Preview
10
Il
13
14
1S
16
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
FILED
Joseph Lavi, Esq. SON BEN 648 ) "15 3
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483 se 129,
LAVI & EBRABIMIAN, LLP HLS PH 2: 32
>
8889 W. Olympic: Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Attomeys for PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
ROSA JUNQUEIRO, CLERK
ty, reerUy
HINDS.0> qn
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and CaseNo: | goxcv- OK -2016-_ 6523
others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION
PLAINTIFE, PLAINTIEF REGINALD LYLE’S
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
vs. RESTITUTION AND FOR:
1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR
ALL TIME WORKED AT
MINIMUM WAGE IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1194
AND 1197
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS.HOSP OF MANTECA INC;
SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET 2. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR,
HEALTHCARE. CORPORATION; TENET ALL TIME WORKED AT
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; OVERTIME RATE IN
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, SECTION C10 AND LI CODE
, 3, FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE OR
DEFENDANTS. PERMIT MEAL PERIODS IN
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
SECTIONS 512 AND 226.7
4. FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE OR
PERMIT REST PERIODS IN
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
SECTION 226.7
5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
WAGE STATEMENTS IN
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
SECTION 226
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 ‘THIS CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO
JUDGE CARTER P. HOLLY iN
DEPARTMENT 41 FOR ALL PURPOSES,
WCLUDING TRIAL
4
—s\
ss
a
Wa A12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
28
6. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL
EARNED WAGES AND FINAL
PAYCHECKS DUE AT TIME OF
SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT
IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
‘SECTIONS 201, 202, AND 203
7: UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES,
IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200, et seq.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE (“Plaintiff”), who alleges and complains
against Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET
HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, (collectively “Defendants” as follows:
L INTRODUCTION
1. This is a class action lawsuit seeking unpaid wages and interest thereon for unpaid
wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage and overtime rates of pay due to Defendants’
policy, practice, and/or procedure of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly employees to
don and doff their scrubs off-the-clock, rounding their daily hours worked down to the nearest
quarter of an hour, and requiring them to remain “oncall;” failure to: authorize or permit second
meal periods; failure to authorize. or permit rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate. wage statements; waiting time: penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive relief and other
equitable relief; reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226(e) and
1194; costs; and interest brought on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
Tt. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's and the Class Members’ claims for unpaid
wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage and overtime rates of pay due to Defendants’
policy, practice, and/or procedure of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly employees to
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
210
1
12
13
4:
4s
16
17
18
20
al
23
24
26
27
28
don and doff their scrubs off-the-clock, rounding their daily hours worked down to the nearest
quarter of an hour, and requiring them to remain “on call;” failure to authorize or permit second
meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive relief and restitution
under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seg, for the following reasons:
Defendants operate throughout California; Defendants employed Plaintiff in San Joaquin County;
Defendants operate at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336; at all relevant times, Defendants’
principal place of business was located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336; more than two-
thirds of the putative class members are California citizens; the principal violations of California
law occurred in California; no other class.actions have been filed against Defendants in the last three
years alleging wage and hour violations; the conduct of Defendants forms a significant basis for
Plaintiff's and the Class Members’ claims; and Plaintiff and the Class Members séek significant
relief: from Defendants.
I. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other members of the general
public similarly-situated. The named Plaintiff and the class of persoris on whose behalf this action
is filed are current, former and/or future employees of Defendants who work as hourly non-exempt
employees, At all times mentioned herein, ‘the currently named Plaintiff is and was a resident of
California and was employed by Defendants as a surgical technician, within the four years prior to
the filing of the complaint.
4. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a surgical technician from on or around May of
2013, through on around December 29, 2015. :
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants employed
Plaintiff and other hourly non-exempt employees throughout the State of California and therefore its
conduct forms a significant basis of the claims asserted in this matter.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California and is
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
314
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
27
28
doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 1 - 12 are, and at all times
relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. in
the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wagé and hour practices or
policies. Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. operates in San Joaquin County
and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business
located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. :
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant AUXILIARY
OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL-OF MANTECA is authorized to do business within the State of
California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 13 - 24 are,
and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA in the establishnient of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal
wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA operates in San Joaquiti Courity and employed Plaintiff and other putative class
members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DRS HOSP OF
MANTECA INC is:authorized to do business: within the State of California and is doing business in
the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 25 - 36 are, and at all times relevant hereto
were persons acting on behalf of DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC in the establishment of, or
ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant DRS
HOSP OF MANTECA INC operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other
putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St, Manteca,
CA 95336,
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SP OF
MANTECA INC is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in
the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 37 - 48 are, and at all times relevant hereto
were persons acting on behalf of SP OF MANTECA INC in the establishment of, or ratification of,
the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant SP OF MANTECA INC
operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
412
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
Joaquin County at its busiriess Idcated at 1205 E. Noith St., Manteca, CA 95336.
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SP OF
MANTECA INC is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in
the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 49 - 60 are, and at all times relevant hereto
were persons acting on behalf’ of SP OF MANTECA INC in the establishment of, or ratification of,
the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant SP OF MANTECA INC.
operates in. San Joaquin County aid employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San
Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336.
11. ‘Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION is authorized to do business within the State of California and is
doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 61 - 72 are, and at all times
relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION in the
establishment of, of ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies.
Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates in San Joaquin County and
employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located
at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336.
12. ‘Plaintiff is informed and believes and théreon alleges that. Defendant TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION is authorized to do business within the State of California and is
doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 61 - 72 are, and at all times
relevant hereto: were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION in the
establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies.
Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates in San Joaquin County and
employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located
at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of
California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 73 - 84 are,
and at all times relevant héreto were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
513
14
4s
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
26
27
28
SERVICES, INC. in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and
hour practices or policies. Defendant TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. operates
in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and ‘other putative class members in San Joaquin
County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336.
14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TENET
HEALTH is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the
State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 73 - 84 are, and at all times relevant hereto were
persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTH in the establishment of, -or ratification of, the
aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant TENET operates in San
Joaquin County and.employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at
its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants DOES 84 -
100 are individuals unknown to Plaintiff. Each of the individual Defendants is sued individually: in
his or her capacity as an agent, shareholder, owner, representative, manager, supervisor, independent
contractor and/or employee of each Defendant and participated in the establishment of, or
ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies.
16. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 100. Plaintiff
sues said defendants by said fictitious names, and will. amend this complaint when the true names
and capacities are ascertained or when such facts pertaining to liability are ascertained, or as
permitted by law or by the Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously
named Defendants is in some manner responsible’ for the events and allegations set forth in this
complaint.
17. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each
defendant was an employer, was the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, officer, director,
controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest and/or
predecessor in interest of some or all of the other Defendants, and was engaged with some or all of
the other defendants in a joint enterprise for profit, and boré such other relationships to some or all
of the other defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters alleged in this
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
610
ll
12
3
4
15
18
19
21
23
g
27
28
complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges. that each defendant acted
pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, and that at all relevant times,
each defendant knew or should have known about, authorized, ratified, adopted, approved,
controlled, aided and abetted the conduct of all other defendants. As uséd in this complaitit,
"Defendant" means “Defendants and each of them," and refers to the Defendants named in the
particular cause of action in which the word, appears and Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF
MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.
18. Atall times mentioned herein, each Defendant was the co-conspirator, agent, servant,
employee, and/or joint venturer of each of the:other defendants and was acting within the course and
scope of said conspiracy, agency, employment, and/or joint venture and with ‘the permission and
consent of each of the other Defendants.
19. Plaintiff makes the allegations in this complaint without any admission that, as to any
particular allegation, Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading, proving, or persuading and Plaintiff
reserves all of Plaintiff rights to plead in the alternative.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF ILLEGAL PAY PRACTICES
20. Pursuant to the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“TWC”) Wage ‘Order
(“Wage Order”), codified at Califomia Code of Regulations title 8, section 11050, Defendants are
employers of Plaintiff within the meaning of the applicable Wage Order and applicable California
Labor Code sections. Therefore, each of these Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the
wrongs complained of herein in violation of the Wage Order and the California Labor Code,
21. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage:
Defendants employed many of their employees, including Plaintiff, as hourly non-exempt
employees, In California, an employer is required to pay hourly employees for all “hours worked,”
which includes all time that an employee is under control of the employer and all time the employee
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
716
7
18
4
25
26
27
28
is suffered and permitted to work. This includes the time an employee spends, either directly or
indirectly, performing services which inure to the benefit of the employer.
22. California Labor Code sectioris 1194 arid 1197 require an employer to compensate
employees for all “hours worked” at least at a minimum wage rate of pay as established. by the
Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) arid the Wage Orders.
23. In this case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to
the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift. Similarly,
Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs.
24. In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they
rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours worked to the
nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees wages for that time.
25. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be “on-
call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. During “on-call” time Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” prevented them from engaging
in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees for “on-call” time.
26. Despite the fact that California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours.
worked at least at a minimum wage rate, because of Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly
situated hourly non-exempt employees for time spent donning and doffing scrubs, failed to pay for
all daily hours worked due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and procedure of rounding down or
shaving down employees’ daily hours worked to the nearest quarter hour, and failing to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees’ “on-call” hours. The foregoing
resulted in hourly employees working time for which they were not compensated any wages, in
violation of California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and the Wage Orders.
27. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the employee's overtime rate of
pay: As described above, Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures require Plaintiff and.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
similarly situated employees to don and doff their scrubs off the clock, round down or shave down
employees daily hours down to the nearest quatter hour, and require that an employees to remain
“on-call” without being compensated for that time. The foregoing resulted in time each work day
which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants but were not
compensated.
28. Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 require an employer to compensate employees a
higher rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a workday, 40 hours in a workweek, and
on any seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.
Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in
excess of 40 hours in any oné workweek and the first eight hours
worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be
compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in
one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the
regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of
eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated
at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.
(Lab. Code §510.)
29. Despite that California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked
and at a higher rate of pay when those hours fall during work periods in excess of 8 hours in a
workday and 40 hours in a workweek; Defendants would fail to pay employees wages for the time it
took to don and doff their scrubs, for the time each workday that employees’ were not compensated
for due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure of rounding down or shaving down
employees’ daily hours down to the néatest quarter hour, and requiring that an employees remain
“on-call” without being compensated for that time which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
were under control of Defendants. To the extent the employees had already worked 8 hours in the
day and on workweeks they had already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the employees should
have been paid overtime for this unpaid time. This resulted in non-exempt employees working time
which should have been paid at the legal overtime rate, but was not paid any wages in violation of
Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders.
30. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for workdays
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
920
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Defendants failed to provide required meal periods: Defendants often employed hourly
employees, including the named Plaintiff'and all others similarly-situated, for shifts longer than 10
hours in length,
31. California law requires an employer to authorize or permit an employee an.
uninterrupted meal period of no less than 30-minutes in which the employee is relieved of all duties
and the employer relinquishes control over the employee’s activities prior to the employee’s sixth
hour of work. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; Wage Order 9-2001, 11; Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super
Ct.(Hohnbaum) (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. An employer may not employ an employee for a work
period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second such meal
period of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of the eleventh hour of work. Jd. If the
employee is not relieved of all duty during a meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on
duty” meal period and counted as time worked. A paid “on duty” meal period is only permitted
when: (1) the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty; and (2) the
parties have a written agreement agreeing to on duty meal periods.
32. If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the
law, the employer must pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for
each work day that a legally required meal period was not timely provided or was not duty-free. Id.
33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts long
enough to erititle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Despite the fact
that California law requires employers to authorize or permit an uninterrupted, duty-free first meal
period of not less than 30 minutes prior to their sixth hour of work when they worked shifts more
than five hours in length and a second, duty-free meal period of not less than 30 minutes when they
worked shifts over 10 hours in length, Defendants routinely failed to authorize or permit first meal’
periods of not less than 30 minutes because Defendants would require Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to don their scrubs’ prior to conclusion of their first meal periods and failed to
authorize or permit second meal periods altogether when employees worked shifts of more than 10
hours.
34. In addition, Defendants failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1020
21
22
23
25
26
7
28
situated employees to compensate them for each workday the employees did not receive all legally
required duty-free meal periods. Defendants. employed policies and procedures which ensured
employees did not receive any premium wages to compensate them for the workdays in which they
did not receive all legally required meal periods.
35. This practice resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees not
receiving premium wages to compensate them for workdays which Defendants did riot provide them
with either first or second duty free meal periods, or both, in compliance with California law.
36. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for workdays
Defendants, failed to provide required rest periods: Defendants often ‘employed hourly
employees, including the named Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated, for shifts at least three
and one-half (3.5) hours in length:
37. California law requires an employer to provide an employee a rest period of ten (10)
net minutes for every four hours worked, “which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of
each work period.” Cal. Lab. Code §226.7; Wage Order §12. Thus, employees are entitled to 10
minutes rest for shifts from three and. one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts between |
six and ten hours in length, 30 minutes for shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, and soon. Sez
Brinker, supra.
38. If the employer fails to provide a required rest period, the employer must pay the
employee one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day the
employer did not provide all legally required rest periods. Id.
39. Defendants employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, if the employees
worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and
therefore failed to provide a third rest period of ten net minutes.
40. Defendants also employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees did not receive any premium wages to compensate them for workdays
that they did not receive all legally required rest periods.
41. These practices resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees not
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
Wt19
20
2)
22
3
24.
25
26
27
28
® »
receiving wages to compensate them for workdays which Defendants did not provide them with all
rest periods required by California law.
42. Pay Stub Violations: California Labor Code section 226(a) provides, inter alia, that,
upon paying an employee his or her wages, the employer must “furnish each of his or her employees
+=. an itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the
employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is
exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of
the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units eamed and any applicable
piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided, that alt
deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5)
net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates: of the pay period for which the employee is paid, (7) the
name of the employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the.
corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.”
43. Defendants failed to provide. accurate wage and hour statements to Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendants’ contro! for uncompensated time and
who did not receive the wages they eamed (including minimum wages, overtime wages, as well as
failure to_pay premium wages for missed meal and rest periods).
44. Fallure to Pay California Employees All Wages Due at Time of
Termination/Resignation: An employer is required to pay all unpaid wages timely after an.
employee’s employment ends. The wages are due immediately upon termination (California Labor
Code section 201) or within 72 hours‘of resignation (California Labor Code section 202).
45. Because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all
their earned wages (including minimum wages, oveitiriie wages, and unpaid meal and rest period
premium wages), Defendants failed to pay. those employees timely after each employee’s
termination and/or resignation.
Vv. CLASS DEFINITIONS AND CLASS ALLEGATIONS
46. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, on behalf of all others similarly
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1220
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
situated, and on behalf of the General Public, and as a member of a Class defined as follows:
A. Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing
of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice. is mailed to a certified class, who
were under control of Defendants during time prior to and after to a work period, whose daily hours.
worked were rounded down or shaved down to, the nearest quarter of an hour and/or who were
required to be “on-call” and Defendants did not pay wages for that time at the legal minimum wage
rate.
B. Unpaid Work Overtime Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing
of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class, who
were under control of Defendants during time prior to a work period and on workdays they had
already worked in excess of 8 hours ina day, 40 hours in a week, or were working on a seventh
consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that time.
CG Meal Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint
in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked shifts of at least
six hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30
minutes, and/or who worked shifts more than ten hours yet Defendants did not provide required
duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of their eleventh hour of work.
D. Rest Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by-
Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint
in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked at least three and
one-half(3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive required rest periods of ten net minutes rest’
time for every four hours worked between three and one-half and six hours, six and ten hours, or ten
and fourteen hours.
EB ‘Wage Statement Class: All current and former hourly employees employed
by Defendants in California at any time within the one year prior to the filing of the initial complaint
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3i
2
13
14
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
ini this action arid through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who received inaccurate or
incomplete wage and hour statements.
F. Waiting Time Class: Afl current and former hourly employees employed by
Defendants in California at.any time within the three years prior to the filing of the initial complaint
in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who did not receive payment
of all unpaid wages upon separation of employment within the statutory time period.
G. California Class: All aforementioned classes are here collectively referred to
as the “California Class.”
47. There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the classes are
ascertainable:
A Numerosity; While the exact number of class members in each class is
unknown to plaintiff at this time, the Plaintiff classes are so numerous that the individual joinder of
all members is impractical under the circumstances of this case.
B. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact éxist
as to all members of the Plaintiff classes. and predominate over any questions that affect only
individual members of each class. The common questions of law and fact include, but are not
limited to:
i. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 1194
and 1197 by not paying employees’ wages at a minimum wage rate for all time that the Unpaid
Work Minimum Wage Class Members were subject to Defendants’ control but were.not paid;
di. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 510 and
1194 by not paying employees’ wages at an overtime wage rate for all overtime hours that the
Unpaid Work Overtime Wage Class Members were subject to Defendants’ contro] but were not
paid;
iii. | Whether Defendants violated -Califoria Labor Code sections 512 and
226.7, as well as the applicable Wage Order, by employing Meal Period Class Members without
providing all their required meal periods or paying meal period premium wages;
iv. Whether Defendants violated the Wage Order and California Labor
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR. DAMAGES
1419
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Code section 226.7 and the applicable Wage Order by employing Rest Period Class Members
without providing all their required rest periods or paying rest period premium wages;
y. ° Whether Defendants failed to provide the Wage Statement Class
Members with accurate itemized statement at the time they received their itemized statements;
vi. Whether Defendants failed to provide the Waiting Time Class
Members with all of their eamed wages upon separation of employment within the statutory time
period;
vii. Whether Defendants committed unlawful business acts or practice
within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seg.;
viii. Whether Class Members are entitled to unpaid wages, penalties and
other relief pursuant to their claims;
ix. Whether, as a consequence of Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Class
Members are entitled to restitution, and/or equitable relief; and
x. Whether Defendant's affirmative defenses, if any, raise any common
issues of law or fact as to Plaintiff and as to the Class Members as a whole.
c. Typicality: Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class members
in each of the classes. Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class
sustained damages-arising out of Defendants’ failure to pay wages at least at minimum wage for all
time the employees were subject to Defendants’ control. Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid
Work Overtime Wage Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to pay wages at
the overtime wage for all overtime hours the employees were subject to Defendants’ control.
Plaintiff and the members of the Meal Period Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’
failure to provide employees all legally required meal periods and failure to pay meal period
premium wages as compensation. Plaintiff and the members of the Rest Period Class ‘sustained,
damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to provide employees all legally required rest periods and
failure to pay rest period premium wages as compensation. Plaintiff and the members of the Wage
Statement Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to furnish them with accurate.
itemized wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code section 226. Plaintiff and the
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
157
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
e oD
members of the Waiting Time Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to provide
all unpaid yet eatned wages due upon separation of employment within the statutory time limit.
D. Adequacy. of Representation; Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect:the
interests of the members of each class. Plaintiff has no interest that is adverse to the interests of the
other class members.
E. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because individual joinder of all members of each
class is impractical, class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to
prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without. the
unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions. would engender.
The expenses and burdens of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for
individual members of each class to redress the wrongs done to them, while important public
interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The cost to and. burden on the
court system of adjudication of individualized litigation would be substantial, and substantially
more than the costs and burdens of a class action. Individualized litigation would also ‘present the
potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.
F. Public Policy Consideration: Employers throughout the state violate wage
and hour laws. Current employees often are afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or
indirect retaliation. Former employees fear bringing actions because they perceive their former}
employers can blacklist them in their future endeavors with negative references and by other means.
Class. actions provide the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of
anonymity that allows for vindication of their rights.
L FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR ALL HOURS OF WORK AT THE LEGAL MINIMUM
WAGE RATE IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1194 AND 1197
{As Against all Defendants and DOE Defendants by the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class)
48. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 47 above, as if fully set
herein by reference.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1610
Mh
12
3
1S
16
7
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
49. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid
Work Minimum Wage Class were hourly employees of Defendants.
50. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and Wage Orders, Plaintiff and the
Minimum Wage Class are entitled to receive wages for all hours worked, i.e, all time subject to
Defendants’ control, and those wages must be paid at least at the minimum wage rate in effect
during the time the employees earned the wages.
51. Defendants’ policies, practices, and/or procedures required employees of the
Minimum Wage Class to be engaged, suffered, or permitted to work without being paid wages for
all of the time in which they were subject to Defendants’ control.
52. Specifically, Defendants required employees to don and doff their scrubs off the
clock, rounded down or shaved down employees’ daily hours worked, and required employees to be
“on-call” without being paid for that time.
53. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct; Plaintiff and members of the Unpaid
Work Minimum Wage Class have suffered damages in.an amount subject to proof, to the extent that
they were not paid wages at a minimum wage rate for all hours worked.
54, Pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiff and the
Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class members are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wage,
interest thereon, liquidated damages in the amount of their unpaid minimum wage, and attorneys’
fees and costs.
i. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES, IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS
510, 1194, AND- 1198
(As Against All Defendants and DOE Defendants by. the Unpaid Work Overtime Class)
55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-54 above, as if fully set
herein by reference.
56. At times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid Work
Overtime Class were non-exempt employees of Defendants covered by California Labor Code
sections 510 and 1194 and the Wage Order.
PLAINTIFF'S:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
W10
ll
12.
13
14
15
16
7
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
® O
57. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 and -the- Wage Order, non-
exempt employees are entitled to receive a higher rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8
hours in a workday.
58. Califoria Labor Code section 510, subdivision (a), states in relevant part:
Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work. Any work in excess of eight
hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one
workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any
one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-
half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12
hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the
regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight
hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of
no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this
section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime
compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid. ta an employee for
any hour of overtime work,
59. Further, Califomia Labor Code section 1198 provides,
The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by
the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard
conditions of labor for eniployées. The employrnent of any employee for
longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor
prohibited by the order is unlawful.
60. Defendants’ payroll policies and procedures required employees of the Overtime
Class to work in excess of eight hours in a workday but Defendants did not pay employees’ wages
for this time.
61. ‘Inaddition, Defendants’ policies, practices, and/or procedures requiring employees to
don and doff theit sctubs off-the-clock, round down or shave down employees’ daily hours worked,
and requirement that employees remain “on-call” subject to Defendants’ control resulted in
workdays in which Class Members worked in excess of eight hours in a workday but Defendants
did not pay employees’ wages for this time. This unpaid time often occurred in work periods during
which the Class Members had already worked at least cight hours in a workday. To the extent the
unpaid work occurred during such work periods such that it forced the Class Members to work
overtime hours during a workday, Defendants were required to pay employees wages at an overtime
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
18R
26
27
28
rate of pay.
62. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Unpaid
Work Overtime Class have suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent that they
were not paid wages at an overtime rate of pay for all on-the-clock and off-the-clock hours worked
which constitute overtime,
63. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the Unpaid Work
Overtime Class members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid overtime wages,
prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.
64. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the members of the
Regular Rate Class are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid overtime wages,
prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs
Wl. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 512 AND 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER
{As Against all Defendants and DOE Defendants by the Meal Period Class)
65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-64 above, as if fully set
herein by reference.
66. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Meal Period
Class were hourly employees of Defendants, covered by California Labor Code sections 512 and
226.7 and the Wage Order.
67. California law requires an employer to provide an employee an uninterrupted. meal
period of no less than 30-minutes in which the employee is relieved of all duties and the employer
relinquishes control over the employee’s activities no later than the employee’s sixth hour of work.
Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; Wage Order §11; Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super Ct.(Hohnbaum)
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. An employer may not employ’an employee for a work period of more than.
10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second such meal period of not less.than 30
minutes by no later than the start of the éleventh hour of work. /d. If the employee is not relieved
of all duty during a meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on duty” meal period and
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1915
16
17
18
19
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
counted as time -worked. A paid “on duty” meal period is only pérmitted when: (1) the nature of the
work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty; and (2) the parties have a written
agreement agreeing: to on duty meal periods.
68. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked in shifts long enough to entitle
them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Defendants failed to authorize or
permit employees a full 30-minute meal period for each five hour period of work as required by law.
With regard to fitst meal periods, Defendants failed to authorize or permit a full 30 minute first
meal period because Defendants required Plaintiff and. those similarly situated to don their scrubs
prior to the end of their meal periods.
69. With regard to second meal periods, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees also
would work on workdays: in shifts long enough to entitle them to second méal periods under
California law. Defendants employed a policy and procedure that did not provide at all for a second
30-minute meal period when the employees worked shifts of more than tén hours
70, Defendants routinely failed to authorize or permit first meal periods of at least 30
minutes and failed to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether when employees worked
shifts of more than 10 hours,
71. Defendants also failed to provide premium wages to Plaintiff dnd similatly situated
employees to compensate them for workdays they did not receive their legally required duty free
meal periods of not less than 30 minutes. Defendants employed policies and procedures which
ensured employees did not receive premium wages to compensate them for workdays that they did
not receive a first meal period of no less than 30 minutes, or a second full meal period, or both.
This practice resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees not receiving premium
wages to compensate them for workdays which Defendants failed to authorize or permit all required
meal periods, in compliance with Califomia law.
72, Defendants’ policies and procedures prevented Plaintiff and other Meal Period Class
Members from timely receiving and/or receiving all legally required meal periods or Defendants
from providing such meal periods to Plaintiff and other Meal Period Class Members during
workdays the employees worked more than six hours and/or more than ten hours in one shift.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2010
li
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
73. ‘Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred in the course of employment
of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated ‘and such conduct has continued through the filing of this
Complaint.
74. Because Defendants failed to provide proper meal periods, they are liable to Plaintiff
and the Meal Period Class Members for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of
compensation for cach workday that the proper meal period was not provided, pursuant to California
Labor Code section 226.7 and the Wage Order.
75. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Meal Period Class, seeks damages and all
other relief allowable, including a meal period premium wage for each workday Defendants failed
to provide all required 30-minute uninterrupted meal periods, plus pre-judgment interest.
IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
‘FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA.
LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER
(As Against all Defendants and DOE Defendants by the Rest Period Class)
76. ‘Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-75 above, as if fully set
herein by reference.
77. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Rest Period.
Class were employees of Defendants, covered by California Labor Code section 226.7 and the
Wage Order.
78. California law requires an employer to authorize or permit an employee to take a rest
period of ten (10) net minutes for every four hours worked. Cal. Lab. Code §226.7; Wage Order
§12. Such rest periods must be in the middle of the four-hour period “insofar as practicable,” Id. If
the employer fails to provide any required rest period, the eniployer must pay the employee one hour
of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day the employer did not
provide at least one legally required rest period. Id.
79. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members all required rest
periods and failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to
compensate them for each workday they did not receive all legally required rest periods. Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
215
16
17
18
24
25
26
27
28
employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would
not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, Defendants failed to authorize or permit
third rest periods when the employees were subject to Defendants’ control between 10 and 14 hours.
80. Defendants employed policies and procedures wh
Preview
10 Il 13 14 1S 16 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 FILED Joseph Lavi, Esq. SON BEN 648 ) "15 3 Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483 se 129, LAVI & EBRABIMIAN, LLP HLS PH 2: 32 > 8889 W. Olympic: Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Attomeys for PLAINTIFF REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. ROSA JUNQUEIRO, CLERK ty, reerUy HINDS.0> qn SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN REGINALD LYLE, on behalf of himself and CaseNo: | goxcv- OK -2016-_ 6523 others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFE, PLAINTIEF REGINALD LYLE’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND vs. RESTITUTION AND FOR: 1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR ALL TIME WORKED AT MINIMUM WAGE IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1194 AND 1197 DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS.HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET 2. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR, HEALTHCARE. CORPORATION; TENET ALL TIME WORKED AT HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; OVERTIME RATE IN TENET HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, SECTION C10 AND LI CODE , 3, FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE OR DEFENDANTS. PERMIT MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 512 AND 226.7 4. FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE OR PERMIT REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 226 PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 ‘THIS CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARTER P. HOLLY iN DEPARTMENT 41 FOR ALL PURPOSES, WCLUDING TRIAL 4 —s\ ss a Wa A12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 28 6. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL EARNED WAGES AND FINAL PAYCHECKS DUE AT TIME OF SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE ‘SECTIONS 201, 202, AND 203 7: UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, et seq. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW Plaintiff REGINALD LYLE (“Plaintiff”), who alleges and complains against Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, (collectively “Defendants” as follows: L INTRODUCTION 1. This is a class action lawsuit seeking unpaid wages and interest thereon for unpaid wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage and overtime rates of pay due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly employees to don and doff their scrubs off-the-clock, rounding their daily hours worked down to the nearest quarter of an hour, and requiring them to remain “oncall;” failure to: authorize or permit second meal periods; failure to authorize. or permit rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate. wage statements; waiting time: penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Labor Code sections 226(e) and 1194; costs; and interest brought on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Tt. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's and the Class Members’ claims for unpaid wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage and overtime rates of pay due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly employees to PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 210 1 12 13 4: 4s 16 17 18 20 al 23 24 26 27 28 don and doff their scrubs off-the-clock, rounding their daily hours worked down to the nearest quarter of an hour, and requiring them to remain “on call;” failure to authorize or permit second meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment; injunctive relief and restitution under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seg, for the following reasons: Defendants operate throughout California; Defendants employed Plaintiff in San Joaquin County; Defendants operate at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336; at all relevant times, Defendants’ principal place of business was located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336; more than two- thirds of the putative class members are California citizens; the principal violations of California law occurred in California; no other class.actions have been filed against Defendants in the last three years alleging wage and hour violations; the conduct of Defendants forms a significant basis for Plaintiff's and the Class Members’ claims; and Plaintiff and the Class Members séek significant relief: from Defendants. I. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other members of the general public similarly-situated. The named Plaintiff and the class of persoris on whose behalf this action is filed are current, former and/or future employees of Defendants who work as hourly non-exempt employees, At all times mentioned herein, ‘the currently named Plaintiff is and was a resident of California and was employed by Defendants as a surgical technician, within the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. 4. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a surgical technician from on or around May of 2013, through on around December 29, 2015. : 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants employed Plaintiff and other hourly non-exempt employees throughout the State of California and therefore its conduct forms a significant basis of the claims asserted in this matter. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California and is PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 314 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 28 doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 1 - 12 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wagé and hour practices or policies. Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. : 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL-OF MANTECA is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 13 - 24 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA in the establishnient of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA operates in San Joaquiti Courity and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC is:authorized to do business: within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 25 - 36 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St, Manteca, CA 95336, 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SP OF MANTECA INC is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 37 - 48 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of SP OF MANTECA INC in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant SP OF MANTECA INC operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 412 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 Joaquin County at its busiriess Idcated at 1205 E. Noith St., Manteca, CA 95336. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant SP OF MANTECA INC is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 49 - 60 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf’ of SP OF MANTECA INC in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant SP OF MANTECA INC. operates in. San Joaquin County aid employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. 11. ‘Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 61 - 72 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION in the establishment of, of ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. 12. ‘Plaintiff is informed and believes and théreon alleges that. Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 61 - 72 are, and at all times relevant hereto: were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 73 - 84 are, and at all times relevant héreto were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 513 14 4s 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 26 27 28 SERVICES, INC. in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC. operates in San Joaquin County and employed Plaintiff and ‘other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TENET HEALTH is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 73 - 84 are, and at all times relevant hereto were persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTH in the establishment of, -or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. Defendant TENET operates in San Joaquin County and.employed Plaintiff and other putative class members in San Joaquin County at its business located at 1205 E. North St., Manteca, CA 95336. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants DOES 84 - 100 are individuals unknown to Plaintiff. Each of the individual Defendants is sued individually: in his or her capacity as an agent, shareholder, owner, representative, manager, supervisor, independent contractor and/or employee of each Defendant and participated in the establishment of, or ratification of, the aforementioned illegal wage and hour practices or policies. 16. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of Defendants DOES 1 through 100. Plaintiff sues said defendants by said fictitious names, and will. amend this complaint when the true names and capacities are ascertained or when such facts pertaining to liability are ascertained, or as permitted by law or by the Court. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is in some manner responsible’ for the events and allegations set forth in this complaint. 17. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each defendant was an employer, was the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, officer, director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest and/or predecessor in interest of some or all of the other Defendants, and was engaged with some or all of the other defendants in a joint enterprise for profit, and boré such other relationships to some or all of the other defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters alleged in this PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 610 ll 12 3 4 15 18 19 21 23 g 27 28 complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges. that each defendant acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, and that at all relevant times, each defendant knew or should have known about, authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, aided and abetted the conduct of all other defendants. As uséd in this complaitit, "Defendant" means “Defendants and each of them," and refers to the Defendants named in the particular cause of action in which the word, appears and Defendants DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.; AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.; TENET HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive. 18. Atall times mentioned herein, each Defendant was the co-conspirator, agent, servant, employee, and/or joint venturer of each of the:other defendants and was acting within the course and scope of said conspiracy, agency, employment, and/or joint venture and with ‘the permission and consent of each of the other Defendants. 19. Plaintiff makes the allegations in this complaint without any admission that, as to any particular allegation, Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading, proving, or persuading and Plaintiff reserves all of Plaintiff rights to plead in the alternative. IV. DESCRIPTION OF ILLEGAL PAY PRACTICES 20. Pursuant to the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“TWC”) Wage ‘Order (“Wage Order”), codified at Califomia Code of Regulations title 8, section 11050, Defendants are employers of Plaintiff within the meaning of the applicable Wage Order and applicable California Labor Code sections. Therefore, each of these Defendants is jointly and severally liable for the wrongs complained of herein in violation of the Wage Order and the California Labor Code, 21. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage: Defendants employed many of their employees, including Plaintiff, as hourly non-exempt employees, In California, an employer is required to pay hourly employees for all “hours worked,” which includes all time that an employee is under control of the employer and all time the employee PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 716 7 18 4 25 26 27 28 is suffered and permitted to work. This includes the time an employee spends, either directly or indirectly, performing services which inure to the benefit of the employer. 22. California Labor Code sectioris 1194 arid 1197 require an employer to compensate employees for all “hours worked” at least at a minimum wage rate of pay as established. by the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) arid the Wage Orders. 23. In this case, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to arrive approximately 15 minutes prior to the start of their shift in order to change into scrubs prior to clocking in for their shift. Similarly, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock out of their shifts prior to changing out of their scrubs. 24. In addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they rounded down or shaved down Plaintiff and similarly situated employees’ daily hours worked to the nearest quarter hour and did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees wages for that time. 25. Finally, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to be “on- call,” but did not pay them wages for “on-call” time. During “on-call” time Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees’ activities were so restricted that being “on-call” prevented them from engaging in personal activities. Nevertheless, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for “on-call” time. 26. Despite the fact that California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours. worked at least at a minimum wage rate, because of Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees for time spent donning and doffing scrubs, failed to pay for all daily hours worked due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and procedure of rounding down or shaving down employees’ daily hours worked to the nearest quarter hour, and failing to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees’ “on-call” hours. The foregoing resulted in hourly employees working time for which they were not compensated any wages, in violation of California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and the Wage Orders. 27. Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the employee's overtime rate of pay: As described above, Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures require Plaintiff and. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 similarly situated employees to don and doff their scrubs off the clock, round down or shave down employees daily hours down to the nearest quatter hour, and require that an employees to remain “on-call” without being compensated for that time. The foregoing resulted in time each work day which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants but were not compensated. 28. Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 require an employer to compensate employees a higher rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a workday, 40 hours in a workweek, and on any seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any oné workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. (Lab. Code §510.) 29. Despite that California law requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked and at a higher rate of pay when those hours fall during work periods in excess of 8 hours in a workday and 40 hours in a workweek; Defendants would fail to pay employees wages for the time it took to don and doff their scrubs, for the time each workday that employees’ were not compensated for due to Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or procedure of rounding down or shaving down employees’ daily hours down to the néatest quarter hour, and requiring that an employees remain “on-call” without being compensated for that time which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were under control of Defendants. To the extent the employees had already worked 8 hours in the day and on workweeks they had already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the employees should have been paid overtime for this unpaid time. This resulted in non-exempt employees working time which should have been paid at the legal overtime rate, but was not paid any wages in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and the Wage Orders. 30. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for workdays PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 920 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Defendants failed to provide required meal periods: Defendants often employed hourly employees, including the named Plaintiff'and all others similarly-situated, for shifts longer than 10 hours in length, 31. California law requires an employer to authorize or permit an employee an. uninterrupted meal period of no less than 30-minutes in which the employee is relieved of all duties and the employer relinquishes control over the employee’s activities prior to the employee’s sixth hour of work. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; Wage Order 9-2001, 11; Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super Ct.(Hohnbaum) (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second such meal period of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of the eleventh hour of work. Jd. If the employee is not relieved of all duty during a meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on duty” meal period and counted as time worked. A paid “on duty” meal period is only permitted when: (1) the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty; and (2) the parties have a written agreement agreeing to on duty meal periods. 32. If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the law, the employer must pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay for each work day that a legally required meal period was not timely provided or was not duty-free. Id. 33. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts long enough to erititle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Despite the fact that California law requires employers to authorize or permit an uninterrupted, duty-free first meal period of not less than 30 minutes prior to their sixth hour of work when they worked shifts more than five hours in length and a second, duty-free meal period of not less than 30 minutes when they worked shifts over 10 hours in length, Defendants routinely failed to authorize or permit first meal’ periods of not less than 30 minutes because Defendants would require Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don their scrubs’ prior to conclusion of their first meal periods and failed to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether when employees worked shifts of more than 10 hours. 34. In addition, Defendants failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1020 21 22 23 25 26 7 28 situated employees to compensate them for each workday the employees did not receive all legally required duty-free meal periods. Defendants. employed policies and procedures which ensured employees did not receive any premium wages to compensate them for the workdays in which they did not receive all legally required meal periods. 35. This practice resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees not receiving premium wages to compensate them for workdays which Defendants did riot provide them with either first or second duty free meal periods, or both, in compliance with California law. 36. Failure to pay hourly employees wages to compensate them for workdays Defendants, failed to provide required rest periods: Defendants often ‘employed hourly employees, including the named Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated, for shifts at least three and one-half (3.5) hours in length: 37. California law requires an employer to provide an employee a rest period of ten (10) net minutes for every four hours worked, “which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period.” Cal. Lab. Code §226.7; Wage Order §12. Thus, employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from three and. one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts between | six and ten hours in length, 30 minutes for shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, and soon. Sez Brinker, supra. 38. If the employer fails to provide a required rest period, the employer must pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day the employer did not provide all legally required rest periods. Id. 39. Defendants employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, if the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, Defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest period of ten net minutes. 40. Defendants also employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees did not receive any premium wages to compensate them for workdays that they did not receive all legally required rest periods. 41. These practices resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees not PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: Wt19 20 2) 22 3 24. 25 26 27 28 ® » receiving wages to compensate them for workdays which Defendants did not provide them with all rest periods required by California law. 42. Pay Stub Violations: California Labor Code section 226(a) provides, inter alia, that, upon paying an employee his or her wages, the employer must “furnish each of his or her employees +=. an itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units eamed and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided, that alt deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates: of the pay period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the. corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.” 43. Defendants failed to provide. accurate wage and hour statements to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who were subject to Defendants’ contro! for uncompensated time and who did not receive the wages they eamed (including minimum wages, overtime wages, as well as failure to_pay premium wages for missed meal and rest periods). 44. Fallure to Pay California Employees All Wages Due at Time of Termination/Resignation: An employer is required to pay all unpaid wages timely after an. employee’s employment ends. The wages are due immediately upon termination (California Labor Code section 201) or within 72 hours‘of resignation (California Labor Code section 202). 45. Because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all their earned wages (including minimum wages, oveitiriie wages, and unpaid meal and rest period premium wages), Defendants failed to pay. those employees timely after each employee’s termination and/or resignation. Vv. CLASS DEFINITIONS AND CLASS ALLEGATIONS 46. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, on behalf of all others similarly PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1220 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 situated, and on behalf of the General Public, and as a member of a Class defined as follows: A. Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class: All current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice. is mailed to a certified class, who were under control of Defendants during time prior to and after to a work period, whose daily hours. worked were rounded down or shaved down to, the nearest quarter of an hour and/or who were required to be “on-call” and Defendants did not pay wages for that time at the legal minimum wage rate. B. Unpaid Work Overtime Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class, who were under control of Defendants during time prior to a work period and on workdays they had already worked in excess of 8 hours ina day, 40 hours in a week, or were working on a seventh consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that time. CG Meal Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked shifts of at least six hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes, and/or who worked shifts more than ten hours yet Defendants did not provide required duty-free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes prior to the start of their eleventh hour of work. D. Rest Period Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by- Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who worked at least three and one-half(3.5) or more hours in day who did not receive required rest periods of ten net minutes rest’ time for every four hours worked between three and one-half and six hours, six and ten hours, or ten and fourteen hours. EB ‘Wage Statement Class: All current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in California at any time within the one year prior to the filing of the initial complaint PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3i 2 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 ini this action arid through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who received inaccurate or incomplete wage and hour statements. F. Waiting Time Class: Afl current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants in California at.any time within the three years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class who did not receive payment of all unpaid wages upon separation of employment within the statutory time period. G. California Class: All aforementioned classes are here collectively referred to as the “California Class.” 47. There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the classes are ascertainable: A Numerosity; While the exact number of class members in each class is unknown to plaintiff at this time, the Plaintiff classes are so numerous that the individual joinder of all members is impractical under the circumstances of this case. B. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact éxist as to all members of the Plaintiff classes. and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of each class. The common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to: i. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 1194 and 1197 by not paying employees’ wages at a minimum wage rate for all time that the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class Members were subject to Defendants’ control but were.not paid; di. Whether Defendants violated California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 by not paying employees’ wages at an overtime wage rate for all overtime hours that the Unpaid Work Overtime Wage Class Members were subject to Defendants’ contro] but were not paid; iii. | Whether Defendants violated -Califoria Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7, as well as the applicable Wage Order, by employing Meal Period Class Members without providing all their required meal periods or paying meal period premium wages; iv. Whether Defendants violated the Wage Order and California Labor PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR. DAMAGES 1419 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Code section 226.7 and the applicable Wage Order by employing Rest Period Class Members without providing all their required rest periods or paying rest period premium wages; y. ° Whether Defendants failed to provide the Wage Statement Class Members with accurate itemized statement at the time they received their itemized statements; vi. Whether Defendants failed to provide the Waiting Time Class Members with all of their eamed wages upon separation of employment within the statutory time period; vii. Whether Defendants committed unlawful business acts or practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seg.; viii. Whether Class Members are entitled to unpaid wages, penalties and other relief pursuant to their claims; ix. Whether, as a consequence of Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Class Members are entitled to restitution, and/or equitable relief; and x. Whether Defendant's affirmative defenses, if any, raise any common issues of law or fact as to Plaintiff and as to the Class Members as a whole. c. Typicality: Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class members in each of the classes. Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class sustained damages-arising out of Defendants’ failure to pay wages at least at minimum wage for all time the employees were subject to Defendants’ control. Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid Work Overtime Wage Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to pay wages at the overtime wage for all overtime hours the employees were subject to Defendants’ control. Plaintiff and the members of the Meal Period Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to provide employees all legally required meal periods and failure to pay meal period premium wages as compensation. Plaintiff and the members of the Rest Period Class ‘sustained, damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to provide employees all legally required rest periods and failure to pay rest period premium wages as compensation. Plaintiff and the members of the Wage Statement Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to furnish them with accurate. itemized wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code section 226. Plaintiff and the PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 157 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 e oD members of the Waiting Time Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ failure to provide all unpaid yet eatned wages due upon separation of employment within the statutory time limit. D. Adequacy. of Representation; Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect:the interests of the members of each class. Plaintiff has no interest that is adverse to the interests of the other class members. E. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because individual joinder of all members of each class is impractical, class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without. the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions. would engender. The expenses and burdens of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of each class to redress the wrongs done to them, while important public interests will be served by addressing the matter as a class action. The cost to and. burden on the court system of adjudication of individualized litigation would be substantial, and substantially more than the costs and burdens of a class action. Individualized litigation would also ‘present the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. F. Public Policy Consideration: Employers throughout the state violate wage and hour laws. Current employees often are afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees fear bringing actions because they perceive their former} employers can blacklist them in their future endeavors with negative references and by other means. Class. actions provide the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of anonymity that allows for vindication of their rights. L FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR ALL HOURS OF WORK AT THE LEGAL MINIMUM WAGE RATE IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1194 AND 1197 {As Against all Defendants and DOE Defendants by the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class) 48. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 47 above, as if fully set herein by reference. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1610 Mh 12 3 1S 16 7 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 49. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class were hourly employees of Defendants. 50. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and Wage Orders, Plaintiff and the Minimum Wage Class are entitled to receive wages for all hours worked, i.e, all time subject to Defendants’ control, and those wages must be paid at least at the minimum wage rate in effect during the time the employees earned the wages. 51. Defendants’ policies, practices, and/or procedures required employees of the Minimum Wage Class to be engaged, suffered, or permitted to work without being paid wages for all of the time in which they were subject to Defendants’ control. 52. Specifically, Defendants required employees to don and doff their scrubs off the clock, rounded down or shaved down employees’ daily hours worked, and required employees to be “on-call” without being paid for that time. 53. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct; Plaintiff and members of the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class have suffered damages in.an amount subject to proof, to the extent that they were not paid wages at a minimum wage rate for all hours worked. 54, Pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiff and the Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Class members are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wage, interest thereon, liquidated damages in the amount of their unpaid minimum wage, and attorneys’ fees and costs. i. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES, IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 510, 1194, AND- 1198 (As Against All Defendants and DOE Defendants by. the Unpaid Work Overtime Class) 55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-54 above, as if fully set herein by reference. 56. At times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Unpaid Work Overtime Class were non-exempt employees of Defendants covered by California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 and the Wage Order. PLAINTIFF'S:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES W10 ll 12. 13 14 15 16 7 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ® O 57. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 and -the- Wage Order, non- exempt employees are entitled to receive a higher rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a workday. 58. Califoria Labor Code section 510, subdivision (a), states in relevant part: Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one- half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid. ta an employee for any hour of overtime work, 59. Further, Califomia Labor Code section 1198 provides, The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for eniployées. The employrnent of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful. 60. Defendants’ payroll policies and procedures required employees of the Overtime Class to work in excess of eight hours in a workday but Defendants did not pay employees’ wages for this time. 61. ‘Inaddition, Defendants’ policies, practices, and/or procedures requiring employees to don and doff theit sctubs off-the-clock, round down or shave down employees’ daily hours worked, and requirement that employees remain “on-call” subject to Defendants’ control resulted in workdays in which Class Members worked in excess of eight hours in a workday but Defendants did not pay employees’ wages for this time. This unpaid time often occurred in work periods during which the Class Members had already worked at least cight hours in a workday. To the extent the unpaid work occurred during such work periods such that it forced the Class Members to work overtime hours during a workday, Defendants were required to pay employees wages at an overtime PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 18R 26 27 28 rate of pay. 62. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Unpaid Work Overtime Class have suffered damages in an amount subject to proof, to the extent that they were not paid wages at an overtime rate of pay for all on-the-clock and off-the-clock hours worked which constitute overtime, 63. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the Unpaid Work Overtime Class members are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid overtime wages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. 64. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the members of the Regular Rate Class are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid overtime wages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs Wl. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 512 AND 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER {As Against all Defendants and DOE Defendants by the Meal Period Class) 65. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-64 above, as if fully set herein by reference. 66. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Meal Period Class were hourly employees of Defendants, covered by California Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7 and the Wage Order. 67. California law requires an employer to provide an employee an uninterrupted. meal period of no less than 30-minutes in which the employee is relieved of all duties and the employer relinquishes control over the employee’s activities no later than the employee’s sixth hour of work. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512; Wage Order §11; Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super Ct.(Hohnbaum) (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. An employer may not employ’an employee for a work period of more than. 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a second such meal period of not less.than 30 minutes by no later than the start of the éleventh hour of work. /d. If the employee is not relieved of all duty during a meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on duty” meal period and PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1915 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 counted as time -worked. A paid “on duty” meal period is only pérmitted when: (1) the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty; and (2) the parties have a written agreement agreeing: to on duty meal periods. 68. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked in shifts long enough to entitle them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Defendants failed to authorize or permit employees a full 30-minute meal period for each five hour period of work as required by law. With regard to fitst meal periods, Defendants failed to authorize or permit a full 30 minute first meal period because Defendants required Plaintiff and. those similarly situated to don their scrubs prior to the end of their meal periods. 69. With regard to second meal periods, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees also would work on workdays: in shifts long enough to entitle them to second méal periods under California law. Defendants employed a policy and procedure that did not provide at all for a second 30-minute meal period when the employees worked shifts of more than tén hours 70, Defendants routinely failed to authorize or permit first meal periods of at least 30 minutes and failed to authorize or permit second meal periods altogether when employees worked shifts of more than 10 hours, 71. Defendants also failed to provide premium wages to Plaintiff dnd similatly situated employees to compensate them for workdays they did not receive their legally required duty free meal periods of not less than 30 minutes. Defendants employed policies and procedures which ensured employees did not receive premium wages to compensate them for workdays that they did not receive a first meal period of no less than 30 minutes, or a second full meal period, or both. This practice resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees not receiving premium wages to compensate them for workdays which Defendants failed to authorize or permit all required meal periods, in compliance with Califomia law. 72, Defendants’ policies and procedures prevented Plaintiff and other Meal Period Class Members from timely receiving and/or receiving all legally required meal periods or Defendants from providing such meal periods to Plaintiff and other Meal Period Class Members during workdays the employees worked more than six hours and/or more than ten hours in one shift. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2010 li 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 73. ‘Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred in the course of employment of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated ‘and such conduct has continued through the filing of this Complaint. 74. Because Defendants failed to provide proper meal periods, they are liable to Plaintiff and the Meal Period Class Members for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for cach workday that the proper meal period was not provided, pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7 and the Wage Order. 75. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Meal Period Class, seeks damages and all other relief allowable, including a meal period premium wage for each workday Defendants failed to provide all required 30-minute uninterrupted meal periods, plus pre-judgment interest. IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA. LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER (As Against all Defendants and DOE Defendants by the Rest Period Class) 76. ‘Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-75 above, as if fully set herein by reference. 77. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Rest Period. Class were employees of Defendants, covered by California Labor Code section 226.7 and the Wage Order. 78. California law requires an employer to authorize or permit an employee to take a rest period of ten (10) net minutes for every four hours worked. Cal. Lab. Code §226.7; Wage Order §12. Such rest periods must be in the middle of the four-hour period “insofar as practicable,” Id. If the employer fails to provide any required rest period, the eniployer must pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day the employer did not provide at least one legally required rest period. Id. 79. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members all required rest periods and failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to compensate them for each workday they did not receive all legally required rest periods. Defendants PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 215 16 17 18 24 25 26 27 28 employed policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would not receive all legally required rest periods. Specifically, Defendants failed to authorize or permit third rest periods when the employees were subject to Defendants’ control between 10 and 14 hours. 80. Defendants employed policies and procedures wh