Popular searches:

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Employment Attorneys at Law

Summary

Main Office

2255 Calle Clara
San Diego, CA 92037
858-367-9913

Websites

Geographies

Office Locations

San Francisco Employment Law Office

1750 Montgomery Street

San Francisco , CA 94111

San Jose Employment Law Office

5201 Great America Pkwy. Suite 320 S

San Jose, CA 95054

San Diego Employment Attorneys

2255 Calle Clara

San Diego, CA 92037

San Francisco Employment Attorneys

1750 Montgomery Street

San Francisco , CA 94111

California Employment Law Attorneys When big California companies commit violations of California California Labor Laws, employees need attorneys that have the resources and expertise to help them fight back. Big companies can be scary to go up against in court because the employer has all the resources, including lawyers and money, while the employee is just one person who in many circumstances lacks resources. As a result, many companies think that they can violate established state and federal labor laws and get away with it.
The San Diego employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have the resources and experience to help employees fight back against any sized company, regardless of how small or big the company may be. The labor lawyers represent workers on a contingency fee basis, meaning that the workers never have to pay the law firm unless the lawyers win the workers money.

Call the Employment Lawyers with Over $1.3 Billion in Settlements and Judgments

The employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik know how to win cases quickly and efficiently, using advanced litigation tactics to help workers recover as much money as possible in the shortest time period feasible. The attorneys have obtained over a billion dollars in class action lawsuits and individual actions involving:

The California Labor Code
Fair Labor Standards Act
Exempt vs. Non-Exempt Employees
Discrimination in the workplace
Wrongful Termination Laws

Our employment law attorneys represent workers throughout the state of California. Our employment attorneys in the San Francisco bay area represent workers in actions against big companies for violations of the law. Our Southern California employment lawyers also represent workers on a contingent fee basis for violations of state labor laws and federal law as well.

Articles Written

California Overtime Laws vs. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Created On: 08/22/2011

Exempt or Nonexempt? Do you Receive Overtime Pay?

Created On: 12/08/2010

When it comes to the idea of overtime pay, most think that only the laborer, manufacturer or other "blue collar" worker is eligible to receive overtime, not the professional, executive, supervisor or manager...

California Workplace Rights: What Can Employees do When Faced with Workplace Harassment?

Created On: 11/30/2010

California Overtime Rights: Do You Know If You Are A Salaried Employee?

Created On: 11/22/2010

Case History

Bova vs. JP Morgan/Washington Mutual

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: This action was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Bova and a class of WAMU wholesale underwriters for alleged wage and hour violations of California labor laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that WAMU violated the labor laws by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other Underwriters overtime compensation, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, and failing to give them accurate itemized wage statements. Here is an extensive list of the violations alleged in the complaint: (1) Unfair competition in violation of Cal. bus. & prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of cal. lab. code §§ 510, et seq. (3) Failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of cal. lab. code § 226.7 and 512; (4) Failure to provide accurate itemized statements in violation of cal. lab. code § 226 (5) Failure to pay regular and overtime compensation in violation of 29 U.S.C.§ 201, et seq. and, (6) Labor code private attorney general act [Labor Code § 2698] The focal point of this action is that the Underwriters were required to work more than eight (8) hours in a day and more than forty (40) hours in a week, but were not paid any overtime compensation for the hours worked in excess of eight (8) per day or forty (40) per week. As the Underwriters allege in the complaint, “WAMU has improperly and uniformly classified all Wholesale Underwriter Employees as exempt from receiving overtime compensation, when in fact none of the Wholesale Underwriter Employees qualified to be classified as exempt from receiving overtime compensation.” The major issue being litigated, then, is whether the Wholesale Underwriters were properly classified as exempt from overtime by WAMU.

Outcome: This case is currently in the middle of litigation.

Weltman vs. ORTHO MATTRESS, INC

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: This action was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Weltman and a class of Ortho retail businesses for alleged wage-and-hour violations of California labor laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Ortho violated the labor laws by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other salespersons overtime compensation, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, and failing to give them accurate itemized statements. Here is an extensive list of the violations alleged in the complaint: 1) Unfair competition in violation of cal. bus. & prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; 2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of cal. lab. code §§ 510, et seq. 3) Failure to provide wages when due in violation of cal. lab. code § 203; 4) Failure to provide accurate itemized statements in violation of cal. lab. code § 226 5) Failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of cal. lab. code § 226.7 and 512; 6) Failure to indemnify in violation of cal. lab. code § 2802; and, 7) Labor code private attorney general act [Labor Code § 2698] The focal point of this action is that the Salespersons were required to work at least ten (10) hours per day, at least six (6) days per week. This schedule resulted in PLAINTIFFS working more than eight (8) hours per day, more than forty (40) hours per week, and on occasion hours on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of a workweek, at no time has Ortho ever paid PLAINTIFFS premium pay for these overtime hours. Although Plaintiffs worked 10-12 hour days, Ortho never made available to PLAINTIFFS a full, thirty (30) minute meal period or fifteen (15) minute rest break. Ortho also pays, on a monthly basis, a bonus to PLAINTIFFS of 10% of the total amount of sales made during the month, with the exception that this 10% bonus is not paid if the gross profit of the sales made by PLAINTIFFS fall below 44%. At no time has Ortho provided PLAINTIFFS with any tools to determine whether a sale is or is not meeting the 44% Gross Profit threshold.

Outcome: Currently in Litigation

Smith vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc.

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: This action was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Smith and a class of Kaiser health services for alleged wage-and-hour violations of California labor laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Kaiser violated the labor laws by failing to pay overtime compensation, failing to provide wages when due, and failing to provide meal and rest periods. Below is an extensive list of the violations alleged in the complaint: 1) Unfair competition in violation of cal. bus. & prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; 2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of cal. lab. code §§ 510, 515.5, 551, 552, 1182, 1194 3) Failure to provide wages when due in violation of cal. lab. code § 203; 4) Failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of cal. lab. code § 226.7 and 512; 5) Failure to provide accurate itemized statements in violation of cal. lab. code § 226; 6) Failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of 29 U.S.C.§ 201, et seq. The focal point of this action is that the Plaintiff and other employees worked more than eight (8) hours a day, and more than forty (40) hours a week. As a result of their rigorous work schedule, Plaintiffs were often unable to take their meal and rest breaks. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were required to deliver “Lunch and Learns” training sessions to health clinicians and staff members during their own meal periods. Plaintiffs were also required to run “Technical Dress Rehersals” during meal periods, early in the morning, or late at night when regular staff was not working. “Technical Dress Rehersals” caused the workday to exceed eight (8) hours for the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were also required to remain on-call pursuant to Kaiser’s “on-call” rotation plan (the “rotations”). Plaintiffs were required complete a rotation which lasted an entire seven (7) day work week and was required to be undertaken by each Plaintiff at least once every two months. Plaintiffs received no additional compensation for remaining on-call even after working more than an eight (8) hour work day.

Outcome: In Litigation

Cabral vs. Creative Communications Technologies, Case No. BC4022

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: Plaintiff Technician's brought this action in Los Angeles against Creative Communication Technologies, which company engaged in the installation and repair of telephone, data and cable services in Southern California as the subcontractor for Time Warner, Charter and Cox. The case alleges that in order to perform their job duties, telephone, cable and modem technicians were required to purchase cable meters, ladders, power drills and vehicle racks, and the technology company failed to reimburse these technicians for such work-related expenses in violation of the California labor code. The case further alleges that the technicians are also required to use their personal vehicles to travel from site to site and use their personal cell-phones to close work-orders and activate services, also without proper reimbursement in violation of state labor laws. Finally, the complaint alleges that the technicians are compensated for their work through piece-rate compensation and Creative Communication Technologies used a standard formula to pay overtime compensation to the technicians. However, the overtime compensation formula violates state labor laws because the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime wages excludes the vehicle reimbursement amount imbedded in the piece rate compensation from the overtime calculation. California law requires that all wages, earnings and compensation must be included in the overtime calculation. As a result, the overtime compensation paid to the Technicians was subject to a miscalculation which resulted in an underpayment of overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code § 510.

Outcome: This case is currently being litigated on behalf of technicians in Los Angeles.

Trujillo v. Livhome, Case No. 30-2008-00100372

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: LivHome is the nation's largest professionally led at-home service provider for senior citizens. Formed in 1999, LivHome provides at-home general housekeeping services, with the objective of enabling seniors to continue living in their own homes for as long as possible. These services are dependent upon the work performed by the Caregivers employed by Livhome. The typical services that are provided by the Caregivers to the clients are cooking and serving meals, performance of errands, home maintenance, housekeeping, mail organization, transportation, making appointments for the client, pet care, home deliveries, laundry, bathing, showering, grooming, dressing, toileting, exercising, physical therapy, ambulation, and medication reminders. As a result, the Caregivers essentially take care of every domestic need of the client. According to the Complaint, the Caregivers performance of general housekeeping services was and is on a daily and weekly basis comprised of more than twenty percent (20%) of their time worked, thus rendering them ineligible for the exemption from overtime pay under the California Wage Order or the Fair Labor Standards Act. In order to avoid determining the actual amount of time each day the Caregivers perform general housekeeping services, LivHome does not allow the Caregivers to indicate the actual amount of time they spent performing general housekeeping duties on the Santrax timekeeping system. Although more than 20% of the time worked by the caregivers was, in fact, spent performing comprehensive housekeeping duties, Livhome created an unlawful, unfair, and deceptive method of subterfuge to systematically deprive the Caregivers of the overtime wages to which they are owed under California overtime laws as non-exempt, domestic servants.

Outcome: Contact our employment law firm to further discuss overtime cases on behalf of Live-in residential caretakers.

Santos v. Sleep Train, Case No. CJC-08-004553 (San Francisco)

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: This employment law case was filed in San Francisco Superior Court against the Mattress Store Sleep Train on behalf of Associates, Store Managers, Managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant Store Managers, Warehouse Managers, and Delivery Drivers for allegedly not paying the mattress tore employees overtime compensation in violation of state labor laws. The lawsuit against the mattress company alleges that Sleep Train committed labor law violation by permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring its Sales Associates, Store Managers, Managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant Store Managers, Warehouse Managers and Delivery Drivers to work in excess of eight hours per day and in excess of forty hours per week without paying them overtime compensation as required by California Overtime laws and federal wage and hour laws. Further, the complaint alleges that the mattress company violated state labor laws by requiring the mattress store employees to work without consistently providing all meal and/or rest periods due as required by California state wage and hour laws. The mattress company willfully failed to pay compensation owed, including compensation for working through paid or unpaid meal and rest periods, overtime, split shift pay, show up pay and vacation pay, in a prompt and timely manner, which violates California wage laws. Finally, the mattress employees allege that Sleep Train failed to give them accurate itemized wages statements in violation of California labor laws because the wage statements did not show the total number of hours each of the employees worked, the applicable deductions and applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period. According to the mattress employees, the mattress company unlawfully deducted and withheld compensation earned, owed and due, as well as failed to pay certain mattress store employees and enough compensation to satisfy California minimum wage requirements.

Outcome: Contact our employment law offices to further discuss cases against mattress companies for wage and hour violations.

Schultz vs. Qualxserv, Case No. 09-cv-0017(Southern District of

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: Qualxserv is a Delaware company engaged in technology deployment and field maintenance service for leading technology partners. QualxServ is an authorized service training partner for: Apple iMac, eMAC, Power Mac and Xserve products, Canon Printers and Multi-Function Copiers, Dell Client and Enterprise products, EMC storage subsystems Hughes Network Systems satellite communication equipment, IBM Sony Client & Consumer Electronics, and Vanguard communication equipment. The product Qualxserv provides to clients is warranty service for computer technology providers, along with on-site services and desk side support, and also provides installation and service for televisions and other consumer electronics. Qualxserv’s products are delivered by Technicians. The complaint alleges that Qualxserv violated state and federal labor laws of Technicians by committing unfair competition, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements and failing to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. The complaint focuses on the allegation that even though the Technicians work more than 8 hour days and 40 hour weeks which would require the employer to pay them overtime compensation under California labor laws and the FLSA, Technician Employees are not paid a salary, but instead, are paid on a piece rate basis for each closed ticket, and are not paid any overtime compensation for the hours worked in excess of eight (8) per day or forty (40) per week. According to the complaint, the employees with titles of Tech, Technician, Field Service Representative and Service Partner perform the same primary duty for Qualxserv, which is to deliver the product offered by Qualxserv to its clients on a 24/7 basis. This job duty performed by the Technicians consists of the routine installation, maintenance and service of computers and other technology products, according to pre-established guidelines and procedures. According to the complaint, the employees with the titles of Tech, Technician, Field Service Representative and Service Partner must be able to lift items and have a license to drive vehicles. These Technicians are not required to have a college degree or graduate degree to qualify them for employment in these positions; instead, the complaint states that these technicians are required to perform their job duties according to established company policies, protocols, and procedures as directed by Qualxserv.

Outcome: Contact our employment law offices today for a free consultation about IT/IS professionals and to learn more about the outcomes of our cases on behalf of computer professionals.

Rangel vs. Balboa Ambulance, Case No. 37-2008-00095700 San Diego

Practice Area: Overtime Pay

Description: This employment lawsuit was filed in San Diego against Balboa Ambulance for allegedly committing wage and hour law violations against Emergency Medical Technicians. Emergency Medical Technicians are entitled to be paid for regular and overtime compensation, provided with meal breaks, provided with rest period and other compensation and working conditions as prescribed by California overtime laws. Under California labor laws, Medical Technicians are supposed to be paid overtime wages at the rate of one and a half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 in a workday, 40 in a workday, and the first 8 hours of a seventh consecutive day of work. The Emergency Medical Technicians in this case allege that although Balboa Ambulance requires the Emergency Medical Technicians to work more than eight (8) hours a day and more than forty (40) hours a week, the ambulance company failed to pay the technicians overtime wages in violation of California labor laws. This case involves allegations that the ambulance company failed to properly compensate emergency medical technicians, critical care nurses and dispatchers in violation of California labor laws.

Outcome: Contact our employment law offices to learn more about overtime cases for medical technicians.