Circuit Board Workers Win $592K Wage Theft Class Settlement

Case Background

A former machine operator filed a class action lawsuit against two printed circuit board manufacturers in Orange County, California. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately March 2017 until August 2021, when she sustained an injury. She alleged that the companies violated multiple California labor laws affecting her and other non-exempt employees at the manufacturing facilities.

Cause

The lawsuit centered on claims that the Defendants systematically failed to comply with California wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff alleged that the companies denied workers their legally required meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, and maintained a timekeeping system that shortchanged employees. According to the complaint, the Defendants rounded employee time entries in a manner that consistently favored the company, resulting in workers losing compensation over time.

Injury

The Plaintiff and proposed class members suffered financial harm through unpaid wages. Workers allegedly missed meal periods because work demands prevented them from taking breaks, and their meal breaks often started after the fifth hour of work rather than before. Employees who worked shifts longer than ten hours reportedly did not receive their required second meal periods. The rest period violations followed a similar pattern, with workers allegedly authorized only one rest break per shift regardless of how long they worked. The faulty timekeeping practices allegedly caused employees to lose minimum wage and overtime compensation they had earned.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiff sought premium pay for missed meal and rest periods, unpaid minimum and overtime wages, waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages at separation, wage statement penalties for inaccurate pay stubs, and restitution under California's unfair competition law. The lawsuit also requested prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: Veronica Lucatero Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

·       Counsel for Plaintiff: Haines Law Group, APC (Paul K. Haines | Sean M. Blakely | Alexandra R. McIntosh | Bianca V. Perez)

Defendants: South Coast Circuits, Inc. | Royal Flex Circuits, Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendants: Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP

Claims

Meal Period Violations: The Plaintiff argued that Defendants failed to provide legally compliant meal periods. Workers allegedly could not take breaks due to work demands, received late meal periods that started after five hours of work, and missed second meal periods on shifts exceeding ten hours. The Defendants allegedly maintained no system to pay premium wages when meal periods were missed.

Rest Period Violations: The complaint alleged that Defendants failed to authorize and permit all required rest breaks. Employees who worked shifts longer than six hours often received only one rest period, regardless of shift length. Workers on shifts exceeding ten hours allegedly did not receive their third required rest break.

Minimum Wage Violations: The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants used a timekeeping system that rounded employee hours in a manner favorable to the company. This rounding practice allegedly deprived workers of pay for all hours actually worked.

Overtime Wage Violations: The same timekeeping practices allegedly caused employees to lose overtime pay. Workers who put in more than eight hours per day or forty hours per week did not receive proper overtime compensation due to the rounding system.

Waiting Time Penalties: The Plaintiff alleged that former employees did not receive all wages owed at the time of their separation from the company. California law requires employers to pay all final wages immediately upon discharge or within 72 hours if an employee quits.

Wage Statement Penalties: The complaint stated that Defendants provided inaccurate wage statements that did not reflect all hours worked and wages earned. These deficient pay stubs allegedly prevented employees from identifying discrepancies in their pay.

Unfair Competition: The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants' labor practices gave them an unfair competitive advantage over businesses that complied with California wage and hour laws.

Defense

The Defendants' specific arguments were not detailed in the available complaint filing. However, the case proceeded through litigation and ultimately resolved through settlement rather than trial, suggesting the parties engaged in negotiations regarding the alleged violations.

Settlement

The parties reached a settlement agreement valued at $592,500. This resolution compensated the Plaintiff and class members for their claims without the need for a jury trial. The settlement covered the various wage and hour violations alleged in the complaint, including unpaid meal and rest period premiums, minimum wage shortfalls, overtime deficiencies, waiting time penalties, and wage statement violations. The class consisted of current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendants during the relevant time periods specified in the complaint.

The case demonstrated the potential liability employers face when meal and rest period policies fail to meet California's strict requirements. The settlement allowed both parties to avoid the uncertainty and expense of a full trial while providing compensation to affected workers.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com