Srourian Law Firm Wins Appeals, Sends Shore Hotel Class Action Lawsuit From Arbitration Back To Court
In a decisive victory for workers throughout the State of California, Srourian Law Firm obtained a favorable appellate decision from the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Division, reversing an earlier Los Angeles Superior Court decision to direct a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of former and current workers of The Shore Hotel in Santa Monica, California, to individual arbitration. The initial order meant the class representatives could not proceed on a class action basis and seek recovery on behalf of all former and current Shore Hotel workers. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the purported arbitration agreements to be invalid and unenforceable under the law. The class action will thus proceed.
You can read the whole decision by clicking here.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Prado v. Shore Hotel (Sand & Sea), is currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC600236. The class includes all non-exempt workers of Shore Hotel, including but not limited to housekeeping, bellmen, food and beverage, front desk, concierge, parking, and other similar non-managerial duties. The lawsuit alleges that Shore Hotel violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
If you worked for Shore Hotel in California at any time from November 4, 2011, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Shore Hotel, and other California hotels in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a hotel, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Securitas Case Expands PAGA
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code section 2698 et seq.)
(“PAGA”), deputizes “aggrieved employees,” giving them the authority to enforce California
Labor Code violations in the workplace on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees.
In PAGA actions, the State of California is the real party in interest while the employee acts as a
private attorney general. For this reason, if an aggrieved employee succeeds in a PAGA action,
25% of any civil penalties recovered goes to the aggrieved employees, while the State of
California receives the remaining 75%.
A PAGA action is different than a traditional class action where a plaintiff must have standing to
sue – the class representative plaintiff must have suffered the injury that the class they seek to
represent also suffered. As recently explained in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.,
2018 S.O.S. 2555 (May 23, 2018, review denied Aug. 8, 2018), a PAGA plaintiff may sue on behalf
of all other aggrieved employees who have suffered violations of the Labor Code even if the
PAGA plaintiff did not suffer those violations.
In the Securitas case, the trial court initially found that PAGA plaintiff Huff was not a temporary services
employee and therefore had no standing to sue for the violations relating to that category of
worker. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of PAGA is not to recover
damages or restitution, but to deputize private citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the
Labor Code. Therefore, the Court of Appeals allowed PAGA plaintiff Huff to bring claims even
if he did not personally experience the Labor Code violations. As long as a PAGA plaintiff
personally suffered at least one of the alleged violations, the PAGA plaintiff can bring any other
claim suffered by the aggrieved employees of the same employer.
Securitas clearly expanded the scope of PAGA. In order to fully take advantage of this
opportunity, a PAGA plaintiff must make sure to meet the pleading requirements by establishing
sufficient facts and theories for their claims. If you or someone you know are being denied your
meal and rest breaks, or are suffering any other wage related issues, contact Srourian Law Firm
to speak with an attorney about your rights.
Srourian Law Firm Leads The Way In Getting Preliminary Approval On $800,000 Settlement On Behalf Of San Diego Call Center Workers
Srourian Law Firm is happy to report it successfully obtained preliminary approval on an $800,000 settlement on behalf of a group of workers at a San Diego call center claiming, among other violations, deficient meal and rest periods, and failure to pay overtime for shifts beyond 8 hours by instituting a policy of resetting the workday in the middle of the shift due to the shift going past midnight.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Class Members who stand to recover from this action have begun to be notified of settlement and will be paid upon final approval of the settlement with the Court.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims on behalf of California call center workers in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with any call center, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against MedMen For Violation Of California Labor Code And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current non-exempt workers of MedMen in Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit includes both front of house and back of house workers, including cashiers, sales, and inventory. The lawsuit alleges that Medmen violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
You can read more about the lawsuit by clicking here or by clicking here.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Medlock v. Manlin I LLC, is currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 18STCV05391. If you worked for any MedMen location in California at any time from November 16, 2014, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against MedMen, and other California cannabis dispensaries in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a cannabis dispensary, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Leads The Way In Negotiating $3 Million Settlement On Behalf of National Group of ATM Technicians
Srourian Law Firm is happy to report it successfully negotiated a $3 million settlement on behalf of a national group of ATM technicians claiming, among other violations, unpaid on-call time.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Class Members who stand to recover from this action will be notified of their share of settlement upon approval of the settlement with the Court.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against California ATM repair companies in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with an ATM repair company, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
California Courts Continue To Alter The Independent Contractor Landscape
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling
in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (Dynamex). Dynamex
defined a three part “ABC test”, simplifying the Court-established independent contractor test in
SG Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Rel. (Borello) (1989).
Dynamex was the result of defendant company converting all of its California drivers to
independent contractors as a cost savings measure in 2004. Classifying workers as independent
contractors removes an employer’s obligation to comply with minimum wage and overtime laws
while also shifting the risk of doing business onto the worker. The Court in Dynamex embraced
the general perspective that misclassifying workers as independent contractors is harmful and
unfair to workers and the public as a whole.
Taking from the Borello test, the Dynamex court shifted the burden to the employer and defined
three requirements to satisfy in order to prove an employee is properly classified as an
independent contractor: (A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity
in connection with the performance of the work; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the
usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an
independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work
performed. An employer must satisfy all three requirements before an employee would need to
rebut an employer’s classification.
These defined requirements address a common issue in recent hiring trends and the “gig
economy” (i.e. app related, per project hiring). Companies will have a more difficult time
unfairly forcing an individual worker to bear the burden of being their own business while the
companies continue to maintain their right to set pay and control work parameters.
A new decision on October 22, 2018, Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC (Garcia),
analyzed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex. The Garcia held that a plaintiff’s
wage order related claims (i.e. unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, etc.) are governed by the “suffer or permit to work” standard set forth in
Dynamex. Plaintiff’s remaining claims for overtime, wrongful termination and waiting time
penalties under Labor Code section 203, are not covered by the wage orders, and therefore are
subject to the Borello test, citing that Dynamex did not actually overturn Borello.
Overall, the independent contractor classification continues to be refined in the current “gig
economy” employment environment. If you or someone you know is misclassified or believe to
be misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Srourian Law Firm to speak with an
attorney about your rights.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Chefs Toys For Violation Of California Labor Code And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current non-exempt workers of Chefs Toys in Orange County Superior Court. The lawsuit includes drivers, installers, and warehouse workers, along with other similar non-managerial positions. The lawsuit alleges that Chefs Toys violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Guerrero v. Chefs Toys is currently pending in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-00980488-CU-OE-CXC. If you worked for any Chefs Toys location in California at any time from March 20, 2014, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against Chefs Toys, and other California restaurant suppliers in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a restaurant supplier, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Ruth's Chris Restaurant
Srourian Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of former and current workers of Ruth's Chris Steak House workers. The lawsuit includes both front of house and back of house workers, including waiters, hosts, barbacks, runners, and kitchen staff for all restaurant locations in the State of California. The lawsuit alleges that Ruth's Chris violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks, failure to authorize rest breaks, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
The lawsuit further alleges unlawful restaurant policies of denying and discouraging breaks based on providing team meals to be eaten quickly, lack of adequate resting facilities, and a requirement to keep inaccurate records of meals breaks. The lawsuit further alleges the requirement for workers to take on-duty meal breaks in violation of California leave.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Adrian Quiroz v. Ruth's Chris Hospitality Group, Inc., is currently pending in Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1804127. If you worked for any Ruth's Chris location in California at any time from February 26, 2014, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against MedMen, and other California cannabis dispensaries in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a cannabis dispensary, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Srourian Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Ruth's Chris For Violations Of California Labor Code And Related Claims
Srourian Law Firm has filed a putative class action on behalf of former and current non-exempt workers of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in Riverside County Superior Court. The lawsuit includes both front of house and back of house workers, including waiters, runners, bussers, cooks, bartenders, barbacks, and any other similar non-managerial position. The lawsuit alleges that Ruth's Chris violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize meal breaks and rest breaks in accordance with California law, failure to timely pay final paychecks, failure to provide proper paystubs, and violation of California Private Attorney General Act, among several other violations.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM’S CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action lawsuit, titled Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. is currently pending in Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1804127. If you worked for any Ruth's Chris location in California at any time from February 26, 2014, until the present and would like more information about this case, please call us at (310) 601-3131 or send an email to contact@slfla.com. Be sure to give your name, telephone number, and the best time to reach you, and an attorney will get back to you soon.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is aggressively pursuing claims against MedMen, and other California restaurants in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra. If you or someone you know suffered violations of the California Labor Code in relation to their employment with a restaurant, you may be entitled to compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
Harvey Weinstein Allegations Open Door For Lawsuits By Former Weinstein Employees For Hostile Work Environment/Sexual Harassment under California Fair Employment And Housing Act
Shocking allegations rocked the industry last week as allegations surfaced about famed Hollywood producer Harvey Weintstein's treatment of women, including unwanted sexual touching and advances. The news keeps getting worse for Weinstein, now terminated from his company The Weinstein Company, as more and more voices have began to surface corroborating the dirtiest secret in town: that sexual harassment, and a hostile sexually-charged work environment, was the status quo for employees of Weinstein.
Quid pro quo sexual harassment is the type of harassment people are most familiar with. “Quid pro quo” is Latin for “this for that”. This form of sexual harassment involves a supervisor conditioning employee benefits, such as promotions, benefits or continuation of employment itself, on the employee’s acceptance of the supervisor’s harassing conduct, e.g., sexual advances.
There is probably not a more blatant form of employer exploitation of his superior position over a subordinate and the law is correspondingly harsh toward this type of harassment. Under California law, the employer is strictly liable for the sexual harassment of the supervisor and has no special legal defenses available to it. A successful plaintiff can recover lost wages and compensation of other economic losses, emotional distress damages, interest and attorney fees, and in cases where the employer’s officers, directors or managing agents knew of the harassment, punitive damages intended to punish or deter the employer.
Hostile work environment sexual harassment (HWE) consists of harassing conduct that is so severe or pervasive that it creates a hostile work environment for employees. Supervisors, co-workers, even subordinates can engage in conduct that gives rise to HWE. Harassing conduct includes slurs, taunts, intimidation, ridicule, groping, grabbing, etc.
Notice the requirement is not severe AND pervasive, but severe OR pervasive, meaning that a single instance of harassing conduct could create a hostile work environment if it is severe enough. Alternatively, a campaign of multiple acts of subtle harassment could collectively create a hostile work environment if it is pervasive enough.
The employee does not have to be the direct target of the harassing conduct in order to file a claim. For instance, a woman who witnesses her female co-workers being groped and propositioned can bring a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment.
Recently, the California Supreme Court held that employer actions, such as termination, demotion, etc., could also constitute hostile work environment harassing conduct. See Roby v. McKesson HBOC (2009) 146 Cal.App.4th 63.
To read more about the Weinstein allegations, click here.
Srourian Law Firm actively represents employees who are the victims of unwanted sexual advances and proposittions from their bosses, supervisors, and co-workers. If you or someone you know was a target of sexual harassment during their employment with The Weinstein Company, give Srourian Law Firm a call for a free consultation.