Subcontractor Hit with $500,000 Lawsuit for California Labor Law Violations

Los Angeles, CA California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. filed a California labor law lawsuit last week against a Nevada-based contractor employing a number of drywall installers in the Golden State. Brown is seeking $500,000 in restitution for workers cheated out of pay and other benefits.

MDP California stands accused of violating no fewer than seven California employee labor law statutes. "MDP California cheated its workers and the State out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by dodging fair wage and labor laws," Brown said in a press release from States News Service. "Those kinds of business practices will not be tolerated in California."

An investigation launched last year by the Office of the Attorney General found literally hundreds of violations. Brown's office interviewed a number of workers, who reported that MDP California regularly required them to work anywhere from nine to 11 hours a day Monday through Saturday??"and sometimes on Sunday. There was no overtime pay provided for the additional hours.

One worker who was injured on the job had no choice but to take unpaid leave due to the alleged failure of MDP California to provide workers' compensation.

The lawsuit contends MDP California violated the following California state labor laws:

- California Labor Code section 510 by denying overtime pay.
- California Labor Code section 226 by providing wages to employees in other employees' names.
- California Wage Order 16-2001(4)(A) denying pay for all hours worked.
- California Labor Code section 226.7 by denying employees with a 10-minute break each four hours.
- California Labor Code section 3700 by failing to pay worker's compensation insurance.
- California Labor Code section 201 by failing to pay wages owed to laid-off employees immediately.
- California Business and Professions Code section 17200 for engaging in unfair business practices.

The Office of the Attorney General alleged that MDP California's failure to pay fair wages or state taxes gave the employer an unfair advantage over its competitors, which allowed it to underbid for jobs.

Retaliation, a California Labor Law Violation, on the Rise

Oxnard, CA According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), retaliation claims are at a record high level, up 18 percent from 2006. The EEOC recognizes that this is mainly due to the current economic condition and warns employers to be aware of retaliation policies, along with anti-discrimination and harassment laws. One California woman believes she has a definite retaliation case against her former employer. "Someone needs to tell [my former company] that it is violating California labor law, particularly the retaliation policy," says Margie.

"This company is also violating ERISA and workers' compensation labor laws, and not just in my case," Margie continues. "There are many complaints about the company. I want the public to be aware that this is a less than reputable company; I would like to warn you not to work there and be careful if you have STD or LTD disability and workers' compensation disability through them. They practice denial, denial, denial - and I'm not just talking as a disgruntled employee.

"My story began when I was threatened with bodily harm by a co-worker. I had to sit opposite this girl??"I am a senior disability benefits specialist and she was under me. I don't know if she had it in for me because of my age (I'm 52 and a grandmother) or because she was jealous of my position. 'I'm gonna do a smack-down on you,' she said. In my book that means she is going to beat the snot out of me...

"I went to HR and they launched an investigation. I also made my supervisors aware of what was going on and they complained about her to HR as well. They physically witnessed her abuse to me. HR gave her a written notice about one week later, telling her to cease and desist. But she didn't and the problem continued.

"I requested a transfer so we wouldn't have to work together. I was in another department but the girl still wouldn't leave me alone??"or my son.

"HR told me to ignore her and soon afterward I went on vacation for two weeks. While I was gone this woman attacked my 22-year-old son, who also works at the company. After work she saw him in his car and she tried to pull him out. 'I want to kick your ass so get out of the car now,' she screamed, in front of several witnesses. I guess he was the next best thing to me!

"Apparently my son just looked at her and started laughing. He got out of the car and said, 'If you don't calm down now I m calling the police." He told her to 'bounce', which means get lost.

"They questioned everyone about this incident but still did nothing. When they called this crazy woman into HR she even made verbal threats to the HR person (who told me). That's when they decided to fire her. The reason she wasn't fired earlier was because her mother was one of the managers in the company.

"Four weeks after she was fired, in retaliation, one of the managers transferred me to her mother's department. I was a forced transfer and there wasn't any reason to do this.

"Moving forward, I hurt myself at work and exercised my rights for STD so I could have a cervical neck fusion. (I had continuous trauma due to lifting heavy boxes frequently, and holding a phone to my ear and trying to type at the same time). When I returned to work after eight weeks, I had physician restrictions: no overtime, no driving, no picking up anything up over 10 lbs.

"I'd had a year-end performance review for the prior year and it was a decent review. But about six months later I was given a final written notice with no prior notice of any deficiencies. Prior notice must give you a time frame: you have to improve within a certain period of time or get terminated. But I was never given any previous notices.

"In this final written notice, I was told that I have to work overtime. And they tried to force me to work overtime but I refused, citing my doctor's restrictions. I ended up taking workers' compensation disability due to stress, anxiety and panic because of this notice. I saw this as a form of harassment because I couldn't work overtime and retaliation by the crazy woman's mother.

"They really made things difficult for me. For example, upon my return from STD I requested one of the keyboard trays for ergonomic reasons. I was made to wait more than six weeks, even though other employees who requested it got it within a week. They used every trick in the book in an attempt to get me to quit.

"They see me as a liability to their company because I had injured myself.

"The day I returned from STD the claims director decided it was funny to see me in a neck brace and laughed at me. Nice. Bottom line: prior to my final written notice I always had stellar reviews and increases and promotions and I got a raise three months prior to this notice. I am now 'out' of the company and believe I have been fired, but they haven't the grapes to formally tell me.

"I left on stress leave in December 2008 and got paid benefits exactly one year later. I'm still getting workers' comp but there has been no communication from the company. In fact, I hired a workers' comp attorney in February 2009, who took the company to court because they wouldn't pay my benefits. My case went to court in December and the judge immediately ordered the company to pay my benefits. But I didn't get any back pay??"we are going back to court for that."

The California Government's Department of Industrial Relations states: "An employee or job applicant alleging retaliation or discrimination in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner must file a complaint with the DLSE within six months of the adverse action. Adverse actions include unlawful discharge, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay or hours, refusal to hire or promote, etc."

Co-Author of Study: Lowest Paid in LA Hit Hardest by Wage Theft

Los Angeles, CA A recent report titled "Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles: The failure of employment and labor law for low-wage workers" documents a particularly high rate of workplace violations in Los Angeles. "This study focuses on low-wage workers," said Ruth Milkman, one of the study's authors and a sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the City University of New York. "Our focus is the low end of the labor market where many legally mandated standards are not being observed."

The report focuses on the findings of a survey of 1,815 workers in Los Angeles County, in conjunction with surveys conducted in Chicago and New York City in 2008. The respondents included many unauthorized immigrants and other vulnerable workers who are often excluded in standard surveys. The report found that minimum wage and meal break violation rates are higher in Los Angeles than in New York and Chicago.

Alarmingly, the survey found that low-wage workers in Los Angeles regularly experience minimum wage and overtime violations and they are often forced to work off the clock or during their breaks. "Other violations include lack of required payroll documentation, being paid late, tip stealing, and employer retaliation," said Milkman.

Domestic workers are vulnerable to labor violations in all three cities, but again, the survey showed especially high rates in LA County. "While some employers are well aware that they are breaking the law, there is a definite lack of knowledge in this area among employers of household workers," added Milkman.

Milkman said the study took several years, looking at key occupations and industries where the median pay rate was below 85 percent of the median wage in LA County, based on US Census data. "To participate in the survey, workers had to be employed in one of those occupations or industries," said Milkman. "We also wanted to find hard-to-reach people in the work force, such as unauthorized immigrants. Through the help of community groups we were able to recruit the first few survey respondents, and they in turn recruited others who were eligible. Starting from a handful of respondents, we wound up with more than1800."

The Los Angeles study reached the following conclusions:

• Almost 30 percent of the workers sampled were paid less than the minimum wage in the work week preceding the survey: 63.3 percent of workers were underpaid by more than $1.00 per hour.


• Among all respondents, 21.3 percent worked more than 40 hours for a single employer during the previous work week; those employers were therefore at risk for an overtime violation. Almost 80 percent of these at-risk workers were not paid the legally required overtime rate by their employers. Respondents with an overtime violation worked an average of 10 overtime hours during the previous work week.


• Nearly one in five respondents stated that they had worked before and/or after their regular shifts in the previous work week and were therefore at risk for off-the-clock violations. Within this group, 71.2 percent did not receive any pay at all for the work they performed outside their regular shift.


• Among all respondents, 89.6 percent worked enough consecutive hours to be legally entitled to a meal break. However, more than 80.3 percent experienced a meal break violation in the previous work week.


• California law requires that employers provide workers with 10-minute rest breaks during each four-hour shift (or two 10-minute rest breaks in a standard eight-hour shift). 81.7 percent of respondents eligible for rest breaks were either denied a break entirely or had a shortened break during the previous work week.


• California law requires that all workers??"regardless of whether they are paid in cash or by check??"receive documentation of their earnings and deductions. However, 63.6 percent of respondents did not receive this mandatory documentation. 45.3 percent were subjected to such illegal deductions.

Of course, not all employers abuse their employees and the study noted that many low-wage employers comply with wage and labor laws. On the other hand, some small businesses claim they are forced to violate wage laws to remain competitive. "Such employers are perfectly aware that they are not obeying the law, but that is not the case among all employers," said Milkman.

Many of the workers in the survey were afraid of retaliation. "Those who complained were often fired or demoted, or given undesirable jobs or schedules??" the usual kinds of things employers do when they are unhappy with the employee. And a number of unauthorized immigrants told us that they were afraid of being reported by their employers to immigration authorities in retaliation for complaints."

Milkman said the report had gotten a positive reception. "Many members of the general public were shocked, and rightly so. Now the biggest danger is complacency, if nothing is done to fix this problem."

The LA City Council is currently considering passing a wage theft ordinance, which will make it a criminal offence if employers violate wage and hour laws. And there are more steps to take at the state and federal level.

In response to the 2008 report, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said, "There is no excuse for the disregard of federal labor standards ??" especially those designed to protect the neediest among us… [this] report clearly shows we still have a major task before us." Solis hired 250 more wage-and-hour investigators in November 2009.

"Right now there is a lot of concern but it is important that there be extensive follow up and beefed-up enforcement," said Milkman. "It's a big job but there are some positive signs."

California Labor Law Breach of Contract: "I'm Not the Only One"

San Marino, CA One California labor law violation is breach of contract. In California an employee can sue for lost wages and benefits, wages they would get in the future, minus what they should earn and have earned at a new job, assuming they get a job within a reasonable amount of time. Paul (not his real name) left his job because he did not receive monies from a profit-sharing account, and he is now in the process of arbitration, with the help of his attorney.

"I was the chief lending officer at a nationally chartered commercial bank," says Paul. "Part of my compensation included bonuses and a non-funded profit sharing account. I worked at this bank for just over nine years and received all my bonuses but nothing from the profit-sharing account."

Paul's employment contract states that this account (he is owed over $1 million) would be paid no later than 60 days after his termination date. "My immediate supervisor assured me at the time of my resignation that the owner of the bank said I had nothing to worry about, relative to payment of the profit-sharing account," says Paul. "Then my boss gave me a letter indicating they couldn't pay me (which was not true??"they did have the cash resources at that time) and that I would be paid when they raised additional capital."

Paul didn't take action right away, assuming correctly that it would set the alarm button and negatively impact the bank's capital raising. "The bank was ultimately not successful and was taken over by the FDIC in October 2009--at that point I sought legal counsel."

Paul says he resigned because he couldn't assess the likelihood of the bank's survival??"it had invested heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "If the bank wasn't going to survive, I would wind up with nothing, not even my bonuses; however, my resignation letter made it clear that I was grateful for the time there and for the opportunity and it was one of the most difficult decisions I ever had to make. And I know many others made this same decision…

"But the bank wasn't happy with my resignation, which I learned after I left. Within 30 days of my departure, a co-worker told me, 'when word gets out as to why Paul left, he will likely have great difficulty obtaining a job in this industry again.' My boss was pissed off because I built this franchise from scratch and if I am leaving, there must be real problems here. Not only did it make him look bad, he was one of the principals responsible for the investment that took the bank down."

(Paul's former employer may be in violation of another California labor law: California Labor Code Section 970 refers to misrepresentations by an employer to prevent a former employee from obtaining new employment.)

"My attorney is sure that I will be granted the award in arbitration and it will be affirmed as a judgment," says Paul. "There is no way of determining whether I will actually receive payment. The bank's holding company is not bankrupt but they have larger obligations so I have to get to the back of the line.

"My job prospects don't look good: the banking industry in the US is dismal, as everyone knows. I still believe I did the right thing by resigning but I also believe my decision alternatives were taken away from me. Any sensible, thoughtful person would do the same thing. From the owner's perspective I am in the wrong, but the owner put me in this position. I could have stayed and lost everything??"instead I made the decision to preserve what I built in nine plus years.

"I believe that the California labor board can take action against the company. My attorney and I have filed a complaint with the board. It has only been 30 days, so I am hopeful that they take action and some portion of the monies due to me will take priority over their other clients."

Updated California Labor Code Tested, Settlement Reached

Los Angeles, CA A 2004 addition to the California labor code underwent its first true test this month with the announcement of a settlement that will see employees of a subcontractor receive compensation for deprivation of contributions to social security, disability and unemployment insurance.

More than 200 employees who worked for subcontractors under Tidy Building Services Inc. will receive between $100 and $2000 in compensation.

According to the 2/9/10 issue of the Business Wire, California Labor Code Section 2810 addresses the particular problems faced by low wage workers in the janitorial, construction, security guard, farm labor and garment industries??"sectors often dominated by immigrant workers, who are particularly vulnerable to violations of wage and hour laws.

In this case, the contractor, Tidy Building Services Inc., was found to have provided inadequate funding to subcontractors in order to ensure that employees received full benefit of employment laws and regulations, not to mention allowing the subcontractors to comply with same.

Although Tidy Building Services Inc. is based in New Orleans, the settlement is the result of charges that California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet filed in San Diego Superior Court.

"This settlement sends a strong message that my office will aggressively pursue contractors who seek to gain an unfair advantage by underfunding subcontracts," said Bradstreet. "The subcontractors get squeezed, the workers don't get paid, and law-abiding contractors lose out as well through unfair competition."

The action was the state's first lawsuit aimed at enforcing Labor Code Section 2810. Tidy Building Services Inc. has agreed to pay the state of California the sum of $100,000 on behalf of employees who worked in janitorial services in San Diego County and the Los Angeles area.

Labor Code 2810 was designed to spread the responsibility for systemic violations of minimum labor standards by making those entering service contracts responsible for fully and accurately estimating service contract performance. The cost of labor law compliance must be incorporated into the contract price paid.

While contractors may approach tenders with low bids to secure a job, the bid is often so low that the contractor cannot afford to uphold the provisions of California labor law, thus under-funding subcontractors.

California Labor Law Attorney Helps Terminated Employee Win Appeal

San Diego, CA James was terminated from his job as an independent contractor at Superior Installation Solutions for an incident that violates California labor law. His disgruntled employer also attempted to deny James's unemployment insurance benefits, but James found an attorney who worked pro bono to help win his appeal.

"Due to the economy, there was much less work in my industry. I'm an appliance installer for big department stores such as Lowell's, so we typically pick up handyman plumbing work on the side," James explains.

"We never had a contract with Superior stating that this was against the rules. Our employee handbook mentioned nothing about conflict of interest.

"One Saturday, which is my day off, my friend Carol called to ask if I could fix her dishwasher leak. Carol had already called Lowe's, where she bought the dishwasher, but no luck. I suggested she call my company but they didn't return her call, so I helped??"as a friend, not as an employee of Superior or Lowe's.

"After I fixed the leak I noticed that her faucet was corroded. 'Sometime down the road you might want to replace it,' I told Carol. 'James, since you're here, please go ahead, and I'll pay for your time,' she said. I was reluctant, but she needed it done.

"To make a long story short, Curtis, the owner of Superior, found out. When I phoned Superior about my next job, I was asked to bring in my uniform because I was terminated. Curtis mentioned the faucet, but I knew it was more than that. For the past month there had been issues between us.

"Curtis had fired Shannon, a co-worker of mine, without just cause. I am a shareholder in the company, which means I was entitled to vote on whether Shannon should be fired. But I was on vacation, and they had a stalemate on the vote. When I came back to work they had to re-vote. Shannon is on medical leave, so how can he be fired? Curtis said he wasn't doing good work, but I didn't think it was right, so I voted 'no.'

"This decision created a rift between us; he just used the faucet incident to justify my termination.

"It was almost a relief to get fired because he was causing me so much grief. Then I filed for unemployment insurance and was denied. Turns out that Curtis filed a letter with unemployment saying that I had stolen money??"relating to the faucet incident. So I filed an appeal.

"Meanwhile, I had been job hunting for a few months??"I had no income and became desperate. I applied at Pacific Express, one of our competitors, and he hired me. But Curtis continued to haunt me. I know this is complicated, but in a nutshell, Curtis complained about me to Lowe's, which does business with Pacific Express. Lowe's put the pressure on Pacific Express to fire me.

"My attorney came over to Carol's house with me and drafted a letter regarding the faucet incident; Carol wrote that she insisted that I get compensated for my time. The judge reversed the decision and I got unemployment benefits dating back three months.

"My lawyer is now investigating the role that Lowe's had in my termination because I didn't work for that company.

"When you leave a job and have any qualms about an employee that should be the end of it. Instead, Curtis holds a grudge against me and wants retaliation for his own satisfaction. As it happens, Superior is closing. I can't say that I feel sorry for Curtis. He fired me almost a year ago so I had to pick up my W2, a record of my earnings and tax deductions. Curtis told me he mailed it weeks ago but I never got it??"yet another violation of the California labor law. Obviously his ship is going down but he still wants to make my life difficult."

Workers Owed $1 Million in California Labor Law Violation

Los Angeles, CA The Labor Commissioner for the State of California has found yet another violation of California labor law in the alleged misdeeds of the Federal Loan Modification Law Center LLP (FLM Law Center), together with related entities and individuals. The alleged affront to California labor employment law involves an accusation of failure to pay workers for all wages due and hours worked.

California Labor Commissioner Angela Bradstreet seeks the recovery of more than $1 million in unpaid wages, together with liquidated damages and other penalties in excess of $16.5 million.

According to the September 15th issue of Business Wire the red flags over FLM Law Center were first raised only recently, in May of this year. That's when complaints began to roll in to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) with regard to wage claims against the firm.

A subsequent investigation determined that FLM Law Center was allegedly not compensating their employees on the regularly established paydays. The DLSE determined that this conduct diverted about a million dollars from the pockets of employees who were entitled to the funds for hours legitimately worked.

"This company has committed egregious Labor Code violations by not paying their employees as required by law," said Bradstreet. "This lawsuit not only seeks restitution for their employees, but should also send a strong message to all employers that we won't stand for a company that cuts corners at the expense of their workers."

A Grievous Affront to California Employee Labor Law

The FLM Law Center is a fairly young facility, opening in December of last year. According to Business Wire the company listed two separate business addresses: a location on Irvine Center Drive in Irvine, with a second in Woodland Hills.

Labor Commissioner Bradstreet brought the lawsuit against the company in tandem with several additional entities and individuals believed to be alter ego and / or partners and affiliates with FLM Law Center.

California state labor laws, as well as laws observed by other states in concert with laws at the federal level, are designed to protect workers from the willful, or accidental neglect of employers with regard to their responsibilities to their employees. Various statutes govern things like lunch breaks and rest periods, working conditions, safety and the payment of wages for hours worked. The latter also often involves extra pay for additional hours worked, according to an overtime scale that guarantees any non-salaried employee will be properly compensated for working salutatory holidays, weekends, or any hours over and above the standard 40 hours that represent the standard work week.

Hostile Work Environment—Violation of California Labor Law?

Los Alametos, CA There are many forms of a hostile work environment; sexual harassment and discrimination clearly violate the California labor law while other forms of California labor employment laws are not so cut and dry and may need a lawyer to determine whether your rights are being violated. Treena believes she has been "singled out" by her employer. "Sometimes it doesn't pay to be honest and play by the rules," says Treena.

"This past April there was an employee shooting at the hospital where I was working," explains Treena. "An employee working in outpatient pharmacy killed his manager, executive director and then himself. My job is to report to the command center and document everything when any incidents happen. I saw all the details of the event on security camera. At the time I was intent on doing my job and after the shooting my boss and I worked to coordinate crisis intervention counselors for about 5,000 hospital staff. I made sure everyone got counseling and departments were debriefed. But I couldn't get counseling because I was required to be in the office when the counselors were on site. There is no backup for me.

Instead, my boss was angry with me because I wasn't supporting her; I was too busy with this incident. In fact she was impeding my job.

Since then I have been very angry toward her and her manager because I wasn't provided with the assistance to help everyone and myself. I begged for help and couldn't get it. I went to the doctor for stress; I have lost more than 20 lbs, my hair has fallen out and I am emotionally unstable. When I complained of stress to my boss, I was ignored.

Now I am on stress leave. After the shooting I told my boss that I wanted to transfer to another department; we couldn't function as a team and I couldn't do my job. She said OK and wished the best for me. About one week later, the department secretary yelled at me twice and hung up the phone when my son called??"that was my breaking point. I felt that I was working in a hostile work environment and believe they have violated the California labor code. I never did get the transfer. Instead I was sent to HR for disciplinary action; I have never been in trouble in my life--I have almost 5 years of an unblemished record at this hospital.

I think if there is an opportunity where I make a mistake they will terminate me. Without warning. Isn't that a hostile environment?

I was talking with my pastor and he said I really have to see a therapist. I still want to transfer to another department and the position is still available. The director of that department was negotiating it but my boss won't allow it. I am hopeful that a lawyer can intervene and mediate this, and tell me whether they are indeed violating the California labor law…

I am seeing a therapist now but I am still very anxious and afraid. Even after the shooting I was in a situation where I was alone with someone who threatened to kill the staff. His father had surgery here and died of complications??"he was obviously very mad. And my boss knew about this incident but again, she didn't want to take care of the problem.

I believe I have been singled out because I applied for a transfer. Hospital policy requires that you notify your manager before requesting a transfer. It doesn't pay to be honest and adhere to the rules."

California Labor Lawsuit Sees Settlement of $22 Million

San Jose, CA Two lawsuits that have made the news recently highlight the importance of employers following California labor law and properly compensating employees for all hours worked. One lawsuit involves a multi-million dollar settlement for employees while the other involves employees who say patients at a hospital received inadequate care due to violations of California employee labor law.

According to an article at Cincinnati's CityBeat (August 20, 2009), Cintas Corp. will pay over $22.75 million to settle a federal lawsuit that alleged the company failed to properly pay employees overtime wages. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of employees who said they were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay as required by both state and federal laws.

The employees were uniform delivery drivers, responsible for picking up dirty uniforms and dropping off fresh ones. They were classified as salary instead of hourly workers; however, the plaintiffs argued that they drove trucks and delivered uniforms and therefore should not have been classified as exempt from overtime pay.

It has not yet been decided how many drivers are included in the settlement or how much those drivers will receive. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California and sought compensation for unpaid overtime dating back to March, 2000.

Cintas CEO Scott Farmer said in a statement that the suit was unfounded but that the company resolved the claims through mediation to avoid the expense of litigation.

Meanwhile, former employees of Aurora Las Encinas Hospital, a psychiatric facility in California, have filed a class action lawsuit against the owner of the facility, alleging that understaffing has not only compromised patient care but has also put employees in a position of working overtime without proper compensation. The suit also alleges that employees worked in unsanitary conditions, including using a bathroom that had a toilet but no sink.

According to an article at latimes.com (August 7, 2009) employees say they were given the answers to mandatory examinations so that the hospital did not have to pay workers for time spent studying for the exams. They also say they were overworked, not paid for overtime and felt they could not provide safe care for patients.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified restitution and legal fees. One plaintiff said the goal of the suit was to improve Las Encinas, a facility that reportedly had three unexpected adult patient deaths in a five-month period during 2008. In the same time frame, a 14-year-old patient was raped.

California Labor Law and Federal Express Not on the Same Page

Antioch, CA: Rene worked as a Federal Express courier for 20 years; he was fired May 1, 2009, "because I took my lunch break 5 minutes after I was supposed to," he says. Can FedEx fire an employee of 20 years because he was late for lunch? The California Labor Law clearly states that an employee must take a 30-minute meal period after five hours during an 8-hour work day, but Rene says FedEx has its own agenda.

And Rene isn't the only driver claiming that FedEx violated the California labor code: in April, 2009 a federal judge in California certified five subclasses of drivers alleging FedEx Corp. bilked them of pay for missed meal periods, off-the-clock work and working split shifts.

Rene says he took lunch breaks after 5.5 hours, in keeping with FedEx policy. But he was also late for lunch??"three times??"although no more than about five minutes. Seems like no big deal, but FedEx interpreted Rene's 5 minutes late as grounds for termination.

" My boss told me that because I went over 5 minutes they had to let me go," says Rene. "I asked him why it even mattered and he said that I didn't follow company rules. But a courier usually has to stop anywhere for lunch breaks, such as a parking lot…

I was a swing driver, which means you are scheduled to work anywhere that has an opening. That day I was supposed to start at 8am but I was called to work at 6.45 am to help unload packages onto trucks. Then I ran over to my truck and drove to another city where I had parcels to deliver. I forgot that I started at 6.45 because my usual start time was 8am. I took my lunch at the regular time I took it each day??"just before noon--because I didn't want to go into overtime, but this day I was 5 minutes late."

But how did FedEx know Rene was 5 minutes late? Rene explains that FedEx has a hand-held computer used to scan packages and read addresses, and it also acts as a courier's time card.

"The FedEx manual states if an employee has 3 or more performance write-ups, you can still retain employment if a manager chooses not to discharge you, if he provides written explanation to the HR manager," says Rene. "My manager chose not to write the letter because he is afraid of losing his job.

I sent letters to HR explaining how I never took 10-minute breaks and why I was late for lunch but they didn't bother to respond; what a way to be treated after working 20 years for this company. And it gets worse: about 2 weeks ago I got a letter from FedEx; they want to take me to court and take away my unemployment benefits.

The letter from Employment Development Department in California says: 'Your former employer, Federal Express Corp. has appealed the department's decision, finding you illegible for unemployment insurance benefits,' and the appeal has been sent to the Oakland office of Appeals. So now I have to wait for my day in court. The letter says I may be required to pay back benefits received after the date this letter was issued.

I made $26 per hour with FedEx; they are trying to cut costs and I believe this was a way to get rid of me. I don't know where to go or what to do; right now I am just trying to find a job, but most of them pay $12 per hour. I have a family to support; my kids are 2 and 8 and I am very worried; my family doesn't even have medical insurance now, thanks to FedEx."

Many lawsuits have been filed by FedEx drivers against the company; a quick search online brings up claims such as misclassification and failure to pay overtime rates. Rene also says managers manipulated drivers' time cards, "to make themselves look good," and that's another violation of the California labor law.