$200 million collected for our clients. No matter what type of employment law dispute you may be facing, you can feel confident that your case is in the capable hands of a skilled attorney with the commitment to see that your interests are protected.
Click the title for each section to learn more:
On July 27, 2011, a former employee of Citrix Systems Inc. (Citrix) filed a lawsuit seeking to represent the following classes of current and former exempt employees of Citrix who worked in California at any time from July 27, 2007, to the present, as follows: (1) those who are, have been or will be employed within the functional area that Citrix currently labels "Product Development/Engineering" (or any previous/future name of this functional area), including employees who worked in manufacturing, testing, documenting and/or troubleshooting computer products or similar products; and (2) those who performed work on manufacturing, designing or testing computer hardware and were paid a fixed salary ("Computer Hardware Class"). The lawsuit alleges that Citrix failed to pay overtime, failed to timely pay wages, failed to provide accurate itemized statements and engaged in unfair business practices (including failing to provide meal periods and rest periods).
Your rights may be affected by a potential class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court, Southern Division, Case No. SACV 11-01121 DOC (RNBx).
On Feb. 9, 2012, a former employee of Cisco Consumer Products, LLC, filed an amended lawsuit seeking to represent a class of current and former exempt employees of Cisco who worked in California at any time from Dec. 9, 2007, to the present in support positions, such as support engineer, escalation manager, product support specialist, customer relationship management analyst and similarly titled positions in information technology. The lawsuit alleges that Cisco failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods and failed to provide accurate itemized statements. The lawsuit further charges that Cisco misclassified employees holding the aforementioned positions in the performance of their primary duties under their designated job titles.
Putative class positions: All account representatives/inside salespeople paid on a commission basis only
On May 14, 2013, a former account representative filed a lawsuit seeking to represent a class of current and former inside sales employees of Monex Deposit Co. who worked in California from May 14, 2009, to the present. The lawsuit's primary allegation is that the defendant failed to provide timely meal periods, failed to provide or compensate for rest periods and failed to pay all wages.
The main premise of the plaintiffs' theory of liability centers on the defendant's alleged failure to properly compensate its account representatives for all hours worked. In California, there is an exemption to overtime compensation for employees who get paid commission only. The exemption inside sales does not apply unless the salesperson makes more than 1½ times the minimum wage and more than half of that employee's compensation represents commissions.
California law also requires rest breaks to be paid by an employer. The issue of whether time spent on rest breaks should have been compensated separately from commissions or other incentive-based compensation systems is to be addressed in this case.
The Class Definition:
The plaintiffs propose to certify the following class: All persons who: (i) are employed or have been employed in California as account representatives and/or inside salespeople for defendant Monex Deposit Co. from May 14, 2009, to the present.
If you performed work as an account representative doing inside sales calls for Monex Deposit Co. between May 14, 2009, to the present, your rights may be affected by this class action lawsuit that is now pending.
On Nov. 10, 2011, a former employee of Novellus Systems Inc. (Novellus) filed a lawsuit seeking to represent a class of current and former exempt employees of Novellus who worked in California in any engineering position regardless of title at any time from Nov. 10, 2007, to the present in engineering positions that is owed overtime under California law. The lawsuit alleges that Novellus failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods and failed to provide accurate itemized statements. The lawsuit further charges that Novellus misclassified employees holding engineering titles or derivatives of any engineering titles who in the performance of their primary duties (based on the job description, the day-to-day duties, the employees' qualifying skill sets for the professional and computer programmer exemptions, and the realistic expectations which in truth are inconsistent with the job requirements) are owed overtime.
Class definition from complaint: The proposed class plaintiff seeks to represent, sometimes referred to herein as the "class members," is presently defined as follows: all employees of any of the defendants who are, have been or will be employed in any California location owned or operated by any of the defendants in any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the defendants [as defined above][engineering positions] or any similar derivative title that is better defined by a "skill set" that describes realistic descriptions and expectations of the duties performed by THE CLASS or subclasses; and, that were so employed during the period of time covered by the statute of limitations applicable to the particular cause of action in which the terms "class members" or "class" appear, including periods of time during which the statute of limitations was or may have been tolled or suspended.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 03, 2013, on behalf of all individuals who were employed by CELL-CRETE CORP. or "defendant." Plaintiff alleged that CELL-CRETE CORP. violated various wage-and-hour laws. More specifically, in their complaint, plaintiff (on behalf of himself and the class) alleged causes of action for 1. failure to pay overtime wages; 2. failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; 3. failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; and 4. violation of unfair competition law (B&P § 17200).
Employees have claimed the following:
- Defendants have had a consistent policy of not paying class members 1½ (1.5) times their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours the class members actually worked.
- Defendants have had a consistent policy of requiring class members in California, including plaintiff, to work at least five hours without a lawful meal period and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16-2001, in one or more of the following manners:
(a) employees were required to work through their daily meal period(s) or work an unlawful "on-duty meal period"
(b) employees were severely restricted in their ability to take a meal period
(c) employees were not allowed to leave the workplace during the alleged meal periods
(d) employees were required to "clock out" for a meal period that was not taken by class members or permitted by defendants.
- Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide class members in California, including plaintiff, rest periods of at least 10 minutes per four hours worked or major fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws, in one or more of the following manners:
(a) employees were required to work without being provided a minimum 10-minute rest period for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and were not compensated one hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided
(b) employees were neither permitted nor authorized to take lawful rest periods.
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange
Plaintiff was employed as a "commissioned salesperson" or "sales associate." His primary duties included, among other things, maintaining a constant awareness of all golf and tennis product knowledge, technology, merchandise promotions, demo merchandise and sales advertisements.
Plaintiff's complaint also alleged: (1) failure to pay wages, commissions and bonuses; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; (3) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions (Labor Code §§ 226); and (4) unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to include a claim under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code §2698 et seq.).
On July 1, 2010, the parties were able to reach a fair compromise and proposed settlement of this matter and finalized their agreement.
On June 26, 2013 a former employee filed a lawsuit seeking to represent a class of current and former employees of NP Mechanical who worked in California in any installation, non-exempt positions, and similarly situated positions, from June 26, 2009 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that NP Mechanical failed to pay its non-managerial, non-exempt employees working as installers and service employees in NP Mechanical's air conditioning and plumbing units. Plaintiff complained that NP Mechanical did not pay all due wages, including overtime, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to timely pay wages to employees at the time of separation from NP Mechanical, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and implemented unfair business practices.
We have discovered in our ongoing investigation that NP Mechanical has failed to pay its non-managerial, non-exempt employees for all wages due and failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks, among other unlawful labor practices.
The violations alleged in the lawsuit are not unique in the engineering and construction industry. Regardless of whether or not your specific job title was listed in the aforementioned lawsuit or you are currently employed by one of NP Mechanical's competitors, if you have questions regarding whether your employer properly compensated you for your wages or properly provided meal and rest breaks, contact us for a FREE CONSULTATION.
ALL current and former employees, regardless of job titles and/or descriptions, of NP Mechanical who weren't properly paid for all wages including overtime, or were not provided with proper meal and rest breaks should inquire about their legal rights. You may contact us anonymously and your privacy is assured. You may also contact us to receive case status or limited case status. You may also contact one of the individuals below if you believe you are a class member or wish to assist in our investigation by providing information regarding your experience at NP Mechanical.
The co-owners, Yaowapha Ritdet and Steve Walter, are being held both individually and jointly liable for Labor Code violations found at their two establishments: WT Yupin Inc., doing business as Walter Café, and Yupin Inc., doing business as Ruen Tong Thai Cuisine.
"Wage theft is a very serious problem," said Christine Baker, director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). "Not only does it affect workers who have been cheated out of hard-earned pay, but the vast majority of business owners who treat their employees respectfully get undercut by this unfair and illegal practice." The Labor Commissioner's Office, also known as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, is a division of DIR.
"The extraordinary amount of wages assessed at these two restaurants goes to show that if unchecked for too long, wage theft is highly detrimental to workers, and the competitive advantage gained relative to law-abiding employers is significant, harming the entire business community," said Labor Commissioner Su.
Based on a joint investigation by the Labor Commissioner's office and the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL), the state found that during the three-year period from June 19, 2010, through June 15, 2013, workers of the two restaurants regularly worked at least 11.5 hours a day, six or up to seven days a week with no meal breaks, no minimum wage for all the hours worked and no overtime premium pay as required by law. Additionally, some workers were forced to sign time cards containing falsified information stating they had only worked between five and six hours each day while others were paid in cash with no information on the total hours worked, rate of pay or deductions provided.
"It's disappointing to see workers at popular local restaurants being exploited," said Ruben Rosalez, regional administrator in the west of the U.S. DOL's Wage and Hour Division, which is collaborating on the case. "We value this opportunity to work with our state colleagues to fully address both the state and federal labor violations that the servers and back-of-the-house employees at the restaurants have endured." Department of Industrial Relations Release No.13-57 Page 2. He added that in cases where the department finds evidence of intentional payroll falsification, it may seek liquidated damages equal to the unpaid wages and may also assess penalties.
The 47 workers are due $1,086,435.79 in unpaid minimum wage, $376,640.31 in unpaid overtime and $153,582.41 for no meal period premiums. In addition, a total of $189,250 as civil penalties was assessed for violating the minimum wage and overtime laws and for not providing workers the required wage statements, which shall contain accurate information regarding their rate of pay and hours actually worked.
Labor Commissioner Su said, "We are proud of our partnership with the U.S. DOL to maximize our enforcement capabilities and appreciate their efforts in this joint investigation."
Among its wide-ranging enforcement responsibilities, the Labor Commissioner's office inspects workplaces for wage and hour violations, adjudicates wage claims, enforces prevailing wage rates and apprenticeship standards in public works projects, investigates retaliation complaints, issues licenses and registrations for businesses and educates the public on labor laws.
The most recent information related to California labor laws is available on the DLSE website as well as on Facebook and Twitter pages. Employees with work-related questions or complaints may call the toll-free California Workers' Information Line at 866-924-9757 for recorded information in English and Spanish.
On July 1, 2011, former delivery drivers filed a lawsuit seeking to represent a class of current and former independent contractor drivers whom they allege are misclassified as independent contractors and whom should be classified as nonexempt employees of Beavex, Contractors Management Services Inc. or JNJW Enterprises Inc. who worked in California from July 1, 2007, to the present. The lawsuit's primary allegation is that the defendants failed to pay its workers overtime, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to timely pay wages to employees at the time of separation from Accenture, failed to provide accurate itemized statements, and implemented unfair business practices.
The main premise of the plaintiffs' theory of liability centers on the defendants' alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants employed these drivers under the IWC's definition, which has three alternative definitions of employment. Employment means: (a) to exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship." See Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 35, 64.
THE CLASS DEFINITION:
The plaintiffs propose to certify the following class: "All natural persons classified as independent contractors who signed contracts with Beavex, Inc., Contractors Management Services, Inc., or JNJW Enterprises, Inc., and personally performed pick-up or delivery work for BeavEx, Inc., in the State of California between July 1, 2007 to the present time."
If you performed work as a driver for Beavex between July 1, 2007, to the present and were deemed an independent contractor, your rights may be affected by this class action lawsuit that is now pending.
We have discovered from our ongoing investigation that the defendants were aware that all drivers in the proposed class were performing deliveries for their customers and permitted them to perform that work because the defendants assigned that work to them and verified that they did it. In addition, the defendants directly and/or indirectly exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions of these drivers by paying each of the drivers in the proposed class to do the work, controlling the routes and timing of deliveries, and performing audits to ensure protocol of its customers were being met by the drivers.
Plaintiff filed this action on Sept. 03, 2010, on behalf of all individuals who were employed by B&V Enterprises Inc., doing business as SUPER KING MARKETS (as "B&V ENTERPRISES, INC." or "SUPER KING" or "Defendant.") Plaintiff alleged that B&V ENTERPRISES violated various wage-and-hour laws. More specifically, in their complaint, the plaintiff (on behalf of himself and the class) alleged causes of action for (i) failure to pay wages; (ii) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (iii) failure to provide rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (iv) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees; (v) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; and (vi) violations of the unfair competition law.
- Legal Analysis: Counsel for both parties conducted substantial legal research on the significant issues involved in this litigation, including specifically the judicial trend toward a "provide" versus "ensure" meal period standard and class certification issues. Counsel in this case also spent considerable effort staying abreast of nearly every appellate determination on these issues and has engaged in discourse with other wage and hour class action counsel throughout California regarding the legal issues in this case.
On Sept. 28, 2011, the parties informally resolved all disputes between them.