AT&T Faces California Labor Lawsuit

Los Angeles, CA AT&T faces a California labor lawsuit alleging violations of state and federal labor laws. The lawsuit was filed in California court on behalf of training specialists, who allege they were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor law. The lawsuit is just the latest to be filed alleging California employers violate California state labor laws in their treatment of employees.

The lawsuit (Walton v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03716, in the US District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division) was filed on behalf of AT&T training specialists and delivery workers in California and across the US. Plaintiffs allege they were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay and therefore were denied overtime wages that they were entitled to.

“Pursuant to a centralized, company-wide policy, pattern, and/or practice, AT&T has unlawfully classified Plaintiff and other Training Specialists as exempt from overtime payments under federal and state laws, despite the fact that they should have been classified as nonexempt,” the lawsuit alleges (as found in court documents). As such, training specialists were not paid for all hours worked, including time above 40 hours in a week. The plaintiff alleges AT&T

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that AT&T did not keep accurate work records.

The named plaintiff, Wendell Walton, alleges he was employed by AT&T from July 2000 through the present and worked as a Senior Training Manager Design. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, Walton claims he was not paid for any hours in excess of 40.

The lawsuit refers to AT&T’s practices as “widespread, repeated, and consistent.” Plaintiffs seek damages, including liquidated damages, a declaratory judgment that the practices are unlawful, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Under state and federal law, all non-exempt employees must be paid for overtime hours worked. Employees who are eligible for overtime pay but are misclassified as exempt are able to file a lawsuit to recover unpaid wages.

According to The Associated Press (4/28/15), AT&T also faces a $100 million discrimination lawsuit after a president at the company was found to have been using his work phone to send racist texts.

Summer Intern? Maybe You Should Be Getting Paid

Los Angeles, CA Increasingly, unpaid interns are reporting that they are treated as unpaid employees and their employers are violating California labor laws and the FLSA (Wages and Fair Labor Standards Act).

Caregivers Still Waiting for California Overtime

Los Angeles, CA Charlene quit her job as a retail supervisor to look after her mother who requires care 24/7. “I don’t have any savings or other means of income so I was counting on a fair wage and California overtime when the IHSS kicked in this past January,” says Charlene.

The California In-Home Supportive Services program (IHSS) was put on hold mid-January by the Brown administration due to a judge striking down federal regulations that would have allowed the change nationwide, according to the Sacramento Business Journal. So about 400,000 workers are now in limbo: they will continue to be paid an hourly wage from 2014 and will have to wait for any overtime compensation.

“My mother has physical and mental disabilities and can’t be left alone,” Charlene explains,” but I am not about to put her into a long-term nursing facility where she will waste away.” If and when the Brown administration’s decision to deny California overtime is overturned, paying caregivers a fair wage and overtime would still save the government a huge amount of money.

If Charlene did place her mother in a skilled nursing facility, the annual cost is more than $65,000. According to a 2012-13 report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the annual cost for someone with an average number of IHSS hours is closer to $13,000.

“In addition to making $9 per hour and working about 14 hours a day without overtime pay, my checks are constantly delayed, even though I have direct deposit set up,” says Charlene. “The inconsistency of receiving my paychecks has caused me to pay interest on my monthly expense bills and extra bank charges. And stress. This whole system is so unfair and legal action is the only place where I can turn.”

According to responses (mostly women) from a PayScale salary survey, caregivers in the Los Angeles area receive an average pay of $9.96 per hour. Earnings can vary between $8.10 per hour and $16.48. Only one in eight respondents receives medical and dental coverage.

Dana (not her real name) typically works 13 or 14 hours a day, also without any overtime pay. She has been employed as a caregiver by 123Home Care for the past two years. “When the company hired me I agreed to $11 per hour with overtime after working more than 9 hours a day, or 45 hours per week,” says Dana. She is still waiting for overtime pay.

“The family I work for cut back on the nurse visits - from once a day to twice a week, but their mother is getting worse. I wound up working 70 hours one week up until a few months ago, when I reduced my schedule to 55 hours a week,” Dana explains. “I contacted my employer at 123Home Care regarding overtime pay. He told me that my regular pay rate is reduced because I work more than 12 hours a day and the balance is paid to me in overtime. I was never told that during orientation and I believe this company is violating California labor laws and the FLSA (Wages and Fair Labor Standards Act).

Charlene and Dana were hopeful this past March when President Obama said that his administration would soon announce the details of a reform to overtime rules nationwide. “What we’ve seen is, increasingly, companies skirting basic overtime laws, calling somebody a manager when they’re stocking groceries and getting paid $30,000 a year,” President Obama told the The Huffington Post in an interview. “Those folks are being cheated.”

More than 400,000 caregivers anticipate Brown’s ruling to be overturned on appeal. With $183.6 million in the current state budget and $314.2 million in Brown’s proposed 2015-16 state budget, clearly the money is there to pay Charlene and Dana and countless other workers the overtime pay they are entitled to. Given the cost of nursing homes and other care facilities, it would be a win-win situation for all…

For more information, here is the court ruling.

Stryker/Howmedica Agree to $3 Million California Labor Law Settlement

San Francisco, CA A labor class action rooted in California labor law has proven successful for plaintiffs following the announcement of a settlement between class participants and defendants Howmedica and Stryker. The settlement is worth $3 million.

According to court documents, lead plaintiff Tanner Trosper took exception to the fact that Stryker and Howmedica failed to reimburse sales associates for expenses such as mileage, telephone costs and other business expenses. Trosper, who worked as a sales representative for Howmedica from November 2008 through May 2011, held that such failure to pay business expenses was a violation of the California labor code and unfair competition laws observed by the state.

Trosper launched his California labor lawsuit class action in February 2013. The two sides in the dispute first met for mediation in February of last year, but were too far apart. Stryker also moved for summary judgment in the California labor employment law case, claiming that class members were employed by Howmedica of New Jersey and thus had nothing to do with Stryker. However, Stryker’s petition to the court failed when US District Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that Stryker’s ties to Howmedica extended to matters of employment.

The California and labor law settlement would see 134 class participants paid an average gross payment of $22,000 each. The settlement deal allows for an incentive award of $7,500 paid to Trosper, who worked for Howmedica in its Stryker craniomaxillofacial division. Howmedica was purchased by Stryker from Pfizer several years ago.

“The settlement represents a very favorable result for class members,” the parties said in their jointly filed motion. “Despite disagreement between the parties over the issue of liability and the amount of damages, the parties were ultimately able to reach an agreement that awards class members substantial sums.”

Howmedica had instituted various policy changes in 2011 and 2012 with regard to reimbursement of business expenses to sales associates. However, prior to those changes, Judge Koh ruled there was sufficient evidence of a “blanket policy” of not reimbursing sales representatives - a violation of California employee labor law - thus allowing the class action to move forward. Class certification was granted on May 27 of last year.

In 2012, a settlement in a separate action was reached between Stryker and employees in its endoscopy, communications and instrument divisions over business expenses and reimbursement protocols. That settlement was worth $4.25 million.

The most recent case alleging an affront to California state labor laws is Tanner Trosper v. Stryker Corporation, case number 5:13-cv-00607 in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Subsidiary of Kaiser Permanente Hit with Overtime Pay Laws Class Action

San Diego, CA A class-action overtime pay lawsuit has been filed against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. alleging senior systems administrators employed by the hospital(s) were purposefully misclassified in order to escape payment of overtime, as well as the issuance of meal breaks and other rest periods mandated by California overtime law and other employment statutes for non-management personnel.

Employees in the state of California who reach an earnings plateau, or who are working at a management job and thus paid an annual salary, are usually exempt from overtime pay: the thought being, a job commanding such a high rate of pay requires, from time to time, that extra hours should be expected and tolerated as necessary, without the need for additional compensation.

Some employers, however, have attempted to skirt around this by incorrectly classifying non-management personnel as exempt, in an effort to save dollars.

The overtime pay laws class action, filed in California in March, alleges that Senior Systems Administrators employed by Kaiser spent the lion’s share of their days performing non-managerial tasks. Such tasks included, as alleged in court documents, the repair and replacement of personal computers and servers in Kaiser call centers, installations of software and operating systems, password resets and other tasks that are considered by the plaintiffs to be non-managerial in nature.

It is also alleged in the overtime laws class action that employees serving as Senior Systems Administrators did not supervise other employees of Kaiser, which is usually a function of management personnel and therefore exempt from overtime pay according to the provisions of California overtime law.

It is sometimes the case that an employer will hire an employee for a job that is meant to be managerial in nature, and thus would be exempt from overtime pay. However, if the majority of tasks performed by the employee are non-managerial, with no provision or opportunity to supervise others, then the management profile of the particular job is suspect.

The lawsuit did not specify what damages are being sought by plaintiffs in the California overtime law class action. The lawsuit also alleges unfair competition, and failure to provide accurate, itemized statements in accordance with California labor statutes.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc. is a subsidiary of Kaiser Permanente and boasts 30 wholly owned community hospitals throughout California, Hawaii and Oregon. Plaintiffs are seeking various unspecified damages and a trial by jury.

The overtime pay laws class-action lawsuit is Bernard Howard et al v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc., Case No. 37-2015-00008539-CU-OE-CTL, filed March 12 and currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California.

California Labor Lawsuit No Piece of Cake

Torrance, CA A California labor lawsuit has been filed against a Beverly Hills bakery, alleging violations of California labor laws. The lawsuit accuses the bakery’s owners of abusive behaviors, including failing to pay minimum wage or overtime, retaliation, and human trafficking.

According to court documents, the lawsuit was filed in March 2015 against L'Amande French Bakery, which is owned by Ana and Goncal Mointinho de Almeida and has locations in Beverly Hills and Torrance. Plaintiffs allege the defendants abused US immigration laws to get workers into the country, lied to workers to get them to the US and forced employees to work in “illegal, oppressive, and discriminatory conditions as domestic servants, physical laborers engaged in landscaping and building maintenance, and retail bakery workers doing a substantial amount of menial work at Defendant’s French bakeries.”

To keep employees in line, the defendants reportedly told the employees that if they did not work, they would each owe more than $11,000. Further, the lawsuit alleges the defendants threatened and intimidated employees into lying during a state labor enforcement agency investigation.

The plaintiffs allege they were told by the bakery’s owners that if they moved to the US from the Philippines, they would work as skilled bakery chefs and managers. Instead, they were put to work painting, cleaning and landscaping at a rental property for $2 an hour. Some workers were also forced to sleep on the floor in the Almeidas’ laundry room. Workers who were in the bakery were at first required to work 13 hours per day, seven days a week with no overtime and no sick days. The lawsuit alleges employees were paid as little as $3 an hour.

“To conceal evidence of these wage and hour violations, Defendants altered or destroyed the workers’ timecards and told them not to accurately report their actual time worked,” the lawsuit alleges. The defendants also isolated workers from each other and prevented them from speaking their native language. Employees were reportedly told if they worked for the bakery for three years, their $11,000 debt would be forgiven.

The plaintiffs allege that when they spoke out about their abuses they were retaliated against, including being fired or being written up.

Among the plaintiffs is a woman who said she was hired to be a nanny but spent less than 20 percent of her time on nanny duties and was instead forced into domestic servant roles.

The workers say they were all brought to the US under the E-2 visa process, which allows wealthy foreign nationals to bring foreign workers to the US to be engaged in executive or supervisory duties, or because of specialized skills essential to a company’s success.

Uber Faces More California Labor Claims

San Francisco, CA Following news of a California labor lawsuit filed against Uber for allegedly misclassifying its workers as independent contractors comes news of another lawsuit against the company alleging violations of California labor law. This new lawsuit, however, does not deal with employee pay or classification. Instead it alleges violations of California state labor laws requiring companies to properly protect employee information.

According to court documents, the lawsuit was filed on March 12, 2015 by Sasha Antman on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Uber drivers. The lawsuit alleges that Uber failed to properly secure and protect drivers’ personal information, including names, driver’s license numbers and other personal information, and further failed to warn drivers that their personal information had been stolen.

Antman alleges that starting in May 2014, someone accessed and downloaded Uber files containing drivers’ information. Uber reportedly did not warn drivers about the breach until February 27, 2015, despite allegedly knowing about the data breach “as early as September 17, 2014.” When it warned about the data breach, Uber noted that approximately 50,000 drivers across the US could have been affected.

The lawsuit alleges that the hacker used a security key that was publicly available on the Internet to access and steal the information. “In other words, Defendant not only permitted all of the compromised Private Information to be accessible via a single password, but allowed that password to be publicly accessible via the internet,” the lawsuit states. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that the private information was available unencrypted and easily accessible with a password.

Antman argues that Uber failed to take adequate measures to protect its data systems and failed to properly handle and store the password that protected drivers’ private information, resulting in it being compromised. The plaintiff also alleges that on June 2, 2014, an unauthorized person used his private information to apply for a credit card with Capital One, which has had an effect on his credit report.

“The ramifications of the Defendant’s failure to keep Class members’ data secure are severe,” the lawsuit argues. It also accuses Uber of having a lackadaisical, cavalier, reckless or negligent approach to securing driver information.

In addition to the lawsuit regarding protection of driver information, Uber also faces a lawsuit alleging it misclassified drivers as independent contractors when they were in fact employees. A judge has so far refused Uber’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The Uber data breach lawsuit is Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 15-1175, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Health Club to Settle California Employee Lawsuit

Hollywood, CA Equinox Holdings Inc. has agreed to pay up to $4 million to settle allegations that the company failed to provide proper overtime pay, meal and rest breaks for employees. Although that lawsuit has been tentatively settled, the company still faces allegations of violations of California overtime law, alleging it did not properly pay employees all required overtime pay. In 2014, the company paid $2.9 million to settle overtime wages and meal break violations.

According to reports, Equinox Holdings, which owns locations around California, has agreed to pay more than $4 million to settle lawsuits filed by employees who allege they were not properly paid or provided with meal breaks. Class members in the lawsuit, including massage therapists, nail technicians and aestheticians, will share in around $2.6 million, with the rest going to attorney’s fees, a payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and payments to the named plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, case number BC481860, was filed in 2012 and will see employees compensated for shifts worked from March 2008 to October 2014.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid properly for overtime because either non-commissionable time was not counted in daily hours worked or because the required minimum wage from non-commissionable hours was not included in the calculation.

Previously, the company agreed to pay $2.9 million to settle a lawsuit alleging Equinox did not properly pay its employees overtime and denied workers proper meal breaks. That lawsuit, Shirlene Leigh and Joanna Sheen v. Equinox Holdings Inc., case number BC463577, was filed in 2011 and alleged its membership sales advisers had been misclassified as exempt. The company also said it had reclassified the employees as non-exempt.

In that lawsuit, the membership sales advisers said they spent most of their time selling memberships and services rather than involved in exempt tasks.

According to Club Industry (2/23/15), Equinox still faces a lawsuit filed by Gavin Sykes, who alleges he was not properly paid for overtime, did not receive proper meal and rest breaks, and was subject to racial and sexual orientation discrimination. In his lawsuit, Sykes reportedly alleges that he was made operations administrator and was required to report labor violations but was told to alter time cards to make it appear that labor laws were being followed. Sykes alleges that when he refused to do so he was demoted and subjected to discrimination.

Sykes’ lawsuit also alleges wrongful termination.

California Labor Lawsuit Seeks to Distinguish Employees from Contractors

San Francisco, CA Yet another company involved in a California labor lawsuit is alleged to have misclassified its employees as subcontractors, denying them proper pay and breaks as owed to employees. Now, a judge has suggested he might agree with the workers, and deny a motion by the defendant to dismiss the California labor law claim.

The lawsuit involves workers who drive for Uber Technologies. The drivers perform a taxi-like service in which they pick up and drop off passengers who are sent to them via the Uber application. Plaintiffs allege Uber would not be able to perform business, nor would it make any money, without the drivers. Furthermore, they claim they must follow Uber’s requirements and can be fired from the company if they fail to do so.

Uber, however, alleges that the drivers are actually Uber customers who use the Uber application to have passengers sent to them. As such, they are not employees but clients and are therefore not subject to the same rights and protections as employees. In other words, Uber says it simply finds prospective passengers for the drivers, who are then free to accept the fare or not.

US District Judge Edward Chen seems to agree with the drivers, stating that he does not think Uber is simply a software platform that allows drivers to find potential fares. At issue is how much control Uber has over its drivers’ ability to earn a living, and how much autonomy the drivers have in carrying out their duties. According to Bloomberg (1/30/15), the judge noted that Uber determines how much money drivers are paid and has the ability to terminate them.

“[To grant Uber summary judgment], I would have to find that, viewing the facts in plaintiffs’ favor, drawing all reasonable subsidiary inferences in favor of the plaintiff, that no reasonable jury could conclude that the drivers are employees,” the judge noted (as seen in a transcript). “That’s a pretty tough standard to meet.” He went on to state that he believes the drivers are serving Uber and he noted that Uber exercises quality control.

“If [Uber is] only providing software, why would they be concerned with who’s buying it, whether they’re qualified, how they’re doing on the job?” the judge stated. “And why would they have control over the pricing, and whether to implement surge pricing or not, et cetera, et cetera… It sounds like a little more than just selling something on the app store.”

No ruling has been issued so far.

The lawsuit is O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al, case number 3:13-cv-03826 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Wal-Mart Hit with California Labor Lawsuit

Santa Ana, CA Arguably the largest retailer in North America has been hit with a California labor lawsuit by a pharmacist formerly employed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on behalf of all pharmacists employed by Wal-Mart across the country. At issue are allegations of missed rest periods and unpaid overtime, which is an affront to California Labor Law.

Named plaintiff Afrous Nikmanesh worked as a pharmacist with Wal-Mart from November 2003 through September 2014. In addition to the allegation of missed rest periods, Nikmanesh claims that the retailer did not pay him and other pharmacists in the class for time studying for and completing APhA Immunization Training Programs. Plaintiffs assert that such training “was directly related” to the responsibilities of a pharmacist.

The California labor code lawsuit was originally filed in Orange County Superior Court in December of last year. The case was removed to federal court February 6.

“There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact affecting the classes plaintiff seeks to represent,” the lawsuit said. “The class members’ claims against defendant involve questions of general or common interest, in that the claims are based on the defendant’s implementation and utilization of a policy under which [employees] ... did not receive any overtime compensation, minimum wage or any compensation whatsoever during the years in question.”

The California labor lawsuit seeks to represent current and former Wal-Mart employees who worked as pharmacists at Wal-Mart establishments across the US within the previous four years, according to the lawsuit.

California and labor law observes various state laws in concert with federal statutes under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that mandate rest breaks, meal periods and overtime for non-management employees. Employers have, in the past and currently, attempted to circumvent such regulations by improperly classifying hourly employees as managers, even though they perform few, if any management tasks.

Wal-Mart is easily one of the largest retailers in the country, with scores of locations across the greater US as well as Canada, in addition to the state of California.

The California labor lawsuit case is Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00202, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.