Unpaid Wages Legal News Articles & Interviews

Sacramento, CA SkyWest flight attendants are proceeding with their meal and rest break proposed class action after a California judge rejected the airline’s argument that federal regulations governing the airline industry preempt their claims.

San Francisco, CA On July 8, ABM Industries entered into a written agreement to settle the consolidated lawsuits, ABM Industries Overtime Cases (also known as the “Bucio case”), pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Filed in 2006, the lawsuits allege that ABM’s prior timekeeping and payment practices shortchanged as many as 50,000 janitorial employees in violation of the California Labor Code. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, ABM will pay a total sum of $140 million to resolve all claims. The settlement remains subject to court approval.

Chicago, IL Family Dollar collected Mantrise Herron’s fingerprints without her permission in apparent violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA is a privacy-protection law, and Herron v. Family Dollar Inc. is a class action privacy protection lawsuit. But privacy is increasingly a luxury for the well-heeled and well-informed. The rubber hits the road when privacy concerns become unpaid wages claims or employment discrimination lawsuits. This is where many workers begin. Let us also begin at the beginning….

Sacramento, CA On June 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe recommended that the Eastern District of California certify several classes of plaintiffs in Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC. In Trevino, workers at various Amazon fulfillment centers alleged that the internet retail giant had violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay wages due for regular and overtime hours worked and provide required meal and rest periods. The lawsuit sought class action certification for groups of similarly situated workers who could number in the hundreds of thousands and who worked at 50 California facilities. The Magistrate determined, however, that the claims of some workers were too individualized to merit inclusion in a class action lawsuit. 

Baltimore, MD Pilgrim’s Pride Group, one of many poultry processors/defendants, has agreed to settle out of Jien v. Perdue Farms Inc. for $29 million and an agreement to cooperate against the remaining defendants. Rather than proceeding as an unpaid wages claim, Jien was brought as an antitrust case under the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act prohibits anticompetitive practices and has been used recently to protect wages. For workers, the effect of “wage-fixing” across an industry is very like the effect of failing to pay legally-required wages. Exploited workers, doing dangerous jobs, live at or near poverty.

Oakland, CA Arguments in Michael Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC opened in the Northern District of California on June 21, nearly five years after the California wage and hour lawsuit was initially filed. Much has already happened; the court has stripped out claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and denied the plaintiffs’ request to proceed as a class action lawsuit.

San Francisco, CA On May 28, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision by the Northern District of California that had required Walmart to pay $102 million in penalties for violations of the California Labor Code. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates was a blow to thousands of Walmart workers. It may also have significant repercussions for the future of California labor lawsuits under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Ultimately, the latter may be more of a problem.

San Francisco, CA Sneaker giant Nike seems poised to settle a long-running California labor lawsuit for $8.25 million. Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Services Inc. has a history that reflects one of the more significant developments in California labor law since 2018.

San Francisco, CA Parties have asked the Northern District of California to approve an agreement to settle unpaid wages claims against Ecolab. If approved as expected, the settlement would end a lawsuit in which employees claim that they were misclassified as salaried workers and consequently deprived of overtime, double time and unpaid rest periods including meal breaks.

Los Angeles, CA On May 18, the California Supreme Court heard arguments about what the phrase “regular rate of compensation” means for the purpose of calculating premium payments that must be paid when employers fail to offer meal and rest breaks as required by the California Labor Code. More specifically, the questions are: Does the phrase “regular rate of compensation,” as used in Industrial Wage Order No. 5-2001, mean the same thing as “regular rate of pay” under California Labor Code Section 226.7? Must the premium payments required by Wage Order No. 5 include any additional incentive compensation such as nondiscretionary bonuses, or are they limited to an hourly worker’s base wage?