Preview
1 Bevin Allen Pike (SBN 221936)
Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
2 Daniel S. Jonathan (SBN 262209)
Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
3 Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 303512)
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
4 Capstone Law APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
5 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
6 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kamari Ridgle
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
11
12 KAMARI RIDGLE, as an aggrieved Case No.:
employee pursuant to the Private
13 Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), on COMPLAINT – PAGA ENFORCEMENT
behalf of the State of California and ACTION
14 other non-party Aggrieved
Employees, (1) Claim for Civil Penalties for Violations of
15 California Labor Code, Pursuant to PAGA,
Plaintiff, §§ 2698, et seq.
16
vs. Jury Trial Demanded
17
CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL,
18 INC., a Delaware corporation; CORE-
MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a
19 Georgia corporation; CORE-MARK
INTERRELATED COMPANIES,
20 INC., a California corporation;
CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT,
21 INC., an Arkansas corporation;
KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY,
22 INC., a Tennessee corporation;
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP
23 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP,
24 INC., a Colorado corporation;
PERFORMANCE
25 TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company;
26 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
27
28 Defendants.
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Kamari Ridgle, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of the State of
2 California and all other non-party Aggrieved Employees, alleges as follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. This is an enforcement action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
5 Act of 2004, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) to recover civil penalties
6 and any other available relief on behalf of Plaintiff, the State of California, and other current
7 and former employees who worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt, hourly paid
8 employee and received at least one wage statement and against whom one or more violations of
9 any provision in Division 2 Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Labor Code or any provision regulating
10 hours and days of work in the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order
11 were committed, as set forth in this complaint, at any time between one year prior to the filing
12 of the pre-filing written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”)
13 in this case on September 5, 2023, until judgment (“non-party Aggrieved Employees”).
14 Plaintiff’s share of civil penalties sought in this action does not exceed $75,000.
15 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California
16 Constitution, Article VI, section 10. The statute under which this action is brought does not
17 specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
18 3. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, on information and
19 belief, Defendants are either citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in
20 California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render
21 the exercise of jurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions
22 of fair play and substantial justice. There is no basis for federal diversity jurisdiction in this
23 action given that the State of California, as the real party in interest in this action, is not a
24 “citizen” for purposes of satisfying diversity jurisdiction. Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., 726
25 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. Cal. 2013). Urbino also holds that civil penalties cannot be aggregated
26 to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction in this action,
27 and that diversity jurisdiction cannot be established when Plaintiff’s share of the civil penalties
28 attributable to violations personally suffered are less than $75,000. Id. at 1122.
Page 1
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 4. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants employ or employed persons
2 within the County of Kern and have violated the requirements of the California Labor Code and
3 applicable IWC Wage Order in this county which give rise to the penalties sought in this
4 action. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 393. Specifically, Defendants have violated the requirements of the
5 California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order in at least one location within the County
6 of Kern, including Defendants’ facility located in Bakersfield (8333 Edison Highway,
7 Bakersfield, California 93307). Pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure section 393,
8 venue is proper for the recovery of a penalty imposed by statute in the county in which the cause,
9 or some part of the cause, arose. Because Defendants have employees in Kern County, and
10 Plaintiff could bring an action filed under PAGA in any county in which an aggrieved employee
11 worked and Labor Code violations occurred, venue is proper. Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc.
12 v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1069 (2021).
13 5. California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., the “Labor Code Private Attorneys
14 General Act of 2004” (“PAGA”), authorize aggrieved employees to sue as private attorneys
15 general their current or former employers for various civil penalties for violations of various
16 provisions in the California Labor Code.
17 THE PARTIES
18 6. Plaintiff Kamari Ridgle is a resident of Sacramento, in Sacramento County,
19 California. Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee from
20 approximately May 2022 to March 2023. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Dispatcher at
21 their location in West Sacramento, California. Plaintiff typically worked eight (8) hours or
22 more per day, and five (5) days per week. At the time Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants
23 ended, he was compensated approximately $20.50 per hour. Plaintiff’s job duties included,
24 without limitation, dispatching drivers, communicating and tracking the status of routes,
25 attending to customer issues, and preparing drivers’ paperwork and equipment.
26 7. On information and belief, Defendants required some employees, including
27 Plaintiff, to execute arbitration agreements at the time of their hire or during their employment.
28 On further information and belief, Defendants’ arbitration agreements were and are both
Page 2
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Specifically, Defendants presented employees
2 with an “EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT” (“Arbitration
3 Agreement”) which had to be reviewed and acknowledged immediately. Specifically, the
4 Arbitration Agreement was among several documents presented to employees for signature
5 during the orientation process, including Violence in the Workplace Policy; Harassment
6 Prevention & Complaint Policy Employee Acknowledgement; Policies Prohibiting Workplace
7 Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation; and Employee Benefit Package Acknowledgement
8 Form. Also, employees did not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of the
9 Arbitration Agreement. Rather, they were provided to Defendants’ employees for them to sign
10 on a take-it or leave-it basis, along with other onboarding documents. Further, Defendants did
11 not set forth in the agreements or otherwise provide employees with the rules which will govern
12 the arbitration, instead forcing employees to seek this information out on their own.
13 8. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. was and is, upon information and
14 belief, a Delaware corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose
15 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
16 9. CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC. was and is, upon information and belief,
17 a Georgia corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees
18 are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
19 10. CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC. was and is, upon
20 information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an
21 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
22 11. CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC. was and is, upon information and
23 belief, an Arkansas limited liability company, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an
24 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
25 12. KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC. was and is, upon information and
26 belief, a Tennessee corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose
27 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
28 ///
Page 3
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 13. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY was and is, upon information
2 and belief, a Delaware corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose
3 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
4 14. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. was and is, upon information and
5 belief, a Colorado corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose
6 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
7 15. PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC was and is, upon information and
8 belief, a Delaware limited liability company, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an
9 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California.
10 16. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein
11 under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10, but will seek leave of this Court to amend the
12 complaint and serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities
13 become known.
14 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 10
15 were the partners, agents, owners, or managers of CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
16 CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES,
17 INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.;
18 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and
19 PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, at all relevant times.
20 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the
21 acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to, CORE-MARK
22 INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK
23 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH
24 O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY;
25 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC;
26 and/or DOES 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants” or “CORE-MARK”), each acting as the
27 agent, employee, alter ego, and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert with, each of the other
28 co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint
Page 4
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 venture, or concerted activity with legal authority to act on the others’ behalf. The acts of any
2 and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent, the official policy of Defendants.
3 19. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act
4 or omission complained of herein. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, aided
5 and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing
6 the damages herein alleged.
7 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said
8 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible for the acts,
9 omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.
10 21. Under California law, Defendants are jointly and severally liable as employers
11 for the violations alleged herein because they have each exercised sufficient control over the
12 wages, hours, working conditions, and employment status of Plaintiff and other non-party
13 Aggrieved Employees. Each Defendant had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and other non -
14 party Aggrieved Employees, supervised and controlled their work schedule and/or conditions
15 of employment, determined their rate of pay, and maintained their employment records.
16 Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees to work
17 and/or “engaged” Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees so as to create a common-
18 law employment relationship. As joint employers of Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved
19 Employees, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the civil penalties available to
20 Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees under the law.
21 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times,
22 Defendants, and each of them, have acted as joint employers with respect to Plaintiff and other
23 non-party Aggrieved Employees because Defendants have:
24 (a) jointly exercised meaningful control over the work performed by Plaintiff
25 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees;
26 (b) jointly exercised meaningful control over Plaintiff’s and other non-party
27 Aggrieved Employees’ wages, hours, and working conditions, including
28 the quantity, quality standards, speed, scheduling, and operative details
Page 5
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 of the tasks performed by Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved
2 Employees;
3 (c) jointly required that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees
4 perform work which is an integral part of Defendants’ businesses; and
5 (d) jointly exercised control over Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved
6 Employees as a matter of economic reality in that Plaintiff and other non-
7 party Aggrieved Employees were dependent on Defendants, who shared
8 the power to set the wages of Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved
9 Employees and determined their working conditions, and who jointly
10 reaped the benefits from the underpayment of their wages and
11 noncompliance with other statutory provisions governing their
12 employment.
13 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times
14 there has existed a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants such that any
15 individuality and separateness between the entities has ceased.
16 24. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS,
17 INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK
18 MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE
19 FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE
20 TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and/or DOES 1 through 10 are therefore alter egos of each other.
21 25. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Defendants would permit an
22 abuse of the corporate privilege, and would promote injustice by protecting Defendants from
23 liability for the wrongful acts committed by them under the name CORE-MARK.
24 26. Plaintiff further alleges, upon information and belief, that the Defendants CORE-
25 MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK
26 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH
27 O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY;
28 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC
Page 6
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 are alter egos of each other for the following reasons:
2 (a) According to Performance Food Group’s SEC Form 10-K filing for
3 20231, CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PERFORMANCE
4 TRANSPORTATION, LLC; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.;
5 CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK
6 MIDCONTINENT, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and
7 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC. are subsidiaries of
8 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY;
9 (b) On the California Secretary of State’s website
10 (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/), CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL,
11 INC. and CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC. have
12 the same principal address, “1500 SOLANA BLVD, [BLDG 3], SUITE
13 3400, WESTLAKE, TX 76262”;
14 (c) On the California Secretary of State’s website
15 (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/), KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY,
16 INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
17 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. have the same principal and
18 mailing address, “12500 WEST CREEK PARKWAY, RICHMOND, VA
19 23238”;
20 (d) According to their most recent “Statement of Information” forms filed
21 with the California Secretary of State, CORE-MARK
22 INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CORE-MARK INTERRELATED
23 COMPANIES, INC. share the same officers and/or directors, including,
24 but not limited to: Scott McPherson, who serves as Chief Executive
25 Officer; Helen Hayes, who serves as Secretary; and William Allshouse,
26 who serves as Chief Financial Officer;
27 1
10-K Annual Report 08/16/2023, “SEC Filings | Performance Food Group”
28 https://investors.pfgc.com/financials/sec-filings/default.aspx (last accessed November 2,
2023).
Page 7
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 (e) According to their most recent “Statement of Information” forms filed
2 with the California Secretary of State, KENNETH O. LESTER
3 COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC;
4 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. share the same officers and/or
5 manager/members, including, but not limited to: A. Brent King, who
6 serves as Secretary and Manager/Member;
7 (f) According to the California Secretary of State’s website, CORE-MARK
8 INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED
9 COMPANIES, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.;
10 PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; PERFORMANCE
11 FOOD GROUP, INC. share the same agent for service of process,
12 NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC.; and
13 (g) On information and belief, CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
14 CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK
15 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK
16 MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.;
17 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE
18 FOOD GROUP, INC.; and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION,
19 LLC utilize the same standardized employment forms and issue the same
20 employment policies.
21 PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGATIONS
22 27. Defendants are one of the largest food and foodservice distribution companies in
23 North America. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a single, centralized Human
24 Resources (HR) department at their corporate headquarters in Westlake, Texas, or Richmond,
25 Virginia, for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for Defendants in California,
26 which is responsible for the recruiting and hiring of new employees, and communicating and
27 implementing Defendants’ company-wide policies, including timekeeping policies and meal
28 and rest period policies, to employees throughout California.
Page 8
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 28. In particular, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees, on information
2 and belief, received the same standardized documents and/or written policies. Upon
3 information and belief, the usage of standardized documents and/or written policies, including
4 new-hire documents, indicate that Defendants dictated policies at the corporate level and
5 implemented them company-wide, regardless of their employees’ assigned locations or
6 positions. Upon information and belief, Defendants set forth uniform policies and procedures
7 in several documents provided at an employee’s time of hire.
8 29. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a centralized Payroll
9 department at their corporate headquarters in Westlake, Texas, or Richmond, Virginia, which
10 processes payroll for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for Defendants at their
11 various locations in California, including Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees.
12 Based upon information and belief, Defendants issue the same formatted wage statements to all
13 non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, irrespective of their work locations. Upon
14 information and belief, Defendants process payroll for departing employees in the same manner
15 throughout the State of California, regardless of the manner in which each employee’s
16 employment ends.
17 30. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees in
18 California.
19 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
20 mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees and
21 advisors knowledgeable about California labor and wage law, employment and personnel
22 practices, and about the requirements of California law.
23 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff and other
24 non-party Aggrieved Employees were not paid for all hours worked because all hours worked
25 were not recorded.
26 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
27 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to
28 receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages
Page 9
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 for overtime compensation.
2 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
3 should have known that other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to be paid at a
4 regular rate of pay, and corresponding rates of pay for overtime wages and/or meal and rest
5 period premiums, that included as eligible income all renumeration required by law, including
6 but not limited to, all income derived from incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other
7 forms of compensation, but failed to include all forms of remuneration in calculating the regular
8 rate of pay for other non-party Aggrieved Employees.
9 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
10 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to
11 receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at l east
12 minimum wages for work that was required to be done off-the-clock. In violation of the
13 California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were not paid at
14 least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock.
15 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
16 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to
17 meal periods in accordance with the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or
18 payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were not
19 provided with timely, uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal periods and that Plaintiff and other
20 non-party Aggrieved Employees were not provided with all meal periods or payment of one (1)
21 additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they did not receive a timely,
22 uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal period.
23 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
24 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to rest
25 periods in accordance with the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or
26 payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were not
27 authorized and permitted to take a compliant rest period and that Plaintiff and other non-party
28 Aggrieved Employees were not authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods or
Page 10
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 provided with payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they
2 were not authorized and permitted to take a compliant rest period.
3 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
4 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to
5 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law. In violation
6 of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were not
7 provided complete and accurate wage statements.
8 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
9 should have known that they had a duty to maintain accurate and complete payroll records in
10 accordance with the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order, but willfully, knowingly,
11 and intentionally failed to do so.
12 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
13 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to
14 timely payment of wages during their employment. In violation of the California Labor Code,
15 Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees did not receive payment of all wages,
16 including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, meal and rest period premiums,
17 and/or sick leave pay, within permissible time periods.
18 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
19 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to
20 timely payment of all wages earned upon termination of employment. In violation of the
21 California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees did not receive
22 payment of all wages due, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, meal
23 and rest period premiums, vested vacation pay, and/or sick leave pay, within permissible time
24 periods.
25 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
26 should have known that they were required to pay departing employees all vested vacation
27 wages that were owed to them at the end of their employment. In violation of the California
28 Labor Code, Defendants failed to pay other non-party Aggrieved Employees all vested vacation
Page 11
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 wages at the end of their employment, causing a forfeiture of vested vacation wages.
2 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
3 should have known that other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to receive sick
4 leave benefits to be paid at a regular rate of pay, that included, as eligible income, all income
5 derived from incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms of compensation, but
6 failed to include all forms of remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay for sick leave
7 pay.
8 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or
9 should have known that other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to receive
10 reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs they incurred during the course and
11 scope of their employment and that they did not receive reimbursement of applicable business-
12 related expenses and costs incurred.
13 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
14 mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff
15 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, and that Defendants had the
16 financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to
17 do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees that they
18 were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’ profits.
19 46. At all times herein set forth, PAGA provides that any provision of law under the
20 Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and
21 collected by the LWDA for violations of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage
22 Order may, as an alternative, be recovered by aggrieved employees in a civil action brought on
23 behalf of themselves and other current or former employees pursuant to procedures outlined in
24 California Labor Code section 2699.3.
25 47. PAGA defines an “aggrieved employee” in Labor Code section 2699(c) as “any
26 person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged
27 violations was committed.”
28 ///
Page 12
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 48. Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendants are “aggrieved
2 employees” as defined by Labor Code section 2699(c) in that they are all Defendants’ current
3 or former employees and one or more of the alleged violations were committed against them.
4 49. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2699.3 and 2699.5, an aggrieved
5 employee, including Plaintiff, may pursue a civil action arising under PAGA after the following
6 requirements have been met:
7 (a) The aggrieved employee shall give written notice by online filing
8 (hereinafter “Employee’s Notice”) to the LWDA and by certified mail to
9 the employer of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code
10 alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support
11 the alleged violations.
12 (b) An aggrieved employee’s notice filed with the LWDA pursuant to
13 2699.3(a) and any employer response to that notice shall be accompanied
14 by a filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75).
15 (c) The LWDA shall provide notice (hereinafter “LWDA Notice”) to the
16 employer and the aggrieved employee by certified mail that it does not
17 intend to investigate the alleged violation within sixty (60) calendar days
18 of the postmark date of the Employee’s Notice. Upon receipt of the
19 LWDA Notice, or if the LWDA Notice is not provided within sixty-five
20 (65) calendar days of the postmark date of the Employee’s Notice, the
21 aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to California
22 Labor Code section 2699 to recover civil penalties in addition to any other
23 penalties to which the employee may be entitled.
24 50. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699.3(c), aggrieved employees,
25 through Plaintiff, may pursue a civil action arising under PAGA for violations of any provision
26 other than those listed in Section 2699.5 after the following requirements have been met:
27 (a) The aggrieved employee or representative shall give written notice by
28 online filing to the LWDA and by certified mail to the employer of the
Page 13
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been
2 violated (other than those listed in Section 2699.5), including the facts
3 and theories to support the alleged violation.
4 (b) An aggrieved employee’s notice filed with the LWDA pursuant to
5 2699.3(c) and any employer response to that notice shall be accompanied
6 by a filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75).
7 (c) The employer may cure the alleged violation within thirty-three (33)
8 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice. The employer shall give
9 written notice by certified mail within that period of time to the aggrieved
10 employee or representative and the agency if the alleged violation is
11 cured, including a description of actions taken, and no civil action
12 pursuant to Section 2699 may commence. If the alleged violation is not
13 cured within the 33-day period, the employee may commence a civil
14 action pursuant to Section 2699.
15 51. On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff provided written notice by online filing to the
16 LWDA and by certified mail to Defendants of the specific provisions of the California Labor
17 Code alleged to have been violated, including facts and theories to support the alleged
18 violations, in accordance with California Labor Code section 2699.3. Plaintiff’s written notice
19 was accompanied with the applicable filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). The LWDA
20 PAGA Administrator has confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s written notice and assigned Plaintiff
21 PAGA Case Number LWDA-CM-979794-23. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s written
22 notice to the LWDA and Defendants dated September 5, 2023, is attached hereto as “Exhibit
23 1.”
24 52. As of the filing date of this complaint, over 65 days have passed since Plaintiff
25 sent the written notices described above, and the LWDA has not responded that it intends to
26 investigate Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendants have not cured the violations.
27 53. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the administrative prerequisites under California
28 Labor Code sections 2699.3(a) and 2699.3(c) to recover civil penalties against Defendants for
Page 14
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510,
2 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802.
3 54. Labor Code section 558(a) provides “[a]ny employer or other person acting on
4 behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any
5 provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission
6 shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for
7 each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid . . . . (2)
8 For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for
9 each pay period for which the employee was underpaid . . . .” Labor Code section 558(c)
10 provides “[t]he civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition to any other civil or
11 criminal penalty provided by law.” Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney
12 general, seeks assessment and collection of civil penalties under Labor Code section 558 for
13 himself, all other non-party Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California against
14 Defendants for violations of Labor Code sections 510, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the applicable
15 IWC Wage Order. Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, does not
16 seek the recovery of unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 from Defendants for violations
17 of Labor Code sections 510, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order.
18 55. Defendants, at all times relevant to this complaint, were employers or persons
19 acting on behalf of an employer(s) who violated Plaintiff’s and other non-party Aggrieved
20 Employees’ rights by violating various sections of the California Labor Code as set forth above.
21 56. As set forth below, Defendants have violated numerous provisions of both the
22 Labor Code sections regulating hours and days of work as well as the applicable IWC Wage
23 Order.
24 57. Pursuant to PAGA, and in particular, California Labor Code sections 2699(a),
25 2699.3(a), 2699.3(c), 2699.5, and section 558, Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private
26 attorney general, seeks assessment and collection of civil penalties for himself, all other non-
27 party Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California against Defendants for violations of
28 California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512(a), 516,
Page 15
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802.
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 For Civil Penalties, Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.
4 (Against all Defendants)
5 58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each
6 and every allegation set forth above.
7 59. California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) permits Plaintiff to recover
8 civil penalties for the violation(s) of the Labor Code sections enumerated in Labor Code section
9 2699.5. Section 2699.5 enumerates Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3,
10 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802. Labor Code section 2699.3(c) permits
11 aggrieved employees, including Plaintiff, to recover civil penalties for violations of those Labor
12 Code sections not found in section 2699.5, including sections 246, 516, and 1182.12.
13 60. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, violates numerous sections of the
14 California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, the following:
15 (a) Violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1198, and the applicable IWC
16 Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and other
17 non-party Aggrieved Employees with all required overtime pay, as set
18 forth below;
19 (b) Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 510, and 1198, and the applicable
20 IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to include all forms of
21 remuneration in the regular rate of pay as required by law for purposes of
22 paying overtime wages and/or meal and rest period premiums to other
23 non-party Aggrieved Employees, as set forth below;
24 (c) Violation of Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and 1198, and the
25 applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to compensate
26 Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees with at least
27 minimum wages for all hours worked, as set forth below;
28 ///
Page 16
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 (d) Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the
2 applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff
3 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees with meal periods, as set forth
4 below;
5 (e) Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198, and the applicable
6 IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to authorize and permit Plaintiff
7 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees to take rest periods, as set forth
8 below;
9 (f) Violation of Labor Code sections 226(a) and 1198, and the applicable
10 IWC Wage Order for failure to provide accurate and complete wage
11 statements to Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees, as set
12 forth below;
13 (g) Violation of Labor Code sections 1174(d) and 1198, and the applicable
14 IWC Wage Order for failure to maintain payroll records, as set forth
15 below;
16 (h) Violation of Labor Code sections 204 for failure to pay all earned wages
17 during employment, as set forth below;
18 (i) Violation of Labor Code section 201 and 202 for failure to pay all earned
19 wages upon termination, as set forth below;
20 (j) Violation of Labor Code section 227.3 for failure to pay other non-party
21 Aggrieved Employees all vested vacation time upon termination, as set
22 forth below;
23 (k) Violation of Labor Code sections 246 for failure to properly calculate the
24 sick leave paid to other non-party Aggrieved Employees, as set forth
25 below; and
26 (l) Violation of Labor Code sections 2802 for failure to reimburse other non-
27 party Aggrieved Employees for all business expenses necessarily
28 incurred, as set forth below.
Page 17
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
2 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 510 AND 1198
3 61. Labor Code section 1198 makes it illegal to employ an employee under
4 conditions of labor that are prohibited by the applicable IWC Wage Order. California Labor
5 Code section 1198 requires that “. . . the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission
6 shall be the . . . standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee
7 . . . under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.”
8 62. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide
9 that it is unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either time-
10 and-one-half or two-times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours
11 worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis.
12 63. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that Defendants are and
13 were required to pay Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees working more than
14 eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time and
15 one-half (1 ½) for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40)
16 hours in a workweek.
17 64. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that Defendants are and were
18 required to pay Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees working more than twelve
19 (12) hours in a day, overtime compensation at a rate of two (2) times their regular rate of pay.
20 An employee’s regular rate of pay includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on
21 behalf of, the employee, including nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive pay.
22 65. California Labor Code section 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation
23 at one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8)
24 hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh
25 (7th) day of work, and to overtime compensation at twice the employee’s regular rate of pay for
26 hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on
27 the seventh (7th) day of work.
28 ///
Page 18
PAGA COMPLAINT
1 66. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all overtime
2 wages owed to Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees. During the relevant time
3 period, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were not paid overtime premiums
4 for all of the hours they worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12)
5 hours in a day, and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week, because all hours worked were
6 not recorded.
7 67. First, Defendants had, and continue to have, a company-wide policy and/or
8 practice requiring Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees to perform various work-
9 related tasks while off-the-clock. For example, members of management often called Plaintiff
10 after his shifts or on days off for 5-10 minutes at a time to discuss work-related incidents that
11 took place during his shifts. Additionally, on information and belief, other non-party Aggrieved
12 Employees were required to change into their uniforms and/or don personal protective
13 equipment (“PPE”), such as freezer suits, on Defendants’ premises. However, Defendants did
14 not allow other non-party Aggrieved Employees to report the time spent donning and doffing
15 their uniforms and/or PPE at the beginning and end of their shifts or during their meal periods,
16 despite being on Defendants’ premises and under Defendants’ control. As a result, other non-
17 party Aggrieved Employees were required to spend time donning and doffing their uniforms
18 and/or PPE off-the-clock. Thus, Defendants failed to track this time spent working before and
19 after shifts
Preview
1 Bevin Allen Pike (SBN 221936) Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com 2 Daniel S. Jonathan (SBN 262209) Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com 3 Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 303512) Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com 4 Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 6 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kamari Ridgle 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 11 12 KAMARI RIDGLE, as an aggrieved Case No.: employee pursuant to the Private 13 Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), on COMPLAINT – PAGA ENFORCEMENT behalf of the State of California and ACTION 14 other non-party Aggrieved Employees, (1) Claim for Civil Penalties for Violations of 15 California Labor Code, Pursuant to PAGA, Plaintiff, §§ 2698, et seq. 16 vs. Jury Trial Demanded 17 CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, 18 INC., a Delaware corporation; CORE- MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a 19 Georgia corporation; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, 20 INC., a California corporation; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, 21 INC., an Arkansas corporation; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, 22 INC., a Tennessee corporation; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP 23 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, 24 INC., a Colorado corporation; PERFORMANCE 25 TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; 26 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 27 28 Defendants. PAGA COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff Kamari Ridgle, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of the State of 2 California and all other non-party Aggrieved Employees, alleges as follows: 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 1. This is an enforcement action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General 5 Act of 2004, California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) to recover civil penalties 6 and any other available relief on behalf of Plaintiff, the State of California, and other current 7 and former employees who worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt, hourly paid 8 employee and received at least one wage statement and against whom one or more violations of 9 any provision in Division 2 Part 2 Chapter 1 of the Labor Code or any provision regulating 10 hours and days of work in the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 11 were committed, as set forth in this complaint, at any time between one year prior to the filing 12 of the pre-filing written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) 13 in this case on September 5, 2023, until judgment (“non-party Aggrieved Employees”). 14 Plaintiff’s share of civil penalties sought in this action does not exceed $75,000. 15 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California 16 Constitution, Article VI, section 10. The statute under which this action is brought does not 17 specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 18 3. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, on information and 19 belief, Defendants are either citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in 20 California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render 21 the exercise of jurisdiction over them by the California courts consistent with traditional notions 22 of fair play and substantial justice. There is no basis for federal diversity jurisdiction in this 23 action given that the State of California, as the real party in interest in this action, is not a 24 “citizen” for purposes of satisfying diversity jurisdiction. Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., 726 25 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. Cal. 2013). Urbino also holds that civil penalties cannot be aggregated 26 to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction in this action, 27 and that diversity jurisdiction cannot be established when Plaintiff’s share of the civil penalties 28 attributable to violations personally suffered are less than $75,000. Id. at 1122. Page 1 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 4. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants employ or employed persons 2 within the County of Kern and have violated the requirements of the California Labor Code and 3 applicable IWC Wage Order in this county which give rise to the penalties sought in this 4 action. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 393. Specifically, Defendants have violated the requirements of the 5 California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order in at least one location within the County 6 of Kern, including Defendants’ facility located in Bakersfield (8333 Edison Highway, 7 Bakersfield, California 93307). Pursuant to California Civil Code of Procedure section 393, 8 venue is proper for the recovery of a penalty imposed by statute in the county in which the cause, 9 or some part of the cause, arose. Because Defendants have employees in Kern County, and 10 Plaintiff could bring an action filed under PAGA in any county in which an aggrieved employee 11 worked and Labor Code violations occurred, venue is proper. Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. 12 v. Superior Court of Alameda County, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1069 (2021). 13 5. California Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., the “Labor Code Private Attorneys 14 General Act of 2004” (“PAGA”), authorize aggrieved employees to sue as private attorneys 15 general their current or former employers for various civil penalties for violations of various 16 provisions in the California Labor Code. 17 THE PARTIES 18 6. Plaintiff Kamari Ridgle is a resident of Sacramento, in Sacramento County, 19 California. Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt employee from 20 approximately May 2022 to March 2023. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Dispatcher at 21 their location in West Sacramento, California. Plaintiff typically worked eight (8) hours or 22 more per day, and five (5) days per week. At the time Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants 23 ended, he was compensated approximately $20.50 per hour. Plaintiff’s job duties included, 24 without limitation, dispatching drivers, communicating and tracking the status of routes, 25 attending to customer issues, and preparing drivers’ paperwork and equipment. 26 7. On information and belief, Defendants required some employees, including 27 Plaintiff, to execute arbitration agreements at the time of their hire or during their employment. 28 On further information and belief, Defendants’ arbitration agreements were and are both Page 2 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Specifically, Defendants presented employees 2 with an “EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT” (“Arbitration 3 Agreement”) which had to be reviewed and acknowledged immediately. Specifically, the 4 Arbitration Agreement was among several documents presented to employees for signature 5 during the orientation process, including Violence in the Workplace Policy; Harassment 6 Prevention & Complaint Policy Employee Acknowledgement; Policies Prohibiting Workplace 7 Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation; and Employee Benefit Package Acknowledgement 8 Form. Also, employees did not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of the 9 Arbitration Agreement. Rather, they were provided to Defendants’ employees for them to sign 10 on a take-it or leave-it basis, along with other onboarding documents. Further, Defendants did 11 not set forth in the agreements or otherwise provide employees with the rules which will govern 12 the arbitration, instead forcing employees to seek this information out on their own. 13 8. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. was and is, upon information and 14 belief, a Delaware corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose 15 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 16 9. CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC. was and is, upon information and belief, 17 a Georgia corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose employees 18 are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 19 10. CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC. was and is, upon 20 information and belief, a California corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an 21 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 22 11. CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC. was and is, upon information and 23 belief, an Arkansas limited liability company, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an 24 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 25 12. KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC. was and is, upon information and 26 belief, a Tennessee corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose 27 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 28 /// Page 3 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 13. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY was and is, upon information 2 and belief, a Delaware corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose 3 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 4 14. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. was and is, upon information and 5 belief, a Colorado corporation, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an employer whose 6 employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 7 15. PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC was and is, upon information and 8 belief, a Delaware limited liability company, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, an 9 employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the State of California. 10 16. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein 11 under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10, but will seek leave of this Court to amend the 12 complaint and serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities 13 become known. 14 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 10 15 were the partners, agents, owners, or managers of CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; 16 CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, 17 INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; 18 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and 19 PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, at all relevant times. 20 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and all of the 21 acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to, CORE-MARK 22 INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK 23 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH 24 O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; 25 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; 26 and/or DOES 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants” or “CORE-MARK”), each acting as the 27 agent, employee, alter ego, and/or joint venturer of, or working in concert with, each of the other 28 co-Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint Page 4 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 venture, or concerted activity with legal authority to act on the others’ behalf. The acts of any 2 and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent, the official policy of Defendants. 3 19. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, ratified each and every act 4 or omission complained of herein. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, aided 5 and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing 6 the damages herein alleged. 7 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of said 8 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible for the acts, 9 omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein. 10 21. Under California law, Defendants are jointly and severally liable as employers 11 for the violations alleged herein because they have each exercised sufficient control over the 12 wages, hours, working conditions, and employment status of Plaintiff and other non-party 13 Aggrieved Employees. Each Defendant had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff and other non - 14 party Aggrieved Employees, supervised and controlled their work schedule and/or conditions 15 of employment, determined their rate of pay, and maintained their employment records. 16 Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees to work 17 and/or “engaged” Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees so as to create a common- 18 law employment relationship. As joint employers of Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved 19 Employees, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the civil penalties available to 20 Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees under the law. 21 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times, 22 Defendants, and each of them, have acted as joint employers with respect to Plaintiff and other 23 non-party Aggrieved Employees because Defendants have: 24 (a) jointly exercised meaningful control over the work performed by Plaintiff 25 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees; 26 (b) jointly exercised meaningful control over Plaintiff’s and other non-party 27 Aggrieved Employees’ wages, hours, and working conditions, including 28 the quantity, quality standards, speed, scheduling, and operative details Page 5 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 of the tasks performed by Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved 2 Employees; 3 (c) jointly required that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees 4 perform work which is an integral part of Defendants’ businesses; and 5 (d) jointly exercised control over Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved 6 Employees as a matter of economic reality in that Plaintiff and other non- 7 party Aggrieved Employees were dependent on Defendants, who shared 8 the power to set the wages of Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved 9 Employees and determined their working conditions, and who jointly 10 reaped the benefits from the underpayment of their wages and 11 noncompliance with other statutory provisions governing their 12 employment. 13 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times 14 there has existed a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants such that any 15 individuality and separateness between the entities has ceased. 16 24. CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, 17 INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK 18 MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE 19 FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; PERFORMANCE 20 TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and/or DOES 1 through 10 are therefore alter egos of each other. 21 25. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Defendants would permit an 22 abuse of the corporate privilege, and would promote injustice by protecting Defendants from 23 liability for the wrongful acts committed by them under the name CORE-MARK. 24 26. Plaintiff further alleges, upon information and belief, that the Defendants CORE- 25 MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK 26 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH 27 O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; 28 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC Page 6 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 are alter egos of each other for the following reasons: 2 (a) According to Performance Food Group’s SEC Form 10-K filing for 3 20231, CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PERFORMANCE 4 TRANSPORTATION, LLC; CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; 5 CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK 6 MIDCONTINENT, INC.; PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.; and 7 KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC. are subsidiaries of 8 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; 9 (b) On the California Secretary of State’s website 10 (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/), CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, 11 INC. and CORE-MARK INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC. have 12 the same principal address, “1500 SOLANA BLVD, [BLDG 3], SUITE 13 3400, WESTLAKE, TX 76262”; 14 (c) On the California Secretary of State’s website 15 (https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/), KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, 16 INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and 17 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. have the same principal and 18 mailing address, “12500 WEST CREEK PARKWAY, RICHMOND, VA 19 23238”; 20 (d) According to their most recent “Statement of Information” forms filed 21 with the California Secretary of State, CORE-MARK 22 INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CORE-MARK INTERRELATED 23 COMPANIES, INC. share the same officers and/or directors, including, 24 but not limited to: Scott McPherson, who serves as Chief Executive 25 Officer; Helen Hayes, who serves as Secretary; and William Allshouse, 26 who serves as Chief Financial Officer; 27 1 10-K Annual Report 08/16/2023, “SEC Filings | Performance Food Group” 28 https://investors.pfgc.com/financials/sec-filings/default.aspx (last accessed November 2, 2023). Page 7 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 (e) According to their most recent “Statement of Information” forms filed 2 with the California Secretary of State, KENNETH O. LESTER 3 COMPANY, INC.; PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; 4 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. share the same officers and/or 5 manager/members, including, but not limited to: A. Brent King, who 6 serves as Secretary and Manager/Member; 7 (f) According to the California Secretary of State’s website, CORE-MARK 8 INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CORE-MARK INTERRELATED 9 COMPANIES, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; 10 PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; PERFORMANCE 11 FOOD GROUP, INC. share the same agent for service of process, 12 NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC.; and 13 (g) On information and belief, CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.; 14 CORE-MARK DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; CORE-MARK 15 INTERRELATED COMPANIES, INC.; CORE-MARK 16 MIDCONTINENT, INC.; KENNETH O. LESTER COMPANY, INC.; 17 PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY; PERFORMANCE 18 FOOD GROUP, INC.; and PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, 19 LLC utilize the same standardized employment forms and issue the same 20 employment policies. 21 PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGATIONS 22 27. Defendants are one of the largest food and foodservice distribution companies in 23 North America. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a single, centralized Human 24 Resources (HR) department at their corporate headquarters in Westlake, Texas, or Richmond, 25 Virginia, for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for Defendants in California, 26 which is responsible for the recruiting and hiring of new employees, and communicating and 27 implementing Defendants’ company-wide policies, including timekeeping policies and meal 28 and rest period policies, to employees throughout California. Page 8 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 28. In particular, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees, on information 2 and belief, received the same standardized documents and/or written policies. Upon 3 information and belief, the usage of standardized documents and/or written policies, including 4 new-hire documents, indicate that Defendants dictated policies at the corporate level and 5 implemented them company-wide, regardless of their employees’ assigned locations or 6 positions. Upon information and belief, Defendants set forth uniform policies and procedures 7 in several documents provided at an employee’s time of hire. 8 29. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a centralized Payroll 9 department at their corporate headquarters in Westlake, Texas, or Richmond, Virginia, which 10 processes payroll for all non-exempt, hourly paid employees working for Defendants at their 11 various locations in California, including Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees. 12 Based upon information and belief, Defendants issue the same formatted wage statements to all 13 non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, irrespective of their work locations. Upon 14 information and belief, Defendants process payroll for departing employees in the same manner 15 throughout the State of California, regardless of the manner in which each employee’s 16 employment ends. 17 30. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees in 18 California. 19 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 20 mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees and 21 advisors knowledgeable about California labor and wage law, employment and personnel 22 practices, and about the requirements of California law. 23 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff and other 24 non-party Aggrieved Employees were not paid for all hours worked because all hours worked 25 were not recorded. 26 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 27 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to 28 receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages Page 9 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 for overtime compensation. 2 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 3 should have known that other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to be paid at a 4 regular rate of pay, and corresponding rates of pay for overtime wages and/or meal and rest 5 period premiums, that included as eligible income all renumeration required by law, including 6 but not limited to, all income derived from incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other 7 forms of compensation, but failed to include all forms of remuneration in calculating the regular 8 rate of pay for other non-party Aggrieved Employees. 9 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 10 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to 11 receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at l east 12 minimum wages for work that was required to be done off-the-clock. In violation of the 13 California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were not paid at 14 least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock. 15 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 16 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to 17 meal periods in accordance with the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or 18 payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were not 19 provided with timely, uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal periods and that Plaintiff and other 20 non-party Aggrieved Employees were not provided with all meal periods or payment of one (1) 21 additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they did not receive a timely, 22 uninterrupted, thirty (30) minute meal period. 23 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 24 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to rest 25 periods in accordance with the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order or 26 payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they were not 27 authorized and permitted to take a compliant rest period and that Plaintiff and other non-party 28 Aggrieved Employees were not authorized and permitted to take compliant rest periods or Page 10 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 provided with payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular rates of pay when they 2 were not authorized and permitted to take a compliant rest period. 3 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 4 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to 5 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law. In violation 6 of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were not 7 provided complete and accurate wage statements. 8 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 9 should have known that they had a duty to maintain accurate and complete payroll records in 10 accordance with the Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order, but willfully, knowingly, 11 and intentionally failed to do so. 12 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 13 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to 14 timely payment of wages during their employment. In violation of the California Labor Code, 15 Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees did not receive payment of all wages, 16 including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, meal and rest period premiums, 17 and/or sick leave pay, within permissible time periods. 18 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 19 should have known that Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to 20 timely payment of all wages earned upon termination of employment. In violation of the 21 California Labor Code, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees did not receive 22 payment of all wages due, including, but not limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, meal 23 and rest period premiums, vested vacation pay, and/or sick leave pay, within permissible time 24 periods. 25 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 26 should have known that they were required to pay departing employees all vested vacation 27 wages that were owed to them at the end of their employment. In violation of the California 28 Labor Code, Defendants failed to pay other non-party Aggrieved Employees all vested vacation Page 11 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 wages at the end of their employment, causing a forfeiture of vested vacation wages. 2 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 3 should have known that other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to receive sick 4 leave benefits to be paid at a regular rate of pay, that included, as eligible income, all income 5 derived from incentive pay, nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or other forms of compensation, but 6 failed to include all forms of remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay for sick leave 7 pay. 8 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or 9 should have known that other non-party Aggrieved Employees were entitled to receive 10 reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs they incurred during the course and 11 scope of their employment and that they did not receive reimbursement of applicable business- 12 related expenses and costs incurred. 13 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 14 mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate Plaintiff 15 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, and that Defendants had the 16 financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to 17 do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees that they 18 were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’ profits. 19 46. At all times herein set forth, PAGA provides that any provision of law under the 20 Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and 21 collected by the LWDA for violations of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage 22 Order may, as an alternative, be recovered by aggrieved employees in a civil action brought on 23 behalf of themselves and other current or former employees pursuant to procedures outlined in 24 California Labor Code section 2699.3. 25 47. PAGA defines an “aggrieved employee” in Labor Code section 2699(c) as “any 26 person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged 27 violations was committed.” 28 /// Page 12 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 48. Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendants are “aggrieved 2 employees” as defined by Labor Code section 2699(c) in that they are all Defendants’ current 3 or former employees and one or more of the alleged violations were committed against them. 4 49. Pursuant to California Labor Code sections 2699.3 and 2699.5, an aggrieved 5 employee, including Plaintiff, may pursue a civil action arising under PAGA after the following 6 requirements have been met: 7 (a) The aggrieved employee shall give written notice by online filing 8 (hereinafter “Employee’s Notice”) to the LWDA and by certified mail to 9 the employer of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code 10 alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support 11 the alleged violations. 12 (b) An aggrieved employee’s notice filed with the LWDA pursuant to 13 2699.3(a) and any employer response to that notice shall be accompanied 14 by a filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). 15 (c) The LWDA shall provide notice (hereinafter “LWDA Notice”) to the 16 employer and the aggrieved employee by certified mail that it does not 17 intend to investigate the alleged violation within sixty (60) calendar days 18 of the postmark date of the Employee’s Notice. Upon receipt of the 19 LWDA Notice, or if the LWDA Notice is not provided within sixty-five 20 (65) calendar days of the postmark date of the Employee’s Notice, the 21 aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to California 22 Labor Code section 2699 to recover civil penalties in addition to any other 23 penalties to which the employee may be entitled. 24 50. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699.3(c), aggrieved employees, 25 through Plaintiff, may pursue a civil action arising under PAGA for violations of any provision 26 other than those listed in Section 2699.5 after the following requirements have been met: 27 (a) The aggrieved employee or representative shall give written notice by 28 online filing to the LWDA and by certified mail to the employer of the Page 13 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 specific provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been 2 violated (other than those listed in Section 2699.5), including the facts 3 and theories to support the alleged violation. 4 (b) An aggrieved employee’s notice filed with the LWDA pursuant to 5 2699.3(c) and any employer response to that notice shall be accompanied 6 by a filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). 7 (c) The employer may cure the alleged violation within thirty-three (33) 8 calendar days of the postmark date of the notice. The employer shall give 9 written notice by certified mail within that period of time to the aggrieved 10 employee or representative and the agency if the alleged violation is 11 cured, including a description of actions taken, and no civil action 12 pursuant to Section 2699 may commence. If the alleged violation is not 13 cured within the 33-day period, the employee may commence a civil 14 action pursuant to Section 2699. 15 51. On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff provided written notice by online filing to the 16 LWDA and by certified mail to Defendants of the specific provisions of the California Labor 17 Code alleged to have been violated, including facts and theories to support the alleged 18 violations, in accordance with California Labor Code section 2699.3. Plaintiff’s written notice 19 was accompanied with the applicable filing fee of seventy-five dollars ($75). The LWDA 20 PAGA Administrator has confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s written notice and assigned Plaintiff 21 PAGA Case Number LWDA-CM-979794-23. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s written 22 notice to the LWDA and Defendants dated September 5, 2023, is attached hereto as “Exhibit 23 1.” 24 52. As of the filing date of this complaint, over 65 days have passed since Plaintiff 25 sent the written notices described above, and the LWDA has not responded that it intends to 26 investigate Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendants have not cured the violations. 27 53. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the administrative prerequisites under California 28 Labor Code sections 2699.3(a) and 2699.3(c) to recover civil penalties against Defendants for Page 14 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 2 512(a), 516, 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802. 3 54. Labor Code section 558(a) provides “[a]ny employer or other person acting on 4 behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any 5 provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission 6 shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for 7 each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid . . . . (2) 8 For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for 9 each pay period for which the employee was underpaid . . . .” Labor Code section 558(c) 10 provides “[t]he civil penalties provided for in this section are in addition to any other civil or 11 criminal penalty provided by law.” Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney 12 general, seeks assessment and collection of civil penalties under Labor Code section 558 for 13 himself, all other non-party Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California against 14 Defendants for violations of Labor Code sections 510, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the applicable 15 IWC Wage Order. Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private attorney general, does not 16 seek the recovery of unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 from Defendants for violations 17 of Labor Code sections 510, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the applicable IWC Wage Order. 18 55. Defendants, at all times relevant to this complaint, were employers or persons 19 acting on behalf of an employer(s) who violated Plaintiff’s and other non-party Aggrieved 20 Employees’ rights by violating various sections of the California Labor Code as set forth above. 21 56. As set forth below, Defendants have violated numerous provisions of both the 22 Labor Code sections regulating hours and days of work as well as the applicable IWC Wage 23 Order. 24 57. Pursuant to PAGA, and in particular, California Labor Code sections 2699(a), 25 2699.3(a), 2699.3(c), 2699.5, and section 558, Plaintiff, acting in the public interest as a private 26 attorney general, seeks assessment and collection of civil penalties for himself, all other non- 27 party Aggrieved Employees, and the State of California against Defendants for violations of 28 California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 246, 510, 512(a), 516, Page 15 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 1174(d), 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802. 2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3 For Civil Penalties, Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. 4 (Against all Defendants) 5 58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each 6 and every allegation set forth above. 7 59. California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) permits Plaintiff to recover 8 civil penalties for the violation(s) of the Labor Code sections enumerated in Labor Code section 9 2699.5. Section 2699.5 enumerates Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 10 510, 512(a), 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802. Labor Code section 2699.3(c) permits 11 aggrieved employees, including Plaintiff, to recover civil penalties for violations of those Labor 12 Code sections not found in section 2699.5, including sections 246, 516, and 1182.12. 13 60. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, violates numerous sections of the 14 California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, the following: 15 (a) Violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1198, and the applicable IWC 16 Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiff and other 17 non-party Aggrieved Employees with all required overtime pay, as set 18 forth below; 19 (b) Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 510, and 1198, and the applicable 20 IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to include all forms of 21 remuneration in the regular rate of pay as required by law for purposes of 22 paying overtime wages and/or meal and rest period premiums to other 23 non-party Aggrieved Employees, as set forth below; 24 (c) Violation of Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and 1198, and the 25 applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to compensate 26 Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees with at least 27 minimum wages for all hours worked, as set forth below; 28 /// Page 16 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 (d) Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), 516, and 1198, and the 2 applicable IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff 3 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees with meal periods, as set forth 4 below; 5 (e) Violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 516, and 1198, and the applicable 6 IWC Wage Order for Defendants’ failure to authorize and permit Plaintiff 7 and other non-party Aggrieved Employees to take rest periods, as set forth 8 below; 9 (f) Violation of Labor Code sections 226(a) and 1198, and the applicable 10 IWC Wage Order for failure to provide accurate and complete wage 11 statements to Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees, as set 12 forth below; 13 (g) Violation of Labor Code sections 1174(d) and 1198, and the applicable 14 IWC Wage Order for failure to maintain payroll records, as set forth 15 below; 16 (h) Violation of Labor Code sections 204 for failure to pay all earned wages 17 during employment, as set forth below; 18 (i) Violation of Labor Code section 201 and 202 for failure to pay all earned 19 wages upon termination, as set forth below; 20 (j) Violation of Labor Code section 227.3 for failure to pay other non-party 21 Aggrieved Employees all vested vacation time upon termination, as set 22 forth below; 23 (k) Violation of Labor Code sections 246 for failure to properly calculate the 24 sick leave paid to other non-party Aggrieved Employees, as set forth 25 below; and 26 (l) Violation of Labor Code sections 2802 for failure to reimburse other non- 27 party Aggrieved Employees for all business expenses necessarily 28 incurred, as set forth below. Page 17 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME 2 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS 510 AND 1198 3 61. Labor Code section 1198 makes it illegal to employ an employee under 4 conditions of labor that are prohibited by the applicable IWC Wage Order. California Labor 5 Code section 1198 requires that “. . . the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission 6 shall be the . . . standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee 7 . . . under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” 8 62. California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order provide 9 that it is unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay either time- 10 and-one-half or two-times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours 11 worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis. 12 63. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that Defendants are and 13 were required to pay Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees working more than 14 eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time and 15 one-half (1 ½) for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) 16 hours in a workweek. 17 64. The applicable IWC Wage Order further provides that Defendants are and were 18 required to pay Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees working more than twelve 19 (12) hours in a day, overtime compensation at a rate of two (2) times their regular rate of pay. 20 An employee’s regular rate of pay includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on 21 behalf of, the employee, including nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive pay. 22 65. California Labor Code section 510 codifies the right to overtime compensation 23 at one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) 24 hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh 25 (7th) day of work, and to overtime compensation at twice the employee’s regular rate of pay for 26 hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on 27 the seventh (7th) day of work. 28 /// Page 18 PAGA COMPLAINT 1 66. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all overtime 2 wages owed to Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees. During the relevant time 3 period, Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees were not paid overtime premiums 4 for all of the hours they worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12) 5 hours in a day, and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week, because all hours worked were 6 not recorded. 7 67. First, Defendants had, and continue to have, a company-wide policy and/or 8 practice requiring Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees to perform various work- 9 related tasks while off-the-clock. For example, members of management often called Plaintiff 10 after his shifts or on days off for 5-10 minutes at a time to discuss work-related incidents that 11 took place during his shifts. Additionally, on information and belief, other non-party Aggrieved 12 Employees were required to change into their uniforms and/or don personal protective 13 equipment (“PPE”), such as freezer suits, on Defendants’ premises. However, Defendants did 14 not allow other non-party Aggrieved Employees to report the time spent donning and doffing 15 their uniforms and/or PPE at the beginning and end of their shifts or during their meal periods, 16 despite being on Defendants’ premises and under Defendants’ control. As a result, other non- 17 party Aggrieved Employees were required to spend time donning and doffing their uniforms 18 and/or PPE off-the-clock. Thus, Defendants failed to track this time spent working before and 19 after shifts