Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
`Christina A. Humphrey (SBN 226326)
`236 West Portal Avenue, #185
`San Francisco, CA 94127
`Telephone: (805) 618-2924
`Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
`Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com
`
`TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
`James A. Clark (SBN 278372)
`Renee P. Ortega (SBN 283441)
`Ariel A. Pytel (SBN 328917)
`11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
`Gold River, CA 95670
`Telephone: (916) 233-2008
`Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`SHANNON DOCKERY,
`on behalf of herself and all employees similarly situated.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SHANNON DOCKERY,
`on behalf of herself and all employees
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS,
`CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation;
`CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES
`COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware corporation;
`and DOES 1-100 inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`CLASS ACTION AND COLLECTIVE
`ACTION COMPLAINT FOR :
`
`1. DECLARATORY RELIEF
`2. FLSA: FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM,
`REGULAR, AND OVERTIME WAGES
`3. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM
`WAGE/OVERTIME
`4. PAYMENT OF WAGES BELOW
`DESIGNATED RATE
`5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL
`PERIODS
`6. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST
`PERIODS
`7. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE/ILLEGAL
`DEDUCTIONS
`8. FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE
`ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS
`9. FAILURE TO PAY COMPENSATION
`TIMELY AND AT THE TIME OF
`TERMINATION
`10. FOR WAITING TIME PENALTIES
`11. VIOLATION OF ERISA § 502(a)(3)
`12. VIOLATION OF ERISA §§ 1001 et seq.
`13. CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
`PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION
`17200, ET SEQ.
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
` 1
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, SHANNON DOCKERY, on behalf of herself and putative and collective class
`members (collectively “Plaintiffs”), hereby files this Complaint against Defendants FRONTIER
`COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “Frontier”) and CITIZENS
`TELECOM SERVICES COMPANY, LLC., (hereinafter referred to as “Citizens Telecom”), a
`Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive (hereinafter collectively referred to as
`“Defendants”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief
`alleges, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendants are telecommunications service providers that operate call and trouble-
`1.
`shooting services in California, and throughout the United States. Plaintiff was a customer service
`analyst or customer service representative working for Defendants in California. Throughout the
`relevant time period, Plaintiff and other customer service analysts or customer service representatives
`were generally responsible for to handle phone calls and internet chats related to internal and external
`customer service and to troubleshoot internal and external problems according to company policy that
`were related to, but not limited to, telecom and internet services, billings, orders, new service requests,
`disconnection of services, changes to existing services, moving existing services, correction orders,
`determining pricing and specials, contracts, billing and fees explanations, reconciliations, renewal of
`contracts, issuing service contracts, and database research. This action is brought on behalf of
`Plaintiffs and similarly situated customer service representatives.
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to fully compensate customer service
`2.
`analysts or customer service representatives at least minimum wage and/or designated rates for all
`hours worked in violation of the FLSA and Labor Code Sections 221-223, 510, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2,
`1197, 1198, and Wage Order number 4 (“IWC Wage Order No. 4”).
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages in
`3.
`violation of the FLSA and Labor Code Sections 1194, 1198, 510(a), and Wage Order number 4
`(“IWC Wage Order No. 4”).
`//
`//
`
` 2
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs premium wages in
`4.
`violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512, 1194.5, and Wage Order number 7 (“IWC Wage Order
`No. 4”).
`At all times relevant hereto, and as a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants
`5.
`failed to maintain documentation of the actual hours worked each day by Plaintiffs, all wages earned
`and meal breaks taken in violation of Labor Code sections 226, 1174, and the Wage Order 4.
`At all times relevant hereto, and as a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants failed
`6.
`to indemnify Plaintiffs for employment-related expenses including, but not limited to, but not limited
`to, internet service, cell phone, telephone and workstations, in violation of Labor Code section 2802
`and IWC Wage Order No. 4.
`At all times relevant hereto, and as a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants failed
`7.
`to pay Plaintiffs all wages due and owing upon regular payroll and termination of employment
`including, but not limited to, repayment of all unlawful deductions from wages, payment of minimum
`wage compensation in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203, 204, and 221.
`At all times relevant hereto, and as a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants
`8.
`failed to provide Plaintiffs with meal breaks and rest breaks and failed to pay for rest breaks, and
`premium wages for on-duty, missed, short, and/or late meal or rest breaks in violation of Labor Code
`§§ 226.7, 512, 516, and IWC Wage Order, No. 4-2001, §§ 10-12.
`At all times relevant hereto, and as a matter of policy and/or practice, Defendants
`9.
`knowingly and intentionally provided Plaintiffs with wage statements that, among other things, do not
`show all wages earned, all hours worked, all applicable pay rates, all applicable piece rates, all units
`earned, and applicable commission rates.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`A.
`Plaintiff SHANNON DOCKERY is an individual over the age of eighteen (18), is now,
`10.
`and/or at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident and domiciliary of the State
`of California, worked for Defendants in California and was denied the benefits and protections of the
`California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order Number Four, and the FLSA, as asserted herein. Plaintiff
`
` 3
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`worked for Defendants during the class period in the County of Sacramento. Attached hereto as
`Exhibit “A” is Plaintiff’s Consent to Join Form.
`Defendants employed Plaintiff Shannon Dockery as a customer service analyst or
`11.
`customer service representative for Defendants. Throughout her employment, Defendants mis-
`classified Plaintiff Dockery and others with the same or similar job titles and responsibilities as
`exempt employees under state wage and hour laws. Plaintiff and others should have been classified
`as non-exempt employees. In doing so, Defendants have violated numerous California labor code
`sections as described herein.
`Defendants operate call centers and trouble-shooting centers in California, as well as
`12.
`other locations within California and the United States, whereas call center employees handle phone
`calls and internet chats with Defendants’ internal and external customers regarding various issues on
`their accounts related to telephone and internet services provided by Defendants.
`
`B.
`Defendants
`13.
`At all relevant times herein, Defendant Frontier Communications Corporation is a
`Delaware corporation which, on information and belief, is conducting business in good standing in
`California.
`Defendant Citizens Telecom Services Company is a Delaware corporation which, on
`14.
`information and belief, is conducting business in good standing in California.
` Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants Frontier
`15.
`and Citizens Telecom, are corporations that did business in the State of California and the County of
`Sacramento and is engaged in operating call and trouble-shooting services.
` Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that some of the
`16.
`defendants may be liable to Plaintiff under legal theories and doctrines including but not limited to
`(1) joint or dual employers; (2) integrated enterprise; (3) agency; and/or (4) alter ego; based in part,
`on the facts set forth below.
`DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint
`17.
`were, licensed to do business and/or actually doing business in the State of California. Plaintiff does
`not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner, or corporate, of DOES 1 to 100,
`
` 4
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`inclusive, and for that reason, DOES 1 to 100 are sued under such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek
`leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege such names and capacities as soon as they are
`ascertained.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges
`18.
`that Defendants, and each of them, are now and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were, in
`some manner, legally responsible for the events, happenings and circumstances alleged in this
`Complaint.
`Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
`19.
`alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, all Defendants, and each of them, were and are the agents,
`servants, employees, joint venturers, alter egos and/or partners of each of the other Defendants, and
`were, at all such times, acting within the course and scope of said employment and/or agency;
`furthermore, that each and every Defendant herein, while acting as a high corporate officer, director
`and/or managing agent, principal and/or employer, expressly directed, consented to, approved,
`affirmed and ratified each and every action taken by the other co-Defendants, as herein alleges and
`was responsible in whole or in part for the matters referred to herein.
`Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
`20.
`alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, proximately caused Plaintiff,
`all others similarly situated, and the general public to be subjected to the unlawful practices, wrongs,
`complaints, injuries and/or damages alleges in this Complaint.
`Defendants, and each of them, are now and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint
`21.
`were members of and/or engaged in a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and were
`acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuit of said joint venture, partnership and common
`enterprise and, as such were co-employers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
`Defendants, and each of them, at all times mentioned in this Complaint, concurred with,
`22.
`contributed to, approved of, aided and abetted, condoned and/or otherwise ratified, the various acts
`and omissions of each and every one of the other Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and/or
`damages alleges in this Complaint.
`//
`
` 5
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has original jurisdiction for the California state law claims pursuant to
`23.
`Federal Question Jurisdiction, 28 USC § 1331 and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`The parties to this action are residents of different states. Upon information and belief, there are more
`than (100) putative class members. As set forth in more detail below under the Factual Allegations,
`damages are estimated to exceed the jurisdictional minimum of $5,000,000.
`The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has personal
`24.
`jurisdiction because Defendants conduct business within this District and Plaintiff was employed in
`this District.
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) in that Defendants are
`25.
`subject to personal jurisdiction in this district at the time action was commenced and, pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(c), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
`asserted herein occurred in Sacramento, California, and had their primary effect in this judicial district.
`FLSA COVERAGE
`At all material times, Defendants have been employers within the meaning of section
`26.
`3(d) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
`At all material times, Defendants have been an enterprise within the meaning of Section
`27.
`3(r) of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).
`At all material times, Defendants have been an enterprise in commerce or in the
`28.
`production of goods for commerce within the meaning of section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA because
`Defendant has had and continues to have employees engaged in commerce. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).
`Defendants have an annual gross business volume of not less than $500,000.
`29.
`30.
`Defendants controlled the hours to be worked by Plaintiffs and Collective Action
`Members, provided training to Plaintiffs, directed the work of Plaintiffs, maintained communication
`with Plaintiffs, and received updates as to the status of their work, and provided direction on how each
`assigned task was to be performed by Plaintiffs.
`//
`//
`
` 6
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Background
`Defendants provide telecommunications services throughout California and the
`31.
`United States. Defendants designated Plaintiffs as exempt employees.
`Plaintiff Shannon Doherty for Defendants was handling phone calls and internet chats
`32.
`related to internal and external customer service and troubleshooting internal and external problems
`according to company policy that were related to, but not limited to, telecom and internet services,
`billings, orders, new service requests, disconnection of services, changes to existing services, moving
`existing services, correction orders, determining pricing and specials, contracts, billing and fees
`explanations, reconciliations, renewal of contracts, issuing of service contracts, and database research.
`Plaintiff Shannon Doherty worked as customer service analyst or customer service
`33.
`representative and was misclassified as an exempt employee during the relevant time period.
`At times, Plaintiff worked in excess eight (8) per day or forty (40) per week and did
`34.
`not receive overtime pay.
`Plaintiff was not always provided meal periods and rest breaks.
`35.
`36.
`Plaintiff was (a) not compensated for all hours worked; (b) not properly compensated
`or given “duty free” meal and rest breaks; (c) not timely provided all wages due regularly and upon
`termination of employment; (d) not provided accurate wage statements; and not provided
`reimbursements for expenses expended on behalf of the company. Putative Class Members are
`similarly situated to Plaintiff and experienced the same treatment.
`B. Defendants’ Misclassification of Plaintiffs
`The administrative dichotomy, which distinguishes between administrative exempt
`37.
`employees and non-exempt production employees is set forth in Bell v. Farmers Insurance
`Exchange 87 Cal.App.4th 805 (2001): “federal authorities draw a distinction between
`administrative employees, who are usually described as employees performing work “directly
`related to management policies or general business operations of his employer or his employer's
`customers,” and production employees, who have been described as “those whose primary duty is
`
` 7
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`producing the commodity or commodities, whether goods or services, that the enterprise exists to
`produce.” Id. at 820.
`“A person employed in an administrative capacity means any employee: (a) Whose
`38.
`duties and responsibilities involve either: (I) The performance of office or non-manual work directly
`related to management policies or general business operations of his/her employer or his employer's
`customers; ... (b) Who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; and
`(c) Who regularly and directly assists a proprietor, or an employee employed in a bona fide executive
`or administrative capacity (as such terms are defined for purposes of this section); or (d) Who performs
`under only general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training,
`experience, or knowledge; or (e) Who executes under only general supervision special assignments
`and tasks; and (f) Who is primarily engaged in duties that meet the test of the exemption.” Soderstedt
`v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC 197 Cal.App.4th 133, 144-145 (2011).
`Customer service employees are considered non-exempt. Eicher v. Advanced Business
`39.
`Integrators, Inc. 151 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1370 (2007).
`One of the services Defendants provide is customer service. Plaintiffs were customer
`40.
`service workers. Their primary duty was to produce that service and even sell products that Frontier
`exists to produce.
`Plaintiffs did not regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. They merely
`41.
`complied with Defendants’ policies in their work.
`Despite this, Plaintiffs classified, treated and paid Plaintiffs as exempt employees.
`42.
`43.
`As a result, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs for overtime wages for work
`performed for over eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week or provide Plaintiffs meal
`periods or rest breaks.
`Defendants’ Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Designated Rates
`IWC Wage Order, No. 4 defines “hours worked” to mean “the time during which an
`44.
`employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered
`or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”
`
` 8
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`Labor Code § 1182.12 and IWC Wage Order, No. 4-2001, § 4 provide that on and
`45.
`after January 1, 2020, the minimum wage for all industries shall be not less than thirteen dollars
`($13.00) per hour, and on and after January 1, 2021, the minimum wage for all industries shall be
`not less than fourteen dollars ($14) per hour.
`Labor Code § 1194(a) provides in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any agreement to
`46.
`work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage [] is entitled to
`recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage [], including
`interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”
`Labor Code § 1194.2(a) provides in relevant part: “In any action under Section
`47.
`1193.6 or Section 1194 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum
`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.”
`Labor Code § 1197 provides: “The minimum wage for employees fixed by the
`48.
`commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the
`minimum so fixed is unlawful.”
`Labor Code § 223 provides: “Where any statute or contract requires an employer to
`49.
`maintain the designated wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while
`purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or contract.”
`Labor Code § 204 provides: “All wages, other than those mentioned in Section 201,
`50.
`201.3, 202, 204.1, or 204.2, earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice
`during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays.”
`Defendants mis-classified Plaintiff and others with the same or similar job titles and
`51.
`responsibilities as exempt employees under state wage and hour laws and the FLSA, including 29
`U.S.C. §§ 201, 207, 216, and 29 C.F.R. §778.223 and 778.315. Plaintiff and others should have
`been classified as non-exempt employees. In doing so, Defendants have violated numerous
`California labor code sections and the FLSA as described herein.
`Additionally, Defendants did not maintain adequate records of all wages earned,
`52.
`hours worked, and meal breaks taken pursuant to the Wage Order and Labor Code §1174 and the
`FLSA.
`
` 9
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
`Labor Code § 1194 provides that an employee receiving less than the legal overtime
`53.
`compensation 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.
`Labor Code § 510(a) states: “Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and
`54.
`any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh
`day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half
`times the regular rate of pay for an employee.” Labor Code § 510(a) further states: “Any work in
`excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate
`of pay for an employee.” Labor Code § 510(a) further states: “[A]ny work in excess of eight hours
`on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular
`rate of pay of an employee.”
`Throughout the Relevant Time Period, Wage Order No. 4-2001 provided for payment
`55.
`of overtime wages equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) times an employee’s regular rate of pay for all
`hours worked over eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek, and/or for
`payment of overtime wages equal to double the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked
`in excess of twelve (12) hours in any workday and/or for all hours worked in excess of eight (8)
`hours on the seventh (7th) day of work in any one workweek.
`Defendants mis-classified Plaintiff and others with the same or similar job titles and
`56.
`responsibilities as exempt employees under state wage and hour laws and the FLSA, including 29
`U.S.C. §§ 201, 207, 216, and 29 C.F.R. §778.223 and 778.315. Plaintiff and others should have
`been classified as non-exempt employees. In doing so, Defendants have violated numerous
`California labor code sections and the FLSA as described herein.
`Plaintiff and others should have been classified as non-exempt employees, therefore
`57.
`they were entitled to overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of the hours and time
`specified in the Wage Order, FLSA, statutes and regulations identified herein.
`//
`//
`
` 10
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Failure to Pay All Wages Due Timely and at Termination of Employment
`At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 201 required an employer that discharges
`58.
`an employee to pay compensation due and owing to said employee immediately upon discharge.
`Labor Code § 202 requires an employer to pay an employee who quits any compensation due and
`owing to said employee within seventy-two (72) hours of an employee’s resignation. Labor Code §
`203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay compensation promptly upon discharge or
`resignation, as required under Sections 201 and 202, then the employer is liable for waiting time
`penalties in the form of continued compensation for up to thirty (30) work days.
`At all time relevant thereto, California Labor Code § 204(b)(d) provides that all
`59.
`wages payable on a weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll become due and payable within
`seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period.
`California Labor Code §210 provides for penalties for violations of Labor Code §204
`60.
`in the amount of (a) $100 for an initial violation; (b) $200 for a subsequent violation, or any willful
`or intentional violation, $200 for each failure to pay each employee, plus 25 percent of the amount
`unlawfully withheld.
`As of January 1, 2020, AB 673 amends Labor Code §210 to create a private right of
`61.
`action to seek penalties for late payment of payday wages.
`Defendants willfully and knowingly failed to pay Plaintiffs, upon termination of
`62.
`employment, all accrued compensation including payment of minimum wage compensation, agreed
`wages, overtime, and/or premium wages.
`Defendants’ Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records
`Defendants have failed to keep records as required by law with respect to the
`63.
`overtime work performed by Plaintiffs. In doing so, Defendants have failed to comply with Labor
`Code §§ 226, 1174, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11090 required employers to maintain accurate
`employment records in addition to the requirement that it maintain records sufficient to determine
`benefits due or which may become due under the 401(k) Plan, as required under ERISA § 209, 29
`U.S.C. § 1059.
`//
`//
`
` 11
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`Defendants have failed to credit Plaintiffs for overtime work as Compensation under
`64.
`the 401(k) Plan. In doing so, Defendants have violated ERISA’s fiduciary requirement, set forth in
`ERISA § 404, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, and the FLSA.
`Defendants’ Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements
`At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 226 and IWC Wage Order, No. 4-2001, §
`65.
`7 required employers to maintain adequate employment records and provide employees with
`accurate itemized wage statements showing gross wages, total hours worked, all applicable hourly
`rates worked during each pay period, the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate,
`and meal breaks taken.
`66. Wage statements provided to Plaintiffs by Defendant do not show all wages earned,
`all hours worked, or all applicable rates, in violation of Labor Code § 226, IWC Wage Order, No. 4-
`2001, § 7.
`67. Moreover, Defendants did not maintain adequate records of all wages earned, hours
`worked and breaks taken.
`Defendants Failure to Reimburse for Business Related Expenses
`At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code 2802(a) provides than an employer
`68.
`indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employees in
`direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions
`of the employer.
`At all relevant times, Plaintiffs have incurred necessary expenditures in direct
`69.
`consequence of the discharge of their duties and/or their obedience to the directions of Defendants,
`including but not limited to, internet service, cell phones, telephones, and workstations.
`Section 7 of the Wage Order provides that when tools or equipment are required by
`70.
`the employer or are necessary to the performance of the job, such tools and equipment shall be
`provided and maintained by the employer.
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the other Aggrieved Employees paid for the cost of
`71.
`tools or equipment required by Defendants and/or which were necessary to the performance of their
`job, including but not limited to, internet service, cell phones, telephones, and workstations.
`//
`
` 12
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Failure to Provide Missed, On-Duty, Short, and/or Late Meal Breaks
`At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order, No. 4-2001,
`72.
`§ 11, required employers to authorize, permit, and provide a meal period of not less than thirty (30)
`minutes when the employee is completely relieved of all duty.
`Plaintiffs did not waive their meal periods, by mutual consent with Defendants or
`73.
`otherwise. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed to
`effectively communicate California meal period requirements to Plaintiffs.
`Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that as a matter
`74.
`of policy and/or practice, Defendants routinely failed to provide Plaintiffs, with meal periods during
`which they were relived of all duties:
`Specifically, throughout the Relevant Time Period, Defendants regularly:
`75.
`a. Failed to provide Plaintiffs with a first meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes
`during which they are relieved of all duty before working more than five (5) hours;
`b. Failed to provide Plaintiffs with a second meal period of not less than thirty (30)
`minutes during which they are relieved of all duty before working more than ten (10)
`hours per day; and
`c. Failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation for each
`workday that a meal period was not provided or missed, short, late, or on-duty; and
`d. Failed to accurately record all meal periods.
`Defendants’ Failure to Provide and Pay for Missed, Short, Late, and On-Duty Rest Breaks
`At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 226.7 and IWC Wage Order, No. 4-2001,
`76.
`§ 12, required employers to authorize, permit, and provide a ten (10) minute paid rest for each four
`(4) hours of work, during which employees are relieved of all duty.
`At all times relevant hereto, Labor Code § 226.7(b) and IWC Wage Order, No. 4-
`77.
`2001, § 12 required employers to pay one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation
`for each employee and each workday that a proper rest period is not provided.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants failed
`78.
`to effectively communicate California rest period requirements to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff is further
`
` 13
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00416-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`informed and believes and based thereon alleges that throughout the Relevant Time Period
`Defendants failed to provide rest periods.
`Throughout the Relevant Time Period, Plaintiffs were routinely denied the rest breaks
`79.
`they were entitled to under California law.
`Specifically, throughout the Relevant Time Period, Defendant regularly:
`80.
`a. Failed to provide paid rest periods of ten (10) minutes during which Plaintiffs were
`relieved of all duty for each four (4) hours of work and able to take rest periods
`within the middle of the shift;
`b. Failed to pay Plaintiffs one (1) hour of pay at their regular rate of compensation for
`each workday that a rest period was not permitted or was missed, short, lat