Preview
1 D.LAW, INC.
Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363)
2 emil@d.law
3/19/2024
David Yeremian (SBN 226337)
3 d.yeremian@d.law
David Keledjian (SBN 309135)
4 d.keledjian@d.law
5 David Arakelyan (SBN 337076)
d.arakelyan@d.law
6 880 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
7 Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
8
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff KATRINA LYNN OROSCO
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
12
13 KATRINA LYNN OROSCO, on behalf of Case No.: 24CV00870
herself and all others similarly situated, and
14 the general public, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
15 Plaintiff, 1. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Lab.
Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512 and
16 v. 1198);
2. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab.
17 CHICO HEIGHTS REHABILITATION & Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198);
WELLNESS CENTRE, LP, a California 3. Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and
18 corporation; WINDSOR CHICO CREEK Overtime (Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194,
CARE AND REHABILITATION, LLC, a 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198);
19 4. Failure to Provide Accurate Written
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through Wage Statements (Lab. Code §§
20 50, inclusive, 226(a));
5. Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages
21 Defendants. (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and 203);
6. Failure to Indemnify (Lab. Code §
22 2802);
7. Failure to Pay Wages Due, Negotiable
23 and Payable in Cash on Demand (Lab
Code §§ 212 and 213); and
24 8. Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code
§§ 17200 et seq.);
25
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff KATRINA LYNN OROSCO (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself, all others similarly
2 situated, and the general public, complains and alleges as follows:
3 INTRODUCTION
4 1. Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants CHICO HEIGHTS
5 REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP, a California corporation; WINDSOR CHICO
6 CREEK CARE AND REHABILITATION, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
7 inclusive, (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) for alleged violations of the California Labor
8 Code and California Business and Professions Code. As set forth below, Plaintiff alleges that
9 Defendants have:
10 a. failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate;
11 b. failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;
12 c. failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all
13 applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay;
14 d. failed to provide them with meal periods;
15 e. failed to provide them with rest periods;
16 f. failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and rest periods;
17 g. failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements;
18 h. failed to pay wages due, negotiable and payable in cash on demand;
19 i. failed to reimburse them with necessary business expenditures; and
20 j. failed to pay them all their final wages following separation of employment.
21 Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this class action to recover
22 unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, restitution, and related relief on behalf of herself, all
23 others similarly situated, and the general public.
24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the monetary
26 damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff from Defendants’ conduct exceeds the minimal
27 jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California.
28 3. Venue is proper in the County of Butte pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 395(a) and 395.5 in that liability arose this county because at least some of the transactions that are
2 the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each defendant is found, maintains
3 offices, transacts business and/or has an agent therein.
4 4. Venue is proper in Butte County because Defendants have at all times alleged herein,
5 conducted business in Butte County, and throughout California. As such, venue is proper in any
6 county in California.
7 PARTIES
8 5. Plaintiff KATRINA LYNN OROSCO is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein,
9 was an individual residing in the State of California.
10 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant CHICO
11 HEIGHTS REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP is, and at all relevant times
12 mentioned herein, was a California corporation doing business in the State of California.
13 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant WINDSOR
14 CHICO CREEK CARE AND REHABILITATION, LLC is, and at all relevant times mentioned
15 herein, was a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California.
16 8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as
17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
18 will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when
19 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously
20 named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged
21 herein and that Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by these defendants, and each of
22 them. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege both the true names and capacities of the DOE
23 defendants when ascertained.
24 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times
25 mentioned herein, some or all of the defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners,
26 directors, associates, joint venturers, joint employers, owners, principals or co-participants of some
27 or all of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course
28 and scope of such relationship and with the full knowledge, consent, and ratification by such other
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 defendants.
2 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times
3 mentioned herein, some of the defendants pursued a common course of conduct, acted in concert and
4 conspired with one another, and aided and abetted one another to accomplish the occurrences, acts
5 and omissions alleged herein.
6 11. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Code
7 of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest among the
8 persons who comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because Plaintiff is
9 unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class action.
10 12. Relevant Time Period: The relevant time period is defined as the time period
11 beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until judgment is entered.
12 a. Hourly Employee Class: All persons employed by Defendants, collectively or
separately, and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or
13 non-exempt positions in California four years prior to the filing of this action and
ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action (“Hourly Employee
14 Class”).
15 b. Meal Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked in
a shift in excess of five hours during the four years prior to the filing of this action
16 and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action.
17 c. Rest Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked a
shift of at least three and one-half (3.5) hours the four years prior to the filing of
18 this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action.
19 d. Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who
separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning
20 three years before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is
entered.
21
e. Wage Statement Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California during
22 the period beginning one year before the filing of this action and ending when final
judgment is entered.
23
f. Pay Card Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California, who were
24 paid by pay card (or similar means) at any time during the Relevant Time Period.
25 g. Expense Reimbursement Class: All persons employed by Defendants in
California who incurred business expenses during the Relevant Time Period.
26
h. UCL Class: All Hourly Employee Class and Expense Reimbursement Class
27 members employed by Defendants in California during the four years prior to the
filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this
28 action.
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
13. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the right
2
to amend or modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by further division into sub-classes
3
and/or by limitation to particular issues.
4
14. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of each
5
individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact number of
6
class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the actual number
7
exceeds the minimum required for numerosity under California law.
8
15. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all
9
class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class members.
10
These common questions include, but are not limited to:
11
a. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide
12
employees with their rest periods;
13
b. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide
14
employees with their meal periods;
15
c. Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members when they
16
have not been provided with meal and rest periods at the appropriate rates of pay;
17
d. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to class
18
members for all time worked;
19
e. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages due, negotiable and payable in cash on
20
demand;
21
f. Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate written wage
22
statements as a result of providing them with written wage statements with
23
inaccurate entries for, among other things, amounts of gross and net wages, and
24
total hours worked;
25
g. Whether Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or
26
incomplete final wage payments;
27
h. Whether Defendants failed to reimburse class members for all necessary business
28
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 expenses incurred during the discharge of their duties;
2 i. Whether Defendants are liable to class members for waiting time penalties under
3 Labor Code section 203; and
4 j. Whether class members are entitled to restitution of money or property that
5 Defendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition;
6 16. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims. Plaintiff
7 is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice of failing
8 to comply with the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as alleged in this
9 Complaint.
10 17. Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and
11 has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent class members
12 and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff will fairly and
13 adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members.
14 18. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in that
15 they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are experienced in
16 wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf
17 of Plaintiff and absent class members.
18 19. Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair and
19 efficient adjudication of the class members’ claims and would be beneficial to the parties and the
20 Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to simultaneously and
21 efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the unnecessary duplication of
22 effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In addition, the monetary amounts
23 due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively small and would thus make it
24 difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a
25 class action will serve an important public interest by permitting class members to effectively pursue
26 the recovery of monies owed to them. Further, a class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent
27 or contradictory judgments inherent in individual litigation.
28 ///
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2 20. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the relevant and
3 statutory periods.
4 21. Defendants had a common policy and practice of systemically failing to pay Plaintiff
5 and Class Members proper wages and overtime for all hours worked, at the proper rates of pay.
6 22. Plaintiff and Class Members were consistently required to perform work, off-the-
7 clock, for which they were not paid wages. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members were
8 systemically required to go through COVID screenings, including nasal swab tests and temperature
9 check, off-the clock before clocking in for work. Additionally, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff
10 and Class Members to come to work before the start of their scheduled shift but prohibited them from
11 clocking in before their scheduled start time. Plaintiff and Class Members were regularly required to
12 perform work-related duties after clocking out, including assisting with patient care, answering
13 telephone calls, and responding to Management’s calls on their personal cellular phones outside of
14 work hours. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to perform work-related tasks
15 during unpaid meal periods, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices
16 during meal periods and rest breaks. The forgoing and uncompensated working time was under the
17 direction and control of Defendants, for which no wages were paid.
18 23. This uncompensated time caused Plaintiff and Class Members to work in excess of
19 eight (8), ten (10) and/or twelve (12) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week, entitling Plaintiff
20 and Class Members to minimum and overtime wages, which they were systemically denied.
21 24. Defendants also failed to Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages at the proper
22 and applicable regular rates of pay. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members earned performance-
23 based non-discretionary bonuses in addition to their hourly pay. However, these supplemental
24 earnings were not accounted for when determining Plaintiff and Class Members’ regular rates of pay,
25 and respective and proper overtime rates of pay.
26 25. Defendants had a common policy and practice of systemically denying Plaintiff and
27 Class Members the opportunity to take meal periods in compliance with the California Law.
28 Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members were prohibited from leaving the work premises during
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 meal periods, when such meal periods were taken. Additionally, due to understaffing and heavy
2 workloads, Plaintiff and Class Members were denied the opportunity to take timely meal periods prior
3 to the completion of their fifth and tenth hour of work. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Class Members
4 were not relieved of all work duties during unpaid meal periods and were required to keep working
5 during meal breaks, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices during
6 meal periods and rest breaks. Finally, Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ meal breaks were interrupted
7 on a regular basis due to work assignments and instructions to cover shifts for other employees.
8 26. Plaintiff and Class Members were not provided with meal periods of at least thirty (30)
9 minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each meal
10 period as part of each work shift, including a second meal breaks for shifts of ten (10) hours or more
11 and (2) Defendants’ practice of requiring putative class members to continue working through their
12 meal and rest periods due to the excessive workload.
13 27. Defendants had a common policy and practice of systemically denying Plaintiff and
14 Class Members the opportunity to take rest periods in compliance with the California Law. Plaintiff
15 and Class Members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4)
16 hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest
17 period as part of each work shift, including second rest breaks for shifts of six (6) hours or more and
18 third rest breaks for shifts of ten (10) hours or more; (2) Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring
19 Plaintiff and Class Members to remain on the premises during their rest breaks; (3) Defendants’ policy
20 and practice of requiring putative class members to continue working through their rest breaks due to
21 the excessive workload, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices
22 during meal periods and rest breaks.
23 28. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members premium pay
24 wages at their appropriate regular rates of pay for each meal and rest period denied.
25 29. Plaintiff and Class Members were not provided with accurate wage statements as
26 mandated by law pursuant to Labor Code section 226. Specifically, Defendants failed to issue wage
27 statements as “a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or
28 separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing.”
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Additionally, the wage statements issued to Plaintiff and Class Members were not recorded in “ink
2 or other indelible form.”
3 30. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(1) as “gross wages
4 earned” were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were not included.
5 31. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(2) as “total hours worked
6 by the employee” were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were
7 not included.
8 32. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(5) as “net wages earned”
9 were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were not included.
10 33. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(8) as the wage statements
11 issues to Plaintiff and Class Members failed to state “the name and address of the legal entity that is
12 the employer.”
13 34. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(9) as “all applicable
14 hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each
15 hourly rate by the employee” were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including
16 overtime, were not included.
17 35. Furthermore, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with paper pay
18 stubs as required by Labor Code § 226, applicable Wage Orders, and DLSE Opinion Letters.
19 Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ wage statement were only provided in electronic format in violation
20 of Labor Code § 226.
21 36. Plaintiff and Class Members were not reimbursed for business expenses incurred in
22 executing their duties under Defendant’s employ. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members were
23 required to use their cellular phones for work-related purposes, including communicating with
24 management outside of work hours. Additionally, Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members
25 to use their personal vehicles to drive to the Defendants’ Central Supply location to serve as relief
26 staff for the employees at the Central Supply. Defendants also required Plaintiff and Class Members
27 to purchase and wear work gloves, masks, and various other personal protective gear all necessary to
28 perform their duties under Defendants’ employ. Plaintiff and Class members were not reimbursed for
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 these necessary work-related expenses, including the costs of maintaining and cleaning the protective
2 gear.
3 37. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members with an order, check, draft, note,
4 memorandum, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness that was payable on demand, without
5 discount at some established place of business in the state. Defendants' issued pay cards/gift cards to
6 Plaintiff and Class Members for wages earned. These pay cards were useable for a fee and did not
7 have a provision for use and payment in California at no cost to the employee. Therefore, Defendants
8 failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with checks, drafts, notes or other acknowledgements
9 of indebtedness that were payable on demand without discount as required by Labor Code § 212,
10 which required Plaintiff and Class Members to incur fees to use, was not fully cashable, and not
11 usable at all financial institutions.
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS
14 (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, 1174, and 1198)
15 (Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class)
16 38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if
17 fully alleged herein.
18 39. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub-Class members have been
19 non-exempt employees of Defendant entitled to the full meal period protections of both the Labor
20 Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
21 40. Labor Code section 512 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare
22 Commission Wage Order impose an affirmative obligation on employers to provide non-exempt
23 employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period
24 of five hours, and to provide them with two uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty
25 minutes for each work period of ten hours.
26 41. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare
27 Commission Wage Order (“Wage Order”) both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work
28 during required meal periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 premium wages on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required meal period.
2 42. Compensation for missed meal periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor
3 Code section 200.
4 43. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that
5 violate the applicable Wage Order.
6 44. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order states:
7 No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than
five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except
8 that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete
the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of
9 the employer and employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty
during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an
10 ‘on duty’ meal period and counted as time worked. An ‘on duty’ meal
period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an
11 employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written
agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed
12 to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing,
revoke the agreement at any time.
13
45. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was not subject to a valid on-duty meal period
14
agreement. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Meal Period Sub-Class
15
members were not subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements with Defendants.
16
46. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period,
17
Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period
18
Sub-Class with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods for at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5)
19
hour work period, as required by Labor Code section 512 and the applicable Wage Order.
20
Specifically, Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class Members were prohibited from leaving the work
21
premises during meal periods, when such meal periods were taken. Additionally, due to understaffing
22
and heavy workloads, Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class Members were denied the opportunity to
23
take timely meal periods prior to the completion of their fifth hour of work. Furthermore, Plaintiff
24
and Meal Period Sub-Class Members were not relieved of all work duties during unpaid meal
25
periods and were required to keep working during meal breaks, including having to carry and monitor
26
their remote and/or cellular devices during meal periods and rest breaks. Finally, Plaintiff’s and Meal
27
Period Sub-Class Members’ meal breaks were interrupted on a regular basis due to work assignments
28
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 and instructions to cover shifts for other employees.
2 47. Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class members were not provided with meal periods
3 of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not
4 scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift, including a second meal breaks for shifts of
5 ten (10) hours or more and (2) Defendants’ practice of requiring putative class members to continue
6 working through their meal and rest periods due to the excessive workload.
7 48. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period,
8 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to pay premium wages to Meal Period Sub-
9 Class members when they worked five (5) hours without clocking out for any meal period.
10 49. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period,
11 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period
12 Sub-Class with a second meal period when they worked shifts of ten (10) or more hours and failed
13 to pay them premium wages as required by Labor Code 512 and the applicable Wage Order.
14 50. Moreover, Defendants written policies fail to inform Meal period Class Members of
15 their meal period rights under the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders.
16 51. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub-
17 Class members additional premium wages, and/or were not paid premium wages at the employees’
18 regular rates of pay when required meal periods were not provided.
19 52. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6, 226.7 and 512, Plaintiff, on behalf of
20 herself and the Meal Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover unpaid premium wages, interest
21 thereon, and costs of suit.
22 53. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the
23 substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the
24 Meal Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS
3 (Lab. Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198)
4 (Plaintiff and Rest Period Sub-Class)
5 54. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged
6 herein.
7 55. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub-Class members have been
8 non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full rest period protections of both the Labor
9 Code and the applicable Wage Order.
10 56. Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order imposes an affirmative obligation on
11 employers to permit and authorize employees to take required rest periods at a rate of no less than ten
12 (10) minutes of net rest time for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, that must
13 be in the middle of each work period insofar as practicable.
14 57. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order both prohibit
15 employers from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to
16 pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay, on each
17 workday that the employee is not provided with the required rest period(s).
18 58. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor
19 Code section 200.
20 59. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that
21 violate the Wage Order.
22 60. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period,
23 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing members of the Rest Period Sub-Class
24 with net rest period of at least ten (10) uninterrupted minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or
25 major fraction thereof, as required by the applicable Wage Order.
26 61. Plaintiff and Rest Period Sub-Class members were not provided with rest periods of
27 at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1)
28 Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift, including second
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 rest breaks for shifts of six (6) hours or more and third rest breaks for shifts of ten (10) hours or more;
2 (2) Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Rest Period Sub-Class members to remain on the
3 premises during their rest breaks; and (3) Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Rest Period
4 Sub-Class members to continue working through their rest breaks due to the excessive workloads,
5 including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices during meal periods and
6 rest breaks.
7 62. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub-Class
8 members additional premium wages when required rest periods were not provided.
9 63. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6 and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
10 and Rest Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and
11 costs of suit.
12 64. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the
13 substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Rest
14 Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.
15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16 FAILURE TO PAY HOURLY AND OVERTIME WAGES
17 (Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1197 and 1198)
18 (Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class)
19 65. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged
20 herein.
21 66. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members are or have been
22 non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full protections of the Labor Code and the
23 applicable Wage Order.
24 67. Section 2 of the applicable Wage Order defines “hours worked” as “the time during
25 which an employee is subject to the control of the employer, and includes all the time the employee
26 is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”
27 68. Section 4 of the applicable Wage Order requires an employer to pay non-exempt
28 employees at least the minimum wage set forth therein for all hours worked, which consist of all hours
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 that an employer has actual or constructive knowledge that employees are working.
2 69. Labor Code section 1194 invalidates any agreement between an employer and an
3 employee to work for less than the minimum or overtime wage required under the applicable Wage
4 Order.
5 70. Labor Code section 1194.2 entitles non-exempt employees to recover liquidated
6 damages in amounts equal to the amounts of unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon in addition
7 to the underlying unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon.
8 71. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful for an employer to pay an employee less
9 than the minimum wage required under the applicable Wage Order for all hours worked during a
10 payroll period.
11 72. Labor Code section 1197.1 provides that it is unlawful for any employer or any other
12 person acting either individually or as an officer, agent or employee of another person, to pay an
13 employee, or cause an employee to be paid, less than the applicable minimum wage.
14 73. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful for employers to employ employees under
15 conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order.
16 74. Labor Code section 204 requires employers to pay non-exempt employees their earned
17 wages for the normal work period at least twice during each calendar month on days the employer
18 designates in advance and to pay non-exempt employees their earned wages for labor performed in
19 excess of the normal work period by no later than the next regular payday.
20 75. Labor Code section 223 makes it unlawful for employers to pay their employees lower
21 wages than required by contract or statute while purporting to pay them legal wages.
22 76. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order require employees
23 to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than one and one-half (1.5) times their
24 respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in one workday, all
25 hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one workweek, and/or for the first eight (8) hours
26 worked on the seventh consecutive day of one workweek.
27 77. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order also require
28 employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than two (2) times their respective
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in one workday and for all
2 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on a seventh consecutive workday during the workweek.
3 78. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants have applied
4 centrally devised policies and practices to him and Hourly Employee Class members with respect to
5 working conditions and compensation arrangements.
6 79. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay hourly wages to Plaintiff and Hourly
7 Employee Class members for all time worked, including but not limited to, overtime hours at
8 statutory and/or agreed rates.
9 80. Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were not paid proper wages and
10 overtime for all hours worked, at the proper rates of pay.
11 81. Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were consistently required to perform
12 work, off-the-clock for which they were not paid wages. Specifically, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee
13 Class members were systemically required to go through COVID screenings, including nasal swab
14 tests and temperature check, off-the clock before clocking in for work. Additionally, Defendants
15 routinely required Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to come to work before the start
16 of their scheduled shift but prohibited them from clocking in before their scheduled start time.
17 Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were regularly required to perform work-related
18 duties after clocking out, including assisting with patient care, answering telephone calls, and
19 responding to Management’s calls on their personal cellular phones outside of work hours.
20 Additionally, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were required to perform work-related
21 tasks during unpaid meal periods, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular
22 devices during meal periods and rest breaks. The forgoing and uncompensated working time was
23 under the direction and control of Defendants, for which no wages were paid.
24 82. This uncompensated time caused Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to
25 work in excess of eight (8), ten (10), and twelve (12) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week,
26 entitling Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to minimum and overtime wages, which
27 they were systemically denied.
28 83. Defendants also failed to Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members overtime
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 wages at the proper and applicable regular rates of pay. Specifically, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee
2 Class members earned performance-based non-discretionary bonuses in addition to their hourly pay.
3 However, these supplemental earnings were not accounted for when determining Plaintiff and Hourly
4 Employee Class members’ regular rates of pay, and respective and proper overtime rates of pay.
5 84. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class
6 members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid the
7 full amount of wages earned during each pay period during the applicable limitations period,
8 including overtime wages.
9 85. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 204, 218.6, 223, 510, 1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiff, on
10 behalf of herself and Hourly Employee Class members, seeks to recover unpaid straight time and
11 overtime wages, interest thereon and costs of suit.
12 86. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the
13 substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
14 Hourly Employee Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.
15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WRITTEN WAGE STATEMENTS
17 (Lab. Code § 226)
18 (Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class)
19 87. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged
20 herein.
21 88. Labor Code section 226(a) states:
22 An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages,
shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the
23 check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if
wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized
24 statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours
worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the
25 number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the
employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that
26 all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be
aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the
27 inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the
name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social
28 security number or an employee identification number other than a
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that
is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as
2 defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the
legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all
3 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the
4 employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary
services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the
5 total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The
deductions made from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or
6 other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year,
and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be
7 kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of
employment or at a central location within the State of California. For
8 purposes of this subdivision, ‘copy’ includes a duplicate of the itemized
statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that
9 accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision.
10 89. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has sought to harmonize the
11 “detachable part of the check” provision and the “accurate itemized statement in writing” provision
12 of Labor Code section 226(a) by allowing for electronic wage statements so long as each employee
13 retains the right to elect to receive a written paper stub or record and that those who are provided with
14 electronic wage statements retain the ability to easily access the information and convert the electronic
15 statements into hard copies at no expense to the employee. (DLSE Opinion Letter July 6, 2006).
16 90. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable
17 limitations period, Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class members
18 with written wage statements as described above. Additionally, the wage statements issued to class
19 members failed to account for the unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and premium pay wages
20 described above.
21 91. Furthermore, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class
22 Members with paper pay stubs as required by Labor Code § 226, applicable Wage Orders, and DLSE
23 Opinion Letters. Plaintiff’s and Wage Statement Class members’ wage statements were only
24 provided in electronic format in violation of Labor Code § 226.
25 92. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(8) as the wage statements
26 issues to Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class Members failed to state “the name and address of the
27 legal entity that is the employer.”
28 93. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Wage Statement Class members with accurate written wage statements was intentional in that
2 Defendants have the ability to provide them with accurate wage statements but have intentionally
3 provided them with written wage statements that Defendants have known do not comply with Labor
4 Code section 226(a).
5 94. Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class members have suffered injuries, in that
6 Defendants have violated their legal rights to receive accurate wage statements and have misled them
7 about their actual rates of pay and wages earned. In addition, inaccurate information on their wage
8 statements has prevented immediate c
Preview
1 D.LAW, INC. Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363) 2 emil@d.law 3/19/2024 David Yeremian (SBN 226337) 3 d.yeremian@d.law David Keledjian (SBN 309135) 4 d.keledjian@d.law 5 David Arakelyan (SBN 337076) d.arakelyan@d.law 6 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 7 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff KATRINA LYNN OROSCO 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 12 13 KATRINA LYNN OROSCO, on behalf of Case No.: 24CV00870 herself and all others similarly situated, and 14 the general public, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 15 Plaintiff, 1. Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Lab. Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7, 512 and 16 v. 1198); 2. Failure to Provide Rest Periods (Lab. 17 CHICO HEIGHTS REHABILITATION & Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198); WELLNESS CENTRE, LP, a California 3. Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and 18 corporation; WINDSOR CHICO CREEK Overtime (Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, CARE AND REHABILITATION, LLC, a 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1 and 1198); 19 4. Failure to Provide Accurate Written Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through Wage Statements (Lab. Code §§ 20 50, inclusive, 226(a)); 5. Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages 21 Defendants. (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202 and 203); 6. Failure to Indemnify (Lab. Code § 22 2802); 7. Failure to Pay Wages Due, Negotiable 23 and Payable in Cash on Demand (Lab Code §§ 212 and 213); and 24 8. Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); 25 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff KATRINA LYNN OROSCO (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself, all others similarly 2 situated, and the general public, complains and alleges as follows: 3 INTRODUCTION 4 1. Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants CHICO HEIGHTS 5 REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP, a California corporation; WINDSOR CHICO 6 CREEK CARE AND REHABILITATION, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 7 inclusive, (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) for alleged violations of the California Labor 8 Code and California Business and Professions Code. As set forth below, Plaintiff alleges that 9 Defendants have: 10 a. failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; 11 b. failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; 12 c. failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all 13 applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; 14 d. failed to provide them with meal periods; 15 e. failed to provide them with rest periods; 16 f. failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and rest periods; 17 g. failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; 18 h. failed to pay wages due, negotiable and payable in cash on demand; 19 i. failed to reimburse them with necessary business expenditures; and 20 j. failed to pay them all their final wages following separation of employment. 21 Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff now brings this class action to recover 22 unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, restitution, and related relief on behalf of herself, all 23 others similarly situated, and the general public. 24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case because the monetary 26 damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff from Defendants’ conduct exceeds the minimal 27 jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California. 28 3. Venue is proper in the County of Butte pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 395(a) and 395.5 in that liability arose this county because at least some of the transactions that are 2 the subject matter of this Complaint occurred therein and/or each defendant is found, maintains 3 offices, transacts business and/or has an agent therein. 4 4. Venue is proper in Butte County because Defendants have at all times alleged herein, 5 conducted business in Butte County, and throughout California. As such, venue is proper in any 6 county in California. 7 PARTIES 8 5. Plaintiff KATRINA LYNN OROSCO is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, 9 was an individual residing in the State of California. 10 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant CHICO 11 HEIGHTS REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP is, and at all relevant times 12 mentioned herein, was a California corporation doing business in the State of California. 13 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendant WINDSOR 14 CHICO CREEK CARE AND REHABILITATION, LLC is, and at all relevant times mentioned 15 herein, was a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California. 16 8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as 17 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff 18 will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants when 19 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of the fictitiously 20 named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences, acts and omissions alleged 21 herein and that Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by these defendants, and each of 22 them. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege both the true names and capacities of the DOE 23 defendants when ascertained. 24 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times 25 mentioned herein, some or all of the defendants were the representatives, agents, employees, partners, 26 directors, associates, joint venturers, joint employers, owners, principals or co-participants of some 27 or all of the other defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein, were acting within the course 28 and scope of such relationship and with the full knowledge, consent, and ratification by such other 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 defendants. 2 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that, at all relevant times 3 mentioned herein, some of the defendants pursued a common course of conduct, acted in concert and 4 conspired with one another, and aided and abetted one another to accomplish the occurrences, acts 5 and omissions alleged herein. 6 11. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Code 7 of Civil Procedure section 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest among the 8 persons who comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because Plaintiff is 9 unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class action. 10 12. Relevant Time Period: The relevant time period is defined as the time period 11 beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until judgment is entered. 12 a. Hourly Employee Class: All persons employed by Defendants, collectively or separately, and/or any staffing agencies and/or any other third parties in hourly or 13 non-exempt positions in California four years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action (“Hourly Employee 14 Class”). 15 b. Meal Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked in a shift in excess of five hours during the four years prior to the filing of this action 16 and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action. 17 c. Rest Period Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who worked a shift of at least three and one-half (3.5) hours the four years prior to the filing of 18 this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action. 19 d. Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: All Hourly Employee Class members who separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning 20 three years before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered. 21 e. Wage Statement Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California during 22 the period beginning one year before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered. 23 f. Pay Card Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California, who were 24 paid by pay card (or similar means) at any time during the Relevant Time Period. 25 g. Expense Reimbursement Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California who incurred business expenses during the Relevant Time Period. 26 h. UCL Class: All Hourly Employee Class and Expense Reimbursement Class 27 members employed by Defendants in California during the four years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this 28 action. 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 13. Reservation of Rights: Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.765(b), Plaintiff reserves the right 2 to amend or modify the class definitions with greater specificity, by further division into sub-classes 3 and/or by limitation to particular issues. 4 14. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of each 5 individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact number of 6 class members, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the actual number 7 exceeds the minimum required for numerosity under California law. 8 15. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all 9 class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class members. 10 These common questions include, but are not limited to: 11 a. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide 12 employees with their rest periods; 13 b. Whether Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to provide 14 employees with their meal periods; 15 c. Whether Defendants failed to pay premium wages to class members when they 16 have not been provided with meal and rest periods at the appropriate rates of pay; 17 d. Whether Defendants failed to pay minimum and/or overtime wages to class 18 members for all time worked; 19 e. Whether Defendants failed to pay wages due, negotiable and payable in cash on 20 demand; 21 f. Whether Defendants failed to provide class members with accurate written wage 22 statements as a result of providing them with written wage statements with 23 inaccurate entries for, among other things, amounts of gross and net wages, and 24 total hours worked; 25 g. Whether Defendants applied policies or practices that result in late and/or 26 incomplete final wage payments; 27 h. Whether Defendants failed to reimburse class members for all necessary business 28 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 expenses incurred during the discharge of their duties; 2 i. Whether Defendants are liable to class members for waiting time penalties under 3 Labor Code section 203; and 4 j. Whether class members are entitled to restitution of money or property that 5 Defendants may have acquired from them through unfair competition; 6 16. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other class members’ claims. Plaintiff 7 is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendants have a policy or practice of failing 8 to comply with the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code as alleged in this 9 Complaint. 10 17. Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and 11 has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise conflict with, the interests of absent class members 12 and is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on their behalf. Plaintiff will fairly and 13 adequately represent and protect the interests of the other class members. 14 18. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff’s counsel are adequate class counsel in that 15 they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are experienced in 16 wage and hour class action litigation, and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf 17 of Plaintiff and absent class members. 18 19. Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair and 19 efficient adjudication of the class members’ claims and would be beneficial to the parties and the 20 Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to simultaneously and 21 efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the unnecessary duplication of 22 effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In addition, the monetary amounts 23 due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively small and would thus make it 24 difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a 25 class action will serve an important public interest by permitting class members to effectively pursue 26 the recovery of monies owed to them. Further, a class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent 27 or contradictory judgments inherent in individual litigation. 28 /// 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 2 20. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the relevant and 3 statutory periods. 4 21. Defendants had a common policy and practice of systemically failing to pay Plaintiff 5 and Class Members proper wages and overtime for all hours worked, at the proper rates of pay. 6 22. Plaintiff and Class Members were consistently required to perform work, off-the- 7 clock, for which they were not paid wages. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members were 8 systemically required to go through COVID screenings, including nasal swab tests and temperature 9 check, off-the clock before clocking in for work. Additionally, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff 10 and Class Members to come to work before the start of their scheduled shift but prohibited them from 11 clocking in before their scheduled start time. Plaintiff and Class Members were regularly required to 12 perform work-related duties after clocking out, including assisting with patient care, answering 13 telephone calls, and responding to Management’s calls on their personal cellular phones outside of 14 work hours. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to perform work-related tasks 15 during unpaid meal periods, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices 16 during meal periods and rest breaks. The forgoing and uncompensated working time was under the 17 direction and control of Defendants, for which no wages were paid. 18 23. This uncompensated time caused Plaintiff and Class Members to work in excess of 19 eight (8), ten (10) and/or twelve (12) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week, entitling Plaintiff 20 and Class Members to minimum and overtime wages, which they were systemically denied. 21 24. Defendants also failed to Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages at the proper 22 and applicable regular rates of pay. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members earned performance- 23 based non-discretionary bonuses in addition to their hourly pay. However, these supplemental 24 earnings were not accounted for when determining Plaintiff and Class Members’ regular rates of pay, 25 and respective and proper overtime rates of pay. 26 25. Defendants had a common policy and practice of systemically denying Plaintiff and 27 Class Members the opportunity to take meal periods in compliance with the California Law. 28 Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members were prohibited from leaving the work premises during 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 meal periods, when such meal periods were taken. Additionally, due to understaffing and heavy 2 workloads, Plaintiff and Class Members were denied the opportunity to take timely meal periods prior 3 to the completion of their fifth and tenth hour of work. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Class Members 4 were not relieved of all work duties during unpaid meal periods and were required to keep working 5 during meal breaks, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices during 6 meal periods and rest breaks. Finally, Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ meal breaks were interrupted 7 on a regular basis due to work assignments and instructions to cover shifts for other employees. 8 26. Plaintiff and Class Members were not provided with meal periods of at least thirty (30) 9 minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each meal 10 period as part of each work shift, including a second meal breaks for shifts of ten (10) hours or more 11 and (2) Defendants’ practice of requiring putative class members to continue working through their 12 meal and rest periods due to the excessive workload. 13 27. Defendants had a common policy and practice of systemically denying Plaintiff and 14 Class Members the opportunity to take rest periods in compliance with the California Law. Plaintiff 15 and Class Members were not provided with rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) 16 hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest 17 period as part of each work shift, including second rest breaks for shifts of six (6) hours or more and 18 third rest breaks for shifts of ten (10) hours or more; (2) Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring 19 Plaintiff and Class Members to remain on the premises during their rest breaks; (3) Defendants’ policy 20 and practice of requiring putative class members to continue working through their rest breaks due to 21 the excessive workload, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices 22 during meal periods and rest breaks. 23 28. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members premium pay 24 wages at their appropriate regular rates of pay for each meal and rest period denied. 25 29. Plaintiff and Class Members were not provided with accurate wage statements as 26 mandated by law pursuant to Labor Code section 226. Specifically, Defendants failed to issue wage 27 statements as “a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or 28 separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing.” 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Additionally, the wage statements issued to Plaintiff and Class Members were not recorded in “ink 2 or other indelible form.” 3 30. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(1) as “gross wages 4 earned” were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. 5 31. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(2) as “total hours worked 6 by the employee” were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were 7 not included. 8 32. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(5) as “net wages earned” 9 were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including overtime, were not included. 10 33. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(8) as the wage statements 11 issues to Plaintiff and Class Members failed to state “the name and address of the legal entity that is 12 the employer.” 13 34. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(9) as “all applicable 14 hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each 15 hourly rate by the employee” were not accurately reflected in that: all hours worked, including 16 overtime, were not included. 17 35. Furthermore, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with paper pay 18 stubs as required by Labor Code § 226, applicable Wage Orders, and DLSE Opinion Letters. 19 Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ wage statement were only provided in electronic format in violation 20 of Labor Code § 226. 21 36. Plaintiff and Class Members were not reimbursed for business expenses incurred in 22 executing their duties under Defendant’s employ. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class Members were 23 required to use their cellular phones for work-related purposes, including communicating with 24 management outside of work hours. Additionally, Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members 25 to use their personal vehicles to drive to the Defendants’ Central Supply location to serve as relief 26 staff for the employees at the Central Supply. Defendants also required Plaintiff and Class Members 27 to purchase and wear work gloves, masks, and various other personal protective gear all necessary to 28 perform their duties under Defendants’ employ. Plaintiff and Class members were not reimbursed for 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 these necessary work-related expenses, including the costs of maintaining and cleaning the protective 2 gear. 3 37. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members with an order, check, draft, note, 4 memorandum, or other acknowledgment of indebtedness that was payable on demand, without 5 discount at some established place of business in the state. Defendants' issued pay cards/gift cards to 6 Plaintiff and Class Members for wages earned. These pay cards were useable for a fee and did not 7 have a provision for use and payment in California at no cost to the employee. Therefore, Defendants 8 failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with checks, drafts, notes or other acknowledgements 9 of indebtedness that were payable on demand without discount as required by Labor Code § 212, 10 which required Plaintiff and Class Members to incur fees to use, was not fully cashable, and not 11 usable at all financial institutions. 12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 13 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS 14 (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, 1174, and 1198) 15 (Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class) 16 38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if 17 fully alleged herein. 18 39. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub-Class members have been 19 non-exempt employees of Defendant entitled to the full meal period protections of both the Labor 20 Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. 21 40. Labor Code section 512 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare 22 Commission Wage Order impose an affirmative obligation on employers to provide non-exempt 23 employees with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty minutes for each work period 24 of five hours, and to provide them with two uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of at least thirty 25 minutes for each work period of ten hours. 26 41. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 11 of the applicable Industrial Welfare 27 Commission Wage Order (“Wage Order”) both prohibit employers from requiring employees to work 28 during required meal periods and require employers to pay non-exempt employees an hour of 9 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 premium wages on each workday that the employee is not provided with the required meal period. 2 42. Compensation for missed meal periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor 3 Code section 200. 4 43. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that 5 violate the applicable Wage Order. 6 44. Section 11 of the applicable Wage Order states: 7 No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except 8 that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of 9 the employer and employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an 10 ‘on duty’ meal period and counted as time worked. An ‘on duty’ meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an 11 employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed 12 to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. 13 45. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was not subject to a valid on-duty meal period 14 agreement. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Meal Period Sub-Class 15 members were not subject to valid on-duty meal period agreements with Defendants. 16 46. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 17 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period 18 Sub-Class with uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods for at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) 19 hour work period, as required by Labor Code section 512 and the applicable Wage Order. 20 Specifically, Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class Members were prohibited from leaving the work 21 premises during meal periods, when such meal periods were taken. Additionally, due to understaffing 22 and heavy workloads, Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class Members were denied the opportunity to 23 take timely meal periods prior to the completion of their fifth hour of work. Furthermore, Plaintiff 24 and Meal Period Sub-Class Members were not relieved of all work duties during unpaid meal 25 periods and were required to keep working during meal breaks, including having to carry and monitor 26 their remote and/or cellular devices during meal periods and rest breaks. Finally, Plaintiff’s and Meal 27 Period Sub-Class Members’ meal breaks were interrupted on a regular basis due to work assignments 28 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 and instructions to cover shifts for other employees. 2 47. Plaintiff and Meal Period Sub-Class members were not provided with meal periods 3 of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five (5) hour work period due to (1) Defendants’ policy of not 4 scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift, including a second meal breaks for shifts of 5 ten (10) hours or more and (2) Defendants’ practice of requiring putative class members to continue 6 working through their meal and rest periods due to the excessive workload. 7 48. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 8 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of failing to pay premium wages to Meal Period Sub- 9 Class members when they worked five (5) hours without clocking out for any meal period. 10 49. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 11 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing Plaintiff and members of the Meal Period 12 Sub-Class with a second meal period when they worked shifts of ten (10) or more hours and failed 13 to pay them premium wages as required by Labor Code 512 and the applicable Wage Order. 14 50. Moreover, Defendants written policies fail to inform Meal period Class Members of 15 their meal period rights under the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. 16 51. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Meal Period Sub- 17 Class members additional premium wages, and/or were not paid premium wages at the employees’ 18 regular rates of pay when required meal periods were not provided. 19 52. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6, 226.7 and 512, Plaintiff, on behalf of 20 herself and the Meal Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover unpaid premium wages, interest 21 thereon, and costs of suit. 22 53. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the 23 substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the 24 Meal Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS 3 (Lab. Code §§ 204, 223, 226.7 and 1198) 4 (Plaintiff and Rest Period Sub-Class) 5 54. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 6 herein. 7 55. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub-Class members have been 8 non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full rest period protections of both the Labor 9 Code and the applicable Wage Order. 10 56. Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order imposes an affirmative obligation on 11 employers to permit and authorize employees to take required rest periods at a rate of no less than ten 12 (10) minutes of net rest time for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, that must 13 be in the middle of each work period insofar as practicable. 14 57. Labor Code section 226.7 and Section 12 of the applicable Wage Order both prohibit 15 employers from requiring employees to work during required rest periods and require employers to 16 pay non-exempt employees an hour of premium wages at the employees’ regular rates of pay, on each 17 workday that the employee is not provided with the required rest period(s). 18 58. Compensation for missed rest periods constitutes wages within the meaning of Labor 19 Code section 200. 20 59. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful to employ a person under conditions that 21 violate the Wage Order. 22 60. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times during the applicable limitations period, 23 Defendants maintained a policy or practice of not providing members of the Rest Period Sub-Class 24 with net rest period of at least ten (10) uninterrupted minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or 25 major fraction thereof, as required by the applicable Wage Order. 26 61. Plaintiff and Rest Period Sub-Class members were not provided with rest periods of 27 at least ten (10) minutes for each four (4) hour work period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) 28 Defendants’ policy of not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift, including second 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 rest breaks for shifts of six (6) hours or more and third rest breaks for shifts of ten (10) hours or more; 2 (2) Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Rest Period Sub-Class members to remain on the 3 premises during their rest breaks; and (3) Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Rest Period 4 Sub-Class members to continue working through their rest breaks due to the excessive workloads, 5 including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular devices during meal periods and 6 rest breaks. 7 62. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rest Period Sub-Class 8 members additional premium wages when required rest periods were not provided. 9 63. Pursuant to Labor Code section 204, 218.6 and 226.7, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 10 and Rest Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover unpaid premium wages, interest thereon, and 11 costs of suit. 12 64. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the 13 substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Rest 14 Period Sub-Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 16 FAILURE TO PAY HOURLY AND OVERTIME WAGES 17 (Lab. Code §§ 223, 510, 1194, 1197 and 1198) 18 (Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class) 19 65. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 20 herein. 21 66. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members are or have been 22 non-exempt employees of Defendants entitled to the full protections of the Labor Code and the 23 applicable Wage Order. 24 67. Section 2 of the applicable Wage Order defines “hours worked” as “the time during 25 which an employee is subject to the control of the employer, and includes all the time the employee 26 is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” 27 68. Section 4 of the applicable Wage Order requires an employer to pay non-exempt 28 employees at least the minimum wage set forth therein for all hours worked, which consist of all hours 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 that an employer has actual or constructive knowledge that employees are working. 2 69. Labor Code section 1194 invalidates any agreement between an employer and an 3 employee to work for less than the minimum or overtime wage required under the applicable Wage 4 Order. 5 70. Labor Code section 1194.2 entitles non-exempt employees to recover liquidated 6 damages in amounts equal to the amounts of unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon in addition 7 to the underlying unpaid minimum wages and interest thereon. 8 71. Labor Code section 1197 makes it unlawful for an employer to pay an employee less 9 than the minimum wage required under the applicable Wage Order for all hours worked during a 10 payroll period. 11 72. Labor Code section 1197.1 provides that it is unlawful for any employer or any other 12 person acting either individually or as an officer, agent or employee of another person, to pay an 13 employee, or cause an employee to be paid, less than the applicable minimum wage. 14 73. Labor Code section 1198 makes it unlawful for employers to employ employees under 15 conditions that violate the applicable Wage Order. 16 74. Labor Code section 204 requires employers to pay non-exempt employees their earned 17 wages for the normal work period at least twice during each calendar month on days the employer 18 designates in advance and to pay non-exempt employees their earned wages for labor performed in 19 excess of the normal work period by no later than the next regular payday. 20 75. Labor Code section 223 makes it unlawful for employers to pay their employees lower 21 wages than required by contract or statute while purporting to pay them legal wages. 22 76. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order require employees 23 to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than one and one-half (1.5) times their 24 respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in one workday, all 25 hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in one workweek, and/or for the first eight (8) hours 26 worked on the seventh consecutive day of one workweek. 27 77. Labor Code section 510 and Section 3 of the applicable Wage Order also require 28 employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime wages of no less than two (2) times their respective 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in one workday and for all 2 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on a seventh consecutive workday during the workweek. 3 78. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times, Defendants have applied 4 centrally devised policies and practices to him and Hourly Employee Class members with respect to 5 working conditions and compensation arrangements. 6 79. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay hourly wages to Plaintiff and Hourly 7 Employee Class members for all time worked, including but not limited to, overtime hours at 8 statutory and/or agreed rates. 9 80. Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were not paid proper wages and 10 overtime for all hours worked, at the proper rates of pay. 11 81. Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were consistently required to perform 12 work, off-the-clock for which they were not paid wages. Specifically, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee 13 Class members were systemically required to go through COVID screenings, including nasal swab 14 tests and temperature check, off-the clock before clocking in for work. Additionally, Defendants 15 routinely required Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to come to work before the start 16 of their scheduled shift but prohibited them from clocking in before their scheduled start time. 17 Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were regularly required to perform work-related 18 duties after clocking out, including assisting with patient care, answering telephone calls, and 19 responding to Management’s calls on their personal cellular phones outside of work hours. 20 Additionally, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members were required to perform work-related 21 tasks during unpaid meal periods, including having to carry and monitor their remote and/or cellular 22 devices during meal periods and rest breaks. The forgoing and uncompensated working time was 23 under the direction and control of Defendants, for which no wages were paid. 24 82. This uncompensated time caused Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to 25 work in excess of eight (8), ten (10), and twelve (12) hours a day and/or forty (40) hours a week, 26 entitling Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members to minimum and overtime wages, which 27 they were systemically denied. 28 83. Defendants also failed to Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members overtime 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 wages at the proper and applicable regular rates of pay. Specifically, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee 2 Class members earned performance-based non-discretionary bonuses in addition to their hourly pay. 3 However, these supplemental earnings were not accounted for when determining Plaintiff and Hourly 4 Employee Class members’ regular rates of pay, and respective and proper overtime rates of pay. 5 84. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class 6 members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid the 7 full amount of wages earned during each pay period during the applicable limitations period, 8 including overtime wages. 9 85. Pursuant to Labor Code sections 204, 218.6, 223, 510, 1194 and 1194.2, Plaintiff, on 10 behalf of herself and Hourly Employee Class members, seeks to recover unpaid straight time and 11 overtime wages, interest thereon and costs of suit. 12 86. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1194, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the 13 substantial benefit doctrine, and/or the common fund doctrine, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and 14 Hourly Employee Class members, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. 15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 16 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WRITTEN WAGE STATEMENTS 17 (Lab. Code § 226) 18 (Plaintiff and Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class) 19 87. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully alleged 20 herein. 21 88. Labor Code section 226(a) states: 22 An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the 23 check, draft, or voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized 24 statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the 25 number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that 26 all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the 27 inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social 28 security number or an employee identification number other than a 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as 2 defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all 3 applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the 4 employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the 5 total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or 6 other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be 7 kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. For 8 purposes of this subdivision, ‘copy’ includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that 9 accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision. 10 89. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has sought to harmonize the 11 “detachable part of the check” provision and the “accurate itemized statement in writing” provision 12 of Labor Code section 226(a) by allowing for electronic wage statements so long as each employee 13 retains the right to elect to receive a written paper stub or record and that those who are provided with 14 electronic wage statements retain the ability to easily access the information and convert the electronic 15 statements into hard copies at no expense to the employee. (DLSE Opinion Letter July 6, 2006). 16 90. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, at all relevant times during the applicable 17 limitations period, Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class members 18 with written wage statements as described above. Additionally, the wage statements issued to class 19 members failed to account for the unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and premium pay wages 20 described above. 21 91. Furthermore, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class 22 Members with paper pay stubs as required by Labor Code § 226, applicable Wage Orders, and DLSE 23 Opinion Letters. Plaintiff’s and Wage Statement Class members’ wage statements were only 24 provided in electronic format in violation of Labor Code § 226. 25 92. Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(8) as the wage statements 26 issues to Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class Members failed to state “the name and address of the 27 legal entity that is the employer.” 28 93. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Wage Statement Class members with accurate written wage statements was intentional in that 2 Defendants have the ability to provide them with accurate wage statements but have intentionally 3 provided them with written wage statements that Defendants have known do not comply with Labor 4 Code section 226(a). 5 94. Plaintiff and Wage Statement Class members have suffered injuries, in that 6 Defendants have violated their legal rights to receive accurate wage statements and have misled them 7 about their actual rates of pay and wages earned. In addition, inaccurate information on their wage 8 statements has prevented immediate c