California Labor Law News
HR Getting Personal Spells California Labor Lawsuit?
It all started with a sick day that Karen took last month. Her boyfriend, Bob, was having a heart problem; he’d had a heart attack last year so she wasn’t taking any chances and drove him to the doctor. Now it so happens that Bob works at the same company as Karen did. And the only way that Karen could take the day off - she was honest and told her boss the reason - was if she was a domestic partner.
“I told my manager that Bob and I have lived together since last June but we aren’t married,” Karen says. “He signed my time-off request and I was paid for the day. But I was questioned about it two weeks later.”
Karen’s questioning sounds like it was conducted by the Spanish Inquisition rather than an outside HR consultant. “She told me that she was following the employee handbook policy regarding sick time off,” says Karen. “Then she pointed to her laptop and asked me if I wanted to read the definition of a registered California domestic partner. I replied that I have read it and understand it is more for gays and lesbians so they can get all medical and dental benefits, and other benefits. Then she asked if my boyfriend was still married (he is getting a divorce). I have worked in HR and payroll so I know what can and cannot be asked, and this question was an invasion of privacy.
“I replied that it was none of her business and I also said, ‘I am going to look into the California labor law to determine whether you can ask me that question.’ My manager was there too: they were trying to figure out whether I should have been paid for that day off. Needless to say I went back to my office very upset. They were treating me like I did something wrong, like I was being punished for living with a married man.”
Karen sent an email to her boss, the HR person and the owner of the company, saying that her workplace now felt like a hostile environment. She also said that she liked her job and it wasn’t fair that she was being treated this way.
Karen called the California labor board on her lunch break and asked if they could dock her one day’s pay after signing off. And she asked if personal questions were a violation of the California labor code. “I was advised that I would have a claim against the company if they took time away after signing off,” Karen explains. “Two weeks later, on February 22, I was called into a meeting with my manager, his manager and a different outside HR consultant.
“They fired me as an at-will employee and said it was because of my performance. I have never been written up, my reviews have been perfect, and I have emails from other managers commending me on my work. To top it off, the owner called Bob and told him that they didn’t want him to quit. They want to give him a raise and make him a lead technician.
“In my meeting with the new HR person who showed up to fire me, she asked me to send her my resume so that she could send it out to her network and help me find another job. ‘Why would you fire me and then help me find a job?’ I replied. I think they fired me because of personal reasons, because my boyfriend isn’t divorced yet.
“There is nothing in the Employee Handbook that says employees are not allowed to have relationships with their co-workers. The HR consultant said that I have to be a registered California domestic partner but that isn’t in the handbook, it just says domestic partner and nothing about being registered. It is a little technicality they are using to fire me.
“HR asked me to sign the reason for termination paper. Instead I wrote: ‘I refuse to sign this paper for job performance because it is wrong and this is retaliation.’
“When you get fired for poor job performance in California, that is a reason for non-payment of unemployment benefits. But I filed anyway because they have to prove that my job performance was bad and I know they cannot do that.
“Needless to say, Bob wants to quit. I told him not to because it is a good job for him and if he got a similar job it would mean a two-hour commute. And they are offering him more money because they know they did me wrong.
“Now I am waiting to hear back from the Labor Board. Meanwhile, I also contacted an employment attorney. I don’t wish anything bad for the company owners but I want them to know their manager cannot treat people this way. I want a written apology from her and a statement saying I wasn’t fired because of my job performance. And now I have to explain my situation to potential employers: It sickens me that a manager can treat you this way, that someone can have this much power over you.”
Here is more information about at-will employment and domestic partner information.
Allegedly Forcing Workers to Toil Off the Clock Lands Car Wash in Hot Water
All too often, however, employers fall down on that basic basket of rights, as a recent California labor lawsuit aptly demonstrates. According to the Fresno Bee (3/12/13), White Glove Car Wash is facing a lawsuit filed by the Office of the Labor Commissioner of California for failure to pay adequate wages to 33 workers employed at the Blackstone Avenue facility in Fresno.
The allegation is that White Glove failed to pay its workers minimum wage and overtime. The lawsuit was filed in Fresno County Superior Court and is seeking in excess of $279,000 in unpaid wages, penalties and damages.
An investigation into allegations of misconduct and affronts to the California labor code was undertaken by the Labor Commissioner’s office and the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The investigation found that workers - having started work - were often delayed in “clocking in” at the behest of a supervisor. Given that the hourly paid employees were not allowed to clock in, independently, until instructed by a supervisor, many employees worked several hours in a week off the clock, and for which they were allegedly not paid.
In some cases, according to the California and labor law report, employees would put in eight full hours of work and be paid only four.
“Making workers stand by for work without paying them, and covering up the violation by keeping false time cards, is a breach of the basic promise of a just day’s pay for a hard day’s work,” said Julie A. Su, California labor commissioner, in comments defending California labor employment law.
Those comments were echoed by Christine Baker, director of the Department of Industrial Relations. “Employers who deny workers the pay they’ve earned will be held accountable,” said Baker. “These illegal actions hurt not only the employees, but also honest businesses and taxpayers.”
It was reported that the Labor Commissioner’s office has been cracking down on the car wash industry of late, given the increasing and repeated violations of California employee labor law.
Various federal and state statutes govern the workplace in an effort to ensure workers are treated fairly. Su’s office has been noticeably aggressive in pursuing complaints of wrongdoing under California prevailing wage law and other statues, in an effort to protect not only affected workers, but also to support law-abiding employers who lose business to more cutthroat employers able to charge lower prices due to lower costs - costs borne on the backs of their workers.
Employees who suspect ill treatment and violations to California state labor laws are urged to seek a qualified attorney to pursue a claim.
California Labor Law: Is FedEx Heartless?
California’s Labor Code states that an employment relationship with no specified duration is presumed to be employment “at-will.” In theory, this means that the employer or employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. But it isn’t black and white. The at-will rule created by statute, the courts or public policy has exceptions. An employer can terminate a worker at will and, as long as it isn’t for the “wrong” reason, they won’t violate the California labor code.
In Sylvia’s case, she was fired for “stealing” from the company, although that accusation is quite a stretch. One employment attorney says that he has heard from employees whose employer accused them of stealing. Even though the employees had proven that someone else stole, the employer is still within rights to terminate that employee because it is not unlawful or “wrongful” termination.
“I was hired by FedEx in 2006 as lead project coordinator and my job was to make sure FedEx orders were delivered correctly - I had to catch all and any errors,” says Sylvia. “Everything was going well until about eight months on the job, when I had an argument with my assistant manager about child care. He threatened me by saying that if I left work to pick up my daughter from daycare I wouldn’t have a job when I returned.”
Sylvia scrambled and managed to get a friend to pick up her daughter, but she then found herself working in a hostile environment. She called her district manager and asked for a transfer: if she couldn’t be transferred, her only alternative was to resign.
“Thankfully I was transferred to another FedEx location but I had to work nights. My district manager, however, promised me that I would only have to work the night shift for one year. Two years later I was still working nights so I reminded my supervisor about the promise and that I couldn’t work nights anymore. Their solution: my hours were decreased from a regular 40-hour week to seven hours per week.”
Sylvia believes they were forcing her into resigning because of the daycare issue. She wrote a letter to HR explaining that she had to step down from her job as project coordinator. Apparently that seemed to work - she was transferred to another location and worked full time again. “Everything was working well and I got promoted two years later to assistant manager,” Sylvia adds. Six months later I was promoted to center manager and all was good for 18 months: I had nothing but great reviews and no write-ups.”
All was good at work, but Sylvia’s home life was another story. She filed for divorce after a 20-year marriage and became clinically depressed. Her doctor prescribed anti-depressants; Sylvia says the meds made her very forgetful and she found it difficult to function.
“I had an appointment with my doctor to get a different kind of medication and forgot to clock out,” Sylvia explains. “That day, my doctor said I had to get out of work on disability or I would have a nervous breakdown. So I went out for 24 days. Three days after I returned to work, I was fired! My supervisor told me that I entered the wrong information on my time card and another time I opened the center late; in other words, I made a few mistakes. The day I was fired I took an additional pill by accident and blacked out.”
Sylvia explained her problem to the district manager and he put her on administrative leave for two weeks. But a month later she was still waiting to return to work.
While she was waiting to come back, not knowing when she could return, and no communication whatsoever, Sylvia received an email saying, ‘We are committed to a full investigation for your sake and the company and when we are ready we will call you.’
“I went back to work and gave them a letter from my doctor saying I should take another few weeks off,” says Sylvia. “They called me three days later and fired me on December 14, 2012.”
Sylvia says she applied for unemployment benefits but FedEx is disputing that, with the excuse that she entered the wrong information on her time cards and in effect stole from the company.
“My doctor’s note says the side effects from my meds could be memory loss but they don’t care,” Sylvia says, crying. “I think they are heartless.
“I appealed my termination and just today they said I wasn’t getting my job back, regardless of my medication excuse. They also said that I was a center manager and should know better. I have one more appeal, which will go to the vice president of FedEx this week. The VP is supposed to look at my entire file and talk to the district manager who fired me. So if that doesn’t work, I will seek help from an employment attorney.”
LawyersandSettlements has contacted FedEx HR and is waiting for a reply.
Under California Labor Law, Employees Are Not Independent Contractors
According to a release by PR Newswire (3/1/13), drivers piloting trucks on behalf of Seacon Logix were made to sign agreements with their employer, labeling them as independent contractors. As such, according to California labor code, the drivers would not be eligible for overtime or other provisions that would be due an actual employee of a firm.
However, according to the report, when four Seacon Logix drivers filed wage claims with the Long Beach office of the California Labor Commissioner, it was determined upon further investigation that Seacon exercised sufficient control over its drivers that a designation of independent contractor proved invalid under California labor employment law.
The drivers reported to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) that business expenses were not reimbursed by the company, together with deductions deemed unlawful under California state labor law. Those deductions, it was alleged, included weekly truck rental fees and liability insurance costs, according to the report.
The original hearings in the case took place in November 2011, and the decision went in factor of the plaintiffs. At the time, Seacon Logix was required to pay $105,089.15 for violations of unlawful withholding of wages, interest and waiting time penalties under California prevailing wage law.
Seacon Logix appealed to the Superior Court. On February 28, the California Superior Court upheld the original finding and encumbered Seacon Logix to pay its drivers $107,802.00, including interest. It was reported that drivers will see the full benefit of the award.
In a statement, the California Labor Commissioner said, “In this case, drivers had signed agreements labeling them independent contractors but the Court saw the truth behind the label.” Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su went on to say, “The Court found that the company exerted sufficient control over the drivers such that the drivers were employees of the company and thus, enjoy all basic labor law protections.
“This case highlights the critical need for labor law enforcement, particularly where misclassification cheats hardworking men and women like these port truck drivers out of the full pay to which they were entitled,” continued Labor Commissioner Su, in addressing the California employee labor law case. “This is wage theft and we will do everything in our power to stop it.”
Wrongful Termination to Avoid Paying Workers Compensation?
The majority of workers in California are voluntary “at will” employees, meaning that employers have the right to fire or demote an employee for any legal reason without having to provide “just cause” for the action. However, the term “wrongful termination” means that an employer has fired or laid off an employee for illegal reasons. One illegal reason includes firing to avoid paying workers’ compensation. (Another illegal reason is firing in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation.)
Thomas says he was fired after getting injured - he first had an accident at home and another related injury on the job. “Initially I broke a bone in my left foot and at the same time sprained my right foot at home,” he says. “I took three days off work. About a month later, a co-worker accidentally pushed a dolly toward me as I was unloading a truck. I dodged the dolly and re-injured my sprained right foot.”
As per store policy (Thomas is in sales for a major electronics chain), he wrote an incident report and included the names of his co-worker and the truck driver, both of whom witnessed the incident. Thomas didn’t see the need to get medical attention so he left work and went home. But the next day, he got a call from HR, instructing him to see their doctor.
“Just as I thought, the doctor diagnosed it as a re-sprain, and prescribed pain killers, anti-inflammatory meds and ice packs,” Thomas explains. “He wanted to put a splint on it but I already had an appointment with my primary doctor. He then left the examining room and conferred with HR, came back and said he would wait and see what my doctor was going to do.
“The Workers Compensation claims adjustor called me the next day. She had a report from their doctor that said nothing was wrong with me. How could that be? He wanted to put a splint on my foot and put me on pain meds. Do you think he would give me meds if I wasn’t injured? He didn’t tell her that. I decided that next time I see him I will record his discussion.
“In the meantime, I saw my primary doctor. He examined both my feet and was concerned about me standing - I was on crutches at the time. He took me off the anti-inflammatory meds so I was just on Tylenol 3s. I had a follow-up with the company doctor the following week, and that is when I recorded him. Of course he didn’t know that I was recording his conversation with me because I knew he was lying. I asked him to recount everything he previously told me. I told him that my doctor said I needed at least two weeks off work to heal. He agreed, and I have that on record. “It will be difficult for you to stand on the sprained foot and it will put pressure on your broken foot,” he said and left the examining room again to call HR.
“Then his nurse gave me discharge papers that said I can go back to work. In other words, he contradicted himself. Obviously, he works for the company and not for the employee’s benefit. I went back to work that same day. Strangely, HR called and told me to go home because I was on medical leave (or limited duty) according to my primary doctor.
“HR called me at home again, a few days later. They had my W2 forms and wanted to check my mailing address. To my shock and surprise, I received the forms, my last check and a termination letter, saying I was terminated due to being absent all the time.
“The letter says I was out of work due to this injury and therefore do not qualify for leave of absence. ‘Due to your repeated absence and inability to complete essential functions of the job, we are left with no choice but to terminate your position as sales associate,’ it said.
“My question is that I had been working almost 30 days without anyone complaining, with no reduced hours, no special concessions. I did all the necessary functions of the job up until the negligent incident with my co-worker. They are trying to avoid being liable for me getting hurt on the job. That is why they tried to get their doctor to say I was OK.
“I believe I was terminated so that they could avoid paying Workers Compensation. The incident is recorded on their security camera. They cover every area. They know I was justified if I went forward with a Workers Compensation claim.”
Thomas has been in contact with a California labor law attorney who says that he should file a claim right away. Employees should report work-related injuries and illnesses to their employers immediately, because there may be time limits for filing a workers compensation claim. And if they anticipate any problems with their employer, seek help from an attorney sooner than later.
Big or Small, Violation of California Labor Law Is Just Wrong
In the larger case, Ace Cooling & Heating Corporation has been ordered to pay $824,570.63 in back wages, $114,300 in fines and $23,685.12 in training fund contributions to about 10 employees over violations of the California labor code.
At issue is work performed by the contractor in association with the Torrance-based El Camino Community College Bookstore Modernization project. According to an investigation by the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), the contractor failed in its obligation to pay the necessary California prevailing wage.
California employee labor law dictates that employees with a certain skill set and qualifications are to be paid according to a certain level. As reported by a news release made available by the California Department of Industrial Relations, sheet metal workers deployed on the project were paid between $8.50 and $16.00 per hour.
They should have been paid a lot more under California state labor laws. An investigation determined that workers were underpaid between $39 and $46 per hour. In other words, according to labor laws, they should have been paid three to five times more than they were paid for the work they were doing.
“This is a classic example of wage theft,” stated California Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su, in a release, “and my office will take immediate action against a business who steals money from its workers.” The subcontractor was identified as Ace Cooling & Heating Corporation. It was reported that Mackone Development Inc. of Los Angeles was hired as the primary contractor for the renovation. Mackone contracted with Ace to undertake the heating, cooling and air work for the project. Under California labor code, primary contractors are responsible for the conduct of their subcontractors as it relates to the job at hand, and for this reason, Mackone was also served a civil wage and penalty assessment. The amount was not disclosed.
“Prime contractors are jointly and severally liable for their subcontractors who fail to follow California’s labor law,” continued Labor Commissioner Su. “It is our practice to investigate all parties responsible for labor law violations to put the proper incentive on decision-makers in construction projects to deal only with honest, law-abiding contractors.”
On a much smaller scale, the California Department of Labor investigated an employer based in Sunnyvale, after Bloom Energy Corp. employed a group of 14 workers brought in from Chihuahua, Mexico, to aid in the refurbishment of power generators at the company’s headquarters at Sunnyvale. According to a news release from the state Labor Department (2/4/13), it was determined that Mexican workers toiled alongside US workers, doing the same work but paid far less than their Sunnyvale-based counterparts. The investigation found that the 14 Mexicans were paid in Mexican pesos, which translated to an hourly wage of about US $2.66.
Bloom Energy was identified in the news release as a manufacturer of clean energy power generating systems with contracts amongst some of the major business players in the US, including Coca-Cola, FedEx Corp., Kaiser Permanente, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., eBay Inc. and Bank of America Corp.
Bloom Energy was found to be in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and was ordered to pay $31,922 in back wages to the 14 Mexican workers, together with an equal amount in liquidated damages. The firm was also assessed a civil penalty of $6,160 for its violation of California prevailing wage law.
Car Wash Employers Got to Come Clean
The criminal complaint, which was filed January 23, 2013, has charged the owner, general manager and two supervisors with conspiracy to cheat employees out of their wages. The California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement discovered a litany of methods the car wash used over the past four years to cheat workers out of their wages. The Santa Monica Patch said the complaint accuses the four defendants of violating California labor laws by not giving workers rest and meal breaks, and “coercing employees into signing declarations which falsely stated that they had received paid breaks,” according to city prosecutors. It also accuses the defendants of falsifying and altering employees’ time cards to make it appear as though they worked fewer hours than they actually did.
The Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office has charged them with grand theft of money and labor by false pretenses; conspiracy; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to give meal breaks and rest breaks; and taking back wages which had been paid.
How did they think they could get away with cheating their employees? How could they not know that two other Santa Monica car washes had previously been accused of violating California’s labor laws? Santa Monica Car Wash and Detailing last May was slapped with a civil complaint filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund on behalf of carwasheros. And the state Attorney General announced earlier this year settlement of a lawsuit it had filed against eight other California car washes - including Bonus Car Wash in Santa Monica - over similar California labor law violations.
In March 2012, the California Labor Commissioner filed two lawsuits against three car washes for unpaid wages, penalties and damages, totaling more than $2 million. Rosencrans King Car Wash was accused of not paying its workers for all the hours they worked, and the lawsuit seeks almost $1.7 million in minimum wage, overtime, penalties and attorney fees. Vermont Auto Spa also violated similar California state labor laws.
And back in October 2010, a former Los Angeles carwashero filed a lawsuit against Handy J Carwash, charging that his ex-employers forced him for years to show up for work early in the morning but he wasn’t allowed to clock in until hours later. In June 2011, Tomas Rodriguez, 41, of Hidalgo, Mexico, was awarded $80,000: Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark Mooney ruled that the three car wash owners and one manager were liable for $50,000 in back wages for failing to provide proper employment records, and an additional $30,000 in damages.
“Wage theft hurts workers, honest employers, and the honest tax payer,” Department of Industrial Relations Director Christine Baker said in a press release. “California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement plays a critical role in enforcing labor laws and preventing wage theft. Employers who deny the workers their pay will be held accountable.”
According to the Santa Monica Mirror ( Jan 23, 2013), the specific acts alleged against the owners and managers of Wilshire West Car Wash as part of the conspiracy include:
1. Altering employee time records - and creating false time records - to make it appear that workers had worked less hours than they actually had;
2. Creating false time records to give the appearance that employees took meal breaks when in fact the employees were still on duty at the time;
3. Coercing employees into signing declarations which falsely stated that they had received paid breaks;
4. Forcing employees to pay a regular fee for cable television even though they were not allowed to watch television on the job;
5. Forcing employees to pay a regular fee for towel laundering;
6. Threatening, harassing and punishing employees who questioned the defendants’ unlawful behavior;
7. Failing to give employees a paid rest period for every four hours worked, as required by law;
8. Failing to give employees a meal break for shifts of at least five hours, as required by law.
The criminal charges, all of which are misdemeanors, include:
- grand theft of money and labor by false pretenses;
- conspiracy;
- failure to pay minimum wage;
- failure to give meal breaks;
- failure to give paid breaks; and
- taking back wages that have already been paid.
The defendants will be arraigned in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Airport courthouse, on February 26, 2013. Each of the 11 charged offenses is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of one year in county jail, and maximum fines of between $1,000 and $10,000 per offense.
California Labor Law Wage Theft = 865 Employees, Three Time Clocks
Late last month the California Labor Commissioner, Julie A. Su, issued a series of California labor code citations totaling more than $1 million against Quetico LLC.
According to a release from PR Newswire (1/28/13), Quetico employed only three time clocks in the entire complex to service more than 800 employees. Workers, according to the release, were relegated to waiting in long lines just to clock in and out of work - and for their meal periods. In order to avoid being penalized for reporting for work late, due to the lineups at the time clock(s), employees were forced to arrive at the worksite increasingly early, in order to accommodate the long lineups to punch in, so they would avoid reporting for work late.
It is not known if the citations stemmed from a California labor lawsuit or simply from an investigation. Nonetheless, the investigation undertaken by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement on behalf of the exploited workers, noted that employees coming into work early on a consistent basis just to deal with the long lineups at the time clock, were not be compensated for those extra hours.
The same held true for meal periods, according to the report. Employees, according to California labor employment law guidelines, were allotted a 30-minute meal period each shift. However, they were also required to punch out at the beginning of their meal period, and punch back in upon its conclusion. The long lineups at the time clock would, according to the release, eat into their allotted meal period. Conversely, to avoid reporting back to work late, workers would have to cut their meal period short in order to line up yet again at the time clock, to punch back in.
It was alleged by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) that Quetico would alter employee records to suggest employees were given the full benefit of their allotted 30-minute meal period, when in fact employees had been shortchanged.
The same held true at day’s end, when delays at the time clock would force workers to be at work beyond quitting time, just to punch out. Overtime was not paid in accordance with California and labor law. Workers who complained about the unpaid overtime were issued disciplinary memos by the employer, or so it was alleged. Three employees, who filed complaints with the Office of the Labor Commissioner, were suspended from their jobs.
“Wage theft takes many forms,” said Labor Commissioner Su in a statement. “My office will crack down on any employer who is taking hard-earned wages from workers by falsifying time cards and systematically preventing employees from taking a full meal break. We are also intent on eliminating the competitive advantages that labor law violators gain over employers who play by the rules.”
California state labor laws hold that workers in all industries are allotted appropriate meal and rest periods, and - unless a job is classified as exempt from overtime - that overtime pay be provided for all hours spent at the workplace over and above the standard work week, as defined under California employee labor law.
Workers shortchanged according to provisions in California prevailing wage law often seek redress through a California labor lawsuit. The state of California, in particular, is aggressive in pursuing unsavory employment practices on the part of employers, in order to better protect the rights of workers. Lawsuits, either filed by the Office of the California Labor Commissioner or by individuals, or a class of individuals, are often part of the process.
New California Labor Law and a Justin Bieber Lawsuit
As for Bieber’s bodyguard, we’ll get back to that. It does prove, however, that even famous celebrities are often themselves, employers and thus are required to subscribe to the same rules and regulations as everyone else.
One update to the California labor code that came into effect the first of the month has to do with social media, and the rights employees have in that regard. An employer does not have the right to ask for user names or passwords to social media accounts or other similar accounts from either employees or job applicants, with an eye to perusing the bowels of a Facebook or twitter account--or even email--for the purposes of obtaining background information on the employee, or prospective employee.
While California and labor law provides for exceptions to that rule in the event a formal investigation into employee conduct is ever needed, user names and passwords are otherwise off limits. Any employer who requires them or even uses them to dig into an employee’s life without just cause could be faced with a California labor lawsuit.
Other updates to California labor employment law, as outlined in The San Diego Union-Tribune (1/10/13) include updated rights for ex-employees to access their personal work records--a right that has always been available to current employees. 2013 also marked the beginning of updated amendments to contracts for commissioned employees.
California state labor laws require employers to post these laws in the workplace so that employees will have access to current regulations.
As for Justin Bieber, he’s been having some trouble of late. The horrific story about the photographer who was recently run down and killed trying to snap photos of the young pop sensation notwithstanding, Bieber has been having some issues with a bodyguard, according to The Business Insider (1/11/13).
The report notes that Moshe Benabou, who was employed by Justin Bieber as a personal bodyguard starting in March 2011 before he was fired after seven months on the job, filed a California labor lawsuit against the singer, alleging the Canadian teen heartthrob was aggressive towards Benabou and punched him in the chest repeatedly while backstage during a concert in October of last year. The Business Insider cited The Hollywood Reporter as a source.
The plaintiff claims in his action that he worked between 14 and 18 hours per day, 7 days per week but was not paid overtime in accordance with California prevailing wage law. The Business Insider cited TMZ as suggesting sources from the Bieber camp had reported to TMZ that Benabou was, in the defendant’s view, disgruntled over being fired. It was suggested in the report that Benabou had uttered a number of untruths to Bieber.
The California employee labor lawsuit was filed January 10 in Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, and cited nonpayment of California overtime, and assault and battery on the part of Justin Bieber. Those allegations are yet to be proven in a court of law. The case is Moshe Benabou v. Justin Bieber & BT Touring LLC of Delaware, # BC498862.
.jpg)
General Nutrition Corp Employees Filed California Labor Lawsuit
Charles Brewer, a former California employee of GNC, filed a complaint in July 2011, which has since been amended twice. In January 2012 the suit claimed that employees who worked the closing shifts at GNC retail stores were not properly paid for certain tasks they completed after clocking out for the day, and often failed to receive California overtime pay. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled the certification partial because the scope of the opt-in class includes sales associates and assistant managers only and not managers and senior managers at GNC stores, which was asked by GNC employees in their initial request.
“There are two class actions within this lawsuit.” says Leonard Emma. “Plaintiff alleges overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of a nationwide class, which the Court certified. Plaintiff also alleges meal and rest period violations, off-the-clock violations and related causes of action on behalf of California employees. Plaintiff will move the Court to certify the California case next.”
The lawsuit (Case No.: 11-CV-03587 YGR) alleges that GNC doesn’t pay its retail store employees when they perform closing duties. “At a certain point during the night, GNC retail store employees log off the cash register and clock out. But they are still required to perform closing duties, including making offsite bank deposits, which leads to overtime violations.” In other words, taking the deposit to the bank after clocking out constitutes overtime.
Furthermore, GNC says it is up to its employees to report their hours accurately but there is no formal training provided regarding how employees can get paid for closing duties. According to GNC,
Emma says there is evidence that GNC discourages people from reporting hours worked beyond those hours they are scheduled for. “And as the court noted, GNC does not have any written policies or training and that, coupled with corporate culture to discourage overtime, results in people working off the clock nationwide. “
According to an opposition to class certification filed by GNC last October, the company says that it has maintained a time-card system that prompts employees working the closing shifts to estimate time they might spend completing tasks after they officially clock out. GNC further stated that it provides training to teach employees about making those estimations, and provides workers with an opportunity to make corrections to their time card.
Judge Rogers disagreed. The January 7th ruling said that the company had not provided evidence of written company policies that back up those contentions.
As per the court order: “GNC has no written policy setting forth the procedure for an employee to be paid for time spent performing post-closing duties; no written policy on estimating hours worked; and no written policy on adjusting hours to account for time spent performing post-closing duties if an employee exceeds the time estimate."
The court estimates that 8,000 class members in the US--GNC sales associates and assistant managers -- "may be entitled to overtime under the FLSA.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
