Wage And Hour Law

In Carlos Miramontes v. Green Wall Tech, Inc., a former hourly employee filed a representative action in Alameda County Superior Court alleging systemic violations of the California Labor Code. The lawsuit claimed that Green Wall Tech forced employees to perform off-the-clock work, including mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings and health questionnaires, without compensation. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that the company failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods or pay the required premium wages for interrupted breaks. Despite a formal answer denying all allegations and asserting various immunities , the defendants agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve the claims and statutory penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

In Gzim Kovacevic v. Pure Wafer, Inc., a non-exempt employee filed a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) alleging systemic labor violations at a Santa Clara County facility. The lawsuit claimed that Pure Wafer required staff to undergo mandatory, off-the-clock COVID-19 screenings before shifts without compensation. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleged that the company failed to provide duty-free meal and rest periods or pay the required premium wages for interrupted breaks. Following the filing of the complaint in the Superior Court of California, the parties resolved the matter through a settlement of $225,585, covering unpaid wages and statutory penalties for the aggrieved workforce.

Jorge Solis Flores, a former employee of the renowned apple juice manufacturer S. Martinelli & Company, spearheaded a class-action lawsuit that exposed systemic payroll failures within the historic California brand. The litigation alleged that Martinelli failed to include performance bonuses and shift differentials when calculating the "regular rate of pay" for overtime and sick leave, a common but illegal practice that shortchanges hourly workers. Furthermore, the suit claimed that employees were frequently denied their legally mandated meal and rest periods without receiving the required premium pay. Facing a class of hundreds of current and former workers, Martinelli ultimately agreed to a $1,650,000 settlement to resolve the claims of labor code violations and unfair business practices. This recovery ensures that workers are retroactively compensated for the wages and penalties they were denied during their service to the company.

The University of San Francisco finalized a $3.8 million settlement to resolve claims that the institution systematically underpaid its non-exempt workforce. Former employees Dan Beck and Bienvenida Salazar led the class action, alleging the university had failed to calculate overtime rates correctly and denied staff mandatory rest periods. After years of legal maneuvering in San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Ethan P. Schulman approved the multimillion-dollar payout to compensate hundreds of affected workers for lost wages and legal penalties.

On April 17, 2025, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted final approval for a class action settlement between plaintiffs Marina Durham and Cassandra Hall-LePrevost and defendant Steak 48 Beverly Hills, LLC. The litigation, which consolidated two separate complaints, alleged that the high-end dining establishment engaged in systematic labor violations, including the failure to authorize required rest periods and meal breaks, and the failure to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked. The plaintiffs, representing a class of non-exempt employees who worked at the restaurant between November 20, 2019, and June 27, 2024, also claimed the employer failed to reimburse business expenses related to uniform cleaning and provided inaccurate wage statements. Under the terms of the agreement, Steak 48 will pay a Gross Settlement Amount of $252,000 to resolve the claims without admitting liability. The settlement also includes $25,000 in PAGA penalties and attorney fees for class counsel.

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.