Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)
` shaun@setarehlaw.com
`Thomas Segal (SBN 222791)
` thomas@setarehlaw.com
`Farrah Grant (SBN 293898)
` farrah@setarehlaw.com
`
`SETAREH LAW GROUP
`9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
`Beverly Hills, California 90212
`Telephone:
`(310) 888-7771
`Facsimile:
`(310) 888-0109
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`CHRISTIANA BUSH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`CHRISTIANA BUSH, on behalf of herself,
`all others similarly situated, and the general
`public,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`VACO LLC, a Tennessee limited liability
`company; GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-05605-BLF
`
`Assigned For All Purposes to the Honorable
`Beth Labson Freeman, Courtroom 3
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`1. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Lab.
`Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512, and 1198);
`2. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab.
`Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, and 1198);
`3. Failure to Pay Hourly Wages (Lab. Code
`§§ 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1997.1,
`and 1198);
`4. Failure to Indemnify (Lab. Code § 2802);
`5. Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage
`Statements (Lab. Code § 226(a));
`6. Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages
`(Lab. Code §§ 201-203);
`7. Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §§
`17200, et seq.);
`8. Failure to Pay Employees for All Hours
`Worked (29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.);
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Fifth Amended Class 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 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Christiana Bush (referred to as “Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself, all others
`
`similarly situated, and the general public, complains and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff brings this class and representative action against Defendants Vaco
`
`LLC, Google, Inc., and Does 1 to 50, inclusive (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) for
`
`alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. As set forth below,
`
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide her and all other similarly situated individuals
`
`with meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay premium wages for
`
`missed meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime
`
`wages at the correct rate, failed to pay double time wages at the correct rate, failed to reimburse
`
`them for all necessary business expenses, failed to provide them with accurate written wage
`
`statements, and failed to timely pay them all of their final wages following separation of
`
`employment. Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff now brings this class and
`
`representative action to recover unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief on behalf of herself,
`
`all others similarly situated, and the general public.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. section 1392(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims alleged in this complaint
`
`occurred in this District.
`
`4.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over this matter because Defendants’ conduct
`
`substantial business activity in this District, and because many of the unlawful acts described in
`
`this complaint occurred in this District and gave rise to the claims alleged.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Christiana Bush (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned
`
`herein, an individual residing in Mountain View, California.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant Vaco
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`1
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`LLC (“Vaco”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Tennessee limited liability
`
`company doing business in the State of California.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant Google,
`
`Inc. (“Google”) is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a Delaware corporation doing
`
`business in the State of California.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships, and extent of
`
`participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the defendants sued as Does 1 to 50, inclusive, but
`
`is informed and believes that said defendants are legally responsible for the conduct alleged
`
`herein and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
`
`complaint to allege both the true names and capacities of the Doe defendants when ascertained.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes that each defendant acted in all respects
`
`pertinent to this action as the agent of the other defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business
`
`plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of each defendant are legally
`
`attributable to each of the other defendants.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 because there is a well-defined community of interest
`
`among the persons who comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because
`
`Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class
`
`action.
`
`11.
`
`Action: The Action is defined as the suit filed on August 24, 2017 with the Santa
`
`Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 17CV314988, on behalf of Plaintiff Christina Bush, all
`
`others similarly situated against Defendants.
`
`12.
`
`Relevant Time Period: The relevant time period is defined as the time period
`
`beginning four years prior to the filing of the Action until judgment is entered.
`
`13.
`
` The class and sub-class members are defined as follows:
`
`Google Expedition Class: All persons employed directly by Google and/or
`through any staffing agencies, including but not limited to Vaco LLC, who
`worked in schools to promote Google Expedition s in the United States during the
`Relevant Time Period.
`
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`2
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`Google Expedition California Sub-Class: All persons employed directly
`by Google and/or through any staffing agencies (including Vaco LLC)
`who worked in schools to promote Google Expedition in California during
`the Relevant Time Period.
`
`
`Order Audit Operation Specialist Class: All persons employed directly by
`Google and/or through any staffing agencies, including, but not limited to Vaco
`LLC, in the United States during the Relevant Time Period.
`
`
`Order Audit Operation Specialist California Sub-Class: All persons
`employed directly by Google and/or through any staffing agencies
`(including Vaco LLC) who input data into Google system concerning
`which movies and television shows to go live in California during the
`Relevant Time Period.
`
`
`Content Bug Technician Class: All persons employed directly by Google and/or
`through any staffing agencies, including, but not limited to Vaco LLC, in the
`United States during the Relevant Time Period.
`
`
`Content Bug Technician California Sub-Class: All persons employed
`directly by Google and/or through any staffing agencies (including Vaco
`LLC) who conducted quality assurance for YouTube Live in California
`during the Relevant Time Period.
`
`UCL Class: All Google Expedition Class, Order Audit Operation Specialist
`Class and Content Bug Technician Class members employed by Defendants in
`California during the Relevant Time Period.
`
`14.
`
`Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23,
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by
`
`further division into sub-classes, and/or by limitation to particular issues.
`
`15.
`
`Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of
`
`each individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact
`
`number of class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes that the actual number exceeds the
`
`minimum required for numerosity under California law.
`
`16.
`
`Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as
`
`to all class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class
`
`members. These common questions include, but are not limited to:
`
`A. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide
`
`employees with their meal periods;
`
`B. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide
`
`employees with their rest periods;
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`3
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class 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 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`C. Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members when
`
`they have not been provided with required meal and/or rest periods;
`
`D. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to
`
`class members as a result of policies that fail to provide meal periods in accordance with
`
`California law?
`
`E. Whether Defendants failed to reimburse class members for all necessary
`
`business expenses incurred during the discharge of their duties;
`
`F.
`
`Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate written
`
`wage statements as a result of providing them with written wage statements with inaccurate
`
`entries for, among other things, amounts of gross and net wages, and total hours worked;
`
`G. Whether Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or
`
`incomplete final wage payments;
`
`H. Whether Defendants are liable to class members for waiting time penalties
`
`under Labor Code section 203;
`
`I.
`
`Whether class members are entitled to restitution of money or property
`
`that Defendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition.
`
`17.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice
`
`of failing to comply with the Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code as alleged
`
`herein.
`
`18.
`
`Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative
`
`in that she has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent
`
`class members and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff
`
`will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members.
`
`19.
`
`Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in
`
`that they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are
`
`experienced in wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting
`
`this action on behalf of Plaintiff and absent class members.
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`4
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of the class members’ claims and would be beneficial to the parties
`
`and the Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to
`
`simultaneously and efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the
`
`unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In
`
`addition, the monetary amounts due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively
`
`small and would thus make it difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both
`
`seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a class action will serve an important public interest by
`
`permitting class members to effectively pursue the recovery of moneys owed to them. Further, a
`
`class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments inherent in
`
`individual litigation.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`21.
`
`Google is instrumental during the hiring process of workers from staffing
`
`agencies such as Plaintiff and the putative class. Although the initial interview is conducted by
`
`Vaco, the subsequent interview is conducted by a Google employee and the ultimate decision
`
`whether to hire that worker is made by Google. Google hires many contract workers such as
`
`Plaintiff and the putative class at virtually all of the Google campuses.
`
`22.
`
`On or about May 2014, Plaintiff was initially hired by Vaco as an hourly, non-
`
`exempt employee and placed at Google with a job title of Order Audit Operation Specialist on
`
`Google’s main campus. The duties for this position primarily involved data entry.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff and the putative class have and are still under the direction and control of
`
`Google and its managers, used Google computers and equipment in the performance of their
`
`work duties, and interacted with Google managers on a daily basis.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff and the putative class were required to undergo a one-day orientation
`
`conducted by Google as well as attend a one-week training program also devised and conducted
`
`by Google.
`
`25.
`
`Based on the above, Google is a joint employer as Plaintiff and the putative class
`
`performed work for Google; and Google exercised control over Plaintiff and the putative class’
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`5
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`working conditions even though Vaco was the employer of record and paid Plaintiff’s wages.
`
`Moreover, Google did not have any written meal and rest period policies, Google does not
`
`schedule the meal periods for Plaintiff or putative class members, Google does not pay meal
`
`and/or rest period premiums for Plaintiff or putative class members.
`
`26.
`
`Google did not provide Plaintiff or the putative class with meal break policies or
`
`rest break policies.
`
`27.
`
`Vaco did not provide Plaintiff or the putative class with meal break policies or
`
`rest break policies.
`
`28. When Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation
`
`Specialist and later as a Content Bug Technician Defendants’ Vaco and Google both severely
`
`understaffed.
`
`29. When Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation
`
`Specialist and later as a Content Bug Technician Defendants’ Vaco and Google both pressured
`
`Plaintiff and class members to remain at their desk.
`
`30. When Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation
`
`Specialist and later as a Content Bug Technician Defendants’ Vaco and Google both did not
`
`have written meal break policies or rest break policies.
`
`31. When Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation
`
`Specialist and later as a Content Bug Technician Defendants’ Vaco and Google both failed to
`
`schedule meal breaks or rest breaks.
`
`32. While working as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation Specialist on
`
`Google’s main campus Plaintiff and putative class members were often unable to take 30-minute
`
`uninterrupted meal breaks in part due to: 1) Defendants’ severe understaffing; 2) Defendants
`
`pressuring Plaintiff and class members to remain at their desk; 3) Defendants not having written
`
`meal break policies; and 4) Defendants failing to schedule meal breaks. While working as an
`
`Order Audit Operation Specialist Plaintiff and class members often had to work through meal
`
`breaks. While working as an Order Audit Operation Specialist Plaintiff and class members often
`
`ate lunch at their desk while they continued to work. While working as an Order Audit Operation
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`6
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Specialist Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and class members with meal period premium pay
`
`on those occasions that they did not receive a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break.
`
`33. While working as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation Specialist on
`
`Google’s main campus Plaintiff and putative class members were often unable to take 10-minute
`
`uninterrupted rest breaks in part due to: 1) Defendants’ severe understaffing; 2) Defendants
`
`pressuring Plaintiff and class members to remain at their desk; 3) Defendants not having written
`
`rest break policies; and 4) Defendants failing to schedule rest breaks. Plaintiff was unable to take
`
`a 10-minute rest break on many occasions while working as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit
`
`Operation Specialist. While working as an Order Audit Operation Specialist Defendants did not
`
`provide Plaintiff and class members with rest period premium pay on those occasions that they
`
`did not receive a 10-minute uninterrupted rest break.
`
`34.
`
`Vaco instructed Plaintiff and class members regarding how to keep track of time
`
`when Plaintiff worked as an Order Audit Operation Specialist on Google’s main campus. Vaco
`
`instructed Plaintiff and class members regarding how to record their hours worked electronically
`
`in computer programs.
`
`35.
`
`On or about August 2014, Plaintiff was promoted to Content Bug Technician, also
`
`a non-exempt, hourly position. The duties for this position primarily involved software quality
`
`assurance and also required Plaintiff to work on the main Google campus. Similarly, and while
`
`working in this position, Plaintiff was under the direction and control of Google and its
`
`managers, used Google computers and equipment in the performing her work duties, and
`
`interacted with Google managers on a daily basis.
`
`36. While working as an hourly, non-exempt Content Bug Technician Plaintiff and
`
`putative class members were often unable to take 30-minute uninterrupted meal breaks in part
`
`due to: 1) Defendants’ severe understaffing; 2) Defendants pressuring Plaintiff and class
`
`members to remain at their desk; 3) Defendants not having written meal break policies; and 4)
`
`Defendants failing to schedule meal breaks. While working as a Content Bug Technician
`
`Plaintiff and class members often had to work through meal breaks. While working as a Content
`
`Bug Technician Plaintiff and class members often ate lunch at their desk while they continued to
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`7
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`work. While working as a Content Bug Technician Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and class
`
`members with meal period premium pay on those occasions that they did not receive a 30-minute
`
`uninterrupted meal break.
`
`37. While working as an hourly, non-exempt Content Bug Technician Plaintiff and
`
`putative class members were often unable to take 10-minute uninterrupted rest breaks in part due
`
`to: 1) Defendants’ severe understaffing; 2) Defendants pressuring Plaintiff and class members to
`
`remain at their desk; 3) Defendants not having written rest break policies; and 4) Defendants
`
`failing to schedule rest breaks. Plaintiff was unable to take a 10-minute rest break on many
`
`occasions while working as an hourly, non-exempt Content Bug Technician. While working as a
`
`Content Bug Technician Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and class members with rest period
`
`premium pay on those occasions that they did not receive a 10-minute uninterrupted rest break.
`
`38.
`
`Vaco instructed Plaintiff and class members regarding how to keep track of time
`
`when Plaintiff worked as a Content Bug Technician. Vaco instructed Plaintiff and class
`
`members regarding how to record their hours worked electronically in computer programs.
`
`39.
`
`On or about September 2015, Plaintiff was transferred to the Google Expedition
`
`team and was given the title of Google Expedition Team Lead by Google. Upon information and
`
`belief, Vaco reclassified Plaintiff as an outside salesperson at the direction of Google, even
`
`though Plaintiff did not spend more than half of her working hours engaged in exempt sales
`
`activity (selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products,
`
`services or use of facilities) away from the employer’s place of business. The duties for this
`
`position involved traveling to various public schools and providing education virtual reality tours
`
`through an application developed by Google. Accordingly, any sales activity already occurred,
`
`and Plaintiff and the putative class could not be properly classified under the outside salesperson
`
`exemption.
`
`40.
`
`During her first week as a Google Expedition Team Lead, Plaintiff was required
`
`to report to Google’s headquarters to set up the necessary equipment provided by Google. This
`
`required Plaintiff and the putative class to travel to arrive there as early as 8:00 A.M. and to work
`
`as late as 9:00 P.M. from Monday through Friday. Plaintiff and the putative class were required
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`8
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`to open boxes of new cellphones and to set them up and then to repackage them for transport to
`
`the eventual user.
`
`41.
`
`Once all the equipment was set up and ready to be delivered to the end user,
`
`Plaintiff and the putative class drove their vehicles to various schools in Northern California and
`
`would have to be there at least an hour or two before each teacher’s first class. This often
`
`required Plaintiff and the putative class to start driving out to each location as early as 5:00 A.M.
`
`so that they could arrive there and train and give orientation to the teachers on how to use the
`
`cellphones. Once the school day ended, Plaintiff and the putative class would then drive home,
`
`which could take up to two hours depending on traffic conditions.
`
`42.
`
`As a Google Expedition Team Lead, Plaintiff and the putative class was not
`
`engaged in any kind of exempt sales activity (whether selling tangible or intangible items or
`
`obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of facilities), but instead was engaged
`
`in demonstrating and providing a virtual reality experience to students in schools.
`
`43.
`
`In her role as a Google Expedition Team Lead, Plaintiff and the putative class
`
`regularly worked more than ten hours each workday, and more than sixty hours each workweek.
`
`Plaintiff and the putative class were paid a fixed salary and was not provided with any designated
`
`meal and/or rest periods as they regularly worked through her meal and/or rest periods, were not
`
`paid any overtime or double time wages when they worked more than ten hours each workday
`
`and more than sixty hours each workweek, and were not reimbursed for any expenses in the
`
`discharge of their duties when they drove their personal vehicle to various job sites and were
`
`required to charge approximately seventy-five cell phones at home so that they could be used by
`
`staff.
`
`44.
`
`Consequently, as a Google Expedition Team Lead, Plaintiff and the putative class
`
`were misclassified as an exempt employee and were entitled to all the protections of the Labor
`
`Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
`
`45.
`
`Vaco instructed Plaintiff and class members regarding how to keep track of time
`
`when Plaintiff worked as an Expedition Team Lead. Vaco instructed Plaintiff and class
`
`members regarding how to record their hours worked electronically in computer programs.
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`9
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`46.
`
`On or about November 2015, Plaintiff resigned from her employment with
`
`Defendants. However, Plaintiff did not receive her final wages until approximately one to two
`
`weeks after her separation.
`
`Misclassification as Exempt Employee
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition California
`
`Sub-Class were also misclassified as exempt employees when in fact they were non-exempt.
`
`Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition California Sub-Class
`
`regularly worked more than eight hours each workday, and more than forty hours each
`
`workweek. Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition California
`
`Sub-Class were paid a fixed salary regardless of the hours they worked and were not paid any
`
`overtime compensation.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition California
`
`Sub-Class did not perform duties, more than fifty percent (50%) of the time, that would qualify
`
`them as exempt employees under the Professional, Executive or Administrative exemptions.
`
`Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition California Sub-Class also
`
`did not qualify as an exempt under the Outside Salesperson exemption as they did not spend
`
`more than half of their working hours away from the employer’s place of business selling
`
`tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of
`
`facilities. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition
`
`California Sub-Class could not be properly classified as an exempt under any of the above-
`
`referenced exemptions and so were entitled to all the protections afforded to them as non-
`
`exempt employees under California law.
`
`49.
`
`As a result of being misclassified as an exempt employee, the time spent by
`
`Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition California Sub-Class were
`
`not accurately recorded by the timekeeping system utilized by Defendants and therefore resulted
`
`in the failure to pay Plaintiff and the Google Expedition Class and Google Expedition
`
`California Sub-Class for all hours actually worked and overtime compensation.
`
`///
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`10
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class 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 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Missed Meal Periods
`
`50. While working as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation Specialist and
`
`later while working as a Content Bug Technician Plaintiff and the putative class members were
`
`required to work through their meal and rest periods. Google hired workers through staffing
`
`agencies and required them to attend meetings throughout the day. Often, these meetings were
`
`back-to-back, so employees were unable to take their meal periods or be required to take their
`
`meal periods late after the fifth hour of work.
`
`51. While working as an hourly, non-exempt Order Audit Operation Specialist and
`
`later while working as a Content Bug Technician Plaintiff and putative class members were often
`
`unable to take 30-minute uninterrupted meal breaks in part due to: 1) Defendants’ severe
`
`understaffing; 2) Defendants pressuring Plaintiff and class members to remain at their desk; 3)
`
`Defendants not having written meal break policies; and 4) Defendants failing to schedule meal
`
`breaks. While working as an Order Audit Operation Specialist Plaintiff and class members often
`
`had to work through meal breaks. While working as an Order Audit Operation Specialist
`
`Plaintiff and class members often ate lunch at their desk while they continued to work. While
`
`working as an Order Audit Operation Specialist Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and class
`
`members with meal period premium pay on those occasions that they did not receive a 30-minute
`
`uninterrupted meal break.
`
`52. While working as a Team Expedition Lead, Plaintiff and the putative class
`
`members were required to travel to various schools in order to provide education virtual reality
`
`tours through an application developed by Google.
`
`53. While working as a Team Expedition Lead, once Plaintiff and the putative class
`
`arrived at the designated school site, they were not permitted to leave for any reason until the
`
`conclusion of the program at the end of their shift.
`
`54. While Plaintiff worked as a Team Expedition Lead, the virtual reality tours were
`
`provided to three consecutive classes of students at each school site of up to 90 students at a
`
`time. These classes were generally held at different parts of the school and so Plaintiff and the
`
`putative class had to carry the phones to each class room prior to the start of the virtual reality
`
`Bush v. Vaco LLC, et al.
`
`
`11
`
`
` Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-05605-BLF Document 127 Filed 08/18/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`tours.
`
`55. While Plaintiff worked as a Team Expedition Lead, prior to each class, Plaintiff
`
`and the putative class were required to set up equipment that would be utilized by students who
`
`participated in the virtual reality tours. This would involve ensuring that all of the phones were
`
`fully charged and had all the necessary software installed.
`
`56. While Plaintiff worked as a Team Expedition Lead, at the start of each class,
`
`Plaintiff and the putative class were required to distribute the phones to each student and to
`
`demonstrate how to use it. This would often involve going to each student to assist them in how
`
`to use the equipment.
`
`57. While Plaintiff worked as a Team Expedition Lead, the classes were
`
`approximately an hour in duration. After three consecutive classes, it would usually be lunch
`
`period for the school. However, Plaintiff and the putative class were unable to take their meal
`
`periods because they would be required to recharge the phones for the next batch of classes.
`
`Although they were provided with power strips that would enable them to recharge multiple
`
`phones at once, a lot of time was spent locating outlets in unused classrooms in order to plug in
`
`the phones. Once the phones were done charging, Plaintiff and the putative class were required
`
`to retrieve the phones and to get them ready for the next class.
`
`58.
`
`Accordingly, while Plaintiff worked as a Team Expedition Lead, there was no
`
`scheduled down time in which Plaintiff and the putative class could have taken an uninterrupted
`
`meal period of at least thirty minutes duration before the fifth hour. Therefore, Plaintiff and the
`
`putative class were not relieved of all duty and were not provided with an uninterrupted meal
`
`period of at least thirty minutes before the fifth hour of work.
`
`59. While Plaintiff worked as a Team Expedition Lead, Plaintiff and the putative
`
`class members were not provided with meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five
`
`(5) hour work period due to: (1) Defendants’ polic