Wage And Hour Law

Gerardo Gutierrez filed a class action lawsuit against Fraiche Catering, Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging widespread violations of California labor laws. The complaint, filed on behalf of approximately 100 similarly situated employees, claimed the catering company misclassified workers as exempt to avoid paying overtime and minimum wages. Further allegations included the failure to provide mandated meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse employees for business expenses such as personal cell phone use, and the issuance of inaccurate wage statements. Fraiche Catering denied all allegations, asserting that employees were properly classified under California's Professional, Administrative, and Executive exemptions. The case concluded with a $175,000 settlement to resolve the claims.

Eric Harrold sued Spartan Education Group, an aeronautics and technology college in Riverside, California, for widespread wage and hour violations. The class action alleged the company failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, denied meal and rest breaks, issued inaccurate pay statements, and refused to reimburse workers for using personal cell phones. The case settled for $400,000.

Daniel Matthews filed a class action lawsuit against Lusk Quality Machine Products alleging the California manufacturer violated state labor laws by failing to pay minimum wages, denying meal and rest breaks, requiring off-the-clock work, and providing inaccurate wage statements. The case settled for $365,000, compensating affected non-exempt employees for wage theft and labor code violations during their employment at the CNC machining facility.

The Sacramento County Superior Court finalized a significant labor and employment case, Naveen Prasad v. RCG Logistics LLC, with a total settlement of $552,795. The lawsuit, brought as a class action, centered on RCG Logistics' systematic failure to comply with California’s strict labor laws, specifically regarding pay calculation and workplace accommodation. The primary financial claims revolved around the company’s practice of paying employees incentive commission payments (ICPs) without incorporating them into the "regular rate of pay." This failure resulted in the underpayment of overtime, sick leave, and meal and rest period premiums for the entire class. The plaintiff further asserted the company denied workers proper meal and rest breaks, and failed to reimburse them for business-related cell phone expenses. Beyond the class claims, Mr. Prasad included individual claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He alleged that after he requested a reasonable accommodation for his Autism Spectrum Disorder (auditory sensitivity), a manager refused to maintain the necessary accommodation and the company terminated him shortly thereafter. Although RCG Logistics denied all wrongdoing, the parties ultimately negotiated the six-figure settlement, which the court approved, bringing the high-stakes litigation to a close.

The San Diego Superior Court concluded a major labor dispute, Natasha Le v. Independent Options, Inc., which centered on systematic violations of California's strict wage and hour laws. Plaintiff Natasha Le brought the lawsuit as a class action and a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim, asserting that the company had failed to provide legally mandated meal and rest periods to a large group of employees. The core claims alleged that Independent Options, Inc. had neglected to ensure employees received their full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks and 10-minute rest periods, resulting in unpaid premium wages. Further allegations included the company's failure to provide accurate wage statements and its refusal to reimburse workers for necessary business expenses, such as the use of personal phones for work. The plaintiff's counsel, Capstone Law APC, contended that these practices constituted willful wage theft and unfair business practices. Independent Options, Inc. denied the allegations, asserting that it had complied with all applicable labor codes. However, before the case proceeded to trial, the parties reached a negotiated settlement. In August 2024, Judge Blake K. Bowman approved the final settlement agreement, which required the defendant to pay a total of $750,000 to resolve all claims from the class members and the state (for PAGA penalties). The final judgment represented a complete resolution to the high-stakes class action litigation.

Kim Marie Schlosser, an Inventory Associate, filed a representative action against Retail Services WIS Corp alleging the global inventory company violated California labor laws through systematic underpayment of overtime wages, failure to pay sick leave at proper rates, denial of meal and rest periods, and inaccurate wage statements. The company denied all allegations and raised 27 affirmative defenses. The parties settled for $893,754.

Andrea Sosa, a former hourly employee of Bank of America, filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging the bank violated California labor laws. The complaint claimed remote workers completed lengthy VPN login procedures before clocking in without compensation. Sosa also alleged the bank rounded time punches to benefit the employer, failed to include bonus pay when calculating overtime rates, and did not reimburse employees for using personal internet and cell phones for work. Bank of America denied all allegations and raised 42 affirmative defenses. The parties reached a $4,400,000 settlement resolving claims on behalf of current and former hourly non-exempt employees throughout California.

A former machine operator secured a $592,500 class action settlement against South Coast Circuits, Inc. and Royal Flex Circuits, Inc., two Orange County printed circuit board manufacturers. The lawsuit alleged the companies violated California labor laws by denying workers legally required meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, and using a timekeeping system that rounded hours in the employer's favor.

The class action lawsuit Cranton vs. Grossmont Hospital Corporation had exposed widespread wage-and-hour violations affecting thousands of non-exempt employees from 2018 to 2024. Plaintiffs Jacquelyn Cranton and Katrena Arnold had alleged that Grossmont Hospital required off-the-clock work, interrupted meal breaks, denied rest breaks, rounded time in the hospital’s favor, and excluded incentive pay from overtime calculations. Employees also had completed mandatory COVID-19 screenings before clocking in, which the hospital had not treated as compensable time. Cranton had also reported retaliation after raising break violations and safety concerns. The defense denied wrongdoing and argued employee choice, preemption, and constitutional challenges. After extensive negotiations with mediator Jeffrey Ross, the parties had reached a $5,950,000 class settlement, which the Court approved on August 9, 2024. The Court had found the agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate, noting high participation and zero objections.

The lawsuit brought by Kayla Vitela against Sizzling Platter, LLC and its Wingstop-affiliated entities centered on alleged statewide wage and hour violations affecting a large group of employees. Filed under the Private Attorneys General Act, the case claimed that workers were denied proper meal and rest breaks, given inaccurate wage statements, owed unpaid final wages, and left without reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The employer denied all allegations, but the risk of mounting penalties across numerous employees pushed the parties toward mediation. The action concluded with a $1.3 million settlement covering civil penalties, employee restitution, and substantial attorney fees, marking a significant outcome in favor of the aggrieved workers.

A years-long wage and hour class action, Geierman v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. (20CV361771), concluded in Santa Clara County with a $945,391 settlement benefiting thousands of current and former workers. The lawsuit alleged that the delivery company and its HR partner failed to provide lawful meal and rest breaks, misrecorded work hours, and issued non-compliant wage statements. Jennifer Geierman, representing the class, argued that systemic timekeeping and scheduling practices denied employees wages and penalties owed under California labor laws. The Defendants denied wrongdoing, asserting that employees controlled their breaks and that policies complied with state requirements. After extensive discovery and mediation, the parties reached a global settlement that compensates workers and mandates key operational changes, including updated timekeeping systems and clearer break policies. The resolution closes a major employment dispute in California’s gig-economy labor landscape.

American Freight Management Company LLC resolved a wage-and-hour class action in Sacramento Superior Court by agreeing to a $398,620 settlement that compensated employees for unpaid overtime, missed meal breaks, and inaccurate wage statements. The case involved managers and hourly workers who said the company failed to include nondiscretionary bonuses in overtime rates, routinely delayed meal periods, and issued pay stubs that did not show correct hours or earnings. After extensive discovery, mediation, and class certification, both sides settled before trial. The agreement brought closure to claims stretching back to 2018 and delivered financial relief to affected workers across the company’s California retail locations.