Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corporation
The Graves Firm represents Amicus Curiae Stacy Thompson in this case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Our work on this case is limited to briefing and oral argument before the Ninth Circuit on appeal. The appeal in this case addresses an effort by an employer to remove a Private Attorney General Action from state court to federal court. The case is viewed as important by many attorneys who practice Employment Law in California because it will set an important standard for determining when an employer can force a California employee who is representing others as a Private Attorney General to try his or her case in federal court. Specifically, the case addresses the issue of whether an employer may establish the amount in controversy by aggregating the wages and penalties claimed for employees represented in a PAGA matter. On March 13, the Ninth Circuit adopted the position advocated by the plaintiff employee and the Amicus Curiae. You can see the ruling here. We are proud of this contribution to the controlling law on an important issue.
Cubias v. Carl Karcher Enterprises
This is an action on behalf of General Managers who worked at Carl's Jr. restaurants in California. There are multiple claims in this case including a claim that the employer deliberately misclassified the General Managers as being exempt from California overtime laws and that the company would routinely charge a General Manager for a vacation day when the General Manager was actually working in one of the company's restaurants. In June of 2009 the company reclassified all of its General Managers but refused to pay any overtime for work prior to the reclassification. The trial court denied class certification in this case, and the Plaintiff has appealed. You can find a copy of Plaintiff’s Appeal Brief here.
Cullum, et al. v. Manheim, et al.
This is an action against an auction company on behalf of auctioneers whom the company treated as independent contractors. The auctioneers claim that they should have been treated as employees and that the company avoided paying workers compensation premiums and other benefits by improperly treating them as independent contractors.
Duarte v. Carl Karcher Enterprises
This action also deals with General Managers at Carl's Jr. restaurants in California. In this case, a General Manager who worked for the company after it began to treat its General Managers as hourly employees is challenging multiple practices at the company including: a failure to record time worked outside of the restaurant, a failure to pay employees for time worked outside of the restaurant, and a failure to pay for cell phones that employees were required to use for work.
Ortiz v. Arby's Restaurant Group
This case has been settled. Click here for more information on the Settlement. This action is brought on behalf of hourly employees who worked at Arby's Restaurants in California. The claims include a failure to relieve employees of duty in order to allow them to take a meal break before their fifth hour of work, failure to pay restaurant managers for work performed outside the restaurant, and failure to pay for cell phones that employees were required to use for work.
Ortiz v. Marlu Restaurant Group.
This is a case against a series of related companies that operate fast-food franchise restaurants in California. The claims include failure to pay Restaurant Managers for work performed outside the restaurant, failure to pay for cell phones that employees were required to use for work, and failure to include required information on pay stubs provided to employees. We are currently seeking information from past and current employees of Marlu franchises. If you have worked at a franchise associated with any of the following companies at any time in the last four years, please contact us:
Marlu Restaurant Group, Inc.
Marlu LC, Inc.
Marlu Stockton LLC
Prestige Management LLC
Smart Management & Co., Inc.
Secret River, Inc.
Central Valley QSR, Inc.
G Maroni Company, Inc.
C Food Concepts, Inc.
Aksan United Fortune, Inc.
Rivas v. Delicate Cosmetics, et al.
This is an action on behalf of factory workers at a cosmetics manufacturing company. The claims include a failure to relieve employees of duty in order to allow them to take a meal break before their fifth hour of work, and requiring employees to work off-the-clock. We are currently seeking information from past and current Delicate Cosmetics employees. If you have worked at Delicate Cosmetics at any time in the last four years, please contact us.
Schmidt v. CHLA
This is an action on behalf of hourly employees at a hospital. The allegations include a failure to relieve employees of duty in order to allow them to take a meal break before their fifth hour of work. The plaintiff is seeking to recover wages that are due to each hourly employee who worked without being relieved of duty for a meal break as required by California law.
Thompson v. Target
On November 16, 2015, the Honorable Judge Gregory Alarcon granted class certification on the wage theft claims in this case against Target. You can find the Order Granting Class Certification here.
In this case, Plaintiff Stacy Thompson claims that Target stole wages from its employees by maintaining a uniform policy of refusing to pay the extra hour of wages that California law requires when an employee works more than five hours without being relieved of duty for a meal break. Plaintiff also claims that Target has failed to provide appropriate seating for employees as required by the applicable California Wage Order.
Tehrani v. Macy's West Stores, Inc.
This is an action on behalf of Sales Managers at Macy’s department stores in California. The claim in this case is that Macy’s required Sales Managers to use their personal cell phones for work-related communications and did not reimburse any of the costs associated with the cell phones. The case also alleges that, starting in 2014, Macy’s began using an app called “My Store” that could not be run effectively on a cell phone and that Sales Managers were required to spend their own money to purchase tablet computers so they could run the app. The suit seeks to recover reimbursement for these expenses as well as penalties and other relief.