Preview
1 D.LAW, INC.
Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363)
2 emil@d.law
David Yeremian (SBN 226337)
3 d.yeremian@d.law
Alvin B. Lindsay (SBN 220236)
4 a.lindsay@d.law
Tania Fonseca (SBN 309927)
5 t.fonseca@d.law
880 E Broadway
6 Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
7 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff William R. R. Little
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12 WILLIAM R. R. LITTLE, an individual, on Case No.: 24-CIV-00279
behalf of himself and others similarly
13 situated, CLASS ACTION
14 Assigned for All Purposes To:
Plaintiff, Hon. Nicole S. Healy
15 vs. Dept.: 28
16 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
STARVISTA., a California corporation; and COMPLAINT FOR:
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
17 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and for All
Defendants. Hours Worked;
18
2. Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under
19 Labor Code § 510;
3. Meal Period Liability Labor Code § 226.7;
20 4. Rest-Break Liability Labor Code § 226.7;
5. Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay under 8
21 CCR § 11050(5);
22 6. Failure to Provide One Day’s Rest from
Seven under Labor Code §§ 551 and 552;
23 7. Violation of Labor Code § 226(a);
8. Violation of Labor Code § 221;
24 9. Violation of Labor Code § 204;
10. Violation of Labor Code § 203;
25 11. Failure to Maintain Records Required under
26 Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5;
12. Failure to Produce Requested Employment
27 Records under Labor Code §§ 226, 1198.5;
13. Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business
28 Expenses under Labor Code § 2802;
14. Violation of Business & Professions Code
§ 17200 et seq. and
-1-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 15. Penalties under PAGA, Labor Code § 2698 et
seq.
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3
Original Complaint filed: January 16, 2024
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff WILLIAM R. R. LITTLE. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all
2 other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees employed by Defendants in California
3 during the relevant period (collectively, “Employees”; individually, “Employee”), complains of
4 Defendants as follows:
5 INTRODUCTION
6 1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all current and former
7 Employees within the State of California who, at any time during the four years prior to the filing
8 of this lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly employees by Defendants
9 STARVISTA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively
10 referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated various provisions of
11 the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and
12 California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these violations.
13 2. Plaintiff worked as a program coordinator at Defendants’ facilities in California.
14 Defendants employed other similarly situated Class members as program coordinators, case
15 managers, and in similar and related positions in connection with mental health, crisis
16 intervention, youth housing, substance abuse rehabilitation, and early childhood services they
17 provide to Defendants’ customers throughout California. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
18 Class members worked at Defendants’ behest without being paid all wages due and without being
19 provided all required breaks. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class
20 members were employed by Defendants and (1) shared similar job duties and responsibilities; (2)
21 were subjected to the same policies and practices; and (3) endured similar violations at the hands
22 of Defendants as the other Employees who served in similar and related positions.
23 3. Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to work off the clock
24 and failed to record accurate time worked by these Employees, failed to pay them at the
25 appropriate rates for all hours worked, failed to pay all wages due and owing at termination or
26 resignation, and provided Plaintiff and the Class members with inaccurate wage statements that
27 prevented them from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to provide
28 Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as Employees were required to remain
-3-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 under Defendants’ control and were not provided with the opportunity to take full uninterrupted,
2 timely, and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks, as required by the Labor Code and the
3 applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders.
4 4. Defendant STARVISTA is a California corporation which lists its principal address
5 with the California Secretary of State in San Carlos, California. Defendant STARVISTA is listed
6 as the employer on the wage statements issued to Plaintiff by Defendants, and upon information
7 and belief to other Class members, with the same San Carlos, California address. On information
8 and belief, Defendants maintain operations and locations throughout San Mateo County and
9 California. STARVISTA’s website explains that: “[At StarVista] [w]e deliver high-impact
10 services through counseling, case management, skill development, and crisis prevention to
11 children, youth, adults, and families.”
12 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil
13 Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This Action is brought
14 as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated Employees of Defendants pursuant to California
15 Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district
16 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. Upon information and belief, the
17 obligations and liabilities giving rise to this lawsuit occurred, at least in part, in San Mateo
18 County, where Defendants are headquartered.
19 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
20 whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently
21 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of
22 Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
23 designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, is legally responsible in some
24 manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this
25 Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as Does 1
26 through 50 when their identities become known.
27 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted in
28 all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, that Defendants carried
-4-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of
2 each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in
3 all respects as the employers or joint employers of Employees. Defendants, and each of them,
4 exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Employees, created and
5 implemented the policies and practices that governed the employment of Plaintiff and the Class
6 members and dictated their job duties and responsibilities, or otherwise suffered or permitted
7 Plaintiff and the other Employee Class members to work, or engaged, thereby creating a common
8 law employment relationship, with the Employee Class members. Therefore, Defendants, and each
9 of them, employed or jointly employed the Employee Class members.
10 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11 8. The Employees who comprise the Class, including Plaintiff, are non-exempt
12 employees of Defendants pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare
13 Commission (“IWC”). During the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through its
14 resolution, Plaintiff and the Class members were employed by Defendants and either were not
15 paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and
16 overtime rates, including for meal period and rest break premium payments. Plaintiff also
17 contends that Defendants failed to pay him and the Class members all wages due and owing,
18 including by miscalculating wages owed and by requiring off the clock work, failed to provide
19 meal and rest breaks, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements and timely pay all wages
20 owed, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable
21 paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders.
22 9. During the course of Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ employment with
23 Defendants, they were not paid all wages they were owed, including for all work performed
24 (resulting in “off the clock” work) and for all their overtime hours worked, or were not paid at the
25 correct rates. This has resulted in systematic and ongoing violations of the California Labor Code
26 and relevant IWC Wage Orders. Upon information and belief, Defendants employ other non-
27 exempt, hourly employees as program coordinators, case managers, and in similar and related
28 positions in connection to mental health, crisis intervention, youth housing, substance abuse
-5-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 rehabilitation, and early childhood services they provide to Defendants’ customers throughout
2 California.
3 10. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a program coordinator, with duties that
4 included assisting clients with the admissions process for Defendants’ detoxification program and
5 aiding in day-to-day operations of the program. Plaintiff generally worked over 50 hours per week,
6 five to six shifts per week. Plaintiff worked varied schedules depending on Defendants’ needs
7 including the day shift from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the swing shift from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.,
8 and the night shift from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
9 11. Despite their obligation to maintain accurate timekeeping records for hours worked
10 by the Class members, Defendants maintained improper time record-keeping systems across their
11 California facilities. In fact, for all of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants paid Employees by their
12 scheduled hours, or Defendants’ desired number of hours rather than their actual hours worked.
13 Employees were required to record their hours worked on an online employee portal. However,
14 Plaintiff, and on information and belief, other Class members were also instructed to record only
15 their scheduled hours or pre-authorized hours by Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff would record shift
16 start and end times that mirrored his work schedule or reflected only the limited overtime hours
17 that Defendants permitted. If Plaintiff ever deviated in his time entries from his scheduled or pre-
18 authorized hours, he would be contacted by Defendants’ management personnel and told to adjust
19 his time entries to reflect his scheduled or pre-authorized hours. On many occasions, Plaintiff
20 attempted to record his actual time worked but he was told by management that he could not
21 record these actual hours worked and would only be paid for his scheduled hours. Accordingly,
22 Plaintiff’s time records did not accurately reflect his hours worked beyond his schedule or
23 preauthorized hours, and thus Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and on information and
24 belief other Employees’ actual time worked.
25 12. On information and belief, Defendants’ flawed timekeeping systems failed to
26 accurately record Employees’ actual time worked, rounded down, and shaved total hours worked
27 to the detriment of Employees. Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff for travel time
28 between Defendant’s facilities. Plaintiff was regularly required to work at one facility and clock
-6-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 out before driving to the second facility where he would promptly clock back in. In doing so,
2 Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for the approximately half hour of travel time when he
3 was under Defendants’ control between the facilities. Moreover, to maintain the appearance of
4 compliance with Labor laws and avoid paying double-time wages, Defendants also demanded that
5 Employees record any double-time hours onto the next day. Many times, Plaintiff worked over
6 twelve hours, working as long as fourteen hours on several occasions due to short staffing.
7 Plaintiff was then instructed by management to record the two hours over twelve on the time
8 record for the following day. In doing so, Defendants deducted two hours from Plaintiff’s time
9 worked and failed to pay him at the appropriate double-time rate. By virtue of deducting these
10 hours from Plaintiff’s time worked and manipulating daily hours actually worked to conform to
11 scheduled hours or preauthorized hours, Defendants further unlawfully deducted many hours
12 Employees actually worked from the total hours Defendants recorded for them for payroll
13 purposes during the relevant pay period.
14 13. The failure to maintain accurate timekeeping and payroll records perpetrated by
15 Defendants has also been exacerbated by other off the clock work Defendants required their
16 Employees to endure. Plaintiff spent several minutes before and after his scheduled shifts checking
17 and responding to calls from Defendants’ management and clients. Plaintiff was also required to
18 work off the clock conducting intake interviews for new clients, breath tests, or assisting the
19 phlebotomist with new clients that arrived after Plaintiff’s shift ended. Plaintiff was also required
20 to come into the office during his personal time to check in on staff for approximately two hours
21 per week. Defendants also required that Plaintiff make trips to the store or food bank every week
22 for about an hour while off the clock. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff’s pre- or post-shift time worked,
23 and on information and belief that of other Class members, went uncompensated.
24 14. Additionally, Defendants required that Plaintiff work seven days in a row during a
25 work week without rest, and failed to pay him at the correct overtime and double time rates for
26 the demanding schedule he was required to work. On information and belief, Defendants’ policy
27 and practice was to regularly schedule Class members to work seven consecutive days despite the
28 fact that such a schedule directly violates Labor Code §§ 551 and 552.
-7-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 15. Defendants also retroactively paid Plaintiff for a raise he was given but went
2 unpaid for several months. However, to whatever extent Defendant paid this retroactive pay and
3 any other form of remuneration besides their regular hourly rate to Employees in the Class,
4 Defendants failed to include it in the regular hourly rate used to calculate and pay the overtime
5 and double time that Defendants did pay.
6 16. Defendants also failed to pay reporting time pay to Plaintiff and Class members.
7 On several occasions, Plaintiff reported to work per his scheduled shift only to be sent home
8 within two hours. Defendants failed to pay Employees in such instances for half of their usual or
9 scheduled day’s work, and failed to do so at the correct regular rate of pay.
10 17. Defendants followed a similar unlawful practice, upon information and belief, in
11 connection with other Employees in a concerted effort to limit and restrict regular, overtime, and
12 double-time hours earned by and owing to Plaintiff and the other Class members. Time worked
13 off the clock also caused Plaintiff and other Class members to work beyond eight hours in a shift.
14 As a result of the above-described rounding and other off the clock work, Defendants failed to
15 pay Plaintiff and Class members overtime and double-time for several minutes to hours at the end
16 of work shifts which Defendants did not record in any timekeeping or payroll records.
17 18. Plaintiff was therefore not paid for all his hours worked at the required minimum,
18 overtime and double time wage rates due to Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring them to
19 work off the clock and without pay. With work shifts generally scheduled for eight hours or
20 more, this unpaid off the clock work resulted in Plaintiff and the Class members working past
21 eight hours on a shift, which required that they be paid at the correct overtime rate of 1.5 times
22 their regular rate and/or double-time rate of two times their regular rate. Defendants thus
23 systematically underpaid Plaintiff and the Class members by failing to pay them at the required
24 overtime rates for all hours over eight in a work shift or over forty in a work week, and all hours
25 over twelve in a day at the required double time rate. Upon information and belief, the Class
26 members were bound by similar scheduling and work policies which Defendants required them to
27 follow and endured similar violations at Defendants’ hands as Plaintiff.
28 ///
-8-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 19. Defendants have either failed to maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that
2 would permit Plaintiff to discover the nature and extent of the off the clock work Defendants
3 required and the actual hours Plaintiff worked or have otherwise declined to produce them to
4 Plaintiff in response to a timely and lawful request. By failing to pay for all hours worked,
5 Defendants have committed knowing and intentional ongoing violations of the record keeping
6 requirements under the Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174.
7 20. As a result of the above-described unlawful requirements to work off the clock,
8 the failure to accurately record all hours worked and unlawful rounding, and the other wage
9 violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class members were not properly
10 paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when working more
11 than eight hours in any given day and/or more than forty hours in any given week. As a result of
12 Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class members incurred overtime hours
13 worked for which they were not adequately and completely compensated, in addition to the hours
14 they were required to work off the clock at their regular rates.
15 21. The failure to pay for all hours worked and underpayment of wages to Plaintiff
16 and the Class members is and has been a direct consequence of Defendants’ unlawful
17 compensation policies and practices, which upon information and belief applied uniformly to the
18 Class members working based out of Defendants’ locations and facilities. As a result of the
19 above-described unlawful requirements to work off the clock and regular rate miscalculation, the
20 failure to accurately record all hours worked and pay wages at the correct rates, and the other
21 wage violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class members were not
22 properly paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when
23 working more than eight hours in any given day and/or more than forty hours in any given week.
24 22. Therefore, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing
25 to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all
26 hours worked and failing to pay minimum wages for all time worked, as required by California
27 law. Also, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present,
28 Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees overtime compensation
-9-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 at premium overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day and/or forty hours a
2 week, and double-time rates for all hours worked in excess of twelve hours a day, in violation of
3 Labor Code § 510 and the corresponding sections of IWC Wage Orders. To the extent Defendants
4 paid Plaintiff and the Class members retroactive pay, bonuses and shift differentials and other
5 forms of remuneration above and beyond their hourly pay, upon information and belief
6 Defendants miscalculated the regular rate and therefore underpaid any overtime they paid during
7 these pay periods by failing to include all forms of remuneration in the regular rate used to
8 calculate and pay overtime.
9 23. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with their
10 required meal periods, and the at least two ten-minute rest breaks required for scheduled shifts of
11 eight hours. Demanding workloads contributed to Defendants’ common policy of failing to
12 provide lawful meal periods to Plaintiff and the Class members, as required under the Labor Code
13 and Paragraph 11 of the IWC Wage Order(s). Defendants similarly systematically failed to
14 authorize and permit Plaintiff and the employee Class Members to take all required 10-minute
15 rest breaks, as required under the Labor Code and Paragraph 12 of the IWC Wage Order(s).
16 24. More specifically, Plaintiff worked shifts that entitled him to at least one meal
17 period, but Defendants’ required Plaintiff and the Class members to remain on the premises and
18 under Defendants’ control for their meal periods and rest breaks to attend to the clients. In fact,
19 Defendants made no effort to even schedule or otherwise account for time for Plaintiff and the
20 Class members to use for duty-free, net thirty minute meal periods. Defendants have attempted to
21 justify their unlawful practices but erroneously relying on a meal period exemption under the
22 Labor Code and relevant wage orders which exempts employees who work with children under 18
23 years old, or those working in 24-hour residential care facilities for the elderly, blind, or
24 developmentally disabled from receiving proper meal periods. To that end, Defendants had
25 Plaintiff and other employees sign a “Meal Break Exemption” form informing them they were
26 required to remain on the premises and maintain general supervision of the residents/clients.
27 However, Plaintiff did not work with children, or at a residential facility for the elderly, blind or
28 developmentally disabled which would provide a basis for his alleged exemption from receiving
- 10 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 proper meal periods. Plaintiff worked with adults who were charged with driving under the
2 influence. Nor did Defendants comply with the exemptions’ requirement to provide employees a
3 free meal during the day shift as Defendants did not provide Employees with any meals.
4 25. The nature of Plaintiffs’ work also did not call for an "on duty" meal period as
5 Plaintiff could have and would have been able to take a proper meal period had Defendants
6 adequately staffed the facilities to provide relief for Employees to take their meal periods.
7 Moreover, the “Meal Break Exemption” form signed by Plaintiff could not function as an “on-
8 duty” agreement as it failed to state in writing that the employee may, in writing, revoke the
9 agreement at any time. Accordingly, because Defendants did not permit Plaintiff and other
10 Employees to leave the facilities for their meal periods, they failed to provide them with proper
11 and lawful meal periods. Additionally, to the extent Defendants required Plaintiff to work over ten
12 hours on a work shift, Defendants also failed to provide second meal periods and Defendants have
13 produced no evidence of premium payments for meal period violations under Labor Code 226.7.
14 26. Defendants thus failed to provide all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal
15 periods and all the legally required paid, off-duty rest periods to Plaintiff and the other Class
16 members, as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. Plaintiff and other Class
17 members were required to perform work as ordered by Defendants for more than five hours during
18 a shift without receiving compliant meal periods. Additionally, as addressed above, Defendants
19 followed a practice of requiring off the clock work and rounding and time shaving in a manner
20 that would impact when Employees were to receive meal periods and rest breaks and required
21 them to respond to work calls and inquiries and other demands during breaks, thus leading to
22 further violations.
23 27. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ systems did not automatically generate a
24 meal period premium under Labor Code § 226.7 for meal periods that commenced after five hours
25 into a work shift or in the event the time punch records reflected a meal period of less than thirty
26 minutes. However, upon information and belief, in the event Defendants did pay any meal period
27 premiums, they did so at the employee’s customary regular rate of hourly compensation without
28 including all forms of remuneration in that hourly rate calculation, for example by omitting
- 11 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 retroactive pay, bonuses, shift differentials and the like from the rate at which meal premiums
2 were paid.
3 28. As a result, Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with all
4 legally required off-duty, unpaid meal periods and all the legally required off-duty, paid rest
5 periods is and will be evidenced by Defendants’ business records, or lack thereof. Therefore, for at
6 least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present, Plaintiff and the Class
7 members were unable to take off-duty breaks or were otherwise not provided with the opportunity
8 to take required breaks as required under the Labor Code and Wage Orders due to Defendants’
9 policies and practices. On the occasions when Plaintiff and the Class members were provided with
10 a meal period, they could not leave the facilities and it was often untimely or interrupted, or was
11 impermissibly shortened, and Employees were not provided with one hour’s wages in lieu thereof.
12 Meal period violations thus occurred in one or more of the following manners:
13 (a) Class members were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods
14 for work days in excess of five hours and were not compensated one hour’s
15 wages in lieu thereof, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§
16 226.7, 512, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
17 Order(s);
18 (b) Class members were not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal
19 periods for work days in excess of ten hours;
20 (c) Class members were required to work through at least part of their daily
21 meal period(s);
22 (d) Meal periods were provided after five hours of continuous work during a
23 shift; and
24 (e) Class members were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute
25 meal period and were not permitted to leave their work premises during
26 meal periods and were otherwise required to remain under Defendants’
27 control during meal periods.
28
- 12 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 29. Similar violations resulted from Defendants’ failure to authorize and permit
2 Plaintiff and the Class members to take duty-free, net ten minute rest breaks for every four hours
3 of shift work, or major fraction thereof. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class members
4 were either not authorized permitted the opportunity to take an off-duty rest break, or were
5 required to remain under Defendants’ control and respond to instructions from management and
6 job and client demands if and when they even attempted to take one. Upon information and
7 belief, Defendants also failed to authorize and permit employees to leave the facilities during rest
8 breaks, evidencing Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the Class members
9 to remain under their control during required off-duty rest break times.
10 30. Defendants thus failed to authorize and permit duty-free ten minute rest breaks as
11 required under the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. In fact, Defendants made no effort to even
12 schedule or otherwise account for time for Plaintiff and the Class members to use for duty-free,
13 net ten minute rest breaks. This common and unlawful policy uniformly applied to the Employees
14 during the relevant period, meaning Defendants’ rest break policy was not to schedule or
15 otherwise authorize and permit them. Plaintiff and the Class members worked eight to twelve
16 hours on an average shift, and were required to receive at least two rest breaks or three rest breaks
17 on shifts over ten hours. Given the work demands, and pressure from Defendants’ management,
18 Plaintiff and the Class members were compelled to not take rest breaks despite working extended
19 shifts. Defendants have produced no evidence of any payments for rest break violations under
20 Labor Code § 226.7. To the extent Defendants have paid any such premiums, upon information
21 and belief they failed to include all forms of remuneration, including retroactive pay, bonuses,
22 wage differentials, and the like in the regular rate at which Defendants paid the premium.
23 31. Defendants’ uniformly applied policies and practices thus resulted in untimely and
24 shortened or on-duty rest breaks when they were authorized and permitted. Plaintiff and the Class
25 members worked shifts of at least eight hours, which required at least two rest breaks, and often
26 worked shifts over ten hours, which required at least three rest breaks. Even on the occasions
27 when Defendants authorized and permitted Plaintiff to take a first rest break, he was not
28 permitted to take a second or a third break, and those that were provided were often late and
- 13 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 generally interrupted by job duties and requirement that he could not leave the facilities.
2 32. During rest periods, employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish
3 control over how employees spend their time. Plaintiff and the Class members were and are under
4 Defendants’ control when they are working through rest breaks and remaining under Defendants’
5 control. Defendants have also provided either impermissibly shortened or untimely meal and rest
6 breaks to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class were thus not
7 authorized and permitted to take lawful rest periods, were systematically required by Defendants
8 to work through or during breaks, and were not provided with one hour’s wages in lieu thereof.
9 They were required to remain on-duty during breaks or portions of their breaks, thus making
10 them either untimely or shortened and on-duty, and they were also prevented from leaving the
11 facilities and otherwise remain under Defendants’ control during rest breaks under Defendants’
12 uniformly applied policies and practices. Rest period violations therefore arose in one or more of
13 the following manners:
14 (a) Class members were required to work without being provided a minimum
15 ten minute rest period for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked
16 and were not compensated one hour of pay at their regular rate of
17 compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided, and to
18 the extent Defendants paid any premiums, they failed to include all forms of
19 remuneration in the regular rate used to calculate and pay them.
20 (b) Class members were not authorized and permitted to take timely rest periods
21 for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof;
22 (c) Class members were required to remain on duty, on the premises, and under
23 Defendants’ control during rest periods or otherwise had their rest periods
24 interrupted by work demands.
25 33. From at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the
26 present, Defendants have also consistently violated Labor Code § 221 by unlawfully collecting or
27 deducting the Employees’ earned wages, including by requiring off the clock work before and
28 after work shifts and by miscalculating the regular rate and accordingly underpaying overtime
- 14 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 wages and meal and rest break premiums. By not compensating Employees for all hours worked at
2 the correct rates, Defendants unlawfully deducted wages earned by and owed to Plaintiff and the
3 Class members, in violation of Labor Code § 221.
4 34. Defendants also violated California Labor Code § 246 by not providing all
5 required paid sick days to Plaintiff and the similarly aggrieved Employees. Labor Code § 246
6 provides that an Employee who “works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days
7 within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in
8 this section.” Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as
9 the regular pay rate for the workweek in which the employee uses the paid sick time. Defendants
10 failed to provide Plaintiff and the other similarly Aggrieved Employees with all their required and
11 earned sick days paid at the correct rate of pay, in violation of Labor Code § 246. Additionally
12 and upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to provide COVID-19 supplemental sick
13 leave to the Class members during the relevant time period, including by failing to provide two
14 work weeks of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave paid at the correct rates as required under
15 Labor Code §§ 248.1 and 248.2 and including damages and penalties as these sections are
16 enforced through Labor Code § 248.5, which requires that: “If paid sick days were unlawfully
17 withheld, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three, or
18 two hundred fifty dollars ($250), whichever amount is greater, but not to exceed an aggregate
19 penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), shall be included in the administrative penalty.”
20 Plaintiff accordingly seeks this relief available for Defendants’ failure to provide Employees with
21 all their required and earned sick days and all their COVID-19 supplemental sick leave in
22 violation of Labor Code §§ 246, 248.1, 248.2, and the civil and statutory penalties available and
23 applicable under Labor Code §§ 246, 248.1, 248.2, 248.5, 558, 1194.2, 1197.1, 1198, 1199, and
24 2699(f)(2), and also for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(g)(1).
25 35. Upon information and belief, Defendants also failed to provide Employees such as
26 Plaintiff at the time of his employment and thereafter with written notice complying with all the
27 requirements of Labor Code § 2810.5, which provides that: “At the time of hiring, an employer
28 shall provide to each employee a written notice, in the language the employer normally uses to
- 15 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 communicate employment-related information to the employee, containing” specific required
2 information. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to provide this information to the
3 Aggrieved Employees as required under Labor Code § 2810.5. Defendants were required to
4 provide Plaintiff and the aggrieved employee Class members certain specific information upon
5 hiring pursuant to California Labor Code § 2810.5. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with
6 any such information when he was hired, or have failed to produce it, and upon information and
7 belief Defendants committed similar violations in connection with similarly situated and
8 aggrieved Class members.
9 36. As a result of these illegal policies and practices, Defendants also engaged in and
10 enforced the following additional unlawful practices and policies against Plaintiff and the Class
11 members he seeks to represent:
12 (a) failing to pay all wages owed to Class members who either were discharged,
13 laid off, or resigned in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code §§
14 201, 202, 203;
15 (b) failing to pay all wages owed to the Class members twice monthly in
16 accordance with the requirements of Labor Code § 204;
17 (c) failing to pay Class members all wages owed, including all meal and rest
18 period premium wages, and failing to pay them at the regular rate of
19 compensation;
20 (d) failing to maintain accurate records of Class members’ hours worked and
21 earned wages and meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226 and
22 1174(d) and section 7 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders; and
23 (e) failing to produce timekeeping records in response to Plaintiff’s timely and
24 lawful request to receive them under these authorities.
25 37. Defendants have also consistently failed to provide Class members with timely,
26 accurate, and itemized wage statements, in writing, as required by California wage-and-hour laws,
27 including by the above-described requirement of off the clock work, failure to pay all overtime
28 and double time wages owed and failure to pay them at the appropriate premium rates, and failure
- 16 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 to pay premium wages for unprovided or otherwise unlawful meal and rest breaks, or by
2 miscalculating any overtime or meal period or rest break premium wages and by the systematic
3 and unlawful deductions Defendants took from Employee wages. Defendants have also made it
4 difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld wages and meal and rest period
5 compensation owed to Plaintiff and the Class, during the liability period, including because they
6 did not calculate the regular rate of pay correctly when paying overtime or meal period premiums
7 and because they did not implement and preserve a record-keeping method as required for non-
8 exempt employees by California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d), and paragraph 7 of the applicable
9 California Wage Orders. Upon information and belief, time clock punches were not maintained or
10 were not accurately maintained for work shifts and meal periods. Defendants also failed to
11 accurately record and pay for all regular and overtime hours worked and submitted by Plaintiff
12 and the Class members, including by failing to pay all overtime hours at the correctly calculated
13 overtime premium rate.
14 38. Defendants also provided Plaintiff and the Class members with wage statements
15 that failed to accurately report all hours worked and applicable hourly rates for all hours worked.
16 For the same reasons as explained above, Plaintiff and the Class members were provided with
17 unlawful wage statements that failed to reflect all hours worked and failed to pay for all overtime
18 hours or failed to pay overtime wages at the correct overtime premium rate, and Defendants
19 miscalculated meal and rest break premiums, and sick time if and when they did pay them.
20 Defendants followed this unlawful policy and practice even though both Plaintiff and Defendants
21 were aware that Plaintiff and the Class members worked more total hours than were reflected on
22 the wage statements, including overtime hours, and were underpaid by regular rate miscalculation.
23 Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class were unable to discern from their wage statements alone
24 the actual hours they worked in total during a pay period and the rates they were paid for those
25 hours worked.
26 39. Defendants have thus willfully failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) by
27 inaccurately reporting total hours worked and total wages earned by Plaintiff and the Class
28 members, along with the appropriate applicable rates, among others requirements. Plaintiff and
- 17 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Class members are therefore entitled to penalties not to exceed $4,000.00 for each employee
2 pursuant to Labor Code § 226(b). Defendants have also failed to comply with paragraph 7 of the
3 applicable California IWC Wage Orders by failing to maintain time records showing when the
4 employee begins and ends each work period, meal periods, and wages earned pursuant to Labor
5 Code § 226.7, and total daily hours worked by itemizing in wage statements all deductions from
6 payment of wages and accurately reporting total hours worked.
7 40. Defendants also required Plaintiff and the Class members to work hours off the
8 clock for which they were not compensated. They were required to endure off the clock work
9 addressed above, including during interrupted or otherwise on-duty meal and rest periods and were
10 not provided with sick pay and supplemental sick leave and were subjected to systematic off the
11 clock work. Defendants also failed to pay all overtime premium wages owed for work conducted
12 on a work shift and a workday or failed to pay it at the correct rate, as addressed above. Therefore,
13 Defendants have also followed a uniform and consistent policy of failing to pay all wages owed to
14 Plaintiff and other similarly situated Employees at the time of their termination or within seventy-
15 two hours of their resignation, as required by California law, including Labor Code § 203.
16 41. Plaintiff has also requested records from Defendants and they have failed to
17 constructively respond or to fully respond. Therefore, Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants
18 followed a consistent policy of denying Plaintiff and Class members the right to inspect and
19 receive all of their payroll records, timecards, and personnel records.
20 42. Additionally, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and
21 continuing to the present, Defendants have regularly required Plaintiff and the Class members to
22 incur necessary business expenses in the course of performing their required job duties without
23 reimbursement. These included cell phone related expenses Plaintiff incurred in responding to
24 calls from management. This also included mileage incurred on Plaintiff’s personal vehicle when
25 he was required to travel for work-related purposes. Class members must be reimbursed for these
26 necessary business expenses under Labor Code § 2802, and Defendants systematically failed to do
27 so.
28 ///
- 18 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 43. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class bring this action
2 pursuant to, inter alia, Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 226, 226.4,
3 226.7, 246, 248.1, 248.2, 248.5, 510, 511, 512, 551, 552, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1185,
4 1194, 1194.2 1197, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, 2802, 2810.5, and 2698 et seq., and California Code of
5 Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq.
6 44. Furthermore, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, Plaintiff
7 and the Class members seek injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits
8 Defendants have enjoyed from their violations of Labor Code and the other unfair, unlawful, or
9 fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint.
10 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
11 45. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
12 situated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class (or “the
13 Class” or “Class members”) defined as follows: “All individuals employed by Defendants at any
14 time during the period of four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as
15 determined by the Court (“the Class Period”), and who have been employed as non-exempt,
16 hourly employees within the State of California.” This includes as program coordinators, case
17 managers, and in similar and related positions in connection to mental health, crisis intervention,
18 youth housing, substance abuse rehabilitation, and early childhood services they provide to
19 Defendants’ customers throughout California. Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the Subclasses
20 composed of and defined as follows:
21 a. Subclass 1. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class members who were not
22 compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage.
23 b. Subclass 2. Wages and Overtime Subclass. All Class members who were not
24 compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the required rates of pay, includin
Preview
1 D.LAW, INC. Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363) 2 emil@d.law David Yeremian (SBN 226337) 3 d.yeremian@d.law Alvin B. Lindsay (SBN 220236) 4 a.lindsay@d.law Tania Fonseca (SBN 309927) 5 t.fonseca@d.law 880 E Broadway 6 Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 7 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff William R. R. Little on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 WILLIAM R. R. LITTLE, an individual, on Case No.: 24-CIV-00279 behalf of himself and others similarly 13 situated, CLASS ACTION 14 Assigned for All Purposes To: Plaintiff, Hon. Nicole S. Healy 15 vs. Dept.: 28 16 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION STARVISTA., a California corporation; and COMPLAINT FOR: DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and for All Defendants. Hours Worked; 18 2. Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under 19 Labor Code § 510; 3. Meal Period Liability Labor Code § 226.7; 20 4. Rest-Break Liability Labor Code § 226.7; 5. Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay under 8 21 CCR § 11050(5); 22 6. Failure to Provide One Day’s Rest from Seven under Labor Code §§ 551 and 552; 23 7. Violation of Labor Code § 226(a); 8. Violation of Labor Code § 221; 24 9. Violation of Labor Code § 204; 10. Violation of Labor Code § 203; 25 11. Failure to Maintain Records Required under 26 Labor Code §§ 1174, 1174.5; 12. Failure to Produce Requested Employment 27 Records under Labor Code §§ 226, 1198.5; 13. Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business 28 Expenses under Labor Code § 2802; 14. Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. and -1- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 15. Penalties under PAGA, Labor Code § 2698 et seq. 2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 Original Complaint filed: January 16, 2024 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff WILLIAM R. R. LITTLE. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all 2 other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees employed by Defendants in California 3 during the relevant period (collectively, “Employees”; individually, “Employee”), complains of 4 Defendants as follows: 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all current and former 7 Employees within the State of California who, at any time during the four years prior to the filing 8 of this lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly employees by Defendants 9 STARVISTA, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively 10 referred to herein as “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated various provisions of 11 the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), and 12 California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress for these violations. 13 2. Plaintiff worked as a program coordinator at Defendants’ facilities in California. 14 Defendants employed other similarly situated Class members as program coordinators, case 15 managers, and in similar and related positions in connection with mental health, crisis 16 intervention, youth housing, substance abuse rehabilitation, and early childhood services they 17 provide to Defendants’ customers throughout California. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated 18 Class members worked at Defendants’ behest without being paid all wages due and without being 19 provided all required breaks. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class 20 members were employed by Defendants and (1) shared similar job duties and responsibilities; (2) 21 were subjected to the same policies and practices; and (3) endured similar violations at the hands 22 of Defendants as the other Employees who served in similar and related positions. 23 3. Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to work off the clock 24 and failed to record accurate time worked by these Employees, failed to pay them at the 25 appropriate rates for all hours worked, failed to pay all wages due and owing at termination or 26 resignation, and provided Plaintiff and the Class members with inaccurate wage statements that 27 prevented them from learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to provide 28 Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as Employees were required to remain -3- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 under Defendants’ control and were not provided with the opportunity to take full uninterrupted, 2 timely, and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks, as required by the Labor Code and the 3 applicable paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders. 4 4. Defendant STARVISTA is a California corporation which lists its principal address 5 with the California Secretary of State in San Carlos, California. Defendant STARVISTA is listed 6 as the employer on the wage statements issued to Plaintiff by Defendants, and upon information 7 and belief to other Class members, with the same San Carlos, California address. On information 8 and belief, Defendants maintain operations and locations throughout San Mateo County and 9 California. STARVISTA’s website explains that: “[At StarVista] [w]e deliver high-impact 10 services through counseling, case management, skill development, and crisis prevention to 11 children, youth, adults, and families.” 12 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil 13 Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This Action is brought 14 as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated Employees of Defendants pursuant to California 15 Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district 16 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq. Upon information and belief, the 17 obligations and liabilities giving rise to this lawsuit occurred, at least in part, in San Mateo 18 County, where Defendants are headquartered. 19 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 20 whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currently 21 unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of 22 Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants 23 designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, is legally responsible in some 24 manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this 25 Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as Does 1 26 through 50 when their identities become known. 27 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted in 28 all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, that Defendants carried -4- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of 2 each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in 3 all respects as the employers or joint employers of Employees. Defendants, and each of them, 4 exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Employees, created and 5 implemented the policies and practices that governed the employment of Plaintiff and the Class 6 members and dictated their job duties and responsibilities, or otherwise suffered or permitted 7 Plaintiff and the other Employee Class members to work, or engaged, thereby creating a common 8 law employment relationship, with the Employee Class members. Therefore, Defendants, and each 9 of them, employed or jointly employed the Employee Class members. 10 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11 8. The Employees who comprise the Class, including Plaintiff, are non-exempt 12 employees of Defendants pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the Industrial Welfare 13 Commission (“IWC”). During the period of four years prior to the filing of this action through its 14 resolution, Plaintiff and the Class members were employed by Defendants and either were not 15 paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and 16 overtime rates, including for meal period and rest break premium payments. Plaintiff also 17 contends that Defendants failed to pay him and the Class members all wages due and owing, 18 including by miscalculating wages owed and by requiring off the clock work, failed to provide 19 meal and rest breaks, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements and timely pay all wages 20 owed, all in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable 21 paragraphs of the IWC Wage Orders. 22 9. During the course of Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ employment with 23 Defendants, they were not paid all wages they were owed, including for all work performed 24 (resulting in “off the clock” work) and for all their overtime hours worked, or were not paid at the 25 correct rates. This has resulted in systematic and ongoing violations of the California Labor Code 26 and relevant IWC Wage Orders. Upon information and belief, Defendants employ other non- 27 exempt, hourly employees as program coordinators, case managers, and in similar and related 28 positions in connection to mental health, crisis intervention, youth housing, substance abuse -5- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 rehabilitation, and early childhood services they provide to Defendants’ customers throughout 2 California. 3 10. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a program coordinator, with duties that 4 included assisting clients with the admissions process for Defendants’ detoxification program and 5 aiding in day-to-day operations of the program. Plaintiff generally worked over 50 hours per week, 6 five to six shifts per week. Plaintiff worked varied schedules depending on Defendants’ needs 7 including the day shift from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the swing shift from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., 8 and the night shift from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 9 11. Despite their obligation to maintain accurate timekeeping records for hours worked 10 by the Class members, Defendants maintained improper time record-keeping systems across their 11 California facilities. In fact, for all of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants paid Employees by their 12 scheduled hours, or Defendants’ desired number of hours rather than their actual hours worked. 13 Employees were required to record their hours worked on an online employee portal. However, 14 Plaintiff, and on information and belief, other Class members were also instructed to record only 15 their scheduled hours or pre-authorized hours by Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff would record shift 16 start and end times that mirrored his work schedule or reflected only the limited overtime hours 17 that Defendants permitted. If Plaintiff ever deviated in his time entries from his scheduled or pre- 18 authorized hours, he would be contacted by Defendants’ management personnel and told to adjust 19 his time entries to reflect his scheduled or pre-authorized hours. On many occasions, Plaintiff 20 attempted to record his actual time worked but he was told by management that he could not 21 record these actual hours worked and would only be paid for his scheduled hours. Accordingly, 22 Plaintiff’s time records did not accurately reflect his hours worked beyond his schedule or 23 preauthorized hours, and thus Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and on information and 24 belief other Employees’ actual time worked. 25 12. On information and belief, Defendants’ flawed timekeeping systems failed to 26 accurately record Employees’ actual time worked, rounded down, and shaved total hours worked 27 to the detriment of Employees. Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff for travel time 28 between Defendant’s facilities. Plaintiff was regularly required to work at one facility and clock -6- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 out before driving to the second facility where he would promptly clock back in. In doing so, 2 Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for the approximately half hour of travel time when he 3 was under Defendants’ control between the facilities. Moreover, to maintain the appearance of 4 compliance with Labor laws and avoid paying double-time wages, Defendants also demanded that 5 Employees record any double-time hours onto the next day. Many times, Plaintiff worked over 6 twelve hours, working as long as fourteen hours on several occasions due to short staffing. 7 Plaintiff was then instructed by management to record the two hours over twelve on the time 8 record for the following day. In doing so, Defendants deducted two hours from Plaintiff’s time 9 worked and failed to pay him at the appropriate double-time rate. By virtue of deducting these 10 hours from Plaintiff’s time worked and manipulating daily hours actually worked to conform to 11 scheduled hours or preauthorized hours, Defendants further unlawfully deducted many hours 12 Employees actually worked from the total hours Defendants recorded for them for payroll 13 purposes during the relevant pay period. 14 13. The failure to maintain accurate timekeeping and payroll records perpetrated by 15 Defendants has also been exacerbated by other off the clock work Defendants required their 16 Employees to endure. Plaintiff spent several minutes before and after his scheduled shifts checking 17 and responding to calls from Defendants’ management and clients. Plaintiff was also required to 18 work off the clock conducting intake interviews for new clients, breath tests, or assisting the 19 phlebotomist with new clients that arrived after Plaintiff’s shift ended. Plaintiff was also required 20 to come into the office during his personal time to check in on staff for approximately two hours 21 per week. Defendants also required that Plaintiff make trips to the store or food bank every week 22 for about an hour while off the clock. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff’s pre- or post-shift time worked, 23 and on information and belief that of other Class members, went uncompensated. 24 14. Additionally, Defendants required that Plaintiff work seven days in a row during a 25 work week without rest, and failed to pay him at the correct overtime and double time rates for 26 the demanding schedule he was required to work. On information and belief, Defendants’ policy 27 and practice was to regularly schedule Class members to work seven consecutive days despite the 28 fact that such a schedule directly violates Labor Code §§ 551 and 552. -7- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 15. Defendants also retroactively paid Plaintiff for a raise he was given but went 2 unpaid for several months. However, to whatever extent Defendant paid this retroactive pay and 3 any other form of remuneration besides their regular hourly rate to Employees in the Class, 4 Defendants failed to include it in the regular hourly rate used to calculate and pay the overtime 5 and double time that Defendants did pay. 6 16. Defendants also failed to pay reporting time pay to Plaintiff and Class members. 7 On several occasions, Plaintiff reported to work per his scheduled shift only to be sent home 8 within two hours. Defendants failed to pay Employees in such instances for half of their usual or 9 scheduled day’s work, and failed to do so at the correct regular rate of pay. 10 17. Defendants followed a similar unlawful practice, upon information and belief, in 11 connection with other Employees in a concerted effort to limit and restrict regular, overtime, and 12 double-time hours earned by and owing to Plaintiff and the other Class members. Time worked 13 off the clock also caused Plaintiff and other Class members to work beyond eight hours in a shift. 14 As a result of the above-described rounding and other off the clock work, Defendants failed to 15 pay Plaintiff and Class members overtime and double-time for several minutes to hours at the end 16 of work shifts which Defendants did not record in any timekeeping or payroll records. 17 18. Plaintiff was therefore not paid for all his hours worked at the required minimum, 18 overtime and double time wage rates due to Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring them to 19 work off the clock and without pay. With work shifts generally scheduled for eight hours or 20 more, this unpaid off the clock work resulted in Plaintiff and the Class members working past 21 eight hours on a shift, which required that they be paid at the correct overtime rate of 1.5 times 22 their regular rate and/or double-time rate of two times their regular rate. Defendants thus 23 systematically underpaid Plaintiff and the Class members by failing to pay them at the required 24 overtime rates for all hours over eight in a work shift or over forty in a work week, and all hours 25 over twelve in a day at the required double time rate. Upon information and belief, the Class 26 members were bound by similar scheduling and work policies which Defendants required them to 27 follow and endured similar violations at Defendants’ hands as Plaintiff. 28 /// -8- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 19. Defendants have either failed to maintain timekeeping records for Plaintiff that 2 would permit Plaintiff to discover the nature and extent of the off the clock work Defendants 3 required and the actual hours Plaintiff worked or have otherwise declined to produce them to 4 Plaintiff in response to a timely and lawful request. By failing to pay for all hours worked, 5 Defendants have committed knowing and intentional ongoing violations of the record keeping 6 requirements under the Labor Code §§ 226 and 1174. 7 20. As a result of the above-described unlawful requirements to work off the clock, 8 the failure to accurately record all hours worked and unlawful rounding, and the other wage 9 violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class members were not properly 10 paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when working more 11 than eight hours in any given day and/or more than forty hours in any given week. As a result of 12 Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiff and Class members incurred overtime hours 13 worked for which they were not adequately and completely compensated, in addition to the hours 14 they were required to work off the clock at their regular rates. 15 21. The failure to pay for all hours worked and underpayment of wages to Plaintiff 16 and the Class members is and has been a direct consequence of Defendants’ unlawful 17 compensation policies and practices, which upon information and belief applied uniformly to the 18 Class members working based out of Defendants’ locations and facilities. As a result of the 19 above-described unlawful requirements to work off the clock and regular rate miscalculation, the 20 failure to accurately record all hours worked and pay wages at the correct rates, and the other 21 wage violations they endured at Defendants’ hands, Plaintiff and the Class members were not 22 properly paid all wages earned and all wages owed to them by Defendants, including when 23 working more than eight hours in any given day and/or more than forty hours in any given week. 24 22. Therefore, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing 25 to the present, Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all 26 hours worked and failing to pay minimum wages for all time worked, as required by California 27 law. Also, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the present, 28 Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees overtime compensation -9- FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 at premium overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day and/or forty hours a 2 week, and double-time rates for all hours worked in excess of twelve hours a day, in violation of 3 Labor Code § 510 and the corresponding sections of IWC Wage Orders. To the extent Defendants 4 paid Plaintiff and the Class members retroactive pay, bonuses and shift differentials and other 5 forms of remuneration above and beyond their hourly pay, upon information and belief 6 Defendants miscalculated the regular rate and therefore underpaid any overtime they paid during 7 these pay periods by failing to include all forms of remuneration in the regular rate used to 8 calculate and pay overtime. 9 23. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with their 10 required meal periods, and the at least two ten-minute rest breaks required for scheduled shifts of 11 eight hours. Demanding workloads contributed to Defendants’ common policy of failing to 12 provide lawful meal periods to Plaintiff and the Class members, as required under the Labor Code 13 and Paragraph 11 of the IWC Wage Order(s). Defendants similarly systematically failed to 14 authorize and permit Plaintiff and the employee Class Members to take all required 10-minute 15 rest breaks, as required under the Labor Code and Paragraph 12 of the IWC Wage Order(s). 16 24. More specifically, Plaintiff worked shifts that entitled him to at least one meal 17 period, but Defendants’ required Plaintiff and the Class members to remain on the premises and 18 under Defendants’ control for their meal periods and rest breaks to attend to the clients. In fact, 19 Defendants made no effort to even schedule or otherwise account for time for Plaintiff and the 20 Class members to use for duty-free, net thirty minute meal periods. Defendants have attempted to 21 justify their unlawful practices but erroneously relying on a meal period exemption under the 22 Labor Code and relevant wage orders which exempts employees who work with children under 18 23 years old, or those working in 24-hour residential care facilities for the elderly, blind, or 24 developmentally disabled from receiving proper meal periods. To that end, Defendants had 25 Plaintiff and other employees sign a “Meal Break Exemption” form informing them they were 26 required to remain on the premises and maintain general supervision of the residents/clients. 27 However, Plaintiff did not work with children, or at a residential facility for the elderly, blind or 28 developmentally disabled which would provide a basis for his alleged exemption from receiving - 10 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 proper meal periods. Plaintiff worked with adults who were charged with driving under the 2 influence. Nor did Defendants comply with the exemptions’ requirement to provide employees a 3 free meal during the day shift as Defendants did not provide Employees with any meals. 4 25. The nature of Plaintiffs’ work also did not call for an "on duty" meal period as 5 Plaintiff could have and would have been able to take a proper meal period had Defendants 6 adequately staffed the facilities to provide relief for Employees to take their meal periods. 7 Moreover, the “Meal Break Exemption” form signed by Plaintiff could not function as an “on- 8 duty” agreement as it failed to state in writing that the employee may, in writing, revoke the 9 agreement at any time. Accordingly, because Defendants did not permit Plaintiff and other 10 Employees to leave the facilities for their meal periods, they failed to provide them with proper 11 and lawful meal periods. Additionally, to the extent Defendants required Plaintiff to work over ten 12 hours on a work shift, Defendants also failed to provide second meal periods and Defendants have 13 produced no evidence of premium payments for meal period violations under Labor Code 226.7. 14 26. Defendants thus failed to provide all the legally required unpaid, off-duty meal 15 periods and all the legally required paid, off-duty rest periods to Plaintiff and the other Class 16 members, as required by the applicable Wage Order and Labor Code. Plaintiff and other Class 17 members were required to perform work as ordered by Defendants for more than five hours during 18 a shift without receiving compliant meal periods. Additionally, as addressed above, Defendants 19 followed a practice of requiring off the clock work and rounding and time shaving in a manner 20 that would impact when Employees were to receive meal periods and rest breaks and required 21 them to respond to work calls and inquiries and other demands during breaks, thus leading to 22 further violations. 23 27. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ systems did not automatically generate a 24 meal period premium under Labor Code § 226.7 for meal periods that commenced after five hours 25 into a work shift or in the event the time punch records reflected a meal period of less than thirty 26 minutes. However, upon information and belief, in the event Defendants did pay any meal period 27 premiums, they did so at the employee’s customary regular rate of hourly compensation without 28 including all forms of remuneration in that hourly rate calculation, for example by omitting - 11 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 retroactive pay, bonuses, shift differentials and the like from the rate at which meal premiums 2 were paid. 3 28. As a result, Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with all 4 legally required off-duty, unpaid meal periods and all the legally required off-duty, paid rest 5 periods is and will be evidenced by Defendants’ business records, or lack thereof. Therefore, for at 6 least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present, Plaintiff and the Class 7 members were unable to take off-duty breaks or were otherwise not provided with the opportunity 8 to take required breaks as required under the Labor Code and Wage Orders due to Defendants’ 9 policies and practices. On the occasions when Plaintiff and the Class members were provided with 10 a meal period, they could not leave the facilities and it was often untimely or interrupted, or was 11 impermissibly shortened, and Employees were not provided with one hour’s wages in lieu thereof. 12 Meal period violations thus occurred in one or more of the following manners: 13 (a) Class members were not provided full thirty-minute duty free meal periods 14 for work days in excess of five hours and were not compensated one hour’s 15 wages in lieu thereof, all in violation of, among others, Labor Code §§ 16 226.7, 512, and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage 17 Order(s); 18 (b) Class members were not provided second full thirty-minute duty free meal 19 periods for work days in excess of ten hours; 20 (c) Class members were required to work through at least part of their daily 21 meal period(s); 22 (d) Meal periods were provided after five hours of continuous work during a 23 shift; and 24 (e) Class members were restricted in their ability to take a full thirty-minute 25 meal period and were not permitted to leave their work premises during 26 meal periods and were otherwise required to remain under Defendants’ 27 control during meal periods. 28 - 12 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 29. Similar violations resulted from Defendants’ failure to authorize and permit 2 Plaintiff and the Class members to take duty-free, net ten minute rest breaks for every four hours 3 of shift work, or major fraction thereof. Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class members 4 were either not authorized permitted the opportunity to take an off-duty rest break, or were 5 required to remain under Defendants’ control and respond to instructions from management and 6 job and client demands if and when they even attempted to take one. Upon information and 7 belief, Defendants also failed to authorize and permit employees to leave the facilities during rest 8 breaks, evidencing Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and the Class members 9 to remain under their control during required off-duty rest break times. 10 30. Defendants thus failed to authorize and permit duty-free ten minute rest breaks as 11 required under the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. In fact, Defendants made no effort to even 12 schedule or otherwise account for time for Plaintiff and the Class members to use for duty-free, 13 net ten minute rest breaks. This common and unlawful policy uniformly applied to the Employees 14 during the relevant period, meaning Defendants’ rest break policy was not to schedule or 15 otherwise authorize and permit them. Plaintiff and the Class members worked eight to twelve 16 hours on an average shift, and were required to receive at least two rest breaks or three rest breaks 17 on shifts over ten hours. Given the work demands, and pressure from Defendants’ management, 18 Plaintiff and the Class members were compelled to not take rest breaks despite working extended 19 shifts. Defendants have produced no evidence of any payments for rest break violations under 20 Labor Code § 226.7. To the extent Defendants have paid any such premiums, upon information 21 and belief they failed to include all forms of remuneration, including retroactive pay, bonuses, 22 wage differentials, and the like in the regular rate at which Defendants paid the premium. 23 31. Defendants’ uniformly applied policies and practices thus resulted in untimely and 24 shortened or on-duty rest breaks when they were authorized and permitted. Plaintiff and the Class 25 members worked shifts of at least eight hours, which required at least two rest breaks, and often 26 worked shifts over ten hours, which required at least three rest breaks. Even on the occasions 27 when Defendants authorized and permitted Plaintiff to take a first rest break, he was not 28 permitted to take a second or a third break, and those that were provided were often late and - 13 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 generally interrupted by job duties and requirement that he could not leave the facilities. 2 32. During rest periods, employers must relieve employees of all duties and relinquish 3 control over how employees spend their time. Plaintiff and the Class members were and are under 4 Defendants’ control when they are working through rest breaks and remaining under Defendants’ 5 control. Defendants have also provided either impermissibly shortened or untimely meal and rest 6 breaks to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class were thus not 7 authorized and permitted to take lawful rest periods, were systematically required by Defendants 8 to work through or during breaks, and were not provided with one hour’s wages in lieu thereof. 9 They were required to remain on-duty during breaks or portions of their breaks, thus making 10 them either untimely or shortened and on-duty, and they were also prevented from leaving the 11 facilities and otherwise remain under Defendants’ control during rest breaks under Defendants’ 12 uniformly applied policies and practices. Rest period violations therefore arose in one or more of 13 the following manners: 14 (a) Class members were required to work without being provided a minimum 15 ten minute rest period for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked 16 and were not compensated one hour of pay at their regular rate of 17 compensation for each workday that a rest period was not provided, and to 18 the extent Defendants paid any premiums, they failed to include all forms of 19 remuneration in the regular rate used to calculate and pay them. 20 (b) Class members were not authorized and permitted to take timely rest periods 21 for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof; 22 (c) Class members were required to remain on duty, on the premises, and under 23 Defendants’ control during rest periods or otherwise had their rest periods 24 interrupted by work demands. 25 33. From at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and continuing to the 26 present, Defendants have also consistently violated Labor Code § 221 by unlawfully collecting or 27 deducting the Employees’ earned wages, including by requiring off the clock work before and 28 after work shifts and by miscalculating the regular rate and accordingly underpaying overtime - 14 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 wages and meal and rest break premiums. By not compensating Employees for all hours worked at 2 the correct rates, Defendants unlawfully deducted wages earned by and owed to Plaintiff and the 3 Class members, in violation of Labor Code § 221. 4 34. Defendants also violated California Labor Code § 246 by not providing all 5 required paid sick days to Plaintiff and the similarly aggrieved Employees. Labor Code § 246 6 provides that an Employee who “works in California for the same employer for 30 or more days 7 within a year from the commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days as specified in 8 this section.” Paid sick time for nonexempt employees shall be calculated in the same manner as 9 the regular pay rate for the workweek in which the employee uses the paid sick time. Defendants 10 failed to provide Plaintiff and the other similarly Aggrieved Employees with all their required and 11 earned sick days paid at the correct rate of pay, in violation of Labor Code § 246. Additionally 12 and upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to provide COVID-19 supplemental sick 13 leave to the Class members during the relevant time period, including by failing to provide two 14 work weeks of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave paid at the correct rates as required under 15 Labor Code §§ 248.1 and 248.2 and including damages and penalties as these sections are 16 enforced through Labor Code § 248.5, which requires that: “If paid sick days were unlawfully 17 withheld, the dollar amount of paid sick days withheld from the employee multiplied by three, or 18 two hundred fifty dollars ($250), whichever amount is greater, but not to exceed an aggregate 19 penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), shall be included in the administrative penalty.” 20 Plaintiff accordingly seeks this relief available for Defendants’ failure to provide Employees with 21 all their required and earned sick days and all their COVID-19 supplemental sick leave in 22 violation of Labor Code §§ 246, 248.1, 248.2, and the civil and statutory penalties available and 23 applicable under Labor Code §§ 246, 248.1, 248.2, 248.5, 558, 1194.2, 1197.1, 1198, 1199, and 24 2699(f)(2), and also for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(g)(1). 25 35. Upon information and belief, Defendants also failed to provide Employees such as 26 Plaintiff at the time of his employment and thereafter with written notice complying with all the 27 requirements of Labor Code § 2810.5, which provides that: “At the time of hiring, an employer 28 shall provide to each employee a written notice, in the language the employer normally uses to - 15 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 communicate employment-related information to the employee, containing” specific required 2 information. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to provide this information to the 3 Aggrieved Employees as required under Labor Code § 2810.5. Defendants were required to 4 provide Plaintiff and the aggrieved employee Class members certain specific information upon 5 hiring pursuant to California Labor Code § 2810.5. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with 6 any such information when he was hired, or have failed to produce it, and upon information and 7 belief Defendants committed similar violations in connection with similarly situated and 8 aggrieved Class members. 9 36. As a result of these illegal policies and practices, Defendants also engaged in and 10 enforced the following additional unlawful practices and policies against Plaintiff and the Class 11 members he seeks to represent: 12 (a) failing to pay all wages owed to Class members who either were discharged, 13 laid off, or resigned in accordance with the requirements of Labor Code §§ 14 201, 202, 203; 15 (b) failing to pay all wages owed to the Class members twice monthly in 16 accordance with the requirements of Labor Code § 204; 17 (c) failing to pay Class members all wages owed, including all meal and rest 18 period premium wages, and failing to pay them at the regular rate of 19 compensation; 20 (d) failing to maintain accurate records of Class members’ hours worked and 21 earned wages and meal periods in violation of Labor Code §§ 226 and 22 1174(d) and section 7 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders; and 23 (e) failing to produce timekeeping records in response to Plaintiff’s timely and 24 lawful request to receive them under these authorities. 25 37. Defendants have also consistently failed to provide Class members with timely, 26 accurate, and itemized wage statements, in writing, as required by California wage-and-hour laws, 27 including by the above-described requirement of off the clock work, failure to pay all overtime 28 and double time wages owed and failure to pay them at the appropriate premium rates, and failure - 16 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 to pay premium wages for unprovided or otherwise unlawful meal and rest breaks, or by 2 miscalculating any overtime or meal period or rest break premium wages and by the systematic 3 and unlawful deductions Defendants took from Employee wages. Defendants have also made it 4 difficult to account with precision for the unlawfully withheld wages and meal and rest period 5 compensation owed to Plaintiff and the Class, during the liability period, including because they 6 did not calculate the regular rate of pay correctly when paying overtime or meal period premiums 7 and because they did not implement and preserve a record-keeping method as required for non- 8 exempt employees by California Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d), and paragraph 7 of the applicable 9 California Wage Orders. Upon information and belief, time clock punches were not maintained or 10 were not accurately maintained for work shifts and meal periods. Defendants also failed to 11 accurately record and pay for all regular and overtime hours worked and submitted by Plaintiff 12 and the Class members, including by failing to pay all overtime hours at the correctly calculated 13 overtime premium rate. 14 38. Defendants also provided Plaintiff and the Class members with wage statements 15 that failed to accurately report all hours worked and applicable hourly rates for all hours worked. 16 For the same reasons as explained above, Plaintiff and the Class members were provided with 17 unlawful wage statements that failed to reflect all hours worked and failed to pay for all overtime 18 hours or failed to pay overtime wages at the correct overtime premium rate, and Defendants 19 miscalculated meal and rest break premiums, and sick time if and when they did pay them. 20 Defendants followed this unlawful policy and practice even though both Plaintiff and Defendants 21 were aware that Plaintiff and the Class members worked more total hours than were reflected on 22 the wage statements, including overtime hours, and were underpaid by regular rate miscalculation. 23 Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class were unable to discern from their wage statements alone 24 the actual hours they worked in total during a pay period and the rates they were paid for those 25 hours worked. 26 39. Defendants have thus willfully failed to comply with Labor Code § 226(a) by 27 inaccurately reporting total hours worked and total wages earned by Plaintiff and the Class 28 members, along with the appropriate applicable rates, among others requirements. Plaintiff and - 17 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Class members are therefore entitled to penalties not to exceed $4,000.00 for each employee 2 pursuant to Labor Code § 226(b). Defendants have also failed to comply with paragraph 7 of the 3 applicable California IWC Wage Orders by failing to maintain time records showing when the 4 employee begins and ends each work period, meal periods, and wages earned pursuant to Labor 5 Code § 226.7, and total daily hours worked by itemizing in wage statements all deductions from 6 payment of wages and accurately reporting total hours worked. 7 40. Defendants also required Plaintiff and the Class members to work hours off the 8 clock for which they were not compensated. They were required to endure off the clock work 9 addressed above, including during interrupted or otherwise on-duty meal and rest periods and were 10 not provided with sick pay and supplemental sick leave and were subjected to systematic off the 11 clock work. Defendants also failed to pay all overtime premium wages owed for work conducted 12 on a work shift and a workday or failed to pay it at the correct rate, as addressed above. Therefore, 13 Defendants have also followed a uniform and consistent policy of failing to pay all wages owed to 14 Plaintiff and other similarly situated Employees at the time of their termination or within seventy- 15 two hours of their resignation, as required by California law, including Labor Code § 203. 16 41. Plaintiff has also requested records from Defendants and they have failed to 17 constructively respond or to fully respond. Therefore, Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants 18 followed a consistent policy of denying Plaintiff and Class members the right to inspect and 19 receive all of their payroll records, timecards, and personnel records. 20 42. Additionally, from at least four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and 21 continuing to the present, Defendants have regularly required Plaintiff and the Class members to 22 incur necessary business expenses in the course of performing their required job duties without 23 reimbursement. These included cell phone related expenses Plaintiff incurred in responding to 24 calls from management. This also included mileage incurred on Plaintiff’s personal vehicle when 25 he was required to travel for work-related purposes. Class members must be reimbursed for these 26 necessary business expenses under Labor Code § 2802, and Defendants systematically failed to do 27 so. 28 /// - 18 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 43. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class bring this action 2 pursuant to, inter alia, Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 218, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 226, 226.4, 3 226.7, 246, 248.1, 248.2, 248.5, 510, 511, 512, 551, 552, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1185, 4 1194, 1194.2 1197, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, 2802, 2810.5, and 2698 et seq., and California Code of 5 Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq. 6 44. Furthermore, pursuant to Business and Professions Code §§ 17200-17208, Plaintiff 7 and the Class members seek injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement of all benefits 8 Defendants have enjoyed from their violations of Labor Code and the other unfair, unlawful, or 9 fraudulent practices alleged in this Complaint. 10 CLASS ALLEGATIONS 11 45. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others similarly 12 situated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class (or “the 13 Class” or “Class members”) defined as follows: “All individuals employed by Defendants at any 14 time during the period of four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as 15 determined by the Court (“the Class Period”), and who have been employed as non-exempt, 16 hourly employees within the State of California.” This includes as program coordinators, case 17 managers, and in similar and related positions in connection to mental health, crisis intervention, 18 youth housing, substance abuse rehabilitation, and early childhood services they provide to 19 Defendants’ customers throughout California. Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the Subclasses 20 composed of and defined as follows: 21 a. Subclass 1. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class members who were not 22 compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage. 23 b. Subclass 2. Wages and Overtime Subclass. All Class members who were not 24 compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the required rates of pay, includin