Preview
E-FILED
1 Narek Avetisyan (316743) 10/6/2020 4:36 PM
LEGALATORY, INC. Superior Court of California
2 516 W Shaw Ave, Ste 200 County of Fresno
Fresno, CA 93704-2515 By: M. Sanchez, Deputy
3
Tel: (559) 550 - 2525
4 Fax: (559) 206 - 3535
na@legalatory.com
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
6 Diamond Robinson, Gladys Orona, and Shanekka Brown-Johnson
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF FRESNO
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11
SHANEKKA BROWN-JOHNSON; an ) Case No.: 20CECG02950
12 individual; GLADYS ORONA, an individual; )
and DIAMOND ROBINSON, an individual, ) COMPLAINT
13 ) 1. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public
Plaintiffs, ) Policy
14 ) 2. Whistleblower Retaliation
vs. )
15 3. Failure to Pay All Wages When Due
)
16 FAMILY FOUNDATIONS COUNSELING ) 4. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SERVICES, a California nonprofit corporation; )
17 PEARL HEPPNER, an individual; and DOES 5. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
)
1-25, ) 6. Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay
18 Defendants. Missed Meal Period
)
19 ) 7. Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay
) Missed Rest Periods
20 )
) 8. Failure to Pay All Wages Due to
21 ) Discharged and Quitting Employees
) 9. Failure to Maintain Required Records
22
)
) 10. Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized
23 Wage Statements
)
24 ) 11. Failure to Reimburse Employees for
) Necessary Expenditures
25 )
)
26
)
27 )
)
28 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
) -1-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. This case involves a company and its owners/officers acting in concert to ignore
3 employees’ rights, required by law. The company has illegally classified its employees as unpaid
4 interns, has illegally classified non-exempt employees as exempt salaried employees, and has
5 unlawfully retaliated against its employees when its employees exposed it for its fraudulent and
6 illegal actions.
7 PARTIES
8 2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff SHANEKKA BROWN-JOHNSON
9 (“Brown-Johnson”) was an individual residing in the County of Fresno.
10 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff GLADYS ORONA (“Orona”) was
11 an individual residing in the County of Fresno.
12 4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff DIAMOND ROBINSON
13 (“Robinson”) was an individual residing in the County of Fresno.
14 5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant FAMILY FOUNDATIONS
15 COUNSELING SERVICES (“FFCS”) was a nonprofit corporation duly organized and existing
16 under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business being in the County of
17 Fresno.
18 6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant PEARL HEPPNER (“Heppner”)
19 was an individual residing in the County of Fresno.
20 7. Defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are the fictitious names of those
21 Defendants whose true names are unknown to Plaintiffs and whose true capacities, whether
22 individuals, corporations, partnerships, joint ventures and/or associations, are also unknown to
23 Plaintiffs. When such names are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint by inserting the
24 true names in place of the fictitious names in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 474.
25 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that whenever and wherever in this Compliant any Defendant is
26 the subject of any charging allegations by Plaintiffs, said DOES are also responsible in some
27 manner for the events and happenings alleged in this Complaint and are the subject of charging
28 allegations by Plaintiffs.
-2-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that, at all times herein
2 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were alter egos of one another so that to recognize the
3 separate existence of any, as distinct legal entities, would be inequitable and perpetrate a fraud upon
4 Plaintiffs. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of any one Defendant as an entity
5 distinct from other Defendants would permit an abuse of the trust privilege and would sanction
6 fraud or promote injustice as herein alleged. Specifically, Defendants FFCS, Heppner and Does 1
7 through 25, inclusive, all use, and at all times herein alleged used, the same address; on information
8 and belief, each of these Defendants co-mingles funds and assets, procures services on behalf of the
9 others, diverts assets and liabilities, fails to maintain adequate corporate records, accepts moneys
10 and property for the other and/or for its own use with knowledge of wrongful taking of such
11 property. Thus, the actions, representations, and other conduct alleged herein of the one was and are
12 the actions, representations, and conduct of the others, and each of them is and was bound thereby
13 as having done made and/or committed the same directly.
14 9. At all times mentioned herein, unless specifically stated otherwise, each of the
15 Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictious names, were the agents and/or employees
16 of the other named Defendants, and in doing the things alleged were acting within the course and
17 scope of such agency and employment, and in doing the acts herein alleged were acting with
18 consent, permission and authorization of the remaining named Defendants. All actions of
19 Defendants were ratified and approved by the other named Defendants.
20 JURISDICTION & VENUE
21 10. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because this Court has general subject matter
22 jurisdiction and because Plaintiff’s damages are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional
23 requirements of this Court.
24 11. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants, and each of them, are residents of
25 Fresno and because violations of the law took place in the County of Fresno.
26 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
27 12. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant Heppner was an officer/agent of
28 Defendant FFCS.
-3-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 13. FFCS is located at 2610 W Shaw Ln #104, Fresno, CA 93711.
2 14. FFCS provides Associate Marriage Family Therapists (“MFT”) to schools by
3 contracting with public school districts, including Fresno Unified School District, and sending its
4 employee MFTs to schools to provide services.
5 15. FFCS solicits unpaid interns in exchange for school credit. When the interns start
6 their so-called internship, they are not given proper training, and by learning all on their own or
7 from helpful employees, these interns end up performing duties identical or substantially similar to
8 the duties of full-time employees. However, the interns never get paid for their work. This so-called
9 internship relationship primarily benefits FFCS earns income from the services performed by these
10 interns and does not invest sufficient time, money and effort in training these interns.
11 16. Plaintiff Robinson was employed as a full-time employee by Defendant FFCS from
12 in or about August 2019 to in or about November 2019. Plaintiff Robinson’s hourly rate was $20.
13 Plaintiff Robinson was assigned to the following schools: Wolters Elementary School, Vinland
14 Elementary School, and Norseman Elementary School.
15 17. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson was employed by Defendant FFCS from in or about
16 January 2020 to on or about April 24, 2020. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson’s hourly rate was $24.
17 Plaintiff Brown-Johnson was assigned to the following schools: Wolters Elementary School,
18 Vinland Elementary School, and Norseman Elementary School.
19 18. Plaintiff Orona interned for FFCS from in or about August 2018 to in or about June
20 2019. Plaintiff Orona performed work identical to or substantially similar to that of regular
21 employees. Plaintiff Orona was never paid for the time she worked as an intern. Plaintiff Orona was
22 employed as a full-time employee by Defendant FFCS from in or about August 2019 to on or about
23 September 22, 2020. Plaintiff Orona’s hourly rate was $23. Plaintiff Orona was assigned to the
24 following schools: Wolters Elementary School, Calwa Elementary School, and Leavenworth
25 Elementary School.
26 Wage & Hour Violations
27 19. Plaintiffs were scheduled shifts of 7 hours a day, from Monday through Friday.
28 However, on at least 2 days of every week, Plaintiffs worked for more than 8 hours per day as they
-4-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 were required to travel outside of their regularly scheduled work location to participate in meetings,
2 one with a group, and one individually. Defendants never paid Plaintiffs just compensation for all of
3 the overtime hours Plaintiffs worked. In addition, Plaintiffs also performed work for Defendants
4 off-the-clock, including time they spent reviewing, reading and/or responding to Defendants’ calls
5 and/or text messages outside of their regularly scheduled work hours. Plaintiffs were never
6 compensated for such work performed off-the-clock. Moreover, Plaintiffs often had such large
7 workloads that it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to perform such work during their regularly
8 scheduled shifts, thus forcing Plaintiffs to complete work off-the-clock. Plaintiffs were never
9 compensated for such work performed off-the-clock.
10 20. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with any meal breaks and any rest breaks.
11 Often, Plaintiffs either worked a full day without eating or brought lunch to work with them and are
12 at their desk. Defendants never provided Plaintiffs with accurate itemized wage statements,
13 including but not limited to failure to include accurate overtime pay.
14 21. Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for business expenses incurred during
15 Plaintiffs’ time of employment with Defendant FFCS. Business expenses include, but are not
16 limited to, calls and/or text messages from Defendants to Plaintiffs during times when Plaintiffs
17 were not at work, use of personal cell phone, use of personal computer, use of personal vehicle and
18 gas, and purchase of necessary supplies for performance of work-related duties.
19 22. Despite demands for compensation, Defendants have refused and, to this day,
20 continue to refuse to justly pay Plaintiffs.
21 23. Plaintiffs sent, via their counsel, to Defendants a written request for Plaintiffs’
22 employment records, yet Defendants failed to provide such records, or any records, within 21 days
23 as required by law.
24 Wrongful Termination & Retaliation
25 24. On or about March 12, 2020, Defendants sent a text message to its employees,
26 including Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona, instructing Plaintiffs that they “need to file for
27 unemployment insurance benefits” if the schools close.
28
-5-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 25. Starting on or about March 13, 2020, Defendants instructed their paid employees,
2 including Defendants Brown-Johnson and Orona, to apply for unemployment benefits because there
3 would be no work. Then, Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona provide
4 services to schools by working despite the fact that they were receiving unemployment benefits.
5 Defendants then informed Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona that Defendants were applying for
6 paycheck protection program and that their business was growing, yet they failed to Plaintiffs.
7 Defendants then demanded that Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona attend staff meetings even
8 though they were told to apply for unemployment benefits. Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona
9 continued to provide services to different public schools on behalf of Defendants, yet Plaintiffs
10 Brown-Johnson and Orona were never paid for such services. Defendants insutructed its employees,
11 including Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona to inform them if they are receiving unemployment
12 benefits and instructed them to not report in their unemployment applications that Defendant FFCS
13 is shut down, and to instead report that their hours were significantly reduced. This was false
14 information because Plaintiffs hours were not just significantly reduced. In reality, even though
15 Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona performed services for Defendants during the COVID
16 pandemic, Defendants never paid them for such services. Plaintiffs believed that if they did not
17 perform the services as instructed, their employment would be terminated.
18 26. By mid-April, Defendants required employees, including Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson
19 and Orona to participate in unpaid staff meetings. Despite Defendants repeated demands, Plaintiff
20 Brown-Johnson did not participate in the staff meetings because she felt that Defendants actions
21 were illegal and fraudulent.
22 27. Defendants required their employees to work without pay, including Brown-Johnson
23 and Orona, after instructing their employees to apply for unemployment benefits. On information
24 and belief, Defendants had been paid with public funds for counseling services, and such funds
25 should have covered Plaintiffs’ employment without having to ever require Plaintiffs to apply for
26 unemployment benefits. On information and belief, Defendants received federal funds from the
27 payroll protection program by false and fraudulent means in that they required their employees to
28 file for unemployment while simultaneously demanding payroll funds from the federal government.
-6-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 28. Despite Plaintiffs’ desire to return to work for full-time, Defendants refused to bring
2 Plaintiffs back on full time, yet required them to perform their regular work duties.
3 29. On or about April 24, 2020, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson sent an email to Fresno Unified
4 School District employees informing them that she is “conflicted with the moral and ethical
5 dilemma of continuing to provide services as requested by FFCS.” Then, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson
6 expressed her concerns to Fresno Unified School District in an effort to expose FFCS as Fresno
7 Unified School District was the public entity which funded FFCS and its employees. Less than an
8 hour after Defendant Brown-Johnson exposed Defendants’ illegal actions, Defendants sent a letter
9 to Plaintiff Brown-Johnson in direct retaliation, termination Plaintiff Brown-Johnson’s employment.
10 30. Then, Defendants began to harass Plaintiff Brown-Johnson under the guise of
11 seeking client files. This harassment got so bad, that Defendants sent a police officer to Plaintiff
12 Brown-Johnson’s home to collect client files. On information and belief, the police officer was
13 acting on behalf of Defendants, and each of them, and outside of his authority as a law enforcement
14 agent.
15 31. Upon seeing what happened to Plaintiff Brown-Johnson after she exposed
16 Defendants, Plaintiff Orona was too afraid to speak up.
17 32. In July 2020, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson filed a retaliation claim with the Department
18 of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). In September 2020, DIR informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff
19 Brown-Johnson may file a complaint in court but that a copy should be sent to them. In her claim
20 with DIR, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson exposed the identity of Plaintiff Orona as a witness. On or about
21 September 22, 2020, Plaintiff Orona was informed that she was being “laid off.” On information
22 and belief, Defendants “laid off” Plaintiff Orona in direct retaliation for Plaintiff Orona
23 participating as a witness in Plaintiff Brown-Johnson’s whistleblower claim.
24 33. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issued triable by a jury.
25
26
27
28
-7-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
3 (Brought by Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona Against all Defendants)
4 34. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
5 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 33.
6 35. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs by terminating Plaintiffs’ employment
7 because Plaintiffs exercised their constitutional rights and because Plaintiffs refused to violate the
8 law or participate in illegal actions demanded by Defendants. Defendants also retaliated against
9 Plaintiffs by way of violation of Lab. Code §1102.5 as set forth in this Complaint.
10 36. Defendants have committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully.
11 37. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including lost
12 income and benefits, penalties, and have suffered and continue to suffer humiliation,
13 embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort all to Plaintiffs’ damage.
14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
15 WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
16 (Lab. Code §1102.5)
17 (Brought by Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona Against all Defendants)
18 38. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
19 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37.
20 39. California Labor Code §1102.5(b) prohibits employers or their agents from
21 retaliating against an employee for disclosing information (or believing that such employee may
22 disclose information) to a government entity or a person with authority over the employee or
23 another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or
24 noncompliance, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a
25 violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, federal
26 rule or regulation. Furthermore, California Labor Code §1102.5(c) prohibits employers or their
27 agents from retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would
28 result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with local, state, or
-8-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 federal rule or regulation. Pursuant to Labor Code §1102.5(f), an employer that is a corporation, in
2 addition to all other damages, is liable to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of said
3 provisions.
4 40. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson refused to work while being ordered by Defendants to claim
5 unemployment benefits. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson believed that continuing to provide services for
6 Defendants would require her to violate laws. Furthermore, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson emailed the
7 principals of one of the schools she was assigned to make sure they were aware of Defendants’
8 illegal practices. Because Defendant Brown-Johnson refused to participate in Defendants’ illegal
9 practices and because Defendant Brown-Johnson reported Defendants’ illegal actions to public
10 school employees, whom Defendant Brown-Johnson believed would investigate and correct the
11 violations.
12 41. After witnessed the retaliatory actions against Plaintiff Brown-Johnson, Plaintiff
13 Orona decided to keep quiet until her conscious could no longer let her stay quiet. Plaintiff Orona
14 decided to become a witness for Plaintiff Brown-Johnson in Brown-Johnson’s claim with
15 Department of Industrial Relations by providing information supporting Brown-Johnson’s claim.
16 On information and belief, Defendants terminated Plaintiff Orona’s employment in retaliation
17 because, among other reasons, Defendants found out that Plaintiff Orona supported Plaintiff Brown-
18 Johnson’s claims and provided information in support of Brown-Johnson.
19 42. Defendants have committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully.
20 43. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including lost
21 income and benefits, penalties, and have suffered and continue to suffer humiliation,
22 embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort all to Plaintiffs’ damage.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES
3 (Cal. Labor Code §§204, 206, 223, and 225.5)
4 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
5 44. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
6 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43.
7 45. California Labor Code §204 requires an employer to pay all wages to its employees
8 when those wages are due. California Labor Code §206 requires that, in a case of a dispute over
9 wages, an employer must pay, without condition and within the time set by statute, all wages, or
10 parts thereof, conceded to be due. California Labor Code §223 prohibits an employer from secretly
11 paying a lower wage while purporting to pay the required wage designated by statute or by contract.
12 California Labor Code §225.5 provides that every person who unlawfully withholds wages due any
13 employee in violation of §223 shall be subject to a civil penalty for an initial violation of $100 for
14 each failure to pay each employee, and for each subsequent violation or any willful or intentional
15 violation of $200 for each failure to pay each employee plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully
16 withheld. California Labor Code §1195.5 requires an employer to correctly compute and pay wages
17 due to employees, including wages above the minimum wage.
18 46. At all relevant times, Defendants have followed and continue to follow several
19 policies and practices directly resulting in their failure to pay Plaintiffs all wages for all hours
20 worked when they are due, and of withholding wages due by secretly paying a lower wage than
21 purported. These policies and practices include, but are not limited to the following:
22 a. Off-the-Clock Work.
23 Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of requiring,
24 suffering, or permitting Plaintiffs to perform uncompensated work off the clock
25 while not punched in and outside of their scheduled hours, including but not limited
26 to: time spent reviewing, reading and/or responding to Defendants’ calls, text
27 messages, and emails outside of their regularly scheduled work hours; time spent
28 performing work which would be impossible to complete during their regular work
- 10 -
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 hours given the heavy workloads; time spent traveling to and from required reporting
2 locations; time spent in required group and individual meetings.
3 b. Nonpayment of Interns.
4 Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of requiring,
5 suffering, or permitting Plaintiff Orona and others who interned with Defendants, to
6 perform uncompensated work as so-called interns where such work was identical to
7 or substantially similar to that of regular employees and such work primarily
8 benefited Defendants. Defendants did this by intentionally misclassifying Plaintiff
9 Orona, and others similarly situated, as unpaid interns, where in reality Plaintiff
10 Orona and others similarly situated, were entitled to wages for the hours they
11 worked.
12 c. Minimum wage, overtime, and missed meal period and rest break premium wages.
13 As alleged in 4th through 7th causes of action below and incorporated by referenced
14 hereto, Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of
15 failing to pay Plaintiffs minim wages, overtime compensation, and additional wages
16 due for missed, untimely, or shortened meal periods and rest breaks, thereby failing
17 to pay Plaintiffs all wages due for all hours worked.
18 47. Defendants have committed and continue to commit the acts alleged herein
19 knowingly and willfully.
20 48. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid
21 wages, lost interest and penalties, for Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein.
22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION
24 (Cal. Labor Code §§510, 1194, 1198)
25 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants)
26 49. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
27 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48.
28
- 11 -
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 50. It is unlawful under California law for an employer to require, suffer or permit an
2 employee to work in excess of eight hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek without paying
3 premium wages under California Labor Code §510.
4 51. California Labor Code §1198 makes employment of an employee for longer hours
5 than the IWC sets or under conditions the IWC prohibits unlawful. California Labor Code §1194(a)
6 entitles an employee to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of all overtime compensation
7 due but not paid.
8 52. Plaintiffs have worked more than 8 hours a day or more than 40 hours per week for
9 Defendant FFCS and have not received overtime compensation for such work. Defendants have
10 followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiffs properly for overtime,
11 and have failed and continue to fail property to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime hours worked
12 under California law, including but not limited to failure to compensate premium wages for: time
13 spent reviewing, reading and/or responding to Defendants’ calls, text messages, and emails outside
14 of their regularly scheduled work hours; time spent performing work which would be impossible to
15 complete during their regular work hours given the heavy workloads; time spent traveling to and
16 from required reporting locations; time spent in required group and individual meetings.
17 53. Defendants have committed and continue to commit the acts alleged herein
18 knowingly and willfully.
19 54. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, with interest and penalties, in overtime
20 compensation that Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs.
21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES
23 (Cal. Labor Code §§1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1194.5, 1197, 1198)
24 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants)
25 55. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
26 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 54.
27
28
- 12 -
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 56. California Labor Code §§1182.12 and 1197, and applicable Wage Orders, require
2 Defendants to pay Plaintiffs at or above the state minimum wage per hour for every hour
3 Defendants suffer or permit those employees to work.
4 57. California Labor Code §1198 makes unlawful the employment of an employee under
5 conditions the IWC prohibits. California Labor Code §§1194(a) and 1194.2(a) provide that an
6 employer that has failed to pay its employees the legal minimum wage is liable to pay those
7 employees the unpaid balance of the unpaid wages as well as liquidated damages in an amount
8 equal to the wages unpaid and interest thereon.
9 58. At all relevant times, Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and
10 practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs at or above the California minimum wage for many hours
11 worked by Plaintiffs, including but not limited to hours Defendants require, permit, or suffer
12 Plaintiffs to work off-the-clock, as interns (all time, including off-the-clock time), and through
13 unpaid breaks.
14 59. Defendants have committed and continue to commit the acts alleged herein
15 knowingly and willfully.
16 60. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, with interest and penalties, in overtime
17 compensation that Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs
18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIOD OR PAY MISSED MEAL PERIOD
20 (Lab. Code §226.7)
21 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants)
22 61. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
23 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60.
24 62. The California Labor Code §226.7 requires that employers provide their employees
25 required meal breaks and prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during their
26 meal periods.
27 63. Defendants violated required meal period requirements by: not allowing Plaintiffs to
28 take meal breaks; and/or discouraging Plaintiffs from taking meal breaks by keeping Plaintiffs so
- 13 -
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 busy that it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to take meal breaks and be able to complete their
2 work duties; and/or requiring/encouraging Plaintiffs to take their meal breaks at their desk in order
3 to continue working and performing their work duties.
4 64. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of all of their meal periods, which should have been a
5 30-minute break free from any job-related duties. Furthermore, as a result of Defendants’ policy and
6 practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour of pay at each of Plaintiffs’ regular rate of
7 compensation for each workday that a meal period was not provided as required by law.
8 65. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid
9 wages, lost interest and penalties, for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs with their required
10 meal periods and failure to compensate Plaintiffs for each missed meal period.
11 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIOD OR PAY MISSED REST PERIOD
13 (Lab. Code §226.7)
14 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants)
15 66. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
16 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 65.
17 67. California Labor Code §226.7 requires that employers provide their employees
18 required rest breaks and prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during their rest
19 periods.
20 68. Defendants were required to provide Plaintiffs with duty-free rest time of at least 10
21 minutes for every 4 hours of work pursuant to §226.7 of the California Labor Code.
22 69. Plaintiffs never received an uninterrupted rest break, as required by law, during their
23 entire length of employment with Defendant FFCS. Furthermore, as a result of Defendants’ policy
24 and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour of pay at each of Plaintiffs’ regular rate of
25 compensation for each workday that a meal period was not provided as required by law.
26 70. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid
27 wages, lost interest and penalties, for for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs with their required
28 rest periods and failure to compensate Plaintiffs for each missed rest period.
- 14 -
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE TO DISCHARGED AND QUITTING EMPLOYEES
3 (Cal. Labor Code §§201, 202, and 203)
4 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants)
5 71. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
6 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 70.
7 72. California Labor Code §201 requires an employer who discharges an employee to
8 pay all compensation due and owing to that employee immediately upon the employee’s discharge
9 from employment. California Labor Code §202 requires an employer promptly to pay all
10 compensation due and owing to an employee within 72 hours after that employee’s employment
11 terminates, including by resignation. California Labor Code §203 provides that if an employer
12 willfully fails to pay all compensation due promptly upon discharge or resignation, as required by
13 §§201 and 202, the employer shall be liable for waiting time penalties in the form of continued
14 compensation for up to 30 work days.
15 73. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs as required by California law – including but not
16 limited to Defendants’ failure to properly pay Plaintiffs wages for all hours worked when due,
17 overtime wages, minimum wages, and additional wages for non-compliant meal periods and rest
18 periods – Defendants have willfully failed and continue to fail to pay all accrued wages and other
19 compensation to Plaintiffs in accordance with California Labor Code §§201 and 202.
20 74. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid
21 wages, lost interest and penalties, for Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein. Furthermore,
22 by failing to make timely payment of the full wages due to Plaintiff, Defendants are also liable for a
23 penalty to each of the Plaintiffs of up to 30 days of each of the Plaintiffs’ wages under California
24 Labor Code §203.
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
LEGALATORY COMPLAINT
1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED RECORDS
3 Cal. Labor Code §§226, 1174, 1198
4 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants)
5 75. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth
6 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 74.
7 76. California Labor Code §1174(c)-(d) requires employers to keep records showing the
8 names and addresses of all employees employed, and to keep, at a central location in the State of
9 California or at the establishments at which employees are employed, payroll records showing the
10 hours worked daily by and the wages paid to all employees employed at the establishment. Under
11 California Labor Code §226, an all required records must be available for inspection by an
12 employee upon reasonable request.
13 77. California Labor Code §1198 makes unlawful the employment of an employee under
14 conditions the IWC prohibits.
15
78. Pursuant to Defendants’ policy and practice, Defendants have willfully failed, and
16
continue willfully to fail, to maintain accurate, complete, and readily available records, in violation
17
of California Labor Code §1174.
18
Preview
E-FILED 1 Narek Avetisyan (316743) 10/6/2020 4:36 PM LEGALATORY, INC. Superior Court of California 2 516 W Shaw Ave, Ste 200 County of Fresno Fresno, CA 93704-2515 By: M. Sanchez, Deputy 3 Tel: (559) 550 - 2525 4 Fax: (559) 206 - 3535 na@legalatory.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs, 6 Diamond Robinson, Gladys Orona, and Shanekka Brown-Johnson 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 11 SHANEKKA BROWN-JOHNSON; an ) Case No.: 20CECG02950 12 individual; GLADYS ORONA, an individual; ) and DIAMOND ROBINSON, an individual, ) COMPLAINT 13 ) 1. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Plaintiffs, ) Policy 14 ) 2. Whistleblower Retaliation vs. ) 15 3. Failure to Pay All Wages When Due ) 16 FAMILY FOUNDATIONS COUNSELING ) 4. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SERVICES, a California nonprofit corporation; ) 17 PEARL HEPPNER, an individual; and DOES 5. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ) 1-25, ) 6. Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Pay 18 Defendants. Missed Meal Period ) 19 ) 7. Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Pay ) Missed Rest Periods 20 ) ) 8. Failure to Pay All Wages Due to 21 ) Discharged and Quitting Employees ) 9. Failure to Maintain Required Records 22 ) ) 10. Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized 23 Wage Statements ) 24 ) 11. Failure to Reimburse Employees for ) Necessary Expenditures 25 ) ) 26 ) 27 ) ) 28 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) -1- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This case involves a company and its owners/officers acting in concert to ignore 3 employees’ rights, required by law. The company has illegally classified its employees as unpaid 4 interns, has illegally classified non-exempt employees as exempt salaried employees, and has 5 unlawfully retaliated against its employees when its employees exposed it for its fraudulent and 6 illegal actions. 7 PARTIES 8 2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff SHANEKKA BROWN-JOHNSON 9 (“Brown-Johnson”) was an individual residing in the County of Fresno. 10 3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff GLADYS ORONA (“Orona”) was 11 an individual residing in the County of Fresno. 12 4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff DIAMOND ROBINSON 13 (“Robinson”) was an individual residing in the County of Fresno. 14 5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant FAMILY FOUNDATIONS 15 COUNSELING SERVICES (“FFCS”) was a nonprofit corporation duly organized and existing 16 under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business being in the County of 17 Fresno. 18 6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant PEARL HEPPNER (“Heppner”) 19 was an individual residing in the County of Fresno. 20 7. Defendants DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are the fictitious names of those 21 Defendants whose true names are unknown to Plaintiffs and whose true capacities, whether 22 individuals, corporations, partnerships, joint ventures and/or associations, are also unknown to 23 Plaintiffs. When such names are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint by inserting the 24 true names in place of the fictitious names in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 474. 25 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that whenever and wherever in this Compliant any Defendant is 26 the subject of any charging allegations by Plaintiffs, said DOES are also responsible in some 27 manner for the events and happenings alleged in this Complaint and are the subject of charging 28 allegations by Plaintiffs. -2- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that, at all times herein 2 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were alter egos of one another so that to recognize the 3 separate existence of any, as distinct legal entities, would be inequitable and perpetrate a fraud upon 4 Plaintiffs. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of any one Defendant as an entity 5 distinct from other Defendants would permit an abuse of the trust privilege and would sanction 6 fraud or promote injustice as herein alleged. Specifically, Defendants FFCS, Heppner and Does 1 7 through 25, inclusive, all use, and at all times herein alleged used, the same address; on information 8 and belief, each of these Defendants co-mingles funds and assets, procures services on behalf of the 9 others, diverts assets and liabilities, fails to maintain adequate corporate records, accepts moneys 10 and property for the other and/or for its own use with knowledge of wrongful taking of such 11 property. Thus, the actions, representations, and other conduct alleged herein of the one was and are 12 the actions, representations, and conduct of the others, and each of them is and was bound thereby 13 as having done made and/or committed the same directly. 14 9. At all times mentioned herein, unless specifically stated otherwise, each of the 15 Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictious names, were the agents and/or employees 16 of the other named Defendants, and in doing the things alleged were acting within the course and 17 scope of such agency and employment, and in doing the acts herein alleged were acting with 18 consent, permission and authorization of the remaining named Defendants. All actions of 19 Defendants were ratified and approved by the other named Defendants. 20 JURISDICTION & VENUE 21 10. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because this Court has general subject matter 22 jurisdiction and because Plaintiff’s damages are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional 23 requirements of this Court. 24 11. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants, and each of them, are residents of 25 Fresno and because violations of the law took place in the County of Fresno. 26 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 27 12. At all relevant times to this Complaint, Defendant Heppner was an officer/agent of 28 Defendant FFCS. -3- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 13. FFCS is located at 2610 W Shaw Ln #104, Fresno, CA 93711. 2 14. FFCS provides Associate Marriage Family Therapists (“MFT”) to schools by 3 contracting with public school districts, including Fresno Unified School District, and sending its 4 employee MFTs to schools to provide services. 5 15. FFCS solicits unpaid interns in exchange for school credit. When the interns start 6 their so-called internship, they are not given proper training, and by learning all on their own or 7 from helpful employees, these interns end up performing duties identical or substantially similar to 8 the duties of full-time employees. However, the interns never get paid for their work. This so-called 9 internship relationship primarily benefits FFCS earns income from the services performed by these 10 interns and does not invest sufficient time, money and effort in training these interns. 11 16. Plaintiff Robinson was employed as a full-time employee by Defendant FFCS from 12 in or about August 2019 to in or about November 2019. Plaintiff Robinson’s hourly rate was $20. 13 Plaintiff Robinson was assigned to the following schools: Wolters Elementary School, Vinland 14 Elementary School, and Norseman Elementary School. 15 17. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson was employed by Defendant FFCS from in or about 16 January 2020 to on or about April 24, 2020. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson’s hourly rate was $24. 17 Plaintiff Brown-Johnson was assigned to the following schools: Wolters Elementary School, 18 Vinland Elementary School, and Norseman Elementary School. 19 18. Plaintiff Orona interned for FFCS from in or about August 2018 to in or about June 20 2019. Plaintiff Orona performed work identical to or substantially similar to that of regular 21 employees. Plaintiff Orona was never paid for the time she worked as an intern. Plaintiff Orona was 22 employed as a full-time employee by Defendant FFCS from in or about August 2019 to on or about 23 September 22, 2020. Plaintiff Orona’s hourly rate was $23. Plaintiff Orona was assigned to the 24 following schools: Wolters Elementary School, Calwa Elementary School, and Leavenworth 25 Elementary School. 26 Wage & Hour Violations 27 19. Plaintiffs were scheduled shifts of 7 hours a day, from Monday through Friday. 28 However, on at least 2 days of every week, Plaintiffs worked for more than 8 hours per day as they -4- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 were required to travel outside of their regularly scheduled work location to participate in meetings, 2 one with a group, and one individually. Defendants never paid Plaintiffs just compensation for all of 3 the overtime hours Plaintiffs worked. In addition, Plaintiffs also performed work for Defendants 4 off-the-clock, including time they spent reviewing, reading and/or responding to Defendants’ calls 5 and/or text messages outside of their regularly scheduled work hours. Plaintiffs were never 6 compensated for such work performed off-the-clock. Moreover, Plaintiffs often had such large 7 workloads that it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to perform such work during their regularly 8 scheduled shifts, thus forcing Plaintiffs to complete work off-the-clock. Plaintiffs were never 9 compensated for such work performed off-the-clock. 10 20. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with any meal breaks and any rest breaks. 11 Often, Plaintiffs either worked a full day without eating or brought lunch to work with them and are 12 at their desk. Defendants never provided Plaintiffs with accurate itemized wage statements, 13 including but not limited to failure to include accurate overtime pay. 14 21. Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for business expenses incurred during 15 Plaintiffs’ time of employment with Defendant FFCS. Business expenses include, but are not 16 limited to, calls and/or text messages from Defendants to Plaintiffs during times when Plaintiffs 17 were not at work, use of personal cell phone, use of personal computer, use of personal vehicle and 18 gas, and purchase of necessary supplies for performance of work-related duties. 19 22. Despite demands for compensation, Defendants have refused and, to this day, 20 continue to refuse to justly pay Plaintiffs. 21 23. Plaintiffs sent, via their counsel, to Defendants a written request for Plaintiffs’ 22 employment records, yet Defendants failed to provide such records, or any records, within 21 days 23 as required by law. 24 Wrongful Termination & Retaliation 25 24. On or about March 12, 2020, Defendants sent a text message to its employees, 26 including Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona, instructing Plaintiffs that they “need to file for 27 unemployment insurance benefits” if the schools close. 28 -5- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 25. Starting on or about March 13, 2020, Defendants instructed their paid employees, 2 including Defendants Brown-Johnson and Orona, to apply for unemployment benefits because there 3 would be no work. Then, Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona provide 4 services to schools by working despite the fact that they were receiving unemployment benefits. 5 Defendants then informed Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona that Defendants were applying for 6 paycheck protection program and that their business was growing, yet they failed to Plaintiffs. 7 Defendants then demanded that Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona attend staff meetings even 8 though they were told to apply for unemployment benefits. Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona 9 continued to provide services to different public schools on behalf of Defendants, yet Plaintiffs 10 Brown-Johnson and Orona were never paid for such services. Defendants insutructed its employees, 11 including Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona to inform them if they are receiving unemployment 12 benefits and instructed them to not report in their unemployment applications that Defendant FFCS 13 is shut down, and to instead report that their hours were significantly reduced. This was false 14 information because Plaintiffs hours were not just significantly reduced. In reality, even though 15 Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona performed services for Defendants during the COVID 16 pandemic, Defendants never paid them for such services. Plaintiffs believed that if they did not 17 perform the services as instructed, their employment would be terminated. 18 26. By mid-April, Defendants required employees, including Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson 19 and Orona to participate in unpaid staff meetings. Despite Defendants repeated demands, Plaintiff 20 Brown-Johnson did not participate in the staff meetings because she felt that Defendants actions 21 were illegal and fraudulent. 22 27. Defendants required their employees to work without pay, including Brown-Johnson 23 and Orona, after instructing their employees to apply for unemployment benefits. On information 24 and belief, Defendants had been paid with public funds for counseling services, and such funds 25 should have covered Plaintiffs’ employment without having to ever require Plaintiffs to apply for 26 unemployment benefits. On information and belief, Defendants received federal funds from the 27 payroll protection program by false and fraudulent means in that they required their employees to 28 file for unemployment while simultaneously demanding payroll funds from the federal government. -6- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 28. Despite Plaintiffs’ desire to return to work for full-time, Defendants refused to bring 2 Plaintiffs back on full time, yet required them to perform their regular work duties. 3 29. On or about April 24, 2020, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson sent an email to Fresno Unified 4 School District employees informing them that she is “conflicted with the moral and ethical 5 dilemma of continuing to provide services as requested by FFCS.” Then, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson 6 expressed her concerns to Fresno Unified School District in an effort to expose FFCS as Fresno 7 Unified School District was the public entity which funded FFCS and its employees. Less than an 8 hour after Defendant Brown-Johnson exposed Defendants’ illegal actions, Defendants sent a letter 9 to Plaintiff Brown-Johnson in direct retaliation, termination Plaintiff Brown-Johnson’s employment. 10 30. Then, Defendants began to harass Plaintiff Brown-Johnson under the guise of 11 seeking client files. This harassment got so bad, that Defendants sent a police officer to Plaintiff 12 Brown-Johnson’s home to collect client files. On information and belief, the police officer was 13 acting on behalf of Defendants, and each of them, and outside of his authority as a law enforcement 14 agent. 15 31. Upon seeing what happened to Plaintiff Brown-Johnson after she exposed 16 Defendants, Plaintiff Orona was too afraid to speak up. 17 32. In July 2020, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson filed a retaliation claim with the Department 18 of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). In September 2020, DIR informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff 19 Brown-Johnson may file a complaint in court but that a copy should be sent to them. In her claim 20 with DIR, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson exposed the identity of Plaintiff Orona as a witness. On or about 21 September 22, 2020, Plaintiff Orona was informed that she was being “laid off.” On information 22 and belief, Defendants “laid off” Plaintiff Orona in direct retaliation for Plaintiff Orona 23 participating as a witness in Plaintiff Brown-Johnson’s whistleblower claim. 24 33. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issued triable by a jury. 25 26 27 28 -7- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 3 (Brought by Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona Against all Defendants) 4 34. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 5 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 33. 6 35. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs by terminating Plaintiffs’ employment 7 because Plaintiffs exercised their constitutional rights and because Plaintiffs refused to violate the 8 law or participate in illegal actions demanded by Defendants. Defendants also retaliated against 9 Plaintiffs by way of violation of Lab. Code §1102.5 as set forth in this Complaint. 10 36. Defendants have committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully. 11 37. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including lost 12 income and benefits, penalties, and have suffered and continue to suffer humiliation, 13 embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort all to Plaintiffs’ damage. 14 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 15 WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION 16 (Lab. Code §1102.5) 17 (Brought by Plaintiffs Brown-Johnson and Orona Against all Defendants) 18 38. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 19 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37. 20 39. California Labor Code §1102.5(b) prohibits employers or their agents from 21 retaliating against an employee for disclosing information (or believing that such employee may 22 disclose information) to a government entity or a person with authority over the employee or 23 another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or 24 noncompliance, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a 25 violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, federal 26 rule or regulation. Furthermore, California Labor Code §1102.5(c) prohibits employers or their 27 agents from retaliating against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would 28 result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with local, state, or -8- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 federal rule or regulation. Pursuant to Labor Code §1102.5(f), an employer that is a corporation, in 2 addition to all other damages, is liable to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of said 3 provisions. 4 40. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson refused to work while being ordered by Defendants to claim 5 unemployment benefits. Plaintiff Brown-Johnson believed that continuing to provide services for 6 Defendants would require her to violate laws. Furthermore, Plaintiff Brown-Johnson emailed the 7 principals of one of the schools she was assigned to make sure they were aware of Defendants’ 8 illegal practices. Because Defendant Brown-Johnson refused to participate in Defendants’ illegal 9 practices and because Defendant Brown-Johnson reported Defendants’ illegal actions to public 10 school employees, whom Defendant Brown-Johnson believed would investigate and correct the 11 violations. 12 41. After witnessed the retaliatory actions against Plaintiff Brown-Johnson, Plaintiff 13 Orona decided to keep quiet until her conscious could no longer let her stay quiet. Plaintiff Orona 14 decided to become a witness for Plaintiff Brown-Johnson in Brown-Johnson’s claim with 15 Department of Industrial Relations by providing information supporting Brown-Johnson’s claim. 16 On information and belief, Defendants terminated Plaintiff Orona’s employment in retaliation 17 because, among other reasons, Defendants found out that Plaintiff Orona supported Plaintiff Brown- 18 Johnson’s claims and provided information in support of Brown-Johnson. 19 42. Defendants have committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully. 20 43. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including lost 21 income and benefits, penalties, and have suffered and continue to suffer humiliation, 22 embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort all to Plaintiffs’ damage. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES 3 (Cal. Labor Code §§204, 206, 223, and 225.5) 4 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 5 44. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 6 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43. 7 45. California Labor Code §204 requires an employer to pay all wages to its employees 8 when those wages are due. California Labor Code §206 requires that, in a case of a dispute over 9 wages, an employer must pay, without condition and within the time set by statute, all wages, or 10 parts thereof, conceded to be due. California Labor Code §223 prohibits an employer from secretly 11 paying a lower wage while purporting to pay the required wage designated by statute or by contract. 12 California Labor Code §225.5 provides that every person who unlawfully withholds wages due any 13 employee in violation of §223 shall be subject to a civil penalty for an initial violation of $100 for 14 each failure to pay each employee, and for each subsequent violation or any willful or intentional 15 violation of $200 for each failure to pay each employee plus 25 percent of the amount unlawfully 16 withheld. California Labor Code §1195.5 requires an employer to correctly compute and pay wages 17 due to employees, including wages above the minimum wage. 18 46. At all relevant times, Defendants have followed and continue to follow several 19 policies and practices directly resulting in their failure to pay Plaintiffs all wages for all hours 20 worked when they are due, and of withholding wages due by secretly paying a lower wage than 21 purported. These policies and practices include, but are not limited to the following: 22 a. Off-the-Clock Work. 23 Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of requiring, 24 suffering, or permitting Plaintiffs to perform uncompensated work off the clock 25 while not punched in and outside of their scheduled hours, including but not limited 26 to: time spent reviewing, reading and/or responding to Defendants’ calls, text 27 messages, and emails outside of their regularly scheduled work hours; time spent 28 performing work which would be impossible to complete during their regular work - 10 - LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 hours given the heavy workloads; time spent traveling to and from required reporting 2 locations; time spent in required group and individual meetings. 3 b. Nonpayment of Interns. 4 Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of requiring, 5 suffering, or permitting Plaintiff Orona and others who interned with Defendants, to 6 perform uncompensated work as so-called interns where such work was identical to 7 or substantially similar to that of regular employees and such work primarily 8 benefited Defendants. Defendants did this by intentionally misclassifying Plaintiff 9 Orona, and others similarly situated, as unpaid interns, where in reality Plaintiff 10 Orona and others similarly situated, were entitled to wages for the hours they 11 worked. 12 c. Minimum wage, overtime, and missed meal period and rest break premium wages. 13 As alleged in 4th through 7th causes of action below and incorporated by referenced 14 hereto, Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of 15 failing to pay Plaintiffs minim wages, overtime compensation, and additional wages 16 due for missed, untimely, or shortened meal periods and rest breaks, thereby failing 17 to pay Plaintiffs all wages due for all hours worked. 18 47. Defendants have committed and continue to commit the acts alleged herein 19 knowingly and willfully. 20 48. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid 21 wages, lost interest and penalties, for Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein. 22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION 24 (Cal. Labor Code §§510, 1194, 1198) 25 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 26 49. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 27 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48. 28 - 11 - LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 50. It is unlawful under California law for an employer to require, suffer or permit an 2 employee to work in excess of eight hours per workday or 40 hours per workweek without paying 3 premium wages under California Labor Code §510. 4 51. California Labor Code §1198 makes employment of an employee for longer hours 5 than the IWC sets or under conditions the IWC prohibits unlawful. California Labor Code §1194(a) 6 entitles an employee to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of all overtime compensation 7 due but not paid. 8 52. Plaintiffs have worked more than 8 hours a day or more than 40 hours per week for 9 Defendant FFCS and have not received overtime compensation for such work. Defendants have 10 followed and continue to follow a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiffs properly for overtime, 11 and have failed and continue to fail property to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime hours worked 12 under California law, including but not limited to failure to compensate premium wages for: time 13 spent reviewing, reading and/or responding to Defendants’ calls, text messages, and emails outside 14 of their regularly scheduled work hours; time spent performing work which would be impossible to 15 complete during their regular work hours given the heavy workloads; time spent traveling to and 16 from required reporting locations; time spent in required group and individual meetings. 17 53. Defendants have committed and continue to commit the acts alleged herein 18 knowingly and willfully. 19 54. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, with interest and penalties, in overtime 20 compensation that Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs. 21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES 23 (Cal. Labor Code §§1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1194.5, 1197, 1198) 24 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 25 55. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 26 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 54. 27 28 - 12 - LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 56. California Labor Code §§1182.12 and 1197, and applicable Wage Orders, require 2 Defendants to pay Plaintiffs at or above the state minimum wage per hour for every hour 3 Defendants suffer or permit those employees to work. 4 57. California Labor Code §1198 makes unlawful the employment of an employee under 5 conditions the IWC prohibits. California Labor Code §§1194(a) and 1194.2(a) provide that an 6 employer that has failed to pay its employees the legal minimum wage is liable to pay those 7 employees the unpaid balance of the unpaid wages as well as liquidated damages in an amount 8 equal to the wages unpaid and interest thereon. 9 58. At all relevant times, Defendants have followed and continue to follow a policy and 10 practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs at or above the California minimum wage for many hours 11 worked by Plaintiffs, including but not limited to hours Defendants require, permit, or suffer 12 Plaintiffs to work off-the-clock, as interns (all time, including off-the-clock time), and through 13 unpaid breaks. 14 59. Defendants have committed and continue to commit the acts alleged herein 15 knowingly and willfully. 16 60. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, with interest and penalties, in overtime 17 compensation that Defendants failed to provide to Plaintiffs 18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIOD OR PAY MISSED MEAL PERIOD 20 (Lab. Code §226.7) 21 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 22 61. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 23 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60. 24 62. The California Labor Code §226.7 requires that employers provide their employees 25 required meal breaks and prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during their 26 meal periods. 27 63. Defendants violated required meal period requirements by: not allowing Plaintiffs to 28 take meal breaks; and/or discouraging Plaintiffs from taking meal breaks by keeping Plaintiffs so - 13 - LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 busy that it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to take meal breaks and be able to complete their 2 work duties; and/or requiring/encouraging Plaintiffs to take their meal breaks at their desk in order 3 to continue working and performing their work duties. 4 64. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of all of their meal periods, which should have been a 5 30-minute break free from any job-related duties. Furthermore, as a result of Defendants’ policy and 6 practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour of pay at each of Plaintiffs’ regular rate of 7 compensation for each workday that a meal period was not provided as required by law. 8 65. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid 9 wages, lost interest and penalties, for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs with their required 10 meal periods and failure to compensate Plaintiffs for each missed meal period. 11 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 12 FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIOD OR PAY MISSED REST PERIOD 13 (Lab. Code §226.7) 14 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 15 66. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 16 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 65. 17 67. California Labor Code §226.7 requires that employers provide their employees 18 required rest breaks and prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during their rest 19 periods. 20 68. Defendants were required to provide Plaintiffs with duty-free rest time of at least 10 21 minutes for every 4 hours of work pursuant to §226.7 of the California Labor Code. 22 69. Plaintiffs never received an uninterrupted rest break, as required by law, during their 23 entire length of employment with Defendant FFCS. Furthermore, as a result of Defendants’ policy 24 and practice, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs one hour of pay at each of Plaintiffs’ regular rate of 25 compensation for each workday that a meal period was not provided as required by law. 26 70. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid 27 wages, lost interest and penalties, for for Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiffs with their required 28 rest periods and failure to compensate Plaintiffs for each missed rest period. - 14 - LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FAILURE TO PAY ALL WAGES DUE TO DISCHARGED AND QUITTING EMPLOYEES 3 (Cal. Labor Code §§201, 202, and 203) 4 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 5 71. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 6 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 70. 7 72. California Labor Code §201 requires an employer who discharges an employee to 8 pay all compensation due and owing to that employee immediately upon the employee’s discharge 9 from employment. California Labor Code §202 requires an employer promptly to pay all 10 compensation due and owing to an employee within 72 hours after that employee’s employment 11 terminates, including by resignation. California Labor Code §203 provides that if an employer 12 willfully fails to pay all compensation due promptly upon discharge or resignation, as required by 13 §§201 and 202, the employer shall be liable for waiting time penalties in the form of continued 14 compensation for up to 30 work days. 15 73. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs as required by California law – including but not 16 limited to Defendants’ failure to properly pay Plaintiffs wages for all hours worked when due, 17 overtime wages, minimum wages, and additional wages for non-compliant meal periods and rest 18 periods – Defendants have willfully failed and continue to fail to pay all accrued wages and other 19 compensation to Plaintiffs in accordance with California Labor Code §§201 and 202. 20 74. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount established at trial, including unpaid 21 wages, lost interest and penalties, for Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein. Furthermore, 22 by failing to make timely payment of the full wages due to Plaintiff, Defendants are also liable for a 23 penalty to each of the Plaintiffs of up to 30 days of each of the Plaintiffs’ wages under California 24 Labor Code §203. 25 26 27 28 - 15 - LEGALATORY COMPLAINT 1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED RECORDS 3 Cal. Labor Code §§226, 1174, 1198 4 (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against all Defendants) 5 75. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth 6 herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 74. 7 76. California Labor Code §1174(c)-(d) requires employers to keep records showing the 8 names and addresses of all employees employed, and to keep, at a central location in the State of 9 California or at the establishments at which employees are employed, payroll records showing the 10 hours worked daily by and the wages paid to all employees employed at the establishment. Under 11 California Labor Code §226, an all required records must be available for inspection by an 12 employee upon reasonable request. 13 77. California Labor Code §1198 makes unlawful the employment of an employee under 14 conditions the IWC prohibits. 15 78. Pursuant to Defendants’ policy and practice, Defendants have willfully failed, and 16 continue willfully to fail, to maintain accurate, complete, and readily available records, in violation 17 of California Labor Code §1174. 18