Retailer Forever 21 is being sued by 5 employees of the company who allege that their employer made them work through lunch breaks, and made them stay back after they had clocked out to to get their bags checked for stolen property.

The 5 plaintiffs are seeking damages for the hours that they worked during their lunch break, as well as the time that they were made to stay back after they clocked out, for bag searches. According to the plaintiffs, they were routinely made to queue up after they clocked out in order to get their bags searched for stolen merchandise, and were not paid for this additional period of time.

Attorneys representing these plaintiffs say that this practice is widespread across the Forever 21 chain. Forever 21 has also confirmed that it has a policy that requires employees to submit to a bag check before clocking out. Some of the plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit say that they have worked in more than one Forever 21 outlet, and found the same practice of being asked to stay back after they had clocked out, prevalent in all these outlets. The lawsuit has been filed in the San Francisco Superior Court.

To the general public, it may seem like going through a bag search takes just a few seconds of your time. However, California employment lawyers know differently. Bag searches can take time, especially at a retailer with dozens of employees or even more. Additionally, the practice of making employees work at a retail store even during lunch hours is fairly common, even though it is undeniably cruel. It is likely that this lawsuit will be settled out of court.

California employment lawyers expect a decision by the California Supreme Court on rules for employee rest and meal breaks within the next couple of months. The Supreme Court last month heard arguments in a potential class-action lawsuit over work breaks, and initial signs from the Court indicate that it is likely to rule in favor of giving employees flexibility with their meal and rest breaks.

The ruling will affect all non-unionized hourly workers. Lawyers for employee groups have been pushing for a decision that would require employers to ensure that their workers take proper meal and rest breaks. While California's labor laws provide for meal and rest breaks for employees, very often, these employees are not able to take their breaks because they are overworked. Employers have been known to deprive employees of tips if they take meal or rest breaks, or increase workload for employees, thereby ensuring that they are not able to take their work breaks.

The case involves Brinker International, which is being sued by workers who say that the restaurant chain makes it difficult for workers to take scheduled meal and rest breaks during busy times of the day. The case involves more than 60,000 current and former employees of Brinker International. Some judges in the California Supreme Court are in favor of requiring employers to mandate a rest break every 5 hours or so, to ensure that employees get the rest they need. Other judges have opined that it would be difficult to impose rigid work break requirements on employers.

The current imbroglio on work breaks between labor groups and employers has led to a number of lawsuits. The Supreme Court will be looking at lowering the number of work-break lawsuits, without imposing rigid requirements on employers.

Los Angeles employment lawyers can add a class-action employment complaint to the current litigious climate surrounding solar energy company, Solyndra. A former employee of the company has filed a class-action complaint, alleging that the company did not provide employees notice that it was shutting down operations.

Earlier this month, the company, which had been touted as a shining example of the future of the solar energy industry the United States, announced that it was ceasing operations and filing for bankruptcy. That decision came as a shock to its employees. Last week, the company officially filed for bankruptcy. According to the company, it is $784 million in debt.

When the company filed for bankruptcy, 1,100 people at the company lost their jobs. An engineer at the company, who lost his job when Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, has now filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.

The plaintiff had worked for the company for 4 ½ years as an engineer in the product development group. According to the complaint, the company should have given its employees 60 days notice before giving them their walking papers. It failed to do that. Instead, it let its employees go immediately, with no advance warning. While employees say that they had been aware of the troubles at the company, the decision to file for bankruptcy was immediate and shocking.

The complaint currently involves more than 100 former Solyndra employees. The lawsuit demands that the company pay its former employees 60 days of wages and benefits. His lawsuit also alleges that the company withheld hundreds of hours worth of vacation pay that he had accumulated over the years.

California Employment attorneys have discovered that Tax Preparers, also known as Tax Professionals, employed by H&R Block, one of the nation’s largest tax preparation firms, have been working countless hours without proper compensation.  Throughout the year and especially during peak tax season, when inundated with clients, Tax Preparers are compelled to stay at work to finish their client’s taxes until the filing is complete. However, many of these Tax Preparers have had these “extra hours” of work either removed from their time records by management and/or an office leader, or are otherwise encouraged by management to not document the extra time in an effort to keep local labor costs in conformity with dictates from the H&R Block home office.  Thus, Tax Preparers are not paid the appropriate amount of overtime compensation.  Additionally, many Tax Preparers are not afforded a full 30-minute uninterrupted meal break, and when a meal break is interrupted the employees do not receive the “premium hour pay” as required for working through a meal break.

California wage and hour attorneys have since filed suit on behalf of the Tax Preparers against H&R Block. The investigation for this case is ongoing.  If you are, or have been, a Tax Preparer for H&R Block and have not been appropriately compensated for overtime work, or if you have not been afforded full 30-minute uninterrupted meal breaks, contact a California Employment Lawyer immediately to find out whether you have a claim and are entitled to compensation.

Read the Opinion:

H and R Block Opinion (2822 KB)

In the end, it wasn't a verdict that California class action lawyers were entirely unprepared for.  The Supreme Court last month threw out a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit filed by female Wal-Mart workers.  The verdict wasn't so surprising because the Supreme Court has traditionally ruled against large class-action lawsuits.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the class-action lawsuit, which would have joined more than 1 million female employees of Wal-Mart nationwide, could not proceed.  The lawsuit had alleged that Wal-Mart engaged in rampant discrimination against women, paying female employees lower wages than their male counterparts and discriminating against women when it came to promotions. 

If the class action had been allowed to proceed, it would have brought together employees from more than 3,400 Wal-Mart stores across the country.  However the Supreme Court seems to have bought into Wal-Mart’s argument that grouping diverse women from a large number of stores around the country into a single lawsuit was not fair to the retailer.  Not surprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of the ruling.

If the class-action lawsuit had been allowed to proceed, it would have been the largest such lawsuit ever.  However, the Supreme Court ruling does not prevent the three plaintiffs who were initially part of the lawsuit, from proceeding with their individual claims against Wal-Mart.  Betty Dukes, one of the plaintiffs, is likely to go ahead with her individual claim against Wal-Mart, and is confident of prevailing.  Moreover, lawyers for the plaintiffs say that they're considering other options, including filing smaller class-action lawsuits that have fewer members. 

The Wal-Mart decision is bound to impact class-action lawsuits in the future.  California employment lawyers will be closely monitoring the results of pending class actions like the one against the tobacco industry, to gauge the extent of this impact.

California employment lawyers are currently researching a potential case involving Greyhound extra board drivers who are not properly compensated for their overtime, as well as for their time between trips.  Greyhound drivers are often asked to drive long distances at all hours of the day and night while bringing their passengers safely and efficiently to their destination.  But once the travelers have arrived, what happens to the bus drivers? They are usually hours away from home, stuck there until they receive their new assignment.  Drivers must rest and wait 9 hours before they can begin a new trip, and if after a certain amount of time passes the drivers still do not receive a new assignment, they receive layover pay for every hour after that.  However, it has come to the attention of California wage and hour lawyers that extra board drivers are not being accurately compensated for their layover time and overtime.

If you or someone you know is a Greyhound extra board driver and have not received the appropriate compensation for either overtime or time spent between trips, contact a California employment lawyer immediately to see if you have a claim.

An appeals court has ruled that Starbucks Corp. doesn't have to reveal the names of past job applicants with pot convictions on their record.

The company requires applicants to mention any past marijuana drug crime convictions on their applications.  The California class-action attorneys at our firm had represented three individuals who had applied for a job at Starbucks.   The three plaintiffs claimed  $26 million in damages.  However, the three were deemed ineligible to head the lawsuit because they had no marijuana convictions mentioned in their application.

The court also ruled that Starbucks should pore through its 135,000 job applications, and find a random 25 applicants with marijuana convictions mentioned in their applications.  These applicants would then be included in the California class-action.  Starbucks could contact the applicants, giving them notice that they could choose to opt out of having their names read out. 

However, a California appeals court has now ruled that Starbucks does not have to identify potential plaintiffs.  The court has held that the very act of Starbucks identifying these applicants violates their rights to privacy.

The California class-action lawyers at our firm are now looking for people who applied for jobs at Starbucks in the past and mentioned marijuana convictions on their applications.  If you had applied for a job at Starbucks in the past, and have mentioned your prior marijuana convictions on the form, then you may be eligible to be a class-action representative.  You must know that is illegal for a potential employer to ask you to note down a marijuana conviction in a job application.  Companies should not be able to get away with asking for private and confidential information from applicants.

California employment lawyers found themselves busier than ever with employment discrimination lawsuits in 2010. The recession saw more numbers of discrimination claims, alleging age and gender bias in the workplace. In fact, according to a new report, the year 2010 saw a spike in the monetary value of settlements in employment discrimination lawsuits.

Overall, the top 10 employment discrimination class action lawsuits in 2010 ended with settlements of $346.4 million. That is approximately 4 times the settlement amount in 2009.  The statistics come from a report, Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, which analyzes 848 decisions against employers in federal and state courts, including private plaintiff and government enforcement actions. The largest discrimination lawsuit settlement last year was a $135 million settlement by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. The case, Velez et. al. v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation alleged that the pharmaceutical company discriminated against 5,600 current and former female employees. These employees were mainly sales representatives who were denied promotions, and were discriminated against on pay.

In fact, 2010 broke new ground in that employment discrimination lawsuits were the number one workplace challenge mounted against employers, compared to past years which have seen more substantial wage and hour settlements. However, more numbers of wage and hour settlement class-action suits were filed last year. In terms of sheer numbers, wage and hour settlements were predominant in employment litigation last year. In 2010, private wage and hour settlements totaled $336.5 million, a drop of 7% over the previous year.

The results indicate that employers need to be more alert about compliance with the law. Besides, these results show that employers also need to react quicker and more appropriately when there are allegations of workplace discrimination against the company.

Los Angeles employment lawyers deal not just with cases involving gender and race-based discrimination, but also disability and illness-based bias. A former spokesman for the Los Angeles County Superior Court has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that he was terminated from his job because he suffered from a long-term mental illness.

According to Alan Parachini, he was fired by supervisors after they learned that his mental condition had worsened, and that his doctors were recommending that he take a second leave of absence in a year. Parachini was fired from his job last month, and the termination came just three weeks after he was placed on administrative leave.  According to him, supervisors initially alleged that he had leaked information to the gossip website, TMZ.  The complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that during severance negotiations, his lawyers told his employer that his chronic depression had worsened, and that he would require a short-term leave of absence.  Ten days later, the negotiations came to an end, and Parachini was terminated.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court has refused comment on the matter.  The matter currently involves a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and could be the first step towards a civil lawsuit.

Parachini has been suffering from depression for more than a decade, and the supervisors were well aware of his health condition.  Last year, he had taken a six-week leave of absence due to his mental illness.  However, when the depression symptoms began to worsen in the fall of 2010, Parachini did not tell his supervisors.  He initially believed that the condition would get better with medications and did not believe that his health condition would affect his job performance.  He was ultimately fired, and is claiming discrimination because of his illness.

Pending class-action lawsuits around the country have been put on freeze since the Supreme Court decided to review the mammoth gender discrimination lawsuit filed by employees of Wal-Mart. The Supreme Court is not likely to rule in the Wal-Mart case for months at the very least, but the case is being seen as a test of the effectiveness of class actions, and therefore, several class actions that have been pending will now be put on hold as California class action lawyers and plaintiffs wait for the Supreme Court decision.

Among some of the cases that have been put hold on hold is a gender discrimination case against Costco. The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals has decided that the Costco class-action should be held pending until the Supreme Court rules in the matter of Wal-Mart. Further, plaintiffs in another unrelated sex and racial discrimination lawsuit against Best Buy Co. have asked a federal judge in California to suspend briefing under the Wal-Mart judgment. Best Buy is opposing that request.

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit court upheld class-action status for a massive gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision. If the Supreme Court decides to uphold class action certification for the Wal-Mart case, the company will likely to move towards a settlement because of the cost of defending such a massive class-action.  Defense lawyers who are facing not just employment-related class actions, but all kinds of class-action lawsuits, will likely wait for any a ruling by the Supreme Court in the Wal-Mart case.

The Wal-Mart case is the mother of all class-action lawsuits because of the sheer size of the company. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the country with more than 1 million employees, and any successful class-action could result in back pay to the tune of billions of dollars. Any outcome of this class-action will therefore be awaited by class-action attorneys around the country.