Case 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`Eric Rouen (242341)
`THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC (Of Counsel)
`297 Vardon Court
`Ione, CA 95640
`Tel:
`(610) 324-2848
`Fax:
`(610) 813-4579
`Email: rouenlaw@att.net
`
`Daniel Rodriguez, Esq. (96625)
`Noah Moss, Esq. (302621)
`RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Law Corp.
`1128 Truxtun Avenue
`Bakersfield, CA 93301
`Phone: (661) 323-1400
`Fax:
`(661) 323-0132
`Email: dr@rodriguezlaw.net
`Email: Noah@rodriguezlaw.net
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class
`
`
`
`GERARDO ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and
`on behalf of all other similarly situated
`individuals,
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., a
`Colorado Corporation, PERFORMANCE
`FOODSERVICE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive;
`
`
`
`
`________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No.
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`COMPLAINT
`)
`
`)
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`)
`VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA
`)
`LABOR CODE AND WAGE ORDERS,
`)
`AND CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
`)
`PROFESSIONS CODE §§17200, et seq.,
`)
`and PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS
`)
`ACT, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.5
`)
`
`)
`
` Defendants. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Gerardo (“Gerry”) Alvarez (“Plaintiff” on behalf of himself and all other
`similarly situated individuals, upon information and belief and the investigation of counsel, allege
`
`- 1 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiff and Class Members are non-exempt, hourly employees who has worked
`for DEFENDANTS at their California production and transport facilities.
`2.
`Plaintiff is, an at all times relevant hereto, has been a resident of California.
`3.
`Performance Food Group, is, at all times mentioned herein, a Colorado corporation
`with the capacity to sue and be sued in California and doing business in California.
`4.
`Defendant, Performance Foodservice, is, upon information and belief, at all times
`mentioned herein, a wholly owned Division of Performance Food Group, with facilities located
`throughout the state of California, including within the jurisdiction of the USDC for the Northern
`District of California in Hayward (Alameda County) and Berkeley (Alameda County) California.
`5.
`Performance Food Group and Performance Foodservice are hereinafter collectively
`referred to as “Defendants”.
`6.
`This is a class action brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
`section 382 by Plaintiff on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated current and
`former nonexempt hourly workers against Defendants to challenge their policies and practices
`within the applicable class period of (1) requiring their non-exempt employees to work substantial
`amounts of time without pay, including over time; (2) failing to provide their non-exempt
`employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods to which they are entitled by law at their
`plant(s) in California, (3) uniformly failing and refusing to pay Rest Period Premiums, (4)
`uniformly illegally rounding shift time and meal break time to benefit DEFENDANTS and its
`subsidiaries/co DEFENDANTS; (5) uniformly failing to pay rest break premiums to workers not
`provided with Rest Break; and uniformly failing to pay meal break premiums to workers whose
`meal breaks were interrupted to answer work related questions posed by supervisory personnel;
`(6) within the class period failing to provide legally compliant first and second meal breaks within
`the time limits called for under California law, failing to pay premiums within the class period for
`these same violations
`
`- 2 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`7.
`Defendants through their officers, employees, and/or owners, controlled all policies
`and practices complained of herein.
`8.
`The resultant illegal practices have adversely affected the pecuniary interests
`Plaintiff and Class Members and resulted in class wide violations of California law.
`9.
`Plaintiff seeks full compensation on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated for all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, denied meal and rest periods, and waiting time
`penalties. Plaintiff further seek meal and rest break premiums, on behalf of themselves and the
`proposed California-law Classes, for DEFENDANTS’ violations of the Labor Code and California
`Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") wage orders, as set forth below. Finally, Plaintiff seek
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the California Labor Code, California Code of Civil
`Procedure § 1021.5, and/or other applicable law.
`10.
`Plaintiff and Class Members were not provided with legal compliant meal and/or
`rest breaks. DEFENDANTS uniformly failed to pay wage premiums to Plaintiff and Class
`Members for on duty meal and rest breaks.
`11.
`Furthermore, Plaintiff and class members were required by DEFENDANTS to
`answer work related questions after paid time had concluded and before paid time had begun, but
`were not paid overtime pay on days in which they worked 8 hours or longer and likewise were not
`paid for all time worked on days of less than 8 hours.
`12.
`Upon information and believe, DEFENDANTS chose and implemented the
`time/attendance keeping system in use at all of its California facilities and controlled the meal
`breaks, rest break and pay policies at all of its California facilities.
`13.
`DEFENDANTS’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and willful
`throughout their California facility(ies). DEFENDANTS knew, or should has known, that their
`policies and practices has been unlawful and unfair and were resulting in substantial pecuniary
`harm to their low hourly wage workers.
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331 and/or 1332, as the parties are
`
`14.
`
`- 3 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`completely diverse in citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This court has
`supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in this action under 28 U.S.C. sec.
`1367.
`
`15.
`Venue as to Defendants is proper in the Northern District as the Defendants
`routinely and habitually conduct business in Alameda County, and all illegal practices are in effect
`and adversely affecting Defendants’ hourly work force at all of Defendants’ facilities throughout
`California.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`16.
`Plaintiff was formerly, and during the applicable period of limitations prior to
`the commencement of this action, employed by DEFENDANTS as non-exempt hourly
`employees at DEFENDANTS, California facilities. This matter is maintainable as a class
`action with a Class consisting of: “All individuals who are currently employed, or formerly has been
`employed, as nonexempt hourly employees at DEFENDANTS’ facilities in California, at any time within
`four years prior to the filing of the original complaint until resolution of this action.”
`17.
`Common illegal policies of Defendants uniformly applied to Plaintiff and Class
`Members, includes:
`•
`failure to pay for all hours worked;
`•
`failure to pay all overtime wages owed;
`•
`failure to afford legally-compliant meal and rest periods;
`•
`failure to authorize payment of Rest Break premiums by all DEFENDANTS when
`legally compliant Rest Breaks were not provided resulting from the implementation
`of the time/attendance keeping system of DEFENDANTS as directed by
`DEFENDANTS;
`failure to authorize payment of meal break premiums or rest break premiums when
`meal and rest breaks for on duty meal and rest periods, resulting from the
`implementation of the time/attendance keeping system of DEFENDANTS as
`directed by DEFENDANTS;
`
`•
`
`- 4 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 5 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`failure to authorize payment of meal break premiums when meal breaks did not
`start within 5 hours, when second meal breaks were not provided within 10 hours
`on of the start of shifts of 12 hours, or longer, not to pay meal break premiums to
`workers on shifts of between 10 and 12 hours to workers who had not signed meal
`break waivers, but who had not signed meal break waivers, waiving second meal
`breaks on shifts of between 10 and 12 hours resulting from the implementation of
`the time/attendance keeping system of DEFENDANTS as directed by
`DEFENDANTS;
`failure to pay all wages due and owing upon termination of employment resulting
`from the implementation of the time/attendance keeping system of DEFENDANTS
`as directed by DEFENDANTS;
`failure to issue legal compliant wage statements/pay stubs resulting from the
`implementation of the time/attendance keeping system and/or payroll systems of
`DEFENDANTS as directed by DEFENDANTS;
`illegally rounding of shift and meal break hours, to illegally benefit
`DEFENDANTS and all DEFENDANTS resulting from the implementation of the
`time/attendance keeping system of DEFENDANTS as directed by DEFENDANTS;
`failure to track required work performed by non-exempt hourly workers after paid
`hours.
`18.
`Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder is impracticable.
`Although the exact number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff, Plaintiff avers, upon
`information and belief, that the Class includes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of employees.
`19.
`Typicality: Plaintiff’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. DEFENDANTS'
`common course of conduct in violation of law as alleged herein has caused Plaintiff and Class
`Members to sustain the same or similar injuries and damages. Plaintiff’ claims are thereby
`representative of and co-extensive with the claims of the Class.
`20.
`Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is a member of the Class, does not has any
`
`•
`
`•
`
`- 5 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`conflicts of interest with other Class Members, and will prosecute the case vigorously on behalf of
`the Class. Counsel representing Plaintiff and the Class are competent and experienced in litigating
`large employment class actions, including large minimum-wage and overtime class actions.
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of Class Members.
`21.
`Superiority of Class Action: A class action is superior to other available means for
`the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is
`not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any
`questions affecting only individual Class Members. Each Class Member has been damaged and is
`entitled to recovery by reason of DEFENDANTS’s illegal policies and/or practices. Class action
`treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in the manner that is
`most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system.
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`22.
`
`herein.
`
`23.
`During the applicable statute of limitations period through present,
`DEFENDANTS, and each of them, employed Plaintiff and Class Members as nonexempt hourly
`employees.
`24.
`During the applicable statute of limitations period through present,
`DEFENDANTS, and each of them, paid Plaintiff and Class Members less than the applicable
`minimum wage for all hours worked.
`25.
`Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 510, 558, 1194 and 1198, Wage Order No. 8-2001
`and/or other applicable Wage Orders, and 8 CCR §11080, DEFENDANTS, and each of them,
`were obligated to pay Plaintiff and Class Members at least the minimum wage of $8.00 per hour
`for all hours worked during the applicable statute of limitations period through present.
`
`- 6 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`26.
`Pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover
`unpaid minimum ages, subject to proof at trial, plus interest at the legal rate (Civil Code §§ 3287
`and 3289) and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`27.
`Pursuant to Labor Code §1194.2, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to
`recover liquidated damages in the amount of unpaid minimum wages proved at trial plus interest
`thereon.
`28.
`Pursuant to Labor Code §558, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are employers
`and/or persons acting on behalf of an employer, who violated, and who caused to be violated,
`Labor Code §§ 1194, et seq., Wage Order No. 8 and/or other applicable Wage Orders, and 8 CCR
`§11080, among other provisions regulating hours and days of work, and are individually subject to
`civil penalties as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid
`employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount
`sufficient to recover underpaid wages; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars
`($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in
`addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
`29. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`30.
`
`herein.
`
`31.
`California Labor Code §204 provides that wages for all work performed must be
`paid "twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the
`regular paydays."
`32.
`Plaintiff and the Class were required by DEFENDANTS to work without
`compensation for work they performed and moreover, were subject to an illegal rounding policy
`which worked to the benefit of all DEFENDANTS. Thus, Plaintiff and Class Members were
`
`- 7 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`forced to perform work for the benefit of DEFENDANTS without compensation.
`33.
`In violation of state law, DEFENDANTS knowingly and willfully refused to
`perform their obligations to provide Plaintiff and the Class with compensation for all time worked
`as required by California law. DEFENDANTS committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and
`willfully, with the wrongful and deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff and the Class, with
`improper motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff and the
`Class. Plaintiff and the Class are thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, and compensatory
`damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial.
`34.
`As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff and the Class has
`been damaged in an amount according to proof at time of trial. Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5
`and 218.6, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`costs and to interest on all due and unpaid wages.
`35.
`Pursuant to Labor Code §558, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are employers
`and/or persons acting on behalf of an employer, who violated, and who caused to be violated,
`Labor Code §§ 1194, et seq., Wage Order No. 8 and/or other applicable Wage Orders, and 8 CCR
`§11080, among other provisions regulating hours and days of work, and are individually subject to
`civil penalties as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid
`employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount
`sufficient to recover underpaid wages; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars
`($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in
`addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
`36. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`herein.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`
`39.
`
`
`40.
`
`
`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
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
`
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`
`Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`California Labor Code §510(a) provides as follows:
`
`Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work. Any work in excess of eight hours in
`one workday and 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. 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. In addition, any 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. Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more
`than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid
`to an employee for any hour of overtime work.
`
`The IWC Wage Order 8-2001(3)(A)(1), 8 Cal. Code Regs. §11080, states:
`
`The following overtime provisions are applicable to employees 18 years of age or
`over and to employees 16 or 17 years of age who are not required by law to attend
`school and are not otherwise prohibited by law from engaging in the subject work.
`Such employees shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours in any workday or
`more than 40 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-
`half (1 1/2) times such employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
`hours in the workweek. Eight (8) hours of labor constitutes a day's work.
`Employment beyond eight (8) hours in any workday or more than six (6) days in
`any workweek is permissible under [certain] conditions….
`
`California Labor Code §1194(a) provides as follows:
`
`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.
`41.
`California Labor Code §200 defines wages as "all amounts for labor performed by
`employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of
`
`- 9 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`time, task, piece, commission basis or other method of calculation." All such wages are subject to
`California's overtime requirements, including those set forth above.
`42.
`DEFENDANTS’ across-the-board policy of requiring Plaintiff and the Class to
`perform substantial uncompensated work has been unlawful. As a result of this unlawful policy,
`Plaintiff and Class Members has worked overtime hours for DEFENDANTS without being paid
`overtime premiums in violation of the California Labor Code, IWC wage orders and other
`applicable law.
`43.
`DEFENDANTS have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations
`to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for all premium wages for overtime work. As a proximate
`result of the aforementioned violations, DEFENDANTS has damaged Plaintiff and the Class in
`amounts to be determined according to proof at time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the
`jurisdictional requirements of this Court.
`44.
`DEFENDANTS are liable to Plaintiff and the Class alleged herein for unpaid
`overtime and civil penalties, with interest thereon. Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of
`attorneys' fees and costs as set forth below.
`45. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Failure to Provide Legally-Compliant Meal and Rest Periods
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set
`
`46.
`forth herein.
`47.
`California Labor Code §§226.7 and 512 and the applicable IWC wage orders
`require DEFENDANTS to provide, duty free, meal and rest periods to their nonexempt, hourly
`employees. Labor Code §§226.7 and 512 and the IWC wage orders prohibit employers from
`employing an employee for more than five hours without a meal period of not less than 30
`minutes, and from employing an employee more than ten hours per day without providing the
`employee with a second meal period of not less than 30 minutes. Section 226.7 and the applicable
`
`- 10 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`wage orders also require employers to provide employees ten minutes of net rest time per four
`hours or major fraction thereof of work, and to pay employees their full wages during those rest
`periods. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute meal period and ten-
`minute rest period, the employee is considered "on duty" and the meal or rest period is counted as
`time worked under the applicable wage orders.
`48.
`Under §226.7(b) and the applicable wage orders, an employer who fails to provide
`a required meal period must, as compensation, pay the employee one hour of pay at the
`employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period was not provided.
`Similarly, an employer must pay an employee denied a required rest period one hour of pay at the
`employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period was not provided.
`49.
`Despite these requirements, DEFENDANTS has knowingly and willfully refused
`to perform their obligations to afford Plaintiff and the Class an opportunity to take legally
`compliant meal and rest periods. Moreover, even after eventually being released for a meal and/or
`rest period, Plaintiff and Class Members were still required to work, and thus were never afforded
`a full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal period. Additionally, DEFENDANTS continued to exercise
`control over Plaintiff and Class Members during meal and/or rest periods. DEFENDANTS has
`also failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class one hour of pay for each off-duty meal and/or rest period
`that they were not afforded. DEFENDANTS' conduct described herein violated California Labor
`Code §§226.7 and 512, and the applicable wage orders. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code
`§226.7(b), Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to compensation for the failure to provide meal and
`rest periods, plus interest, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of suit.
`50.
`Pursuant to Labor Code §558, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are employers
`and/or persons acting on behalf of an employer, who violated, and who caused to be violated,
`Labor Code §§ 1194, et seq., Wage Order No. 8 and/or other applicable Wage Orders, and 8 CCR
`§11080, among other provisions regulating hours and days of work, and are individually subject to
`civil penalties as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid
`employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount
`
`- 11 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`sufficient to recover underpaid wages; (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars
`($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in
`addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
`51. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Unpaid Wages and Waiting Time Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code §§201-203
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set
`
`52.
`forth herein.
`53.
`
`
`Labor Code §201 provides:
`
`If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the
`time of discharge are due and payable immediately.
`
`Labor Code §202 provides:
`
`If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her
`employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours
`thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or
`her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at
`the time of quitting.
`
`Labor Code §203 provides, in relevant part:
`
`54.
`
`
`55.
`
`
`If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in
`accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an
`employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall
`continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or
`until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for
`more than 30 days.
`56.
`Class Members have left their employment with DEFENDANTS during the
`statutory period, at which time DEFENDANTS owed them their unpaid wages.
`DEFENDANTS has willfully refused, and continue to refuse, to pay Class Members all the
`wages that were due and owing them upon the end of their employment. As a result of
`DEFENDANTS' actions, the Class has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses,
`including lost earnings and interest.
`
`- 12 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`57.
`DEFENDANTS’ willful failure to pay Class Members the wages due and
`owing them constitutes a violation of Labor Code §§201-202. As a result, DEFENDANTS
`are liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for all penalties owing pursuant to Labor Code §§201-
`203.
`
`58.
`Additionally, §203 provides that an employee's wages will continue as a
`penalty up to thirty (30) days from the time the wages were due. Therefore, the Class is
`entitled to penalties pursuant to Labor Code §203, plus interest.
`59.
`Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs as set forth below.
`60. Wherefore, Plaintiff and the Class request relief as hereinafter provided.
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`California Wage Statement Class for Failure to Properly Itemize Pay Stubs
`in Violation of California Labor Code §§226(a) and 226(e)
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set
`
`61.
`forth herein.
`62.
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, California Labor Code section 226 was in
`effect and provided (inter alia) that, upon paying and employee his or her wages, the employer
`must:
`
`furnish each of his or her employees … an itemized statement in writing showing
`(1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any
`employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from
`payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order
`of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and
`any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all
`deductions, provided, that all deductions made on written orders of the employee
`may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive
`dates of the pay period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the
`employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name and address of the
`legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during
`the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate
`by the employee.
`63.
`Plaintiff believes, and therefore allege, that DEFENDANTS failed to furnish them,
`and all others similarly-situated, with proper and accurate itemized written statements containing
`
`- 13 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`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 3:21-mc-80299 Document 1 Filed 12/13/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`(without limitation): all the hours that Plaintiff (and others similarly-situated) worked; gross
`wages earned; net wages earned; total hours worked; and due and owing meal- and rest-period
`premiums.
`64.
`Plaintiff alleges that DEFENDANTS’ failure to furnish him and his coworkers with
`proper itemized wage statements was done knowingly and intentionally, and that he (and others
`similarly-situated) suffered injury thereby. Thus, under California Labor Code section 226(e),
`Plaintiff (and others similarly-situated) are “entitled to recover greater of all actual damages or
`fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars
`($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate
`penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000) [per employee]…”
`65.
`Plaintiff is also entitled to, and seek on behalf of himself and all other similarly
`situated individuals, all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code section
`226(e).
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq.
`(Against All DEFENDANTS)
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set
`
`66.
`forth herein.
`67.
`California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. (also referred to herein
`as the "Unfair Business Practices Act," "Unfair Competition Law," or "UCL") prohibits unfair
`competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices.
`68.
`California Business and Professions Code §17204 allows a person injured by the
`unfair business acts or practices to prosecute a civil action for violation of the UCL.
`69.
`Labor Code §90.5(a) states it is the public policy of California to vigorously
`enforce minimum labor standards in order to ensure employees are not required to work under
`substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect employers who comply with the law from
`those who attempt to gain competitive advantage at the expense of their workers by failing to
`
`- 14 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Alvarez. v. Performance Food Group, and Performance Foodservice
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20