throbber
Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 49 Page ID #:1
`
`
`David I. Himelson, Esq. (State Bar No. 117867)
`(david@himelsonlaw.com)
`THE HIMELSON LAW FIRM
`408 N. Alta Vista Blvd.
`Los Angeles, CA 90036
`Telephone: (323) 521-9126
`Facsimile: (323) 686-5272
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-04545
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`1. Failure To Provide Timely, Off-Duty
`Meal Periods [Cal. Labor Code §§
`226.7, 512; IWC Wage Order 9, § 11];
`2. Wrongful Deductions From Wages For
`“On-Duty” Meal Periods;
`3. Failure To Provide Timely, Off-Duty
`Rest Periods [Cal. Labor Code § 226.7;
`IWC Wage Order 9, § 12];
`4. Uncompensated Mandatory Work Time
`[Cal. Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194,
`1194.2, 1197; IWC Wage Order 9, § 4];
`5. Failure to Pay For Work Over Twelve
`Hours at Double Time Rate [Cal. Labor
`Code § 510; IWC Wage Order 9, § 3];
`6. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal.
`Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2,
`1197; Wage Order 9, § 4];
`7. Failure To Provide Accurate, Itemized
`Wage Statements [Cal. Labor Code §
`226; IWC Wage Order 9, § 7];
`8. Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon
`Termination of Employment
`[Labor Code §§ 202, 203];
`9. Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.]
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`ALEX GUERRERO and
`MANUEL ANTONIO RIOS,
`
`
`
`
`US FOODS, INC., doing
`business as US FOODSERVICE,
`INC., a Delaware corporation;
`and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 49 Page ID #:2
`
`
`Plaintiffs allege:
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`1. This court has original jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1332 in that it is a
`
`civil action between citizens of different states in which the matter in
`
`controversy exceeds, exclusive of costs and interest, seventy-five
`
`thousand dollars.
`
`2. Plaintiff Alex Guerrero (“Guerrero”) is, and at all times relevant was, a
`
`citizen of California residing in Los Angeles County, California.
`
`3. Plaintiff Manuel Antonio Rios (“Rios”) is, and at all times relevant
`
`was, a citizen of California residing in Los Angeles County,
`
`California.
`
`4. Defendant U.S. Foods,
`
`Inc. (hereafter “U.S. Foods” or “the
`
`company”), is, and at all times relevant was, a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of
`
`business in Rosemont, Illinois.
`
`VENUE
`
`5. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 USC §
`
`1391(a) in that it is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 49 Page ID #:3
`
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that
`
`defendant US Foods is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a
`
`nationwide trucking company engaged in mass purchase of food
`
`supplies and distribution of the supplies to restaurants and other food
`
`service and retail outlets.
`
`7. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether
`
`individual, corporate, or associate, of those defendants fictitiously
`
`sued as DOES 1 through 10 inclusive and so plaintiffs sue them by
`
`these fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that
`
`basis allege that none of the DOE defendants is a citizen or resident
`
`of the State of California, and that each one is in some manner
`
`responsible for the conduct alleged herein. Upon discovering the true
`
`names and capacities of these fictitiously named defendants,
`
`plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their true names and
`
`capacities.
`
`8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all
`
`times herein mentioned, unless otherwise alleged, each of the
`
`remaining co-defendants, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was
`
`acting within the course and scope and under the authority of his or
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 49 Page ID #:4
`
`
`her agency, employment, or representative capacity, with the
`
`consent of his or her co-defendants.
`
`9. Plaintiff Alex Guerrero has been employed by US Foods as a non-
`
`exempt delivery truck driver since September of 2013, operating out
`
`of US Foods’ La Mirada Distribution Center in La Mirada, Los
`
`Angeles County, California. For most of his employment he was
`
`working Tuesday
`
`through Saturday, delivering
`
`food
`
`to 12-14
`
`restaurants per day. He leaves the hub (distribution center) in the
`
`morning with 600-900 cases (formerly as much as 1400) loaded in
`
`the trailer by the warehouse crew and does not return until the end of
`
`the day. Guerrero is paid an hourly wage, which is subject to an
`
`annual increase of 50 cents.
`
`10. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff Manuel Rios was employed by
`
`US Foods as a non-exempt delivery truck driver, commencing April
`
`8, 2013, operating out of US Foods’ La Mirada Distribution Center in
`
`La Mirada, Los Angeles County, California. For most of his
`
`employment he worked the Beverly Hills route. He worked all shifts,
`
`generally 12-14 hours per work day, delivering food to 12-14
`
`restaurants per day. He left the hub in the morning with up to 1400
`
`cases loaded in the trailer by the warehouse crew and did not return
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 49 Page ID #:5
`
`
`until the end of the day. Rios was paid an hourly wage, subject to an
`
`annual increase of 50 cents.
`
`FIRST CLAIM: FAILURE TO PROVIDE
`
`TIMELY, OFF-DUTY MEAL PERIODS
`
`[Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Order 9, § 11]
`
`11. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth previously in this
`
`Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`12. On a daily basis for most or all of the statutory period, and pursuant
`
`to a consistent company practice and policy, US Foods and Doe
`
`Defendants 1-10 knowingly failed to provide plaintiffs or other La
`
`Mirada-based drivers with timely, off-duty 30-minute meal periods.
`
`Instead, the company actively and forcefully discouraged and
`
`prevented the drivers from having any off-duty meal periods in the
`
`course of their work day of 12 hours or longer.
`
`13. California Labor Code § 512(a) provides in relevant portion:
`
`An employer shall not employ an employee for a work
`
`period of more than five hours per day without providing
`
`the employee with a meal period of not less than 30
`
`minutes… An employer shall not employ an employee
`
`for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without
`
`providing the employee with a second meal period of not
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 49 Page ID #:6
`
`
`less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours
`
`worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal
`
`period may be waived by mutual consent of the
`
`employer and the employee only if the first meal period
`
`was not waived.
`
`See also Cal. Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9,
`
`§11(A),(B). (All references herein to Wage Orders are to Cal.
`
`Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.)
`
`14. “[A]bsent waiver, section 512 requires a first meal period no later
`
`than the end of an employee’s fifth hour of work, and a second meal
`
`period no later than the end of an employee’s 10th hour of work.”
`
`Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1041
`
`(2012).
`
`15. IWC Wage Order 9, § 11(C) provides in relevant portion:
`
`Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30
`
`minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered
`
`an ‘on duty’ meal period and counted as time worked.
`
`An ‘on duty’ meal period shall be permitted only when
`
`the nature of the work prevents an employee from being
`
`relieved of all duty and when by written agreement
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 49 Page ID #:7
`
`
`between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is
`
`agreed to...
`
`16. “An employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or
`
`rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute,
`
`or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare
`
`Commission…” Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(b).
`
`17. The defining characteristic of on-duty meal periods is failing to relieve
`
`an employee of duty, not simply “suffering or permitting” work to
`
`continue. Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at 1039.
`
`18. The employer satisfies this obligation if it relieves its employees of all
`
`duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a
`
`reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break,
`
`and does not impede or discourage them from doing so.” Brinker,
`
`supra, 53 Cal.4th at 1040.
`
`19. Prior to February 20, 2018, US Foods scheduled only one daily meal
`
`period for plaintiffs herein and other La Mirada-based drivers and
`
`consistently scheduled it for well after the end of the fifth hour, often
`
`as much as two hours or more beyond this time. This is shown
`
`clearly on the driver’s daily manifest/route sheet, known as a “stop
`
`list,” which includes a pre-scheduled time of day, within a slightly
`
`larger window of time, for a 30-minute meal period.
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 49 Page ID #:8
`
`
`20. Throughout their employment with the company, plaintiffs have been
`
`(Guerrero) or were (Rios) on the clock for well over 10 hours almost
`
`every working day. For most days this was anticipated already in the
`
`Runtime (total time on-the-clock) printed on the daily stop list. For
`
`most of the remaining days they in fact ended up working well over
`
`10 hours.
`
`21. Prior to February 20, 2018, however, the stop lists never included a
`
`second meal period. So the company was not even pretending to
`
`provide such a meal period, even an untimely one.
`
`22. Although the company did begin scheduling a second meal period as
`
`of February 20, 2018, there have still been many days when the
`
`company should have scheduled such a break but failed to do so.
`
`These were days when the stop lists planned for Runtimes of less
`
`than 10 hours but plaintiffs ended up working more than 10 hours,
`
`often considerably more. There were many such days.
`
`23. Although from February 2018 the daily manifests/stop lists have
`
`shown meal periods by the end of the fifth and tenth hours, the truth
`
`is that plaintiffs and other drivers were still effectively prevented from
`
`taking timely, off-duty meal periods because of pressure created by
`
`demanding schedules and constant harassment by supervisors and
`
`dispatchers, as detailed in the following paragraphs.
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 49 Page ID #:9
`
`
`24. US Foods knows exactly where every driver is and what he is doing
`
`at every moment of the day because of the onboard Omnitracs fleet
`
`tracking system. This active-type fleet tracking system broadcasts
`
`data in real time and shows the exact position and speed of each
`
`truck at each moment, and even when it is braking hard.
`
`25. The drivers are also required to input a significant amount of route
`
`data into the Omnitracs system manually throughout the work day.
`
`When reaching a stop the driver presses ARRIVE on the tablet
`
`installed in the truck, and then DEPART when he leaves. For every
`
`delay encountered the driver must press DELAY and enter the type
`
`and then call dispatch to give a time estimate. When it concludes he
`
`punches DELAY END. The drivers must also call if stuck in traffic.
`
`26. The drivers are instructed firmly to clock out for two meal periods per
`
`ten hours or more each day. The driver has to punch OFF DUTY and
`
`then 30 minutes later punch ON DUTY. The company gives write-ups
`
`and has fired many drivers for not complying. What those drivers
`
`were actually doing or were able to do during those times is of no
`
`interest to the company when it gives the write-ups or terminations.
`
`27. In addition, the driver scans in cases at each stop, FedEx-style, and
`
`again the company receives the information in real time. So dispatch
`
`knows exactly when the supposed meal breaks are, and can see
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 49 Page ID #:10
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`clearly that the drivers are driving their vehicles or unloading and
`
`scanning at a customer site at those times.
`
`28. At the beginning of each daily trip, plaintiffs’ dispatchers would hand
`
`them a daily stop list, prepared by the Routers, which they would
`
`place on their route box. The stop list shows the exact minute the
`
`driver is supposed to arrive at and leave each stop (i.e., customer) in
`
`the course of his 11-14 hour driving day, as many as14 stops, along
`
`with the “service time,” which is the exact length of time he is
`
`supposed to be at each customer site.
`
`29. These times are chosen in part on the basis of the customers’
`
`desired delivery “windows,” which are also recorded on the stop lists,
`
`creating additional pressure for the drivers to keep to the pre-printed
`
`schedule.
`
`30. The stop lists also show the narrow windows of time for the driver’s
`
`two 30-minute meal periods. The window consists of 30 minutes for
`
`the break plus the time needed to drive from the previous customer
`
`to the next customer. These meal period windows are pre-scheduled
`
`before the driver’s day begins, as if the driver were working in a bank
`
`or a Taco Bell. But they are for delivery truck drivers and are
`
`premised on the driver’s being able to stick to schedule, which is very
`
`unrealistic.
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 11 of 49 Page ID #:11
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`31. The times shown are unrealistic because of the nature of the job. At
`
`each stop the driver must break down numerous pallets, with
`
`separate pallets for dry, refrigerator and frozen items, take each
`
`pallet off the lift gate, pull out boxes (cases), put other boxes back on
`
`the pallet, raise the lift gate and return to the trailer. Each pallet
`
`contains cases for 3 or 4 stops. The cases are all messed up. The
`
`Warehouse workers are pushed hard and do not have the time to
`
`organize the pallets efficiently.
`
`32. Another problem
`
`is
`
`that
`
`the customers are restaurants, not
`
`warehouses with yards, and there are always delays for finding a
`
`parking place.
`
`33. Making matters even more difficult, Department of Transportation
`
`(DOT) regulations require that the vehicle be stopped while the driver
`
`is off-duty, so the company wants a driver to go off-duty at the
`
`previous customer’s premises,
`
`to “gain
`
`time.” The customer,
`
`however, has many vendors coming and going and does not want
`
`the driver taking up space if he is not unloading.
`
`34. And the times shown on the stop lists for driving from one customer
`
`to the next (with meal period in-between) can be very unrealistic
`
`unless one is driving a motorcycle.
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 12 of 49 Page ID #:12
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`35. In addition to the need to deliver to customers during their desired
`
`delivery windows, there is an outside time limit imposed by federal
`
`regulations. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
`
`(FMCSA, an agency within the US DOT) has established Hours of
`
`Service rules regulating drivers of commercial motor vehicles. Under
`
`these rules, the driver of a property-carrying vehicle may work/be on
`
`duty for no more than 14 consecutive hours. After a 14-hour on-duty
`
`period, the driver must be given 10 hours off duty.
`
`36. Within this 14-hour on duty period, the driver may spend a maximum
`
`of 11 hours driving. All other time between the beginning and end of
`
`the day counts as “on duty” time, including pre-trip and post-trip
`
`inspections, loading, unloading, waiting time, meal and rest breaks.
`
`37. The FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability Program scores
`
`carriers and drivers on seven Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement
`
`Categories (BASICs), one of which is Hours of Service Compliance.
`
`BASIC scores are meant to identify poor safety performers, who are
`
`then subject to interventions by FMCSA.
`
`38. The FMCSA motor carrier Safety Measurement System is based on
`
`the CSA Methodology. Drivers and carriers which fail to comply with
`
`the hours of service rules face various civil or criminal penalties or
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 13 of 49 Page ID #:13
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`fines from the FMSCA or from state or local law enforcement
`
`officials.
`
`39. The driver has to complete his route in a day of 14 hours on the
`
`clock, or else the regulations require the company to put him up in a
`
`hotel for the night, with an extra $30 in layover pay. This in turn holds
`
`up the truck, so the Warehouse team cannot be loading it up for the
`
`next day’s deliveries. US Foods is very eager to avoid this outcome.
`
`40. But not only are the times for stopping at each customer unrealistic,
`
`so is the time allowed for returning to the hub after the last stop. The
`
`stop list will budget, e.g., 40 minutes for getting from Santa Monica or
`
`Beverly Hills back to La Mirada, but in Friday afternoon traffic it could
`
`end up taking as much as two or three hours, even on a good day.
`
`41. If a driver does not get back to the hub at the end of his route within
`
`60 minutes of his scheduled arrival time the company says he is in
`
`the Yellow Zone (over one hour) or Red Zone (over two hours).
`
`42. If a driver is in the Yellow Zone they bring him into the office for a
`
`meeting, ask him “What’s happening?” and demand an explanation.
`
`They don’t care about the pressure. At some point they will find a
`
`way to write him up.
`
`43. In addition to having to keep to an extremely tight and unrealistic
`
`schedule, plaintiffs and other drivers are/were subjected to enormous
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 14 of 49 Page ID #:14
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`pressure by supervisors and dispatchers to “keep moving” and
`
`complete their scheduled rounds. Dispatchers keep up non-stop
`
`harassing fire throughout the driver’s day.
`
`44. Guerrero is reluctant to call in to report a delay because dispatch will
`
`be so abusive. “You’re late. I don’t want to hear it (the excuse).
`
`You’re always late. It’s always you, Alex. You’re driving like an old
`
`man. We’ll have to do a ride-along. We’ll do a write-up.”
`
`45. Guerrero tells them he is not paying attention when they say “Rush it!
`
`Speed up more!” He tells them he does not want to “burn” his driver’s
`
`license, which would prevent him from getting a new job. There are
`
`lots of injuries because they want the drivers to go over the limits.
`
`46. This constant pressure, harassment and abuse make it difficult or
`
`impossible for drivers to take timely, off-duty meal and rest breaks.
`
`47. At least three of Guerrero’s supervisors (Brian Sullivan, Hector Meza
`
`and Ricardo Gonzalez) advised him at least a couple of times each
`
`that he should give up his meal and rest breaks and then he would
`
`have no trouble getting back to the hub in time. Gonzalez told
`
`Guerrero: “You’re always late. You should give up your breaks so
`
`you won’t have trouble and I’ll get off your back.”
`
`48. Supervisor Hector Meza was always waiting for Rios, who had
`
`Beverly Hills, one of the most difficult routes, and who was often late
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 15 of 49 Page ID #:15
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`because, e.g., he couldn’t find a parking space. Meza told Rios the
`
`best way to avoid the problem was working through breaks.
`
`49. Plaintiffs are aware of many drivers who have received write-ups or
`
`been suspended or terminated for not completing their daily routes
`
`on time because they took meal and rest breaks.
`
`50. The company is careful. The write-up does not recite the driver was
`
`taking time out from his duties for meal breaks. It just says: “Poor
`
`behavior. Not following company orders.” The supervisor will tell the
`
`driver words to the effect of: “You didn’t complete your route on time.
`
`What’s taking so long? That’s unacceptable here.” The supervisor
`
`will explain that the best way to avoid this is for the driver to work
`
`through his breaks, so he can meet his schedules.
`
`51. The drivers talk to each other about the problem and say: “I’m going
`
`to work through my breaks,” because the supervisor told them to and
`
`because of the write-ups. It’s two write-ups, suspension and then
`
`termination. (It takes a year to clear off a write-up.) After two write-
`
`ups the drivers get scared and start giving away their breaks. This is
`
`the reality of driving for US Foods.
`
`52. Countless times after returning from their daily routes plaintiffs have
`
`gone up to the Transportation Department and straight to the Router
`
`and told him how unrealistic the schedule was. The Routers don’t
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 16 of 49 Page ID #:16
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`listen. They just say that is how the boss (VP/Transportation for La
`
`Mirada, Vista and Corona) wants it.
`
`53. “If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or
`
`recovery period in accordance with a state law, including, but not
`
`limited to, an applicable statute or applicable regulation, standard, or
`
`order of the Industrial Welfare Commission… the employer shall pay
`
`the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular
`
`rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or
`
`recovery period is not provided.” Cal. Labor Code § 226.7(c); see
`
`also Wage Order 9, § 11(D).
`
`54. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover this “premium pay” under
`
`Labor Code Section 226.7(c) and Wage Order 9, Section 11(D).
`
`SECOND CLAIM: WRONGFUL DEDUCTIONS
`
`FROM WAGES FOR “ON-DUTY” MEAL PERIODS
`
`55. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth previously in this
`
`Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`56. Quite apart from their claims for “premium pay” under Cal. Labor
`
`Code section 226.7(c), plaintiffs have a claim for wrongful deduction
`
`of 30 minutes’ worth of their hourly wages for each meal period they
`
`were supposedly provided, but were actually denied.
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 17 of 49 Page ID #:17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`57. The company has maintained a policy of automatically deducting the
`
`driver’s wages for the time of the pre-scheduled meal periods without
`
`regard to whether or not the driver actually got to have any off-duty
`
`meal period of any duration. So for each time the driver was denied a
`
`proper meal period it was a double denial of the driver’s rights, not
`
`only forcing him to work through a meal period but to do it for free.
`
`58. This means that not only were the drivers being denied the daily
`
`meal breaks they were entitled to by law, and certainly needed, and
`
`not only were they not given premium pay as compensation, but they
`
`actually had 30 or 60 minutes’ worth of their wages illegally
`
`deducted--i.e., stolen--from their daily wages to enable the company
`
`to cover up its violations of the Labor Code, a truly outrageous,
`
`exploitive and illegal practice.
`
`59. Even worse, the drivers were forced to cooperate in their own
`
`victimization. As alleged above, the drivers were instructed firmly to
`
`clock out on the Omnitracs system for two meal periods per ten
`
`hours or more. The driver had to punch OFF DUTY and then 30
`
`minutes later punch ON DUTY. Plaintiffs are aware of drivers who
`
`were given write-ups and even fired for not complying with this
`
`requirement.
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 18 of 49 Page ID #:18
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`60. US Foods maintained this practice despite constant complaints by
`
`outraged drivers, including plaintiffs.
`
`61. In Brinker Restaurant Corp., supra, the Supreme Court, in a footnote,
`
`endorsed the position of the California Division of Labor Standards
`
`Enforcement in its amicus curiae brief that: “The employer that
`
`refuses to relinquish control over employees during an owed meal
`
`period violates the duty to provide the meal period and owes
`
`compensation [and premium pay] for hours worked.” Brinker, supra,
`
`53 Cal.4th at 1040, fn. 19 (words in brackets are in the original text).
`
`62. This language was quoted and relied on by the court in Kaanaana v.
`
`Barrett Bus. Services, Inc., 29 Cal.App.5th 778, 802 (2018) (review
`
`on limited issue granted February 27, 2019, 434 P.3d 1108, 243
`
`Cal.Rptr.3d 827 (Mem.), request for order directing depublication of
`
`appellate court opinion denied). The court held explicitly that: “When
`
`a meal period is considered an ‘on duty’ meal period, the employee is
`
`entitled to payment for time worked, and also to premium pay if the
`
`requirements for a permissible on-duty meal period are not met.”
`
`Kaanaana, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at 802.
`
`63. The requirements for permissible on-duty meal periods were not met
`
`for plaintiffs for most or all days within the statutory period.
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 19 of 49 Page ID #:19
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`64. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to 30 minutes’ worth of their wages at
`
`the then-current rates for each meal period they were supposedly
`
`provided, but were actually denied.
`
`65. Alternatively, California workers must receive the minimum wage for
`
`each hour worked during the payroll period, even if the agreed-upon
`
`compensation exceeds the minimum wage for the total hours
`
`worked. Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314, 323 (2005).
`
`66. “In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages… the court shall
`
`award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party if
`
`any party to the action requests attorney’s fees and costs upon the
`
`initiation of the action...” Cal. Labor Code § 218.5(a).
`
`67. “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any
`
`employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal
`
`overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to
`
`recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this
`
`minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon,
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.” Cal. Labor Code §
`
`1194(a); see, e.g., Morrelli v. Corizon Health, Inc., 1:18-cv-1395-LJO,
`
`2019 WL 918210, at *9 (E.D. Cal. 2019).
`
`68. “In any action under Section 1193.6 or Section 1194 to recover
`
`wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 20 of 49 Page ID #:20
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`wage fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be
`
`entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the
`
`wages unlawfully unpaid and
`
`interest
`
`thereon”
`
`[i.e., double
`
`damages]. Cal. Labor Code § 1194.2(a); see Sillah v. Command Intl.
`
`Security Services, 154 F.Supp.3d 891, 914 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
`
`69. Plaintiffs request an award of interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and
`
`costs of suit under Labor Code sections 218.5(b), 1194(a) and/or
`
`1194.2(a).
`
`THIRD CLAIM: FAILURE TO PROVIDE
`
`TIMELY, OFF-DUTY REST PERIODS
`
`[Cal. Labor Code § 226.7; IWC Wage Order 9, § 12]
`
`70. Plaintiffs incorporate all allegations set forth previously in this
`
`Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`71. On a daily basis for most or all of the statutory period, and pursuant
`
`to a consistent company practice and policy, US Foods and Doe
`
`Defendants 1-10 knowingly failed to provide plaintiffs or other La
`
`Mirada-based drivers with timely, off-duty 10-minute rest periods.
`
`Instead, the company actively and forcefully discouraged and
`
`prevented the drivers from having any off-duty rest periods in the
`
`course of their work day of 12 hours or longer.
`
`///
`
`
`___________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-04545 Document 1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 21 of 49 Page ID #:21
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`72. IWC Wage Order 9, § 12(A) provides in relevant portion:
`
`Every employer shall authorize and permit all

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket