Business & Office News
Farm Owners Required to Comply With Overtime Law
Sacramento, CA: When it comes to California compliance overtime laws might be among the laws that are most widely violated. Employers are accused of misclassifying employees as exempt from California overtime, or just full-out failing to pay non-exempt workers for overtime hours. In some cases, workers aren't even eligible for overtime pay, or have different standards for paying overtime. One group of workers - farmworkers - could soon see that change.
Wage and Hour Lawsuits Continue to Percolate in California
San Mateo, CA: Yet another California based health care facility has been hit with a California wage and hour lawsuit, alleging that hourly employees have not been paid their correct overtime wages, nor have they been provided with rest breaks and meal periods in accordance with California labor law.
The defendant in the case is Sutter West Bay Hospitals. The proposed class action accuses the defendant, on behalf of all qualifying class members, of denying their hourly employees access to meal breaks and rest periods. California law holds that rest periods are taken as required, and that an un-interrupted meal period of not less than thirty minutes be provided prior to the commencement of the fifth hour of work.
Not only is this requirement entrenched within California employment law, the fact remains that were a meal period not duly provided, it means the employee has worked through the meal period and thus should be paid overtime for the 30 minutes of additional work performed.
It is also alleged that hourly employees were provided with non-discretionary bonus pay based upon their job performance. And yet, it is alleged that this bonus pay was not included as part of the calculation of a non-exempt employee’s hourly rate for the purposes of determining the proper overtime rate.
Thus, it is alleged that non-exempt employees of Sutter West Bay Hospitals were not paid correct amounts of overtime, as required under California labor laws.
The wage and hour class action lawsuit is Case No. 2016-cv-538977 in San Mateo County Superior Court for the State of California.
Meanwhile, it has been reported that Ecolab Inc. remains embroiled in four California wage and hour lawsuits that remain pending: this, according to the defendant’s 10-Q filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the first quarter ending March 31st of this year. The report, filed in early May, noted that a fifth lawsuit (Cancilla v. Ecolab, Case No. CV 12-03001 US District Court, Northern District of California), has been settled.
The 10-Q filing noted that three of the lawsuits are pending as class actions and claim violations to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and / or similar violations to state labor laws.
Of the four remaining wage and hour lawsuits still pending, two are based in California: Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, Case No. C 13-05097 PJH, and Martino v. Ecolab, Case No. 5:14-cv-04358-PSG, both pending in US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Pulitzer Prize Winner Files Discrimination Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Times is used to reporting on lawsuits, but now it faces a California discrimination lawsuit of its own, filed by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. Jeffrey Gottlieb filed the lawsuit, alleging age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
Gottlieb was hired in March 1997 as an assistant city editor and through his years at Los Angeles Times worked as a staff writer, assistant city editor, and senior writer. Court documents note that Gottlieb and his writing partner - Ruben Vives - co-wrote many stories, including work on corruption in the City of Bell that resulted in them winning Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, a George Polk Award, and a variety of other awards.
Although he won the George Polk award, Gottlieb argues his bosses didn't tell him or Vives about the award, with them finding out by accident, and despite receiving money for other awards, that award money was not fully distributed even two years after it was won. Gottlieb complained to the publisher about the money not being distributed, and complained about illegal activity in relation to the prize money not being disbursed, speaking about the incident in the Washington Post.
Despite winning the Pulitzer Prize, Gottlieb alleges he was not assigned any further investigative reporting duties and was instead sent to Orange County, where his career had initially started, while two other reporters were given the title of investigative reporter.
In August 2014, Gottlieb was told he would be the backup obituaries reporter and then given a choice of covering a variety of topics he considered decent for a new reporter, but not a veteran. In 2015, he had surgery for prostate cancer and was on disability leave for almost eight weeks. Upon his return from leave, he was told he could write obituaries, at which point Gottlieb quit his job.
"Plaintiff felt forced to resign due to his intolerable working conditions, effectively constructively terminating his employment with defendants," court documents state. Shortly after, however, the Times reportedly had a buyout and targeted older reporters with the buyout. Furthermore, Gottlieb alleges, the paper generally hired younger employees and gave better jobs and benefits to employees under the age of 40.
"During plaintiff's employment with defendants, defendants intentionally engaged in age discrimination by discharging employees over the age of 40 with greater frequency than other employees," the lawsuit states. Gottlieb's suit is filed against the Los Angeles Times and editor and publisher Davan Maharaj.
The newspaper has called the allegations "completely without merit."
The lawsuit is Gottlieb v. Los Angeles Times, et al. case number BC630018, in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
Makers of Rooster Sauce Sues over California Harassment
Irwindale, CA: Harassment can take on many forms, and in this case it’s not so much an employee feeling harassed by an employer at the workplace, but the manufacturer of a hot sauce suing the City of Irwindale, for California harassment.
The product, Sriracha Hot Sauce with the distinctive depiction of a rooster on the bottle (known amongst fans and users as ‘Rooster Sauce’), is made by Huy Fong Foods. There is little doubt that Sriracha hot sauce, amongst hot sauce aficionados, is somewhat revered for its eye-watering heat.
However, hotness so robust it brings forth tears appears not to be limited to mere consumption of the product. It was alleged at one time that fumes originating with the Sriracha manufacturing facility have severely impacted residents of Irwindale.
According to a report carried by FOX News (07/25/16), the municipality filed a lawsuit against Huy Fong in 2013 over the fumes. Residents were complaining. However, health officials looked into the matter and found no health violations, so the City dropped its lawsuit against the manufacturer. Huy Fong, for its part, pledged to resolve the issue of robust fumes.
Then, earlier this year, a second lawsuit was filed against Huy Fong by the municipality - this time, for a tax issue. It was alleged that Huy Fong had been late filing its municipal taxes. The City sought $427,085 in damages.
Huy Fong responded with a California harassment lawsuit, countering the municipality’s legal challenge. In its harassment lawsuit, Huy Fong seeks a court order declaring any previous fees to be invalid. Failing that, the manufacturer seeks the consideration of alternative actions, including a ruling that would allow Huy Fong to recover not less than $750,000 in previous legal fees incurred while defending itself against previous and current legal action pursued by Irwindale.
“Huy Fong Foods has employed local residents and held job fairs for local workers for the past three years,” the California harassment countersuit states.
“The factory is a popular tourist destination and brings visitors and revenue into the city - so popular, in fact, that Huy Fong Foods added two trams to transport visitors around the plant and even opened a gift shop.”
The manufacturer notes that it employs dozens of Irwindale residents, hosts events for the community and provides free Rooster sauce and related merchandise to the community worth about $100,000.
As a result of the 2013 lawsuit, Huy Fong pledged to eradicate fumes escaping the plant as part of a written commitment. There was no mention in the municipality’s subsequent lawsuit with regard to the unsavory fumes continuing, or having been successfully eradicated.
Gretchen Carlson's Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Against Fox
Sacramento, CA: Women who have been victims of sexual harassment at work may have given a little cheer when Gretchen Carlson filed a wrongful termination lawsuit and sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes, Carlson's former boss at Fox News. And although the lawsuit was filed in New Jersey, the implications of the suit will likely be felt across the US, as the defendant argues the lawsuit should be dismissed and sent to arbitration. In the meantime, more women have come forward alleging a pattern of sexual harassment from Ailes.
Carlson was a long-time television host, including hosting an afternoon program called "The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson" on Fox News. She is a graduate of Stanford University, a best-selling author, an award-winning journalist, and a former Miss America.
According to court documents, Carlson's employment with Fox News was terminated on June 23, 2016, by Ailes in retaliation for Carlson refusing Ailes' sexual advances. Carlson alleges that when she met with Ailes to discuss his discriminatory treatment of her, Ailes commented that some problems are easier to solve through a sexual relationship. Carlson then rejected Ailes' demands for sex and within the year her employment at Fox News was ended.
"Notwithstanding her strong performance and tireless work ethic, however, Ailes denied Carlson fair compensation, desirable assignments and other career-enhancing opportunities in retaliation for her complaints of harassment and discrimination and because she rejected his sexual advances," the lawsuit alleges.
Carlson had previously complained about a hostile work environment created by Steve Doocy on the show Fox & Friends, in which Doocy, Carlson's co-host, mocked her, shunned her, belittled her, and treated her as a "blond female prop." Ailes' alleged response to Carlson's complaint was to tell her she needed to "get along with the boys."
Ailes has since left his position as CEO of Fox News, after more women came forward with allegations of sexual harassment. Included among those was Megyn Kelly, who said Ailes sexually harassed her around 10 years ago. So far, the lawsuit names only Ailes as a defendant, not Fox News or 21st Century Fox.
In response to the lawsuit, Ailes has filed a motion to dismiss, noting that Carlson agreed to arbitration when she signed her contract with the network. The contract requires Carlson to take any employment dispute with Fox News to a confidential arbitration panel, rather than to a court. Ailes' attorneys argue that just because Ailes is named in the lawsuit and Fox is not, does not negate the arbitration clause, according to the Los Angeles Times (7/8/16).
Yet Another Wage and Hour Lawsuit Claims Lack of Overtime From Uber
San Francisco, CA: A proposed class action wage and hour lawsuit by a former UberX driver is accusing the San Francisco-based company of failing to pay its drivers overtime. While plaintiff Jaswinder Singh hails from New Jersey, which is where the lawsuit was filed, the proposed class action becomes a California Wage and Hour lawsuit by default, by virtue of the California headquarters for Uber, and a proposed class action that could potentially benefit drivers from the Golden State.
The proposed wage and hour class action would include class members who drove for both Uber, and UberX, identified as the lower-cost division of Uber.
In his wage and hour lawsuit, Singh identifies himself as serving as a driver for UberX from August 18, 2014 through to September 21, 2015 - a period of just over a year. Singh identifies himself as an employee of Uber, not an independent contractor.
The plaintiff holds that for the 13 months he worked for UberX, he was required to bear most of the expenses involved including, but not limited to the costs for fuel, road tolls, his mobile phone (the lifeblood of an Uber driver), and other expenses for which Singh claims he should have been reimbursed.
Singh also holds that he worked, on a consistent basis, at least 60 hours each week, but received no overtime for any hours worked beyond 40 hours per week as required under state law.
At the heart of the wage and hour lawsuit is whether, or not Uber and UberX drivers are employees, or independent contractors. Previous wage and hour lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and California were recently settled for up to $300 million. Uber, following the settlement, noted that Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts would remain independent contractors. There were no references to Uber and UberX drivers in other states.
Uber has previously held that drivers are independent contractors and not employees, who sign on as Uber drivers and are connected to patrons and fares using the Uber app, ferrying their fares around in their own vehicles.
Plaintiffs, however, note that Uber controls much of the process and experience for the fare, with the Uber driver having little say in that process. The latter, say plaintiffs, detracts from the usual definition of an independent contractor which provides a service to a client based upon an agreed-to set of parameters for service, but with the contractor remaining completely autonomous in the delivery of that service.
Plaintiffs in California Wage and Hour lawsuits and those in other states hold that Uber and UberX drivers are, in actual fact non-exempt employees of Uber and thus, should qualify for overtime and other benefits as entrenched in state laws.
The proposed wage and hour class action lawsuit is Singh v. Uber Technologies, Inc. case No. 3:2016-cv-03044.
Florida Blue Agrees to Settle ERISA Lawsuit
Sacramento, CA: Florida Blue has agreed to settle an ERISA lawsuit, in a move that could have implications for a similar lawsuit filed in California. The lawsuit involves the insurer's refusal to cover Harvoni, a potentially life-saving drug that has been shown to successfully treat hepatitis C.
Tibble ERISA Lawsuit Dismissed
San Francisco, CA: An ERISA lawsuit nine years in the making has been dismissed, after making its way from the California courts up to the Supreme Court and being sent back to the lower courts. The lawsuit, which alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), claimed breach of fiduciary duty. Now, the Ninth Circuit has dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs should have raised the claim of improper plan monitoring before the case went to the Supreme Court.
The Tibble lawsuit was filed against Edison International, and alleged plan fiduciaries made imprudent investments within the company’s ERISA plan. Plaintiffs claimed there were lower-cost versions of the investments available, but higher-cost versions were purchased. The problem, however, was the statute of limitations. Three of the six funds were initially purchased in 1999 but the lawsuit was not filed until 2007, beyond the six-year statute of limitations. Under the statute of limitations, lawsuits must be filed within six years of the most recent violation.
After three of the funds were dropped from the lawsuit, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations should not have begun running at the time the funds were purchased. Rather, violations should be counted for as long as the offending fund is part of the investment. In other words, it is not just the purchase of the investment but continually allowing it to remain in the plan that constitutes the most recent violation, the plaintiffs argued.
The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the plan sponsors had an ongoing duty to monitor investments. The Supreme Court further ruled that the duty to monitor is separate from the duty of exercising prudence in choosing investments for an ERISA plan.
But, according to court documents, when the Supreme Court sent the lawsuit back to the Ninth Circuit, it instructed the lower court to determine whether the plaintiffs erred in not raising the “ongoing-duty-to-monitor” claim when the lawsuit was initially heard by the lower court.
The lower court found that it could not hear an argument on appeal that was not initially raised before the District Court or brought forward in the initial appeal. As a result, the Tibble claim was dismissed.
Although the lawsuit was dismissed, it still holds important implications for ERISA plan fiduciaries. The Supreme Court found that even where there is no change in an ERISA plan’s circumstances, fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to monitor investments and insure they are still in participants’ best interests. This means a fiduciary’s duties do not end with the purchase of the investment.
The lawsuit is Tibble et al. v. Edison International, et al, case number 10-56406, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court.
California Amends Employment Discrimination Regulations
Sacramento, CA: As of April 1, 2016, California has amended its Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations to include new requirements for employers. These new requirements involve discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the workplace, and cover all employers who regularly employ five or more individuals. Employers who violate the regulations could face California employee lawsuits.
Under the amended California employment regulations, employers are required to establish a written discrimination, harassment and retaliation prevention policy. That policy must include a list of all protected categories covered under the Act, a description of the company’s complaint process, and a statement prohibiting retaliation against employees who report complaints or participate in an investigation. The complaints process must be designed to ensure complaints are kept confidential where possible, dealt with in a timely manner, impartially investigated, accurately documented, offered appropriate response options, and closed in a timely manner.
The amended regulations also define key terms as they relate to gender discrimination. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers cannot discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of gender, gender identity or gender expression. The amendments set out definitions of gender expression, gender identity, sex, sex stereotype and transgender.
Under the amended law, discrimination, harassment and retaliation protections now extend to unpaid interns and anyone else who is serving in a program that provides unpaid work or industry experience, such as apprentices. Furthermore, unpaid workers must be given reasonable accommodation for religious observances.
Sexual harassment prevention has also been updated. Employers who are required to provide sexual harassment training every two years to certain employees must now document the training and keep that documentation for a minimum of two years. Employers must also keep copies of written training materials and written questions and answers. Training must include information about the negative effects of workplace harassment and elements of abusive conduct.
“The training should specifically discuss the elements of ‘abusive conduct,’ including conduct undertaken with malice that a reasonable person would find hostile or offensive and that is not related to an employer’s legitimate business interests,” the amendments state. “Examples of abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”
Where employers have violated any California discrimination or harassment law, employees may be eligible to file a lawsuit against their employer.
Court Grants Class-Action Status to ERISA Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: A California District Court judge has granted class certification to a California ERISA lawsuit filed against Transamerica Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit, filed by Jaclyn Santomenno and others, alleged Transamerica charged excessive fees, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
According to court documents, Transamerica sells a 401(k) plan that is geared to small- and medium-size employers. That plan consists of a bundle of investment alternatives and administrative services. Employers who selected the plan package had 170 investment options from which the employers were able to select a smaller number to offer employees in their benefits package. They could either choose their own investments à la carte, or choose a pre-selected lineup.
That pre-selected lineup would qualify for Transamerica’s “Fiduciary Warranty,” according to court documents, which promises the investments meet ERISA’s “broad range of investments” requirement as well as its “prudent man standards.” Furthermore, if employers face a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit from employees related to the plan, Transamerica reportedly promised to indemnify the employer and make the plan whole.
Each investment option in the plan is a separate account, the lawsuit states, and each separate account is linked to an underlying investment. Some of those accounts are traded by investment managers who are not affiliated with Transamerica. Transamerica, the lawsuit alleges, charges fees for most of the accounts, even accounts the company does not provide any services for.
Plaintiffs allege fees charged by Transamerica are excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary, breaching fiduciary duty under ERISA. Further breaching fiduciary duty, the lawsuit claims, Transamerica did not use its considerable weight to invest in the lowest price share class of mutual funds. Finally, the lawsuit alleges that Transamerica affiliates knowingly made transactions that are prohibited under ERISA.
In the first motion for class-action status, Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied class certification. Plaintiffs submitted a second motion for class certification, which the judge granted. In granting the motion, the judge noted that the class potentially includes 300,000 participants in around 7,400 plans, and found there were similar questions of law faced by each of the proposed class members.
“What makes the fees excessive, Plaintiffs explain, is the rates charged by TIM [Transamerica Investment Management] and TAM [Transamerica Asset Management] to outside clients, which are considerably lower than the fees charged to TLIC plans,” Judge Pregerson wrote in his decision.
The lawsuit is Jaclyn Santomenno et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, et al., Case number 2:12-cv-02782, filed in US District Court, Central District of California.
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:
