`
`
`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