`D.LAW, INC.
`Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363)
`Emil@d.law
`David Yeremian (SBN 226337)
`d.yeremian@d.law
`Alvin B. Lindsay (SBN 220236)
`a.lindsay@d.law
`Melissa Rodriguez (SBN 352716)
`m.rodriguez@d.law
`880 E Broadway
`Glendale, CA 91205
`Telephone: (818) 962-6465
`Fax: (818) 962-6469
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff ALFONSO M. MARTINEZ, on behalf
`of himself and others similarly situated
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/05/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: MARK UDAN
`Deputy Clerk
`
`CGC-24-613709
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`ALFONSO M. MARTINEZ , an individual,
`on behalf of himself and others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`HUMPHRY SLOCOMBE GROUP INC., a
`California stock corporation; and DOES 1
`through 50
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`Assigned for All Purposes To:
`Hon.
`Dept.:
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
`1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
`2. Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under
`Labor Code § 510;
`3. Meal Period Liability Labor Code § 226.7;
`4. Rest-Break Liability Labor Code § 226.7;
`5. Violation of Labor Code § 226;
`6. Violation of Labor Code § 221;
`7. Violation of Labor Code § 204;
`8. Violation of Labor Code § 203;
`9. Failure to Maintain Records Required under
`Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5;
`10. Failure to Produce Requested Records, Labor
`Code §§ 226 And 1198;
`11. Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business
`Expenses Under Labor Code § 2802; and
`12. Violation of Business & Professions Code
`§ 17200 et seq.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Plaintiff ALFONSO M. MARTINEZ (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and
`other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees employed by Defendants within the state of
`California during the relevant time period (collectively, “Employees”; individually, “Employee”),
`complains of Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all current and former
`Employees within the State of California who, at any time from four years prior to the filing of
`this lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly employees, including those employed as
`ice cream truck drivers and in similar and in similar and related positions, by Defendants
`Humphry Slocombe Group, Inc., a California stock corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
`inclusive (all defendants being collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges
`that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code,
`relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”), and the California Business &
`Professions Code, and seeks redress for these violations.
`2.
`Plaintiff and the Class Members worked as hourly, non-exempt Employees for
`Defendants in positions generally pertaining to selling and/or delivering ice cream to Defendants’
`customers. Plaintiff, and upon information and belief the other similarly situated Employees in the
`Class, were required to perform work tasks based out of Defendants’ warehouses and stores in
`California and/or would have to deliver ice cream to local stores in the San Francisco Bay area.
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an ice cream truck driver, and Defendants tasked him
`with duties that included picking up orders, loading them into trucks, and delivering and dropping
`them off at stores.
`3.
`Defendants employed other similarly situated Employees in similar and related
`positions based out of Defendants’ locations and facilities throughout California, including in the
`cities of San Francisco, California. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class Members
`worked at Defendants’ behest without being paid all wages due and without being provided all
`required breaks. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class Members were
`employed by Defendants and shared similar job duties and responsibilities, were subjected to the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`same policies and practices, and endured similar violations at Defendants’ hands.
`4.
`Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to work off the clock
`and failed to accurately record the hours they were on the clock, failed to pay them at the
`appropriate rates for all hours worked, failed to pay all wages due and owing at termination or
`resignation, and failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with accurate itemized wage
`statements that prevented them from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also
`failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as Employees were
`required to remain under Defendants’ control and were not provided with the opportunity to take
`full uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks, as required by the Labor Code and
`the applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders.
`5.
`Defendant HUMPHRY SLOCOMBE GROUP INC. is a California stock
`corporation that lists its principal address in San Francisco, California with the California
`Secretary of State. It lists several corporate agents who lists addresses in San Francisco, California
`and in San Francisco County. Humphry Slocombe Group, Inc. (“Humphry”) lists its type of
`business as “Ice Cream Restaurant & Retail.”
`6.
`The wage statements issued to Plaintiff list “Humphry Slocombe Group, LLC” and
`“Humphry Slocombe Ice Cream” as his employer with an address in San Francisco, California that
`is different from the address listed for “Humphry” with the California Secretary of State. Neither
`entity listed on Plaintiff’s wage statements is registered as active on the California Secretary of
`State’s website. Upon information and belief, Humphry Slocumbe Group, LLC is a predecessor
`entity or is a sub-entity or is otherwise related to Humphry. Defendants’ failure to accurately list
`the employer on wage statements issued to Plaintiff and the other Class members is evidence of
`Defendants’ systematic and ongoing facial violations of Labor Code § 226(a)(8).
`7.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil
`Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This Action is brought
`as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated Employees of Defendants pursuant to California
`Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district
`pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. Upon information and belief, the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`obligations and liabilities giving rise to this lawsuit occurred, at least in part in San Francisco
`County and Defendants listed a principal address in San Francisco, California. Defendants also
`employ Class Members at locations and facilities in San Francisco County and throughout
`California.
`8.
`The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
`whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently
`unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of
`Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
`designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are legally responsible in
`some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend
`this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as
`Does 1 through 50 when their identities become known.
`9.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted in
`all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, that 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 the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in
`all respects as the employers or joint employers of Employees. Defendants, and each of them,
`exercised control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of Employees, created and
`implemented the policies and practices that governed the employment of Plaintiff and the Class
`Members and dictated their job duties and responsibilities, or otherwise suffered or permitted
`Plaintiff and the other Employee Class Members to work, or engaged them, thereby creating a
`common law employment relationship with the Employee Class Members. Therefore, Defendants,
`and each of them, employed or jointly employed the Employee Class Members.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`10.
`The Employees who comprise the Class, including Plaintiff, are non-exempt
`employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare Commission
`(“IWC”). During the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through its resolution,
`the Employee Class Members were employed by Defendants and worked in non-exempt
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`positions at the direction of Defendants in the State of California. Plaintiff and the Class
`Members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the
`appropriate minimum, regular, and overtime rates. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants failed
`to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members all wages due and owing, including compensation for off-
`the-clock work, uncompliant meal and rest breaks, and Defendants’ failure to furnish accurate
`wage statements, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and
`applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders.
`11.
`During the course of Plaintiff and the Class Members’ employment with
`Defendants, they were not paid all wages they were owed, including for all work performed
`(resulting in “off the clock” work) and for all their overtime hours worked, and they were not
`paid at the required rates for overtime. This has resulted in systematic and ongoing violations of
`the California Labor Code and relevant IWC Wage Orders. Upon information and belief,
`Defendants employ other non-exempt, hourly employees as truck drivers, inventory persons, and
`in similar and related positions based out of their warehouses, facilities, and stores in California.
`12.
`Plaintiff was generally scheduled to work five days per week for five to eight
`hours per shift, with shift times generally spanning from 7:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m. On many
`occasions, Plaintiff was also required to work longer shifts with an additional hour or two of time
`approved by Defendants to be paid at overtime premium rates. However, Plaintiff was required
`by Defendants to endure substantial off-the-clock work before and after his scheduled shift hours.
`13.
`Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring systematic off-the-clock work flowed
`in part from their unlawful timekeeping procedures. While Defendants required time punch
`records for shift start and end times and meal period beginning and end times, they were not
`recorded contemporaneously. Additionally, by deducting 30 minutes for a meal period that was
`generally not lawfully provided if at all, Defendants effectively and unlawfully deducted at least
`30 minutes of hours worked from each Employee’s daily work shifts.
`14.
`Defendants’ managers also contacted Plaintiff by calling his personal cell phone
`regarding work-related matters and scheduling and would do so both throughout the work day
`and during breaks and also after work hours.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`15.
`Additionally, to whatever extent Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Class Members
`performance-based bonuses and any other form of remuneration to Employees in the Class, such
`as shift differentials and the like, upon information and belief Defendants failed to include it in
`the regular rate used to calculate and pay the overtime that Defendants did pay.
`16.
`Plaintiff was therefore not paid for all his hours worked at the required minimum,
`overtime and double time wage rates due to Defendants’ uniformly applied and unlawful policy
`and practice of requiring him to work off the clock and without pay. Defendants systematically
`underpaid Plaintiff and the Class Members by failing to pay them at the required overtime rates
`for all hours over eight in a work shift or over forty in a work week, and all hours over twelve in a
`day at the required double time rate. Upon information and belief, the Class Members were bound
`by similar scheduling and timekeeping policies and endured similar violations at Defendants’
`hands as Plaintiff.
`17.
`Defendants have either failed to maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that
`would permit Plaintiff to discover the nature and extent of the off-the-clock work Defendants
`required and the actual hours Plaintiff worked or the breaks he received or have otherwise
`declined to produce them to Plaintiff in response to a timely and lawful records request. By
`failing to pay for all hours worked, and by under-recording regular hours to the detriment of the
`Class Members, Defendants have committed knowing and intentional ongoing violations of the
`record-keeping requirements under the Labor Code, including section 1174, by either failing to
`maintain records or retaining inaccurate ones.
`18.
`The failure to pay for all hours worked and underpayment of wages to Plaintiff
`and the Class Members is and has been a direct consequence of Defendants’ unlawful
`compensation policies and practices, which upon information and belief applied uniformly to the
`Class Members based out of Defendants’ locations and facilities throughout California. As a
`result of the above-described unlawful requirements to work off the clock, the failure to
`accurately record all hours worked and pay wages at the correct rates, and the other wage
`violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class Members were not properly
`paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when working more
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`than eight hours in any given day and/or more than forty hours in any given week.
`19.
`Therefore, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing
`to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all
`hours worked and failing to pay minimum wages for all time worked, as required by California
`law. Also, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present,
`Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees overtime compensation
`at premium overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day, and/or forty hours a
`week, and double-time rates for all hours worked in excess of twelve hours a day, in violation of
`Labor Code § 510 and the corresponding sections of IWC Wage Orders.
`20.
`Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members with their
`required meal periods and the at least two ten-minute rest breaks as required at a minimum for
`Plaintiff’s scheduled shift durations. The above-described off-the-clock work contributed to
`Defendants’ common policy of failing to provide lawful meal periods to Plaintiff and the Class
`Members, as required under the Labor Code and Paragraph 11 of the IWC Wage Order(s).
`Defendants similarly failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the employee Class Members to
`take all required 10-minute rest breaks, as required under the Labor Code and Paragraph 12 of the
`IWC Wage Order(s).
`21. More specifically, Plaintiff worked shifts that entitled him to at least one meal
`period. However, to whatever extent there was ever a schedule for meal periods, it went by the
`wayside quickly as Plaintiff and Class Members were on a pressed delivery schedule as they were
`required to deliver ice cream to its designated location as fast as possible to avoid losing product
`due to melting. This led to Plaintiff and Class Members systematically skipping meal periods. The
`difficult to attain production goals and management expectations also contributed to Employees
`working through meal periods or taking them late so work could be accomplished or they were
`required to remain under Defendants’ control during meal periods. For the most part, however,
`Plaintiff rarely ever took a meal period due to the pressure from management to ensure that ice
`cream deliveries were timely. Additionally, when meal periods were provided, on-duty meal
`periods were incessantly interrupted by management demands, required job duties, and tasks to be
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`performed.
`22.
`Therefore, meal period violations systematically occurred ongoing throughout all
`of Plaintiff’s work shifts where Defendants both failed to provide a lawful meal period or penalty
`payment and then also unlawfully deducted 30 minutes from Plaintiff’s hours worked for the day.
`To the extent Defendants ever did pay Plaintiff a meal period premium, they failed to include all
`forms of remuneration beyond hourly wages in the regular hourly rate used to pay the one-hour
`premium payment. Upon information and belief, the other Class Members were subjected to
`similar unlawful policies and practices and endured similar violations as Plaintiff.
`23.
`Defendants thus failed to provide all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal
`periods and all the legally required paid, off-duty rest periods to Plaintiff and the other Class
`Members, as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. Plaintiff and other Class
`Members were required to perform work as ordered by Defendants for more than five hours
`during a shift without receiving compliant meal periods.
`24.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ systems did not automatically generate a
`meal period premium under Labor Code § 226.7 for meal periods that commenced after five hours
`into a work shift or in the event the time punch records reflected a meal period of less than thirty
`minutes. However, upon information and belief, in the event Defendants did pay any meal period
`premiums, they did so at the employee’s customary regular rate of hourly compensation without
`including all forms of remuneration in that hourly rate calculation, for example by omitting
`performance-based bonuses and the like from the rate at which meal premiums were paid.
`25.
`Defendants thus followed uniformly applied policies of not providing all required
`meal periods to their Employees. Meal periods were often not properly provided, as work
`demands prevented Plaintiff and Class Members from taking one or impermissibly shortened their
`breaks. Even when Plaintiff and the Class Members were able to take a meal period, it was
`generally interrupted by work duties or was taken after the fifth hour of work. Additionally, as
`addressed above, Defendants followed a practice of requiring off-the-clock work in a manner that
`would impact when Employees were to receive meal periods and rest breaks, thus leading to
`further violations.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`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
`
`
`26.
`As a result, Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members with all
`legally required off-duty, unpaid meal periods and all the legally required off-duty, paid rest
`periods is and will be evidenced by Defendants’ business records, or lack thereof. As further
`detailed above, Defendants also failed to pay Employees “premium pay,” i.e. one hour of wages at
`each Employee’s effective regular hourly rate of compensation for each meal period or rest break
`that Defendants failed to provide or deficiently provided.
`27.
`Therefore, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the
`present, Plaintiff and the Class Members were unable to take off-duty breaks or were otherwise
`not provided with the opportunity to take required breaks as required under the Labor Code and
`Wage Orders due to Defendants’ policies and practices. On the occasions when Plaintiff and the
`Class Members were provided with a meal period, it was often untimely or interrupted, or was
`impermissibly shortened, and Employees were not provided with one hour’s wages in lieu thereof.
`Meal period violations thus occurred in one or more of the following manners:
`(a)
`Class Members were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods
`for work days in excess of five hours and were not compensated one hour’s
`wages in lieu thereof, or were not compensated at the correct regular rate
`of compensation, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 226.7,
`512, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s);
`Class Members were not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal
`periods for work days in excess of ten hours;
`Class Members were required to work through at least part of their daily
`meal period(s);
`(d) Meal periods were provided after five hours of continuous work during a
`shift; and
`Class Members were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute
`meal period.
`28.
`Similar violations resulted from Defendants’ failure to authorize and permit
`Plaintiff and the Class Members to take duty-free, net ten-minute rest breaks for every four hours
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`of shift work, or major fraction thereof. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class Members
`were either not authorized permitted the opportunity to take a rest break, or were required to
`remain under Defendants’ control and respond to calls and instructions from management and job
`demands if and when they even attempted to take one. Upon information and belief, Defendants
`thus also failed to authorize and permit employees to leave the premises during rest breaks,
`evidencing Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the Class Members to
`remain under their control during required off-duty rest break times.
`29.
`Rest breaks were neither scheduled nor contemplated by Defendants. During
`Plaintiff’s entire employment duration with Defendants, he cannot recall a time when he took a
`break, despite being entitled to receive at least two paid, timely, uninterrupted, and duty-free ten-
`minute rest breaks during each of his work shifts. As detailed above, in addition to failing to
`authorize and permit rest breaks, Defendants unlawfully deducted up to 30 minutes for meal
`periods that were rarely provided or otherwise received without violation.
`30.
`Defendants’ uniformly applied policies and practices thus resulted in untimely and
`shortened or on-duty rest breaks when they were authorized and permitted. Plaintiff and the Class
`Members worked shifts of at least eight hours, which required at least two rest breaks, and often
`worked shifts over ten hours, which required at least three rest breaks. Even on the occasions
`when Defendants authorized and permitted Plaintiff to take a first rest break, he was not
`permitted to take a second or a third break, and those that were provided were often late and
`generally interrupted by job duties and requirement.
`31.
`During rest periods, employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish
`control over how employees spend their time. Plaintiff and the Class Members were and are
`under Defendants’ control when they are working through rest breaks and remaining under
`Defendants’ control. Defendants have also provided either impermissibly shortened or untimely
`meal and rest breaks to Plaintiff and the Class Members. Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class
`were thus not authorized and permitted to take lawful rest periods, were systematically required
`by Defendants to work through or during breaks, and were not provided with one hour’s wages in
`lieu thereof. They were required to remain on-duty during breaks or portions of their breaks, thus
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`(c)
`
`(b)
`
`
`making them either untimely or shortened and on-duty, and they were also prevented from
`leaving the premises and otherwise remain under Defendants’ control during rest breaks under
`Defendants’ uniformly applied policies and practices. Rest period violations therefore arose in
`one or more of the following manners:
`(a)
`Class Members were required to work without being provided a minimum
`ten minute rest period for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked
`and were not compensated one hour of pay at their regular rate of
`compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided;
`Class Members were not authorized and permitted to take timely rest periods
`for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof; and
`Class Members were required to remain on-duty and/or under Defendants’
`control during rest periods or otherwise had their rest periods interrupted by
`work demands.
`32.
`From at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the
`present, Defendants have also consistently violated Labor Code § 221 by unlawfully collecting or
`deducting the Employees’ earned wages, including by the above-described off-the-clock work and
`on-duty work while on unpaid meal breaks. In addition to failing to authorize and permit rest
`breaks, Defendants unlawfully deducted up to 30 minutes for meal periods that were rarely
`provided or otherwise received without violation. Thus, by deducting 30 minutes for a meal that
`was generally not lawfully provided if at all, Defendants effectively and unlawfully deducted at
`least 30 minutes of hours worked from each Employee’s daily work shifts. By not compensating
`Employees for all hours worked, Defendants unlawfully deducted wages earned in violation of
`Labor Code § 221.
`33.
`Defendants also violated California Labor Code § 246 by not providing all
`required paid sick days to Plaintiff and the Class Members. Labor Code § 246 provides that an
`Employee who “works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days within a year
`from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in this section.”
`Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the other similarly Aggrieved Employees with all their
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`required and earned sick days, in violation of Labor Code § 246. Additionally and upon
`information and belief, Defendants have failed to provide COVID-19 supplemental sick leave to
`the Class Members during the relevant time period, including by failing to provide two work
`weeks of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave as required under Labor Code §§ 248.1 and
`248.2 and including damages and penalties as these sections are enforced through Labor Code §
`248.5, which requires that: “If paid sick days were unlawfully withheld, the dollar amount of paid
`sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three, or two hundred fifty dollars ($250),
`whichever amount is greater, but not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars
`($4,000), shall be included in the administrative penalty.” Plaintiff accordingly seeks this relief
`available for Defendants’ failure to provide Employees with all their required and earned sick
`days and all their COVID-19 supplemental sick leave in violation of Labor Code §§ 246, 248.1,
`248.2, and the civil and statutory penalties available and applicable under Labor Code §§ 246,
`248.1, 248.2, 248.5, 558, 1194.2, 1197.1, 1198, 1199, and 2699(f)(2), and also for attorneys’ fees
`and costs pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(g)(1).
`34.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants also failed to provide Employees such as
`Plaintiff at the time of his employment and thereafter with written notice complying with all the
`requirements of Labor Code § 2810.5, which provides that: “At the time of hiring, an employer
`shall provide to each employee a written notice, in the language the employer normally uses to
`communicate employment-related information to the employee, containing” specifically required
`information. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to provide this information to the
`Aggrieved Employees as required under Labor Code § 2810.5. Defendants were required to
`provide Plaintiff and the aggrieved employee Class Members certain specific information upon
`hiring pursuant to California Labor Code § 2810.5. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with
`any such information when he was hired, or have failed to produce them, and upon information
`and belief, Defendants committed similar violations in connection with similarly situated and
`aggrieved Class Members.
`35.
`As a result of these illegal policies and practices, Defendants also engaged in and
`enforced the following additional unlawful practices and policies against Plaintiff and the Class
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`
`Members he seeks to represent:
`(a)
`failing to pay all wages owed to Class Members who either were discharged,
`laid off, or resigned in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code §§
`201, 202, 203;
`failing to pay all wages owed to the Class Members twice monthly in
`accordance with the requirements of Labor Code § 204;
`failing to pay Class Members all wages owed, including all meal and rest
`period premium wages, and failing to pay them at the regular rate of
`compensation;
`failing to maintain accurate records of Class Members’ hours worked and
`earned wages and meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226 and
`1174(d) and section 7 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders; and
`failing to produce timekeeping records in response to Plaintiff’s timely and
`lawful request to receive them under these authorities.
`36.
`Defendants have also consistently failed to provide Class Members with timely,
`accurate, and itemized wage statements, in writing, as required by California wage-and-hour laws,
`including by the above-described requirement of off the clock work, failure to pay all overtime
`and double time wages owed and failure to pay them at the appropriate premium rates, and failure
`to pay premium wages for unprovided or otherwise unlawful meal and rest breaks, or by
`miscalculating any overtime or meal period or rest break premium wages and by the systematic
`and unlawful deductions Defendants took from Employee wages. Defendants have also made it
`difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld wages and meal and rest period
`compensation owed to Plaintiff and the Class, during the liability period, including because they
`did not calculate the regular rate of pay correctly when paying overtime or meal period premiums
`and because they did not implement and preserve a record-keeping method as required for non-
`exempt employees by California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d), and paragraph 7 of the applicable
`California Wage Orders. Upon information and belief, time clock punches were not maintained or
`were not accurately maintained for work shifts and meal periods, which were automatically
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`presumed by Defendants to have been lawfully provided when they were not. Defendants also
`failed to accurately record and pay for all regular a