15, 2005 to October 1, 2009. Thousands of workers could reportedly be a part of this class action wage and hour lawsuit, seeing back payment.

In the nationwide conditional class action decision, non-exempt Costco employees who worked hourly from April 8, 2007 and October 1, 2009 will reportedly be contacted and given the opportunity to join the lawsuit, giving depositions about their experiences.

Continue reading "Judge Rules Costco Workers Can Proceed as California Class Action in Wage and Hour Lawsuit" »

Our Riverside, California employment attorneys have been following the recent ruling in a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) case, where the judge favored the former and current workers of a garment manufacturer in Southern California with over $887,000 in back pay and liquidated damages.

According to the DOL, after the Wage and Hour Division investigated Laundry Room Clothing Inc., based in Westminster, California, the company was found to have missed payrolls several times. The department was granted permission by the court in April to follow the payrolls of the business, to ensure prompt payroll payment for the employees. After the court order, the employees were reportedly paid on time, but according to the DOL, employees were not compensated with back wages for missed payrolls from February 2009 to March 2010.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, non-exempt employees must be compensated with no less than the federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, for any hours worked, plus one and one-half their regular pay rates for any hours worked more than 40 in a workweek. Employers are also required under the FLSA to maintain time cards and payroll records that are accurate.

In the ruling, Judge Matz reportedly approved the DOL's request for a default judgment against the clothing manufacturer, as well as the principal and owner, after they failed to compensate 115 low-wage employees $380,824 in overtime compensation and minimum wage payments. The default judgment also gives the low-wage workers $506,730 in liquidated damages, bringing the total to $887,554.

Continue reading "Default Judgment of $800K Obtained in DOL Garment Manufacturing Case" »

In a recent blog, our Carson, California labor and employment attorneys discussed an ongoing lawsuit involving a group of current and former female workers who are suing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for discrimination based on sex--accusing the giant retailer of underpaying the female employees, and neglecting to offer them the same opportunities for promotions as male employees.

According to Time Magazine, two federal courts have already ruled that the female workers' lawsuit can continue as a class action, which would represent around 500,000 to 1.5 million female employees, and would make this the largest employment class-action lawsuit in history. But in September, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling from earlier this year, claiming that the lower courts used the wrong standards for class action certification. Wal-Mart also claimed that the class of women in this lawsuit is too large and diverse to be considered as a single group. Last week the Supreme Court stated that it would review the class action decision.

The sex-discrimination lawsuit was reportedly filed by a group of six female workers in 2001, who accused Wal-Mart and Sam's Club of sex-discrimination, by compensating men more than women, and failing to offer female employees the opportunity for job promotions, even though they reportedly received higher performance reviews and had more seniority. The lawsuit also accuses executives of using sexist language, and claimed that 65% of the retailer's hourly workers were female, and only 33% of female employees held management positions.

The class action certification would include all female employees who have worked in any of Wal-Mart's domestic retail stores since 1998. Wal-Mart has argued that the plaintiff class in this sex-discrimination lawsuit is too large, and shouldn't be brought together under one class action. According to Time Magazine, when the Supreme Court hears the case arguments next year, it will not hear the discrimination claims, rather, whether the lower courts were correct in allowing the woman to move forward as a class action of current and former workers, and receive class action certification.

Continue reading "Supreme Court to Debate Class Action Certification of Wal-Mart Sex-Discrimination Case" »

According to a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) news release, that our Ontario labor and employment attorneys read about this week, Enwisen, Inc., a California human resource services company, has paid over $209,000 in back wages to twenty-nine workers, after a DOL investigation found that the company allegedly engaged in employee misclassification.

The DOL investigation reportedly found that Enwisen classified their employees as "exempt" from overtime pay, and compensated them on a salary basis, but the employees should have been classified as "non-exempt," receiving overtime payment consisting of one and one-half their regular pay rates for any hours worked beyond forty hours in the workweek.

As our Riverside employment lawyers reported in a related blog, under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, an exemption of minimum wage and overtime pay is provided for workers employed in executive, professional, administrative, and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees. These are considered "white collar" exemptions, and under the FLSA, to qualify for these exemptions, employees must meet certain FLSA criteria regarding their job duties, and must be paid on a salary basis that is not less than $455 per week.

In a blog discussing "exempt" versus "non-exempt" in the workplace, our Orange County employment attorneys discussed the FLSA's requirements that employees covered under the act must be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, plus one and one-half their regular pay rates for all hours worked beyond 40 hours in the week, including incentive pay, commissions and bonuses. Under the act, employers are also legally required to keep accurate time and payroll records for all employees.

Continue reading "Enwisen Investigated by DOL for Employee Misclassification--Pays $290K in Back Wages" »

In recent California discrimination news, that our Santa Ana employment attorneys have been closely watching, fifty-two California Filipino hospital workers have sued their employer this week, Delano Regional Medical Center, claiming that they were targeted by the hospital and discriminated against based on their national origin.

According to the lawsuit, the group of medical staff and nurses filed a complaint accusing the medical center of forcing them to stop speaking Tagalog, along with other Filipino languages, while they worked at the hospital. The hospital workers claim that they are being targeted, as they were the only ethnic group banned from speaking their language. According to the workers, Hindi and Spanish-speaking workers were allowed to continue speaking in their native languages.

The plaintiffs are reportedly also seeking to join the national origin discrimination complaint filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August of this year, accusing the hospital of enforcing a rule that employees can only speak English.

The Filipino employees were allegedly told in August 2006 that they could no longer speak Tagalog, and that if necessary, they would be strictly monitored by surveillance cameras to enforce the new rule. The workers claim that since this rule was introduced they have experienced a hostile work environment, with daily reminders that they must only speak English, even on rest breaks. In the EEOC lawsuit, the hospital has been accused of singling out the Filipino workers for reprimanding, and for encouraging other staff members to report them for speaking in Tagalog--creating a hostile tension between Filipino and non-Filipino employees. This alleged national origin harassment and discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Continue reading "Filipino Workers Sue California Hospital for Discrimination and Harassment over English-only Rule" »

In recent news that our Chino Hills labor and employment attorneys have been following, the Supreme Court discussed retaliation ban limits this week in a case involving Eric Thompson, the fiancé of a female worker in the company who was fired days after the worker filed a sex-discrimination complaint against their mutual employer, North American Stainless plant in Kentucky.

According to the original lawsuit, Miriam Regalado, who is now married to Thompson, filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that she was discriminated against by her supervisors at the steel manufacturing plant because of her gender. Regalado held the rare position of being a female supervisor at the company and alleged that she had been demoted twice and wasn't receiving the same pay raises as the men in her position, based on her gender.

Three weeks after the EEOC revealed Regalado's sex-discrimination charge to North American Stainless, Thompson, who worked as a metallurgical engineer, was fired from his job.

Thompson reportedly complained to the EEOC that his employment had been terminated based on retaliation to punish his fiancée for filing a sex-discrimination complaint, and to discourage others from making similar discrimination complaints. But Thompson's lawsuit was thrown out of the federal courts because the federal law reportedly does not permit a claim of retaliation by a plaintiff who did not engage in opposing the unlawful employment practice.

The debate discussed whether anyone outside of the person who endured the discrimination can sue under federal discrimination laws. As our Anaheim labor and employment attorneys discussed in a recent blog, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is against the law for an employer to retaliate against an employee for filing a sex-discrimination claim. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who provides factual information that supports another employee's discrimination claim.

Continue reading "Retaliation Ban Limits Discussed by Supreme Court" »

Our employment attorneys based in Santa Ana, California have been following the United States Department of Labor's (DOL) announcement that the department has recovered over $330,000 in back wages from San-Tec Electric, Inc, for twenty-seven electrical mechanics working for the company.

According to an investigation led by the DOL's Wage and Hour Division, the company allegedly violated wage and benefit requirements on three housing construction projects in New York City, that were federally funded.

The DOL reportedly found that the company and its officials violated the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts as well as the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, and neglected to compensate employees with the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits. The company also reportedly failed to pay some employees for all hours worked and overtime compensation, and kept certified payroll records that that incorrectly reflected the project hours worked by employees.

According to the DOL's Wage and Hour Division District Director Maria Rosado, workers who are employed on projects that are federally funded must be compensated with proper wages and fringe benefits, and any employer who fails to appropriately compensate these workers will be pursued by the DOL for violating wage and hour laws.

Continue reading "U.S. DOL Recovers $339K in Back Wages for Electrical Mechanics" »

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), pharmacy companies such as Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, paid a total of over $6 billion in settlements for federal whistleblower-initiated cases between 2001 and 2009.

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that currently 90% of health care fraud cases are "qui tam" actions, where whistleblowers with knowledge of alleged fraud initiate the litigation on behalf of the government. In a qui tam case, if the action leads to a financial award, the whistleblower stands to collect part of the recovery.

In a special report by the New England Journal of Medicine, twenty-six pharmacy industry whistleblowers were interviewed to investigate what motivated them to speak out about the whistleblowing experience, and how it changed them. The report found that even though the median monetary reward was $3 million, the overall sentiment was that the payoff was not worth the personal cost.

According to the report, most whistleblowers found that they discovered the wrongdoing within the company after starting a new job, or being promoted to a new job within the company. Eleven employees stated that they initially refused to participate in wrongdoing, and all but four of the eleven said that they took their complaints to higher management within the company before going to authorities. Five of these employees were fired as a result.

Continue reading "Whistleblowers and Health Fraud Cases in the Pharmaceutical Industry" »

In recent California employment news that our labor and employment attorneys from Newport Beach, California have been following, a former Gustine city employee claims that while returning back to work after sustaining major injuries from a motor vehicle accident, she was unlawfully denied her right to continue working for City Hall.

Vanna Franco claims in her wrongful termination lawsuit, that the city discriminated against her because of a disability that resulted from the accident. The lawsuit alleges that after Franco endured a major injury from an accident in March of 2009, in a mutual agreement with her city employer, she was scheduled to return to work in September of 2009. Franco contends that after returning to work, she was sent home despite her ability to perform all of the necessary functions of her position, within her disability. Franco's employment was reportedly subsequently terminated on October 1, 2009.

Franco claims that since that time, the city has refused to return her to active employment, and has hired other employees to take over Franco's position and fulfill duties that Franco was capable of performing, who are less qualified and who do not suffer from disabilities.

In the lawsuit, Franco states that her former employer engaged in disability discrimination against her and violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The lawsuit also claims that the city failed to provide Franco with reasonable accommodations required by the FEHA which would have enabled Franco to continue in active employment. In the lawsuit, the city is also accused of failing to engage in the interactive process to find effective and reasonable accommodations for Franco required under FEHA law, and that Franco was wrongfully terminated, violating public policy.

Continue reading " California City Sued by Disabled Employee for Discrimination, Wrongful Termination" »

Our Riverside, California employment attorneys have been watching the unfoldment of a recent lawsuit, where a former Mac Specialist at an Apple retail store is accusing the computer giant of age discrimination, after he was allegedly refused a promotion based on his age.

According to the lawsuit, Michael Katz was hired as Mac Specialist in March of 2006, when he was 60-years-old, at an Apple retail store in Orlando, Florida. Katz claims in the suit that upon hiring, he expressed interest in being promoted to a Creative, a higher position within the store, and applied for multiple job openings over the course of two years, but was denied every time.

The complaint states that every employee that was selected for the promotion to a Creative position was significantly younger than Katz, by at least 15 years, and had less qualifications as well as seniority. Katz was reportedly not given any explanation for his denial of multiple promotions, and his supervisor allegedly refused to acknowledge that Katz had even applied.

In 2007, Katz was "constructively terminated" from his position in the Apple store and took his age discrimination complaint to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who found sufficient cause to believe that Katz had been denied promotions to a Creative position based on his age.

Continue reading "Apple Employee Sues Store for Age Discrimination" »

In recent wage and hour lawsuit news, that our Carson, California employment attorneys have been watching, Foster Farms and Central California Staffing Services are being sued by nine former employees for alleged minimum wage violations and failure to provide employees with mandatory breaks.

According to the complaint, a group of nine employees, who worked for either Foster Farms or Central California Staffing Services, claim that they regularly worked over 10 hours or more a day, for five to seven days a week. The employees, whose jobs ranged from feeding poultry to driving tractors, allege that they were not compensated for time spent preparing before their work shift and cleaning up at the end of the work day.

The Modesto Bee reports that the workers are accusing both companies of failure to properly track their employment hours, and failure to properly pay them for the additional time worked. The complaint alleges that inadequate records made it difficult for the plaintiffs to calculate their overtime payment. The plaintiffs also claim in the suit that they were forced to work through rest and meal breaks that they are legally entitled to under California law.

As our Fullerton employment attorneys discussed in a recent blog, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations' Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), in the California, a nonexempt employee is unable to work beyond an eight hour workday, or beyond a 40-hour workweek, unless they receive overtime payment, which under to California law is one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked beyond eight hours in a day and over 40 hours in a week.

Continue reading " Foster Farms and California Staffing Agency Sued for Wage and Hour Violations" »