Chicago Overtime Lawyer Blog

While the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires employers to appropriately compensate their workers for overtime, the Act also provides exceptions for that rule. Unfortunately, many employers take advantage of these exceptions by deliberately misclassifying employees in order to avoid providing them with the proper overtime compensation of on and one-half times their normal hourly rate of pay. Fortunately, the Fair Labor Standards Act has clear definitions for each of the exceptions it provides and the courts are careful to consider these definitions when workers take their employers to court over cases of alleged misclassifications

Some of the most common misclassifications include salaried employees in administrative, executive, or professional capacities. Many employers have stretched the truth, when it comes to the roles their employees fulfill, in order to fit them into one of these categories. Certain companies have also been accused of classifying their workers as independent contractors, rather than employees of the company.

In a similar category to independent contractors are sales representatives. In a recent case that made it as far as the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that sales representatives working for pharmaceutical companies were not eligible for overtime pay, even though the employees alleged that they spent more time promoting the drugs to doctors than actually selling them.

Most recently, employees working for Russell Stover Candies Inc. have filed a class action lawsuit against the company for allegedly misclassifying employees as sales representatives in order to avoid paying them overtime. The lawsuit has been filed in the U. S. District Court in Atlanta for the Northern District of Georgia by four former and five current employees of the company. The plaintiffs argue that, even though they were classified as sales representatives, they did not work primarily sales, and most of the sales work was not done by them, nor did they originate most of the sales.
Cheryl Carter, one of the plaintiffs, worked for the company from May 2005 to December 2012 as a "sales representative". She claims that the majority of her duties consisted primarily of manual labor and that she allegedly regularly worked overtime but was never compensated for it.

According to the lawsuit, the duties of the sales representatives included mostly receiving shipments, inspecting, unpacking, stocking, cleaning, processing credits and repairing display figures.

Many companies don't stop at merely misclassifying their employees to avoid paying overtime though. Some have also been known to manipulate time cards to make it appear as though employees did not work in excess of 40 hours in a week when, in fact, they did. According to the lawsuit, Russell Stover allegedly made "a fictitious calculation" that the employees worked no more than 40 hours per week when, in actuality, they worked significantly more than that.

Russell Stover Candies Inc. is a Missouri-based company with approximately 5,000 employees, about 170 of which are classified as sales representatives. The majority of its products are delivered and sold to retailers such as Wal-Mart and grocery stores. The nine plaintiffs are from Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and Mississippi.

Continue reading "Russell Stover Sales Representatives Sue For Unpaid Overtime and Claim That They Are Manual Laborers Not Sales People" »

When we talk about wage and overtime lawsuits, many people do not consider the fact that tips are included in that category. However, tips can be a very contentious issue, especially because employees who earn tips are, in most states, subject to a lower minimum wage than other employees. This is where the attorneys at Chicago Overtime Law Center are here to help.

A recent case involving tips was filed by Diamonde Grant, who worked as an exotic dancer at the Oasis Nite Club in Baltimore, Maryland. The lawsuit alleges that Grant was required to pay a portion of her tips to other employees who do not normally receive tips, such as DJs and security guards. The amount she ended up paying them could be as high as $80 on weekend nights before she was permitted to take her own share of the money. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, is seeking $200,000 for the money she was forced to pay other employees between 2009 and 2012.

In Maryland, as in many other states, service employees who receive tips must have received enough money from those tips to at least meet state minimum wage requirements.

In general, courts do not look favorably upon cases of tip pooling. Not only is it unfair to the employees who work hard to earn their tips, but it is also deceptive to the patrons who believe that the entirety of the gratuity they choose to pay is going to the person who served them. Other common cases of tip pooling, which have made it to the courts in recent years, include restaurants where waiters are made to share their tips with busboys, chefs, and even shift managers.

Ms. Grant is not the only exotic dancer to file a lawsuit against her employer for tip pooling. Another similar case has been discussed on this blog and other exotic dancers have begun filing similar cases in Maryland, as well as other states.

Another difficulty that exotic dancers face is the fact that their employers often misclassify them as independent contractors. As this blog has discussed, many employers implement this in order to avoid paying their employees overtime wages. However, in order to be classified as an independent contractor, employees must fit certain requirements. These requirements include being able to choose their own hours and having control over what they wear while they are at work. In order to qualify as an independent contractor, an employee must also have a certain level of control over the environment in which they work.

However, this is rarely if ever, the case with exotic dancers. They are frequently told when and where to work and, according to Grant's lawsuit, she was regularly required to attend meetings at the Oasis Nite Club. Such regular meetings would never be required of an independent contractor. Similar cases involving misclassification of employees have pointed out that independent contractors would not face any disciplinary action as a result of their contracts. As one might expect, such is not the case with tipped employees.

Continue reading "Maryland Exotic Dancer Sues for $200,000 in Tips" »

While many employees fight with their employers to receive their earned overtime compensation, some workers have to fight to get paid at all. One company in particular has recently been accused of failing to properly pay its employees in a timely manner.

At Bellflower Medical Center, the nurses allege that they have had their paydays moved around and have been given paychecks that bounced when they tried to cash them. One employee alleges that, since January 11, multiple checks have bounced, some of them repeatedly. For nurses, who often live paycheck-to-paycheck, this can cause much undue hardship and add unnecessary stress to their lives.

The California Department of Labor Relations has fined the medical center $7 million for failing to pay employees in a timely manner and for the bounced checks. The California Department of Labor Relations cited Pacific Health Corporation, which owns four medical centers in California, including Bellflower, $524,300 for the alleged tardy payment of wages and for the paychecks that bounced. The company was also cited an additional $6.5 million for allegedly failing to provide employees with complete and accurate wage statements.

The inclusion of complete and accurate wage statements is very important in employment lawsuits. Without them, employees have no record of how many hours they worked and how much they got paid for those hours. Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements also reflects poorly on the employer, by making it seem that the employer is trying to withhold earned wages from its employees.

Plaintiffs can use this lack of complete and accurate wage statements as evidence in court that their employer was knowingly and intentionally violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to experienced employment attorneys, if a plaintiff is able to provide proof that their employer willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, that evidence has the potential to double the amount of punitive damages that the plaintiff will be made to pay.

This is not even the first time that the Bellflower Medical Center has been made to pay (literally) for its alleged illegal practices. It has also reportedly been involved in a settlement with the federal government, after it allegedly fraudulently charged Medicare for fake procedures. This is not likely to gain the medical center any sympathy with the public, as Medicare is funded by the government and, by extension, taxpayers.

Our Chicago overtime lawyers have learned that Bellflower Medical Center has allegedly been told that, if it continues to allegedly violate labor laws, it will face further penalties. As of February 2013, the California Department of Labor Relations received reports of delayed wages and insufficient funds on paychecks. Upon further investigation, the department also found that employee benefits were allegedly being deducted from paychecks, but allegedly were not being paid to the benefit providers, resulting in employees having their coverage cancelled.

Continue reading "Nurses Allege That They Are Victims of Wage Theft -- Our Chicago Class Action Lawyers Help Prevent Wage Theft" »

Misclassification of employees is a very common complaint in overtime lawsuits. Some employers think that, by simply putting their employees in a certain category, they can avoid paying those employees overtime. However, the courts take into consideration, not only the workers' classification, but whether or not the workers fulfill the requirements of that classification.

One instance where this comes up a lot (and has been discussed at length on this blog) is when employers classify employees as independent contractors when, in fact, the workers are treated as employees of the company. This is allegedly the case in a new lawsuit filed in California against a trucking company. According to the lawsuit, truck drivers were allegedly classified as independent contractors, even though they were actually employees of the trucking company. The lawsuit alleges that the company intentionally misclassified the drivers in order to avoid paying them overtime and for meal breaks and rest breaks.

Because independent truck drives are often paid by the load, rather than by the hour, they get paid the same rate for a load that takes six hours to deliver as they do for a load that takes nine hours to deliver. An employee, however, would receive higher compensation for the load that takes longer to deliver. They would also be entitled to any time that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week as well as compensation for meal breaks and rest breaks.

The truck drivers say that they used company trucks and had no control over their workday. An independent truck driver would have some flexibility in his hours and what loads he delivered when. Because the drivers involved in this case never had that opportunity, they were treated as employees of the trucking company and thus do not fulfill the requirements for independent contractors.

Continue reading "Truck Drivers Allegedly Misclassified as Independent Contractors Sue in Class Action for Unpaid Overtime -- Our Chicago Class Action Attorneys Have Collected Millions of Dollars in Unpaid Overtime" »

Our Chicago class action attorneys are seeing more and more unpaid overtime violations for restaurant and retail employers. Although punishments have been put in place to prevent employers from taking advantage of their workers, the courts still see many repeat offenders. Once such alleged offender is celebrity chef, Wolfgang Puck.

According to a recent lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Puck's catering company, Wolfgang Puck Catering and Events failed to distribute to its employees the 20% "service fee" that it charged its customers. It also required employees to work overtime on a regular basis without paying them one and one-half times their normal hourly rate for each of those overtime hours. Frequently, employees allege, they were not paid at all for the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours a week.

The lawsuit has been filed by two former bartenders who worked for the catering company at Irving Plaza and the Gramercy Theater. The suit is seeking class action status for all employees of the catering company who worked in those two locations.
The lawsuit claims that Puck signed a deal with Live Nation in 2008 to provide bar services to Irving Plaza and the Gramercy Theater, with "minimal food offerings".
The lawsuit alleges that these venues "frequently have more than one, and as many as three events in a 24-hour period". Because of this busy schedule, the lawsuit alleges that Kristin Noriega and Oliver Gummert, the two named plaintiffs filing the case, sometimes worked as many as 70 hours per week without receiving the proper overtime compensation for those hours.

Puck and its parent company, Compass Group USA, allegedly added a 20% "service charge" for events. By law, any money for tips is required to be distributed to employees and the employer is not permitted to withhold any of that money. According to the lawsuit, customers "are told that the service charge is a tip for the class. In reality, none of the service charge had ever been paid to the class". This practice is deceptive to customers in addition to being unfair to employees and illegal.

The company had been warned by its corporate office in 2011 to call the fee an "administrative charge", but that change never happened.
One of Puck's companies has already been sued for committing the same offense at the US Open in 2011.

Continue reading "Wolfgang Puck's Bartenders Sue for Alleged Unpaid Overtime -- Our Chicago Class Action Attorneys Bring Unpaid Overtime Suits For Restaurant Workers" »

With employment lawsuits nationwide rising about 200% over the last decade, it is more important than ever for employees to know their rights as workers. Employment attorneys have cited growing awareness of employment law as a major cause of the increase in employment lawsuits.

Other reasons cited are recent provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that have extended the statute of limitations from two years to three if the employee can show that their employer intentionally violated the FLSA. Proving this can be as easy as showing that the employer failed to keep accurate time records, a common complaint in overtime lawsuits. Providing such proof can also double the amount of unpaid wages employees can collect, another motivator for the increase in employment lawsuits.
Another recent provision by the FLSA is the requirement for defendants, if they lose the case, to pay all attorneys' fees and costs. According to employment attorneys who specialize in FLSA lawsuits, the amount of damages and fees an employer could end up paying is a huge motivator to settle cases. It is also a big reason for employees to file wage and hour lawsuits.

According to the Federal Judicial Center, New York federal courts have seen a greater rise in employment lawsuits than the rest of the nation. The Southern District alone saw an increase of 626% from 2003 to 2012. Although the Southern District of New York had 682 new cases filed between October 2, 2011 and September 30, 2012 (compared to 94 new cases filed in 2003) it does not reach the top as the court with the highest new cases filed. That honor goes to the Southern District of Florida with 1,304. The Northern District of Alabama comes in second with 1,029 and the Southern District of New York takes third place.

Among all of the 94 federal district courts, wage and hour lawsuits comprised 3% of all civil lawsuits filed during the last fiscal year. For the Eastern District of New York, that rate reaches 10% while the Southern District of New York has 6.5 wage and hour lawsuits for every 10 civil lawsuits filed.

Continue reading "New York Federal Courts See Sharp Rise in Employment Lawsuits" »

While many interns don't expect to get paid for the work that they do, many also do not expect to work 11-hour days performing the same tasks as paid employees. Such is allegedly the case with a class-action of interns for Hearst Corporation, who allege that they did the same work as paid employees and, as such, should be compensated accordingly.

Hearst does not deny that the interns sometimes allegedly worked as much as 11 hours a day doing the same work as paid staffers. However, the class action lawsuit was denied based on insufficient evidence to support the commonality requirement. The only thing the plaintiffs had in common was that they were unpaid interns working for Hearst Corporation. They worked for a number of different, including Harper's Bazaar, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire and Redbook among others. They had different jobs and performed different tasks which, according to the U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, is not enough to fulfill the commonality requirement.

The plaintiffs advised the Court to consider the "nature of the work that interns performed" to determine commonality. Judge Baer points out that this "vague advice ... eschews rather than addresses, the glaring problem here, that the Court cannot resort to any common proof to determine the very 'nature' of the interns' work".
In his ruling denying the plaintiffs class-action status, Judge Baer cited the Walmart v. Dukes Supreme Court decision. The highly contentious ruling found that the plaintiffs failed to support the commonality requirement when they could not prove a company-wide policy of discrimination.

Judge Baer also cited two lawsuits since then, in which the courts have granted class-action status. For example, he says, in Meyer v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, the court found commonality because the proposed class members carried out their duties for the defendant based on the same policy, the same training, the same job description, and the same procedures. In Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., the judge found commonality based, not only on the uniform classification of the plaintiffs, but also the uniform description of their duties.

In his ruling, Judge Baer pointed out that these cases differ from the Hearst case in that the "plaintiffs in Meyer and Jacob were able to show a company-wide policy regarding employee duties in addition to a company-wide policy regarding a certain employee classification, whereas here ... there is nothing more than a corporate-wide policy of classifying the proposed class members as unpaid interns based on academic credit letters."

Judge Baer further enumerates that "evidence of a corporate-wide policy of classifying the proposed class members as unpaid interns in insufficient, as that policy alone cannot answer the liability question, which turns on what the interns did and what benefit they received during their internship."

Continue reading "Unpaid Magazine Interns Attempt to Pursue Class Action Claims For Unpaid Overtime and Wages Rejected" »

This blog has previously discussed cases where employees sue, not only for unpaid overtime, but for money lost in illegal tip pools. According to the labor law, employees are entitled to the full benefit of the tips they earn and cannot be induced to share that money with other employees.

One company, which has recently been taken to court for this alleged illegal practice, is Coyote Ugly Saloon Development Corp. The class-action lawsuit was filed in Tennessee Middle District Court but now involves current and former employees of the company from all over the country. The plaintiffs are suing for unpaid overtime as well as an illegal tip pool.

According to the lawsuit, security guards for the company were permitted to claim five percent of the tips earned by the other employees, such as bartenders. Certain security personnel were permitted to claim 10 percent of the tip pool if they served as "barbacks" (if they assisted bartenders, restocked the bars, and cleaned the counters). The company argues that the security guards fulfill an important role in assisting clients and promoting the overall theme of the bar. In this way, the company claims, the security personnel earn their share of the tips. The bartenders disagree.

Now the plaintiffs are claiming retaliation from their employer as a result of their involvement in the lawsuit. Such retaliation is also prohibited by law. One of the plaintiffs, Sarah Stone, who served as a bartender-dancer at the Coyote Ugly facility in Oklahoma City, alleges that one of the regional managers threatened her in a status updated to his Facebook page. The manager, Daniel Huckaby, admitted to being intoxicated on the night that he posted the alleged threat on Facebook. He says he has no memory of putting up the post.

Continue reading "Coyote Ugly Sued For Alleged Illegal Tip Pools and Failure to Pay Overtime" »

Employers must be vigilant in ensuring that their hourly employees are paid for all of the time they spend doing work-related activities. SoulCycle, which is known for its cardio-heavy 45-minute workout classes, is about to pay for neglecting to do this, according to a new lawsuit.

A former instructor for the fitness company, Nick Oram, alleges that they only paid their instructors for the time spent teaching classes. Instructors were also allegedly expected to train, develop routines, attend meetings, and create playlists but they were allegedly not paid for any of the time spent doing that work. The lawsuit claims that these pay practices are not consistent with the pay requirements as put forth by California and New York labor law.

Oram said in a statement that his goal in the lawsuit is "to ensure that SoulCycle pays all of the hard working and dedicated instructors what they deserve and compensates them fairly for all hours worked."

SoulCycle denies the allegations. A spokesperson for the company said, "We strongly believe that the compensation and the benefits we provide to our team are amongst the best in the industry and that we are in full compliance with the law."

Continue reading "SoulCyle Sued By Instuctors in Overtime Class Action" »

Once a lawsuit has been filed, some employers will try to find ways out of the legal mess they have created for themselves. Often, this only leads to a bigger mess. Such is the case with Schneider Logistics, a contractor for Wal-Mart.

After a group of employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, employees were reportedly called into meetings with company officials and the company's attorneys. The attorneys allegedly interviewed the workers about their working conditions in the warehouse. The employees were allegedly told that these meetings were voluntary, yet they were allegedly asked to sign legal documents at the conclusion of their session. They were also allegedly not told that any information they gave during these meetings could be used against them in their lawsuit against Schneider Logistics.

The lawsuit at issue here was filed in 2012 and involves allegations of unpaid overtime as a result of an alternative workweek schedule, and violations of meal and rest break provisions.

United States District Court Judge Christina Snyder determined that these meetings were "fundamentally misleading and deceptive". When reaching this decision, she cited the fact that Schneider never informed employees that their signed statements could be used against them in court. She therefore banned Schneider Logistics from using the employees' signed statements in the lawsuit. The company is also barred from further communication with employees involved in the lawsuit unless it has permission from the court.

Schneider has reportedly accepted the judge's ruling without dispute.

Continue reading "Meeting with Members of a Class Action Found Improper" »

As this blog has discussed, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires any bonuses or other compensation an employee might receive to be included in their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. According to a class action lawsuit, Aeropostale allegedly regularly failed to do this for its non-exempt employees.

The lead plaintiff, Portia Daniels, filed a lawsuit against Aeropostale Inc., in Novemeber 2012 for allegedly under-paying overtime to non-exempt store employees by failing to include bonuses in their regular rate of pay. Daniels, who has been working as a non-exempt store manager for Aeropostale, alleges that she has regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the proper overtime compensation as stipulated by the FLSA.

Daniels filed the lawsuit after she received a letter from Aeropostale in March 2012 which referenced a 2011 class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was Sankey v. Aeropostale and it accused the clothing company of failing to include bonus pay in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime hours for California managers who worked between 2007 and 2012. The letter said that Aeropostale had found that overtime had potentially been under-calculated at times. Enclosed with the letter was a check for the amount of the under-payment.

In her own lawsuit, Daniels points to the statements from Aeropostale's payroll director from deposition in the Sankey case. According to Daniels, these statements demonstrated that Aeropostale had a uniform practice of under-paying overtime. The lawsuit alleges that this uniform practice affected thousands of employees nationwide.
Aeropostale argued that the payroll director's testimony was specific to the Sankey case and to California store managers only.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup sided with Daniels though, and agreed to conditionally certify a class of all current and former non-exempt Aeropostale employees nationwide who had worked overtime since November 2009 and received a non-discretionary bonus.
Judge Alsup specified in his certification order that the key issue in a Daniels's case is not whether Aeropostale failed to pay overtime at all, "but whether they failed to pay in a timely manner." The judge says in his order, "Potential plaintiffs may have been under-compensated as early as November 2009 but failed to receive their corresponding overtime adjustment until 2011 or later, when defendants discovered the error during the Sankey litigation".

Continue reading "Overtime Collective Action and Class Action Claims Filed Against Aeropostale" »

You may think that paying employees by the number of garments they make ("piecework") died at the beginning of the twentieth century but that turns out not to be the case. Despite the federal requirements for paying employees either a salary or by the hour, some garment companies are still paying their employees by the piece.

The most recent company to come under scrutiny for this illegal employment practice is O & K Apparel Inc. The company was recently ordered by Julie Su, the California Labor Commissioner, to pay $113,000 to its 110 employees in overtime wages. Additionally, the company is to pay $61,450 in penalties and $307,250 for issuing improper itemized/deduction statements.

California labor code requires garment manufacturers to provide accurate itemized statements showing total hours worked by the employee. If the employee is paid by the piece, then the statement must reflect both the number of pieces produced as well as the total number of hours worked.

Labor Commissioner Su said in a statement, "Piece rate payment cannot be used as an end-run around the basic requirement that all workers ... receive a just day's pay for a hard day's work, including overtime pay for overtime hours worked. In addition, California law requires itemized wage statements so employees know how much they worked and what they earned. In this case, the pay stubs did not include any of that information, which makes it hard for workers to know when their wages are being stolen right out from under them."

City Wide Insulation of Madison and Walmart are also among the companies that have come under fire for allegedly illegally paying their employers by the piece and refusing to pay overtime. City Wide Insulation was made to pay about $19,000 to each of its employees and the Walmart lawsuit is still pending. Hopefully, with more lawsuits like these, the era of employees being paid piecework will truly come to an end.

Continue reading "Paying for Work Piece by Piece Violates Overtime and Minimum Wage Laws" »

As this blog has discussed, it is important for employers, not only to make sure their workers get paid overtime, but that their overtime rate is properly calculated. If an employee receives any sort of commission or bonus, those need to be included when calculating the employee's overtime rate of pay.

T-Mobile is currently facing a class-action lawsuit of call center employees who allege that their overtime was improperly calculated. The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court in Nashville, was brought by six call center employees who worked in T-Mobile's call center in Nashville, Tennessee and Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The complaint alleges that "T-Mobile violated the FLSA by failing to include several payments in their "regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation. Plaintiffs allege that this has resulted in the plaintiffs being routinely underpaid for overtime work. These payments include shift differentials, queue differentials, gross-up payments, and all non-cash bonuses and awards made in connection with T-Mobile's incentive program for call center employees, such as Do More Get More, points at an in-house store, Inner Circle, and products."

The complaint further alleges that T-Mobile call center employees have been required to perform work before the beginning of their shifts, after the end of their shifts, and during their legally mandated meal breaks. According to the lawsuit, these duties include "booting up computer programs, reading company emails and memoranda, etc."
T-Mobile, on the other hand, denies that it requires or even permits hourly call center employees to work off-the-clock.

The plaintiffs encourage anyone who worked at a T-Mobile call center anywhere in the United States at any time since December 5, 2008 to join the class. The affected titles include Customer Service Representative, Customer Service Representative II, Retention Representative, Technical Support Representative, Financial Service Representative, Financial Care Representative, among other related occupations.

Continue reading "Call Center Employees of T-Mobile Sue for Unpaid Overtime" »

As this blog has discussed, breaks are just as important as overtime. According to the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are required to provide their workers with one ten-minute break for every four hours worked. If an employee misses a break for any reason, they must be paid one hour of their normal wage for each day that a break is missed.

Gina, a registered dental assistant for Small Care Dental Clinic in California, enjoyed these mandated breaks until the company was bought out by Coast Dental. The day after Coast Dental acquired the company, the registered dental assistants were all trained on their new computer systems. The next day, all six of the non-registered dental assistants were fired. According to Gina, the remaining three registered dental assistants were then "left holding the bag" because the work load didn't change.

Additionally, the dental assistants were made to clean the clinic. While Small Care had provided a cleaning service to come in at night to clean the clinic, Coast Dental put an end to that and instead provided the clinic with cleaning supplies. The dental assistants, after missing their breaks because they were too busy with patients, now had to mop the floors and sterilize the operating rooms before they could leave. This required significant overtime and, although they did get paid for their overtime hours, Coast Dental complained about the extra pay and it added a lot of stress to the workers. Gina says that none of them signed up for the work but they were allegedly told by their office manager "that if we wanted to work there we had no choice".

According to Gina, when the dental assistants complained that they weren't getting their breaks, they were simply told "then take a break". But there was no one to relieve them and the dentists and patients continued to require assistance. Allegedly, the dental assistants frequently didn't have time to go to the bathroom and they would get in trouble just for going to the break room for a drink.

The dental assistants were unable to add their breaks to their time sheets because it was a time clock system where they punched in and out at the beginning and end of their shifts and punched in and out for their lunch breaks. Gina says, "We all knew it was against the law to deny our breaks but everyone was afraid to complain". Gina however, is no longer afraid to complain. She reported Coast Dental to the California labor board and has filed a complaint with an employment attorney.

Continue reading "Dental Practice Sued for Allegedly Refusing to Allow Dental Assistants to Take Breaks" »

Many servers, including waiters and bartenders, earn a very low hourly wage and they depend on the tips they receive from patrons to earn a living. Some employers though, illegally withhold gratuity from their employees' pay. This is allegedly the case with Mallozzi Group, the Rotterdam-based restaurant and catering empire.

The Mallozzi family first entered the food industry in 1965 when they opened the Villa Italia bakery in Schenectady. They then began opening restaurants and catering operations all over the area until they expanded into an empire.

A former server for the Mallozzi Group has filed a 12-page class-action complaint against the company in Albany County Supreme Court. The lead plaintiff, Ryan Picard, worked as a server for Mallozzi Group for most of 2011 and all of 2012. He alleges that a mandatory 20% "service personnel charge" was added onto customers' bills, but that money was never distributed to him or the other servers. Allegedly, the servers were paid a flat hourly rate and were instructed by Mallozzi Group that, when a customer asked if they received tips, they were to reply that they did.

The lawsuit focuses on the fact that the restaurant and catering chain did not make it reasonably clear to customers that the extra charge was not a gratuity. Had Mallozzi Group done so, the servers would have no claim upon the money.
The lawsuit is seeking to represent everyone who worked as a server for Mallozzi Group in the past six years. Picard and his attorneys believe that the damages could exceed $1 million, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Nine defendants were named in the suit, including co-owners John and Joseph Mallozzi.

The complaint cites New York Labor Law which states that "A charge purported to be a gratuity must be distributed in full as gratuities to the service employees or food service workers who provided the service.

Bobby Mallozzi, one of the owners of the restaurant chain, insists that the company has not done anything wrong. He maintains that "Mallozzi's and all of our companies adhere to all of the New York Labor Law and its guidelines in its utmost strictness". He dismisses Picard's claims as the "wrongful accusations" of a disgruntled employee. He also says that "this lawsuit has absolutely no merit, and we will vigorously fight it."

Continue reading "Mallozzi Restaurant and Catering Sued For Allegedly Withholding Tips" »