`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 37
`
`STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191)
` StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
`HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336)
` HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
`LEANNA MARIE SAC (Bar No. 327353)
` LMSac@TheMMLawFirm.com
`MALLISON & MARTINEZ
`1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
`Oakland, California 94612-3547
`Telephone: (510) 832-9999
`Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and a class of similarly
`situated employees.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—DIVISION OF SACRAMENTO
`
`LAGARION BROWN, ROY JACKSON,
`YAPHETT SAUNDERS, ISAAC SAUNDERS,
`HAKEEM ALLAMBIE, and NICHLON
`GARRETT, individually and on behalf of those
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`vs.
`
`
`TETRA TECH, INC.; JESCO
`ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
`SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION AND FLSA COMPLAINT
`FOR:
`1. Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
`Violation;
`2. Failure to Pay Contractual Wages;
`3. Failure to Pay California Minimum
`Wages;
`4. Failure to Pay California
`Overtime/Doubletime Wages;
`5. Failure to Provide Timely and
`Complete Meal Periods or Pay
`Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof;
`6. Failure to Provide Timely and
`Complete Rest Periods or Pay
`Additional Wages in Lieu Thereof;
`7. Failure to Reimburse Employees for
`Necessary Business Expenditures;
`8. Failure to Pay Wages of Terminated or
`Resigned Employees;
`9. Knowing and Intentional Failure to
`Comply with Itemized Employee Wage
`Statement Provisions;
`10. Violation of Unfair Competition Law;
`
`
` DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION AND FLSA COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 37
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders,
`
`Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett. (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Tetra-
`
`Tech, Inc., Jesco Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc., and DOES 1-20 (collectively
`
`“Defendants”). Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, and Nichlon Garrett
`
`bring their claims individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals employed
`
`under common circumstances and facts. Plaintiffs Roy Jackson and Hakeem Allambie bring their
`
`claims individually. The allegations made in this Complaint are based on the knowledge of
`
`Plaintiffs, except those allegations made on information and belief, which are based on the
`
`investigation of their counsel.
`
`I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
`2.
`
`
`
` This is wage and hour class action to vindicate the rights afforded employees by
`
`federal and California labor laws. This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs in three capacities:
`
`(a) individually; (b) as FRCP Rule 23 representative of a class or various subclasses of non-exempt
`
`employees employed by, or formerly employed by, Defendants; and (c) as a Fair Labor Standards
`
`Act (“FLSA”) collective action (29 U.S.C. § 216(b)).
`3.
`
`
`This action revolves around the systematic failure by Defendants to pay California
`
`non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and the Class, in conformance with federal and
`
`California laws. Defendants have employed Plaintiffs and the Class directly or as agents of one
`
`another, and/or are liable under California Labor Code § 2810.3 or § 558.1.
`4.
`
`
`The core violations Plaintiffs allege against Defendants are: (1) failure to pay all
`
`contractual wages owed; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages owed; (3) failure to pay all minimum
`
`wages owed; (4) failure to provide timely meal periods, and/or provide appropriate compensation
`
`in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide timely, complete, rest periods, and/or provide appropriate
`
`compensation in lieu thereof; and (6) failure to reimburse employees for necessary business
`
`expenditures.
`5.
`
`
`Defendants have refused to pay the wages due and owed to Plaintiffs and Class
`
`members. As a result of these violations, Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act 29
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 3 of 37
`
`U.S.C. § 216 and 216(b), as well as provisions of California labor laws, which in turn has resulted
`
`in additional violations entitling Plaintiffs and the Class to prompt payment of wages and penalties.
`
`Defendants committed the violations at issue and benefitted financially and/or professionally from
`
`these violations.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction
`
`
`pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.
`7.
`
`
`This action, and the causes of action hereunder, including state law claims, are
`
`subject to original jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
`
`(“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in various sections of 28 U.S.C.), because the
`
`matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and
`
`is a class action in which at least one member of the proposed class is a citizen of a state different
`
`than Defendants.
`8.
`
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the California state law claims under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367, because these claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of
`
`the same case and controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
`9.
`
`10.
`
`This Court is empowered to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`
`because this District is the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
`
`to the claims occurred.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`This case is properly assigned to the Sacramento Division of this Court because the
`
`11.
`
`
`
`action arose in Butte County, California. Local Rule 120(d).
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiff LAGARION BROWN (“Brown”) is a resident of the State of Florida. At
`
`12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 4 of 37
`
`relevant times herein, he has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants and Does, as an
`
`employee on land owned, leased, and/or operated by Defendants and Does in Butte County,
`
`California, and has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Brown was
`
`hired by Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the Sacramento
`
`Division of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). During the relevant time period,
`
`Plaintiff Brown worked for Defendants within the Intradistrict Venue of the Sacramento Division
`
`of the Eastern District, performing post-disaster assessments and cleanup at various times during
`
`the Class Period through approximately December 2019, at agreed-upon wage rates that exceeded
`
`the California minimum wage. Plaintiff Brown has suffered injury in fact and loss of property as a
`
`result of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint and is an Aggrieved Employee. Plaintiff
`
`Brown brings his claims individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated employees.
`13.
`
`
`Plaintiff ROY JACKSON (“Jackson”) is a resident of the State of Connecticut. At
`
`relevant times herein, he has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants and Does, as an
`
`employee on land owned, leased, and/or operated by Defendants and Does in Butte County,
`
`California, and has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Jackson
`
`was hired by Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the
`
`Sacramento Division of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). During the relevant
`
`time period, Plaintiff Jackson worked for Defendants within the Intradistrict Venue of the
`
`Sacramento Division of the Eastern District, performing post-disaster assessments and cleanup at
`
`various times during the Class Period through approximately October 2019, at agreed-upon wage
`
`rates that exceeded the California minimum wage. Plaintiff Jackson has suffered injury in fact and
`
`loss of property as a result of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint and is an Aggrieved
`
`Employee. Plaintiff Jackson brings his claims individually.
`14.
`
`
`Plaintiff YAPHETT SAUNDERS is a resident of the State of Florida. At relevant
`
`times herein, he has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants and Does, as an employee on
`
`land owned, leased, and/or operated by Defendants and Does in Butte County, California, and has
`
`been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Yaphett Saunders was hired by
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 5 of 37
`
`Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the Sacramento Division
`
`of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). During the relevant time period, Plaintiff
`
`Yaphett Saunders worked for Defendants within the Intradistrict Venue of the Sacramento Division
`
`of the Eastern District, performing post-disaster assessments and cleanup at various times during
`
`the Class Period through approximately October 2019, at agreed-upon wage rates that exceeded the
`
`California minimum wage. Plaintiff Yaphett Saunders has suffered injury in fact and loss of
`
`property as a result of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint and is an Aggrieved
`
`Employee. Plaintiff Yaphett Saunders brings his claims individually and on behalf of a Class of
`
`similarly situated employees.
`15.
`
`
`Plaintiff ISAAC SAUNDERS is a resident of the State of Florida. At relevant times
`
`herein, he has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants and Does, as an employee on land
`
`owned, leased, and/or operated by Defendants and Does in Butte County, California, and has been
`
`employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Isaac Saunders was hired by
`
`Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the Sacramento Division
`
`of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). During the relevant time period, Plaintiff
`
`Isaac Saunders worked for Defendants within the Intradistrict Venue of the Sacramento Division of
`
`the Eastern District, performing post-disaster assessments and cleanup at various times during the
`
`Class Period through approximately October 2019, at agreed-upon wage rates that exceeded the
`
`California minimum wage. Plaintiff Isaac Saunders has suffered injury in fact and loss of property
`
`as a result of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint and is an Aggrieved Employee.
`
`Plaintiff Isaac Saunders brings his claims individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated
`
`employees.
`16.
`
`
`Plaintiff HAKEEM ALLAMBIE (“Allambie”) is a resident of the State of Florida.
`
`At relevant times herein, he has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants and Does, as an
`
`employee on land owned, leased, and/or operated by Defendants and Does in Butte County,
`
`California, and has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Allambie
`
`was hired by Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 6 of 37
`
`Sacramento Division of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). During the relevant
`
`time period, Plaintiff Allambie worked for Defendants within the Intradistrict Venue of the
`
`Sacramento Division of the Eastern District, performing post-disaster assessments and cleanup at
`
`various times during the Class Period through approximately October 2019, at agreed-upon wage
`
`rates that exceeded the California minimum wage. Plaintiff Allambie has suffered injury in fact
`
`and loss of property as a result of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint and is an
`
`Aggrieved Employee. Plaintiff Allambie brings his claims individually.
`17.
`
`
`Plaintiff NICHLON GARRETT (“Garrett”) is a resident of the State of Louisiana.
`
`At relevant times herein, he has been employed directly or jointly by Defendants and Does, as an
`
`employee on land owned, leased, and/or operated by Defendants and Does in Butte County,
`
`California, and has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Garrett was
`
`hired by Defendants to work within the counties covered by Intradistrict Venue in the Sacramento
`
`Division of the Eastern District pursuant to Local Rule 120(d). During the relevant time period,
`
`Plaintiff Garrett worked for Defendants within the Intradistrict Venue of the Sacramento Division
`
`of the Eastern District, performing post-disaster assessments and cleanup at various times during
`
`the Class Period through approximately October 2019, at agreed-upon wage rates that exceeded the
`
`California minimum wage. Plaintiff Garrett has suffered injury in fact and loss of property as a
`
`result of Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint and is an Aggrieved Employee. Plaintiff
`
`Garrett brings his claims individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated employees.
`18.
`
`
`Plaintiffs Brown, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, and Garrett pursue their claims
`
`individually and on behalf of a lass of similarly situated employees, and are hereafter referred to as
`
`“Class Representatives”. Plaintiffs Jackson and Allambie pursue their claims individually and are
`
`hereafter referred to as the “Individual Plaintiffs”.
`19.
`
`
`Plaintiffs and the employees whom Class Representatives seek to represent were
`
`regularly subjected to, or had personal knowledge of, the violations described in this Complaint.
`Defendants
`
`20.
`
`
`
`The following allegations as to Defendants are made on information and belief, and
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 7 of 37
`
`are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
`
`discovery.
`21.
`
`
`At all times relevant, Jesco Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc.
`
`(hereinafter “Jesco”), a Louisiana corporation, conducted and conducts business throughout the
`
`United States, including in California. At all times relevant, Jesco owned, controlled, or operated a
`
`business or establishment that employed persons within the meaning of the applicable Industrial
`
`Welfare Commission Orders, and operated as a direct or joint employer of Class members in this
`
`case. During all relevant times alleged herein, Jesco employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated
`
`persons as non-exempt employees and committed and/or caused in California and in this District
`
`the acts and/or caused the violations complained of herein.
`22.
`
`
`At all times relevant, Tetra Tech, Inc. (hereinafter “Tetra Tech”), a California
`
`corporation, conducted and conducts business throughout California. At all times relevant, Tetra
`
`Tech owned, controlled, or operated a business or establishment that employed persons within the
`
`meaning of the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders, and operated as a direct or joint
`
`employer of Class members in this case. During all relevant times alleged herein, Tetra Tech
`
`employed Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons as non-exempt employees, or is liable for the
`
`payment of wages to Plaintiffs under California Labor Code §2810.3, and committed in California
`
`and in this District the acts complained of herein.
`23.
`
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each Defendant
`
`acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants including Does,
`
`carried out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of
`
`each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. “Defendants” herein means each
`
`of the defendants as well as all of them.
`
`IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`24.
`
`
`
`This is a Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule
`
`23 and a Collective action pursuant to FSLA, 29 U.S.C. §216(b), to vindicate the rights afforded
`
`the class by the FLSA, California Labor Code, and California Business and Professions Code §§
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 8 of 37
`
`17200 et seq. This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class
`
`comprising all non-exempt employees employed, or formerly employed, by each of the Defendants
`
`within the State of California. This action seeks recovery for wages, compensation, and other relief
`
`due and owing to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class members under federal and California laws for
`
`the maximum period allowed to the present (the “Class Period”), all as set out below.
`25.
`
`
`For at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present,
`
`Defendants and their subsidiaries, parents, or affiliate companies have maintained and enforced
`
`unlawful labor policies against employees that revolve around Defendants’ hourly system of
`
`compensation, their meal and rest break practices, their practices around indemnification of
`
`expenditure by employees, and their record-keeping procedures.
`26.
`
`
`Defendants fail to compensate for all “hours worked” within the meaning of the
`
`IWC Wage Orders, and fail to pay overtime or doubletime premium wages for work performed.
`
`This includes, but is not limited to, regular hours worked that were not compensated at minimum
`
`or agreed upon rates, overtime hours worked that were either not compensated, or compensated at
`
`rates lower than the applicable overtime premium wage rate, uncompensated or undercompensated
`
`time spent on work-related communications, required driving of company vehicles, filling in
`
`paperwork, setting up and putting away equipment, and other activities.
`27.
`
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class regularly worked for over 12 hours per day, in excess of the
`
`threshold for doubletime under California law, and worked off-the-clock for several hours per
`
`week, meaning that the majority of Plaintiffs’ unpaid wages were overtime or doubletime wages.
`28.
`
`
`By their conduct, Defendants make clear that they are intentionally and maliciously
`
`subverting California minimum wage requirements and federal and California overtime wage
`
`requirements, resulting in loss of property to Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of Defendants’
`
`payroll policies.
`29.
`
`
`Under the meal period policies, Defendants fail to provide employees: (a) at least
`
`one (1) meal period prior to the fifth hour and/or two (2) meal periods for shifts greater than ten
`
`hours, (b) net thirty-minute meal periods, and/or (c) timely meal periods. Further, Defendants’
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 9 of 37
`
`policy is to not pay the premium wages owed to workers for missed, incomplete and/or untimely
`
`meal periods. Defendants required employees to turn in time sheets showing compliant meal
`
`periods. Time sheets that did not show compliant meal periods were rejected, and employees were
`
`required to modify them to add meal periods that were never taken, in order to receive their wages.
`30.
`
`
`Under the rest break policies, Defendants failed to provide employees: (a) at least
`
`two (2) rest breaks for shifts greater than six hours, and/or three (3) rest breaks for shifts greater
`
`than ten hours, (b) net ten-minute rest breaks, and (c) timely rest breaks. Further, Defendants’
`
`policy is to not pay the premium wages owed to workers for missed, incomplete, and/or untimely
`
`rest breaks. Finally, Defendants had a policy of discouraging and preventing employees from
`
`taking proper full rest breaks. Defendants required employees to turn in time sheets showing
`
`compliant rest periods. Time sheets that did not show compliant rest periods were rejected, and
`
`employees were required to modify them to add rest periods that were never taken, in order to
`
`receive their wages.
`31.
`
`
`Under the record-keeping policies, Defendants willfully provide inaccurate itemized
`
`wage statements that do not reflect all “hours worked” and wages earned. Defendants also fail to
`
`maintain accurate time-keeping records.
`32.
`
`
`Defendants failed to duly reimburse employees for out-of-pocket expenses
`
`necessary to discharge their duties. For example, employees were required to purchase their own
`
`gasoline and use their own personal cellphones for work, without receiving reimbursement from
`
`Defendants.
`33.
`
`
`Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other non-exempt employees employed
`
`by, or formerly employed by Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “Class Members”), bring this
`
`action pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 214, 216, 218, 218.5, 218.6,
`
`221, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 512, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1199, and Business &
`
`Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. seeking unpaid and underpaid wages, premium wages, statutory
`
`penalties, liquidated damages, declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, interest, waiting time penalties, injunctive relief, declaratory
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 10 of 37
`
`relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all profits or benefits retained by Defendants as a result of
`
`their failure to comply with the above laws.
`34.
`
`FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., seek declaratory relief, statutory damages, actual damages,
`
`Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all FLSA Collective Members, pursuant to
`
`interest, and injunctive relief.
`35.
`
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Defendants (including some Does), and each of them, are
`
`employers with respect to any Plaintiffs or similarly situated employees, are liable as employers for
`
`various California Labor Code Violations under California Labor Code § 558.1, and/or are liable
`
`for the payment of wages to Plaintiffs under California Labor Code § 2810.3.
`36.
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendants were on notice of the improprieties alleged
`
`herein by their employees, Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, and intentionally refused to
`
`rectify their unlawful policies.
`37.
`
`
`Defendants’ failure to compensate non-exempt employees for all “hours worked,”
`
`failure to authorize and permit requisite meal and rest periods and paid rest periods, failure to pay
`
`premium meal and rest period wages, failure to pay for all hours worked at the regular rate or
`
`required overtime premium rate, and failure to pay wages at termination in addition to the other
`
`violations alleged above, during all relevant times herein was intentional, willful, and deliberate.
`38.
`
`
`Defendants have made it difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully
`
`withheld wages due to Defendants’ non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs, during all relevant
`
`times herein, because they have not implemented an adequate record-keeping method to record all
`
`hours worked and wages earned by their employees as required for non-exempt employees by
`
`California Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174(d).
`39.
`
`
`Defendants have failed to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a) by failing to
`
`itemize in wage statements all wages earned and by failing to accurately report total hours worked
`
`by Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed class. Plaintiffs and Class Members are therefore
`
`entitled to statutory penalties not to exceed $4,000 for each employee pursuant to Labor Code
`
`§ 226(e).
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 11 of 37
`
`V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`40.
`
`
`
`All claims below are brought as a class action by Class Representatives. They are
`
`also brought as individual claims by the Individual Plaintiffs.
`41.
`
`
`
`Class Representatives bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others
`
`similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Class Representatives seek to represent the following Class, composed of, and defined, as follows:
`
`JESCO CLASS: All non-exempt persons who are or have been employed
`by Defendants Jesco and/or Tetra Tech at any time within four (4) years of
`the filing of the Initial Complaint in this action.
`
`42.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs may amend the above class definitions as permitted or required by this
`
`Court. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under the
`
`provisions of Rule 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a well-defined community
`
`of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.
`43.
`
`
`Class Representatives also seek to represent the following opt-in FLSA Collective:
`
`JESCO FLSA COLLECTIVE: All non-exempt persons who are or have
`been employed by Defendants Jesco and/or Tetra Tech in the State of
`California within three (3) years of the filing of the Initial Complaint in this
`action through the date of final disposition of this action.
`
`A. Numerosity
`
`The potential members of the Class as defined are so numerous that joinder of all
`
`44.
`
`
`
`the members of the Class is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not
`
`been determined at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants have employed
`
`over two-hundred employees in the State of California and who are, or have been, affected by
`
`Defendants’ unlawful practices as alleged herein and may have employed several hundred such
`
`employees over the class period.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 12 of 37
`
`45.
`
`
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ employment records
`
`would provide information as to the number and location of all Class Members. Joinder of all
`
`members of the proposed Class is not practicable.
`
`B. Commonality
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the Class predominating over any
`
`46.
`
`
`
`questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common questions of law and fact
`
`include, without limitation:
`a. Whether Defendants violated the California Labor Code and applicable wage
`
`orders by not properly compensating Class members, including Class
`
`Representatives, minimum and contractual wages for all hours worked,
`
`including overtime and doubletime hours;
` Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code and applicable wage
`
`b.
`
`orders by (i) failing to provide Class members, including Plaintiffs, timely
`
`meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes per five (5) hours worked, and a
`
`second meal period for shifts of greater than 10 hours and greater than 12
`
`hours; (ii) failing to provide net thirty (30) minute meal periods because
`
`managers and supervisors required employees to return to work before meal
`
`break; and (iii) failing to compensate employees an additional hour of pay in
`
`lieu of meal periods, in violation of California law and public policy;
`c. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code and applicable wage
`
`orders by (i) failing to provide Class members, including Plaintiffs, paid
`
`daily rest breaks at the rate of one rest period for shifts between 3.5 and 6
`
`hours, two rest breaks for shifts greater than 6 hours up to 10 hours, three rest
`
`breaks for shifts greater than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so on, and (ii)
`
`failing to compensate employees an additional hour of pay in lieu of rest
`
`breaks, in violation of California law and public policy, and (ii) discouraging
`
`and preventing employees from taking rest breaks by only permitting breaks
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`MALLISON &
`MARTINEZ
`Attorneys at Law
`1939 Harrison St., Ste. 730
`Oakland, California 94612
`510.832.9999
`
`28
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01133-DAD-DMC Document 1 Filed 06/03/20 Page 13 of 37
`
`by instruction of managers;
` Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code and applicable wage
`
`d.
`
`orders by failing to reimburse all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by
`
`employees for necessary business expenditures such as gasoline and use of
`
`their personal cellphones for work;
`e. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code and applicable wage
`
`orders by failing to, among other violations, maintain accurate records of
`
`employees’ earned wages and work periods, properly itemize in wage
`
`statements all hours worked and wages earned, and accurately maintain
`
`records pertaining to Class Representatives and the Class they seeks to
`
`represent;
`f. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code and applicable wage
`
`orders by failing to pay all earned wages and/or premium wages due and
`
`owing at the time that Plaintiffs’ or any Class member’s employment with
`
`Defendants terminated;
` Whether Defendants violated § 17200 et seq. of the California Business and
`
`g.
`
`Professions Code by unlawfully deducting wages, or failing to pay wages to
`
`non-exempt employees and converting same to Defendants’ ow