California Employment Lawyers Blog

As our Costa Mesa employment lawyer blog has discussed previously, the classification of "exempt" or "non-exempt" employees continues to be an important employment issue in businesses across the country--as employee misclassification can lead to federal and state wage and hour law violations affecting the employment rights of hardworking Americans.

In recent wage and hour lawsuit news, a Las Vegas T.J. Maxx retail chain was sued this week by shift supervisors who worked at a retail warehouse, claiming that they were misclassified as managers, and therefore denied their legal right to overtime compensation.

The shift supervisors, Patricia Foster and Carolyn Dunn Luksza, are seeking class-action status in order to represent other individuals in similar positions who have also experienced employee misclassification--which according to the lawsuit would include around 40 to 60 other shift supervisors in the Las Vegas distribution warehouse.

The lawsuit claims that the shift supervisors were improperly classified as 'exempt' from overtime benefits and paid on a salary basis--thus allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, as the employees routinely worked over forty hours per week. Under the FLSA, most non-exempt employees are entitled by law to receive overtime compensation when they work more than forty hours in a work week, at one and one-half their regular hourly pay rates.

Continue reading "T. J. Maxx Retail Chain Sued For Employee Misclassification" »

According to a recent wage and hour lawsuit settlement that our Riverside, California employment attorneys have been watching, two Florida restaurants will pay $934,425 in back pay and other monetary damages to 30 employees--after the restaurant were found by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to have engaged in employee misclassification, and violated the overtime compensation, record-keeping and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The DOL investigation reportedly found that two La Nopalera Mexican Restaurants and their owners improperly classified kitchen employees as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, and were paid a flat salary without receiving overtime compensation for working over 40 hours in a week of work. Other tipped employees reportedly received their tips along with paychecks that would equal the minimum wage--but were required by the restaurant management to sign the checks and then return them, wherein the checks would be cashed with the money returned to the restaurant. Although it looked as if the employees were being paid fair wages, in actuality, they were only able to keep their earned tips for compensation. The employers also failed to maintain any proper records of the employees' hours worked.

As our Costa Mesa labor and employment attorneys have reported previously in a California employment lawyer blog post, under the FLSA, it is mandatory for employers to compensate workers with the federal hourly minimum wage rate and overtime payment of time and one half their regular wage rates for any hours worked beyond forty in a workweek.

The FLSA does allow employers to take credit from tips that goes toward the minimum wage payment for tipped workers, as long as certain conditions are properly met. Employers are required to pay tipped workers a cash wage of $2.13 for each hour, or the state required cash wage--whichever cash wage is higher--and employees are required to keep all tips except for any contributions made toward the company's tip pooling arrangement, that must be validated. Also, it is mandatory for employees to be aware and informed about the tip credit provision and the tip amount added to cash wages that must equal $7.25, the hourly federal minimum wage. The law also requires employers to keep proper records of all employee hours worked, wages and any employment conditions.

Continue reading "Employee Misclassification Leads to Nearly $1M in Back Pay for 30 Restaurant Workers" »

In a recent Costa Mesa employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed a current dwarfism and disability discrimination lawsuit filed against Starbucks, after the coffee giant was accused of wrongfully terminating a disabled job trainee with dwarfism who asked for reasonable accommodation in order to perform her barista job functions.

Last week Starbucks reportedly agreed to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), by agreeing to pay $75,000 and other significant relief to Elsa Sallard--the employee who was allegedly denied the opportunity to work for Starbucks due to her disability.

According to the lawsuit, Sallard applied to work as a Starbucks barista after the job description stated that no prior experience was necessary. During the job orientation, Sallard, who is physically small due to dwarfism, reportedly asked if she could use a small stool or stepladder in order to help her perform some of the barista job functions that included serving customers and preparing orders. The Starbucks manager reportedly denied the request for reasonable accommodation and terminated her employment on the same day, citing that Sallard would pose a threat or potential danger to other employees and customers.

As our Carson labor and employment lawyers have discussed previously, under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), it is illegal for employers to discriminate against qualified individuals who have disabilities in hiring, employment training, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers are required by the ADA to reasonably accommodate disabled employees, only if the worker's request does create an undue hardship on the employer's business operations.

According to the EEOC, Starbucks violated the ADA by denying Sallard the use of a stepladder, or a small step stool as a reasonable accommodation.

Continue reading "Starbucks Agrees to Pay $75K in Dwarfism and Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement" »

In recent Costa Mesa employment lawyer news, the Los Angeles-based Japanese restaurant group, Bishamon Group Restaurants, has recently agreed to pay 66 employees $144,721 in back wages after the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) found the company responsible for systemic violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in seven different restaurant locations based in Covina, Los Angeles, Arcadia, Monterey Park and Costa Mesa, California.

According to the federal DOL investigation, employees working for restaurants under the names of Tamon, Bento-ya, Bishamon, Ebisu Japanese Tavern and Daikokuya, were averaging 40 to 50 hours of work every week and but were only being compensated for straight time instead of receiving overtime compensation--which according to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), should have been one and one-half their regular pay rates for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Federal wage and hour laws require that covered employees are paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus overtime compensation when working over 40 hours in a week.

The employees were also reportedly issued payroll checks for their regular work hours and but were paid cash at the straight time rate for overtime hours--a violation of federal labor laws. One of the workers investigated was also not issued a final check for his hours worked.

The Wage and Hour Division of the DOL reportedly learned of the employer's FLSA violations through its participation in the Employment Education and Outreach partnership, (EMPLEO), an alliance of government agencies and organizations that aid Spanish-speaking employees and workers who are concerned about federal wage and hour violations in the workplace, or other employment concerns.

Continue reading "CA Wage and Hour Lawsuit Settlement--66 Japanese Employees to Receive $145K in Overtime Back Wages" »

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) religious discrimination is treating an individual employee or applicant in the workplace differently because of their religious beliefs.

As our Newport Beach labor and employment lawyers blog has discussed previously, Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against people in the workplace who belong to traditional and organized religions, and sincerely hold religious, moral or ethical beliefs in any aspect of employment, including hiring, job assignments, firing, work promotions, training, layoffs, and any other employment terms or conditions.

Under federal law, employers are required to give reasonable accommodation to an employee's religious beliefs and practices, by making reasonable adjustments to the work environment--allowing an employee to practice their religion, unless it would cause burden or hardship on the employee's business operations. Common religious accommodations include modifying workplace policies or practices, flexible scheduling, shift substitutions, or job reassignments. Employers must also give reasonable accommodation to an employee's appearance or grooming practices, including wearing head coverings like a Muslim headscarf or hijab, as we have discussed in a previous Santa Ana employment lawyers blog, or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair.

A recent example of alleged religious discrimination in the workplace was in recent news after a Muslim security guard refused to shave his beard when he began working for American Patriot Security in 2009. When Abdulkadir Omar reportedly began working for the company, he was not told upon hiring that he would have to shave his beard in order to keep his job. Omar wears a beard as part of this Islamic faith, and six months after he was hired, a supervisor informed him that he would have to comply with company policy and shave. Omar continued to work for the company until he was allegedly wrongfully terminated from his employment for not shaving his beard.

Continue reading "Religious Discrimination in the Workplace and Reasonable Accommodation" »

In recent Hollywood, California employment news, Jill Killion, the former assistant general counsel working for the Directors Guild of America (DGA), has filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the DGA, claiming that she experienced a drastic salary discrepancy in comparison to a male colleague with similar job duties, and after reporting the alleged discrimination was retaliated against by being wrongfully terminated from her position.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Killion filed the lawsuit last week, claiming that she was paid significantly less than David Dreyfus, DGA associate general counsel, who held the same employment responsibilities as Killion, although he had a more senior title.

Killion reportedly began working for the DGA from June of 2008 until June of 2009, and was paid $75,000 in 2008 and then $78,000 in 2009. In comparison Dreyfus allegedly made $131,181 in 2008 and then $152,000 in 2009.

The sex-bias discrimination lawsuit states that David Korduner, DGA general counsel, claimed that he wasn't aware of the difference between Dreyfus' and Killion's job position, and did not know what career steps Killion should take to achieve eventual promotion. The complaint claims that Killion reviewed the DGA's LM-2 informational report filings with the Department of Labor (DOL), a requirement for unions covered by under Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act to submit financial statements to the DOL every year. Killion allegedly found that according to the LM-2 filing, in 2008, the DGA engaged in employment practices that compensated male employees at a higher pay rate than female employees.

Continue reading "Hollywood DGA Lawyer Files Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Guild" »

In a recent Irvine employment lawyers blog, our attorneys reported on a wage and hour lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) against Kinder Morgan, Inc., a giant North American pipeline transportation and energy storage company, after the company was found by the DOL to have violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to a recent announcement by the DOL, the Labor Department has settled the lawsuit, filed against both Kinder Morgan, Inc., and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, after a DOL investigation found the companies liable for violating the FLSA's overtime provisions at eleven Kinder Morgan locations across the country. Kinder Morgan was accused of not including bonuses that were paid to employees as part of the normal pay rate--which according to the FLSA should have been added as overtime compensation. The DOL also found that multiple locations neglected to pay employees for pre-shift mandatory meetings and incorrectly rounded the hours of the employees to suit the company's best interest.

Under the FLSA's overtime provisions, an employer is not required to provide a bonus to employees. If, however, a non-discretionary bonus is given to employees, then the bonus must be considered as part of the worker's regular pay rate when calculating overtime. As our attorneys discussed in a recent Fullerton, California employment lawyers blog, employees who are covered under the FLSA must receive overtime compensation for time worked over forty hours in a week of work, at no less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay. This regular pay rate must be at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for every hour worked. It is also mandatory under the FLSA for employers to maintain payroll and time records that are accurate.

Kinder Morgan has agreed to compensate the 4,659 workers who have worked for the company as laborers, operators, technicians, administrative non exempt employees and maintenance workers, among others, with $830,422 in back wages. According to Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, under the FLSA, an employee's hours must be counted, and overtime pay must be calculated accurately and clearly. Solis stated that this wage and hour settlement provides the employees with their right to back wages, but also ensures that the company complies with the federal wage and hour laws in the future and doesn't keep workers from receiving the fair minimum wage and overtime compensation, to which they are entitled.

Continue reading "DOL Overtime Lawsuit Resolved--Kinder Morgan Will Pay $830K to Over 4,600 Employees" »

Our Newport Beach, California employment lawyer blog recently discussed the long-running legal battle between California-based Mattel Inc., the world's largest toymaker, and MGA Entertainment, a small company responsible for making the line of Bratz dolls who was accused by Mattel in 2005 of stealing a key Mattel employee and intellectual property.

In a 2008 decision, MGA was reportedly ordered to pay Mattel $100 million, but a federal appeals court threw out the ruling out last year, stating that Mattel had not proven the copyright infringement claims.

The case became more complex when MGA then accused Mattel of misappropriating trade secrets about the Bratz doll line, and in April of this year, Mattel was found guilty of stealing trade secrets by a federal jury, wherein MGA Entertainment was awarded $88.5 million in damages, with the chance of receiving more monetary damage awards.

According to the Los Angeles Times, earlier this month, a federal judge demanded that Mattel compensate MGA Entertainment over $309 million in monetary damages and other costs and fees in the ongoing legal argument over the Bratz doll line. Mattel's request for a new trial was also rejected.

The decision, made by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, awarded MGA $85 million in punitive damages, reducing the jury's original $88.5 million award in April due to a mathematical error. The judge also awarded MGA $2.5 million in lawyer's costs and fees for its claims of trade secret theft against Mattel. MGA's chief executive, Isaac Larian, was also awarded $137.4 million in attorneys' fees and costs for having to defend his company against Mattel's original claims of copyright infringement, contractual relations and other copyright allegations--bringing the total award for MGA to $309.9 million.

Continue reading "Mattel Ordered by Judge to Pay $310 Million in Bratz vs. Barbie Legal Battle" »

According to a recent federal wage and hour lawsuit settlement that our Placentia, California labor and employment attorneys have been following, thirty-one mentally disabled poultry processor workers in the State of Iowa have been awarded over $1.7 million in back wages and damages by a federal judge, after Henry's Turkey Service was found to have violated a number of state and federal wage and hour laws.

Last month, a U.S. District Court Judge reportedly awarded the disabled workers a total of $1,761,554 in back wages and damages--$880,777 in unpaid wages and damages in the same monetary amount. The judgment was reportedly decided without a trial, after the U.S. Department of Labor argued this year that because the poultry company had admitted to many of the practices that led to the wage and hour lawsuit, there were no substantive issues to decide at a trial.

According to the Quad-City Times, Henry's Turkey Service admitted to paying the disabled workers no more than $65 a month, regardless of how many hours they worked per month. The amount of $65 was decided upon because anything over $65 would have caused the workers to lose some disability income that the poultry company was claiming in return for room and board.

As our Carson employment attorneys blog has discussed in a related post, under federal wage and hour laws, all workers by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are required to receive at the least $7.25 per hour, the U.S. federal minimum wage, plus an overtime compensation of one and one-half the employee's regular pay rate for any hours worked above and beyond a forty hour work week. This includes commissions, bonuses and any incentive compensation.

Continue reading "Poultry Plant to Pay Over $1.7M in Wage and Hour Back Pay to Mentally Disabled Workers" »

In a recent wage and hour settlement that our Garden Grove labor and employment attorneys have been watching, the U.S. Department of Labor has secured an agreement with the public schools system in Prince George's County (PGCPS), Maryland to pay back wages in the amount of $4,222,146 to 1,044 foreign workers under the H-1B foreign visa program, after the school system forced workers to pay for fees that PGCPS was obliged to cover.

In a previous Santa Ana, California employment lawyers blog, our attorneys discussed that the H-1B visa worker program allows U.S. employers to recruit and hire foreign professionals, or nonimmigrant workers in specialized occupations to be employed on a temporary basis within the United States. The H1-B visa program has standards that keep U.S. employees in similar jobs or who have similar job qualifications protected from being negatively affected by the employment of foreign workers. When workers are hired under the foreign worker program, they must be compensated at the same rate and receive the same benefits as the American employees performing the same jobs, or to the prevailing pay rates in the employment location.

The H-1B foreign worker visa program reportedly requires employers to pay specific fees to engage in the visa program. The DOL investigation found that instead of covering the visa costs and fees that were associated with finding and recruiting H-1B workers and filing their foreign visa petitions, PGCPS mandated that the foreign workers pay for them individually. The foreign workers' compensation was therefore reduced to below the legal amount to which they were legally entitled. The DOL investigated the PGCPS foreign visa application process from May of 2005 until January of 2011.

According to the DOL, PGCPS will pay $4,222,146 in back wages and $100,000 in civil monetary penalties due to the willful intent of some of the wage violations, and for two years will be debarred from engaging in any employment-based visa programs.

Continue reading "Public Schools to Pay $4.2M in Back Wages for H-1B Visa Program Violations" »

Our Carson, California employment attorneys have been watching the development of a recent class action wage and hour lawsuit, filed by a group of Starbuck's Baristas, who are accusing the company of engaging in California State wage and hour violations.

According to the class action complaint, Starbucks violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay the Barista employees for all hours worked, overtime wages, and for failing to keep proper records of all employee hours and wages. The lawsuit also alleges that Starbucks intentionally neglected to compensate the Baristas for their time spent memorizing, reviewing and completing the training materials mandatory for all Starbucks employees.

Under California wage and hour laws, employers are required to compensate employees with overtime payment for any hours worked above eight hours in a day, or forty hours in a week. California law also requires that employers pay hourly employees for all training time mandated by the company. Under the state wage and hour laws, when employees are forced by employers to take after hours training tests, they are still required to be paid for the full amount of the time it takes them to complete any test or training activity.

Earlier this year, as our Riverside employment lawyers blog discussed, Starbucks was also sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for dwarfism and disability discrimination, after Elsa Sallard, a disabled job trainee, asked for reasonable accommodation in order to perform the necessary job functions as a Barista. Sallard's employment was reportedly terminated after three days of job training, after she requested for a stool to stand on in order for her disability to be reasonably accommodated.

Continue reading "California Baristas Sue Starbucks in California Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit" »

The U.S. Department of Labor has demanded $433,426 in back wages after going after yet another employer for employment misclassification, a workplace epidemic that continues to be hurt employees across the country, as our attorneys discussed in a related Costa Mesa, California employment blog post.

C and K Rentals, a company that rents and leases equipment to oil companies at drilling and production sites in Texas, was found by the DOL to have misclassified 124 current and former oil equipment cleaners and gate guards as independent contractors, or "exempt" from federal wage and hour laws, denying them their right to overtime compensation and minimum wage.

The DOL investigation discovered that the gate guards received a minimum wage rate that fell far below the federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, and that the oil equipment cleaners were not paid proper overtime for all hours worked beyond forty in a workweek. The company also failed to properly maintain accurate records of employees' hours, wages, and employment conditions.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), all covered employees are required by law to be paid the minimum of $7.25 per hour, federal minimum wage, as well as one and one-half their normal pay rates for any hours worked over forty in a week, which includes commissions, incentive compensation and bonuses. Employers must also maintain accurate time and payroll records, according to federal law.

Continue reading "DOL Forces Texas Company to Pay $433K in Back Wages For Employee Misclassification" »

Last week, on July 26, marked the 21st anniversary the Americans with Disabilities Act being signed into law (ADA)--the landmark civil rights legislation aimed to make this country more inclusive of disabled Americans, in their right to participate fully in employment opportunities without experiencing disability discrimination.

As our Costa Mesa, California employment lawyers blog reported last year, under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, employers cannot discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, job application, compensation, employment training, job advancement, job termination, and other conditions, employment terms, and privileges.

Since its enactment, the ADA has sought to make the workplace an equal playing field for disabled employees, allowing them to pursue the same opportunities as non-disabled people--although according to the White House, recent high unemployment rates for disabled employees show that there is more work to be done. Last year, President Obama announced that he was signing an Executive Order that would turn the federal government into a solid employment option for disabled individuals.

This year, in anniversary of the ADA, the President's administration announced new plans to continue to increase employment opportunities for disabled persons and to strive to make the government a more open and accessible place to work for all citizens. The administration is specifically working on revising a plan to improve compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act--requiring that both inside and outside of the government the federal agencies' electronic and information technology is available and accessible to disabled people for employment purposes.

Continue reading "Federal Government Aims to Increase Employment for Disabled People on ADA Anniversary" »

Our Riverside, California employment attorneys have been following a recent California class action lawsuit, filed against wireless and mobile provider AT&T, after a group of call center employees claimed that the company violated their wage and hour rights under the California Labor Code by engaging in employee misclassification.

According to the California class action wage and hour lawsuit, AT&T hired at-home virtual call center employees to help provide support for AT&T customers, in billing and technical support. AT&T is being accused of purposely misclassifying the employees as independent contractors in order to get out of paying state and federal taxes, and workers' compensation costs.

Employee misclassification is a massive employment problem across the country, as our attorneys have reported in a related Fullerton, California employment lawyers blog, where workers are misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees, making them "exempt" from wage and hour benefits that are usually available to employees who are "non-exempt." Employers often engage in employee misclassification in order shirk the responsibility of paying minimum wage, overtime, and social security, along with other important employment benefits.

AT&T is also being accused of misclassifying the at-home call center employees so the company could bypass California wage and hour laws, like minimum wage laws, overtime regulations and meal and rest break requirements.

Continue reading "AT&T Sued for Employment Misclassification by At-Home Call Center Employees " »