wage and hour lawsuit

Three Businessmen Arrested for Wage Theft in Orange County

May 18, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

It is a sad fact some unscrupulous employers will stop at nothing to make money, even when that involves taking advantage of their hardworking employees. According to a recent news article from Orange County Breeze, three employers were recently arrested and charged with stealing wages from their employees on a public works project.

Authorities say one businessman has been charged with four felony counts of conspiracy to take employee wages earned during a public works project, over 30 counts of taking employee wages on a public works project, 20 felony counts of tax evasion, 4 counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, and an additional 10 counts of conspiracy to file false or counterfeited documents. Continue Reading ›

Many California Employees Earn Less Today Than in 1979

May 7, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

According to a recent report in the LA Times, many of California’s lowest paid workers actually earn less than similarly situated workers in 1979. The article focuses on a study from University of California Berkeley, which found a significant increase in income inequality in California beginning the in 1970s.

Researchers determined employees and independent contractors who earned the least amount of income in the 1970s have faced the harshest decreases in average wages in the last 40 years, when adjusting for inflation. On the other hand, the highest paid workers in the 1970s have realized the largest increases in wages, when adjusting for inflation.

While some may argue about the manner in which inflation adjustment is calculated, it is necessary to make any legitimate comparison of income differences over a period of four decades. This is no different when comparing gross box office revenue of a classic movie made at a time when it cost 25 cents to purchase a ticket to today’s ticket prices as high as $20. Continue Reading ›

Minimum Wages Increase for California Food Service Employees

May 5, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

California restaurant employees who earn tips, such as servers, bartenders, hosts, and server assistants, are in some ways more fortunate than those who do the same job in most other states around the nation.

In most states, there is a minimum wage for hourly employees and a much lower minimum wage for workers who make most of their income from tips. For example, in South Carolina, an employee working a retail job is entitled to federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. An employee at a local chain restaurant waiting tables is entitled to only $2.13 per hour from their employer, as long as they earn more than that in tips. If no customers came in one day, and a server earned less than $2.13 per hour, employer would be required to pay the difference between $2.13 and $7.25 per hour after employees tips are applied towards the deficiency. Continue Reading ›

California Wage and Hour Law May Put Brakes on Uber, Lyft

April 13, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Two federal judges in California have ruled that it should be up to a jury to decide whether drivers for on-demand ride serves Lyft and Uber should be classified as independent contractors or employees.

The reason it matters is because if the drivers are in fact employees, the companies have been misclassifying them, and in term denying them important employment benefits, such as workers’ compensation, unemployment, minimum wage and overtime. They also aren’t reimbursed for gas or car maintenance expenses.

Lawsuits filed against both companies in California are pursuing a request to obtain class action status.

Adams v. ActionLink LLC – Wage and Hour Dispute Settlements Should be Reviewed by Lawyer

April 10, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

When wage-and-hour disputes are investigated by state or federal authorities, there may be a finding of wrongdoing and the company may agree to settle the matter with the government, in an effort to avoid litigation. However, workers may be free to pursue additional litigation, assuming they didn’t sign away their rights by cashing the check offered in the settlement.

That’s what nearly happened in the recent case of Adams v. Action Link, LLC, reviewed recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The case reveals why it’s so imperative for workers in this situation to have the settlement agreement reviewed by a lawyer before signing and/or cashing the check. They may be signing away rights to additional compensation by doing so.

Here, according to court records, the Department of Labor launched an investigation into the labor practices of a marketing company after receiving a complaint alleging the firm was mis-classifying some workers as non-exempt and failing to pay them the overtime they were due.

McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs. – Motor Carrier Act Exemption to Overtime

March 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

One of the ways companies frequently attempt to skirt overtime wage laws is to wrongly classify workers as exempt. They may fudge the definition of the job, or in some cases, simply look for any available legal loophole and stretch it to fit the situation.

The recent case of McMaster v. Eastern Armored Servs., Inc. is one in which an employer avoided paying overtime based on the Motor Carrier Act exemption. Employer was able to cite this act, at least for a time, because the worker’s duties were split, as were the type of vehicles she drove.

Let’s start by explaining that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires almost all employers to pay overtime wages to hourly workers. Professional motor carriers are generally exempt from this mandate, but a recent Congressional act waives the exemption for motor carrier workers who, either in whole or in part, operate vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds. The worker in this case argued she fell within the exception to the exemption – and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit sided with her, ordering the company to pay back wages for the all the overtime she was previously denied.

Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking – Oral Wage Agreement Weighed

March 15, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Verbal employment agreements – including those pertaining to wages – are legal and valid. However, they can be tough to prove, which is why it’s always better to get those facts in writing.

Failure to do so may result in an a greater uphill battle in court, though they may not be impossible to prove with enough circumstantial evidence.

The recent case of Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking, Inc., before the Montana Supreme Court, a truck driver sued his former employer claiming he was owed wages in accordance with a verbal employment agreement, and further he was not properly paid overtime. Although a hearing officer with the state labor department issued findings favoring the employer and the district court affirmed, the state supreme court reversed in part, sending portions of the case back to the lower courts for further consideration.

$415M Wage-Fixing Settlement Nearing for California Tech Firms

March 9, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A U.S. District judge in northern California has not objected to a $415 million settlement, following allegations several large technology firms conspired in a wage-fixing scheme that held salaries down for many workers.

Previously, that same judge had rejected a $325 million proposed settlement, saying it was far too low. The settlement still has to be approved, but that seems more likely now with the higher sum.

Plaintiffs had asserted Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Google Inc. together made an agreement that they would not poach employees form the other. The problem with an agreement like this is that, especially when you’re dealing with the major players in a given industry, such action can significantly limit job mobility. As a result, it means employees have little bargaining power when it comes to their salaries.

Franchises Face Wage-and-Hour Lawsuits

February 28, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

Wage theft is a serious problem within many varying industries.

It’s worth noting there is an overall increase in wage-and-hour lawsuits, due to a combination of factors that includes workers becoming more aware of their rights, more active state and federal regulators and advanced technology that allows employees to conduct work remotely at any time of the day or night. Some of the litigation has focused on:

Misclassification of workers as salaried employees or independent contractors (ineligible for overtime pay or certain benefits)

Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart – Pharmacists File California Labor Lawsuit

February 26, 2015 | by Nassiri Law

A California labor lawsuit has been filed by a former Wal-Mart pharmacist on behalf of all pharmacists working for the retailer, alleging missed breaks and unpaid overtime.

Plaintiff in Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart worked for the company for more than a decade, from 2003 through 2014. He alleges that in addition to a failure to ensure pharmacists received legally-mandated rest breaks, the company refused to compensate him and others for class time spent studying and completing immunization training programs. The training programs, he asserted, was related directly to his responsibilities as a pharmacist.

The complaint asserts the company implemented and utilized a company-wide policy of denying overtime compensation or any compensation whatsoever for certain work-related tasks. The lawsuit seeks class action status for all pharmacists who worked for the company within the last four years.