Complaint,Petition: Reginald Lyle et al. vs Doctors Hospital Of Manteca, Inc. et al.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                hee at

Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SEN 209776)... :
Vincent C. Granbi at Gs (SBN 276483)
LAYI & EBRAHIMIA .
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Shite: 500:
Beverly Hills, ‘alifornia 90211
Telephone: Gi0). 432-0000

Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

Attorneys for, PLAINTIFF REGINALD: LYLE,
on behalf of hinself ‘and others similarly situated,

gy 2808
ce _ eS
. Pea GIES GER,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

REGINALD LYLE, on tehalf of himself ‘and
others similarly. situated,

PLAINTIFE; .

VS.

DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.;
AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF
MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF MANTECA ING;
SP OF MANTECA INt TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION: TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.;,
TENET HEALTH; and DOES 140-100; Inclusive,

DEFENDANTS. = -

Case Nox STK:CV-UOE-2016-6523

CLASS ACTION

: PLAINTIFE! REGINALD LYLE’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

| DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION AND
FOR:

1 FAILURE TO-PAY WAGES FOR
ALL TIME WORKED AT,
- MINIMUM:-WAGE-IN VIOLATION
OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS:1194
AND. ALOR PE

2. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES FOR
ALL TIME WORKED AT /
OVERTIME RATIEIN. -.
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
SECTION 510 AND 1194"

Se RALGURE TO AUTHORIZE OR

PERMIT MEAL PERIODS IN
~ VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
SECTIONS 512. AND 226.7 | |

4: FAILURE TO‘AUTHORIZE OR
PERMIT REST: PERIODS IN’.
VIOLATION. OF LABOR CODE
SECTION 226.7

5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
. COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
WAGE STATEMENTS IN
. VIOLATION OF LABOR: CODE
SECTION 226

XWd Ad Gas

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES...6... FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY ALL
“ -EARNED WAGES AND FINAL
: PAYCHECKS DUE AT TIME OF
SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT
IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
4 SECTIONS 201; 202, AND 203

Fei UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES,
IN. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS ~
AND PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200, et seq.

3. CIVIL PENALTIES PURSUANT
TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY
’ GENERAL ACT OF 2004
= ee \"); LABOR: CODE
‘SECTION 2698, et: seq. :

DEMAND-FOR JURY TRIAL

J against Defendaais DOCTORS. HOsPIT, AL OF MANTECA, INC:; AUXILIARY. OF DOCTORS

COMES NOW. Plaimiff REGINALD LYLE’ (Piaitif, who ‘alleges and complains

HOSPITAL OF: MANTECA: DR HOSP oF MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA INC; TENET.
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; TENET HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC; TENET
HEALTH, and DOES 1 to 100; inclusive, (collectively fesidents) as follows:

i INTRODUCTION

1 This is a.class ‘action lawsuit seeking unpaid. wages and ‘interest thereon for unpaid
wages for all hours worked at the’ mininiuni wage and: overtime rates of pay due 19° Defendants”
policy, practice, and/or. “procedute ‘of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly , employees to}
don and doff théir écrubs off the-tlock, rounding ‘thelr daily hours worked down to the: nearest
quarter of an hour, and requiting them to remain. “on'éall* failure to. authorize or permit second
theal periods; failure to authorize: or permit rest petiods; statutory penalties-for failure to provide.
acvlirate wage staterients: Waiting time penalties in the form of continuation Wages for failure to
timely pay eniployees all: wages due upon séparption. of employnient; injuttetive relief and other
equitable relief. reasonable. attorney's fees pursuant to. California Labor Code sections 226(e); 1 194;
and 2699(g)(1): éosts! and interest brought on behalt'of Plaintiffand others similarly situated.

Hl

__ PLAINTIEF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: DAMAGES4 the Claas: Members’ elatnis: fot vinpaid

wages for all Bours forked 3 at the miiimum Wage: and overtime rates of pay due to Defendants’
policy, practice, ‘and/or procedure of requiring Piainitif? and Similarly situated hourly e employees to

don and doff: their scriibs, ‘off ihe-clock, rotinding. their’ daily hours worked: down to the -nearést

quarter of an our, aad: Fequiting them to’ temain:“on-¢a  failure.16 authorize or permit secatid

meal periods; failure to authotize or

sérinit rest. petlods;- stathtory penaltiés for failure to. provide

accurate wage Statements; w ime 5 penalties i in ihe form of. contimiation: wages for failure to

timely pay eniployess all 4 wages duc: upon separation’ of employment; injunctive relief and restitution
under California Business, & Profesdions Code section 17200. et seg. for the following reasons:

Defendants operate throughout California; Deféndants-eiyployed Plaintiff in San Joaquin County;
Defendants opéraits at 1205°E, North St; Maiiteca, CA'95336; at all relevant times, Defendants’
principal place-of business was: located at 1205 B, NOith St., Manteca; CA-95336: more thai two-
thirds of the. ptitative class amombers ate: Califia sitizens; the. principal violations of California

law occurred in California no other cléss aétions have-héen filed against Defendants i in the last thiee

years alleging wage and hour vi

i ots; the conduct‘of Defendants forms 2-significant basis for

Plaintiff's and the Class. Momibérs!’ claims; and: Plairitif? and the Glass Meiners Seek significant
relief from Defendants. :
i. = =PARTYES

3. ‘Planet brings this a ion 6 i Paid othe tticinbers of. ibie geteral|

public similarly3 uated. The neméd Plaintitt and the class of p persons. “on whose behalf, this action
is filed are current, former and/or future employees Of Defendants who ‘work.as hourly non-exempt

employees. At all times mentioned herein, the currently named ‘Plainuft i is and Was a resident of

| California and ‘was éinployed-by Defendants a asa surgical: iechinician, “within the four years prior to.

the filing of the. complaint:

4, Defendants employed Plaintiff as. a suis technician from. oh of around ‘May or
2013, through: on around Décember 29:2015.

eves anid: ott that basis. alleges that Defendants employed

5. Plaintiff is informed and

“AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~“Hocated at 1205 B, North St, Mamteea, CA.95336.

Plaintiff and other ical niicexempt émployees throughout the State of California ind therefore its
conduct forms. a ‘significant ‘basis of the claims asserted i int this matter

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant DOCTORS
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC. is: authorized to.do business within thé Staté of California and is
doing business in the State of Catiforaia and/or that Defendants DOES"1:- 12 até, and at all times |’
rélevant béreto! : Were personsiacting ‘on ‘Behalf of DOCTORS. HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC.i in
the establishment of of iatification of the aforementionéd illegal wage atid. hour practices. or,
policies. Defendant DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, ING. operates in San Joaquin County

arid employed Plaintif?.and otf: putative’ class themibers in San Joaquin. County’ at its. business

7. Plaintiff i is informed cand believes and
OF DOCTORS ‘wOsPiraL. OF MANTECA ig anithotiaed to do business within. the State of
California ands is:doing business in ‘the State of ‘California and/or that Defendants DOES 13 - 24 are,
and at all times. relevant hereto, wate. persons: acting « on, ‘behalf, of AUXILIARY. OF DOCTORS]
HOSPITAL OF MANTECA i in the establishment of, or vatification of, the aforementioned: illegal
wage -and how practices or policiés, Defendant AUXI JARY ‘OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF

MANTECA operates: in-San Joaquin Cotinty and: ei ployed “Plaintiff anid other putative class |

members in San-Joaquin County at its business locaéd at 1205: E. North St, Manteca, CA 95336.

infoemed and believes:and thereon -alleges { that Defendant: DRS HOSP OF
MANTECA INC is'aitthoriz

fo a6. busiziess within the State: of, California andi is doing: business i in
the State of* California. and/or: thay Defendans ous ‘25 -~ 36 are; and at all times relevant hereto

wére persons acting on behalf. Of DR! HOSP: OF MANTECA INC j in the edtablishment, of or

ratification of the aforémenti ni egal “wage and: hour: practices..or policies, Defendant. DRS
HOSP OF MANTECA INC pensieg in. Sen Joaquin: County and employed Plaintiff and other.
putative class ‘members. ia San. Jodquin County at its busitiess located at 1205.6. North St, Manteca,

CA 95336. /
9. Plaintiff is informied and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant sp OF
MANTECA INC is authorized to do. business within, the Staté of California and is doing busines i iti
PLAINTIDPS FIRST AMENDED COMPIA INT-FOR DAMAGES “the State of Calffomie and/or that. Defendants DOES 37 - 48 are, and at-all times relevant: hereto

lwere ersons, actiiig on behalf of SP ‘OF MANTECA’ INCA in the:establishitient of, or ratification of,

the aforementioned illegal wage and I our practices of policies:, Defendaat ‘SP OF MANTECA Inc:
operates in Sah Joaquin County and einployed: Plaintiff and other putative class members: in Sah
Joaquin County at its busin a dat 1205 E. Notthi’Se, Mantéta, CA 95336.

10, intif? is informed:tind. believes. and. thereon. alleges ‘that Defeiidant. SP’ OF
MANTECA INC is authorized to do business within Uie State of California and is doing business in

the State of California and/or that Defendarits DOES 49 - 60 are, and-at all-times relevant hereto
wete persons ‘acting on behalf of SP-OF MANTECA IN

in the establishment'of ‘or ratification of,
Daféadant SP-OF MANTECA INC

the aforementioned illegal wage. and ‘hour practi i
operates in San’ Toaquin County ‘acd employed Plaint ff. and other putetive ‘class members i in San
forth & anteca; €A.95336.

LL. “Plaintiff 4s ‘informed: ‘arid. ‘believes: and thereat alleges ‘that: Defendant TENET
HEALTHCARE: CORPORATION | is authorized fo'do business within, the State, of California and is}
doing business in the State of California and/or that Defendants DOES. 61 -.72 are, and at all. times

Joaquin Conary at its busitiess located, at 12

relevant hereto. wete persons acting on behalf of TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION i in the
establishment-of,: or’ Tatifil ation of, the ‘aforementioned. legal wage and hour} ‘practices. or policies,
Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates. in San Joaquin County sand)
employed Plaintiff and other putative.class inembers in ‘San Joaquin: County at its:business: located
at 1205 E. Noh'St., Manteca; GA 95336.

12. ~ Plainitée is informed. ahd -belicyes aiid ‘hereon alleges that Detindsint “TENET
HEALTHCARE, CORPORATION

authorized t to do: business within the State of California and is
doing business i in thé State of California and/or that Defendants DOES 61.- 72.are, and at all times
relevant hereto, were persons acting; i behalf 6f TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION i in the

establishment of. or ratifi feation, af the aforementioned ilegal wage and ‘hour practices. or policias:
Defendant TENET. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION operates in San Joaguin- County. and

employed Plaintiff and other pittative ‘class anembers int y San Joaquin County at its business located

at 1205 E. Nort St; Manica, CA. 95336.

PLAINTIFF'S. riRST AsiENDED COMPLAINT ror DAMAGES t
s‘| EALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, ING. is.

q 100 are individuals soknovin to Plaintiff. Each of the individual Defendants is sued individually i in

13. Plainiilf 4 is nfoimed and believes and: thereon alleges that Defendant: ‘I! ENET
jotized to do. business. within ‘the ‘State of
California and is doing bidsiniess i in the State of Califoraia and/or that Defendants DOES.73=
and at all times: relevant. hereto: awgne. ‘persons‘acting én behalf’ of TENET: HEALTH INTEGRATED
SERVICES, INC. iv the -eétablishitient Gf, or ratification, of, the aforementioned illegal wage and
hour practices or policies. Defeiidaad TENET i BALTH GRATED SERVICES, INC. operates
in San Joaquin County and employed | Plaindiff ‘ad other putative class-members in San. Joaquin

County at iis business located at 1205 E. North St, Maitteca, CA 95336,
i forined ‘and believes and ‘thereon alleges that, Defendant TENET

sifiess within thé State ‘of California and i is doing. business 4 in the

id. Phaintior is
HEALTH is authorized to
State of Califomia and/or. that Defendants. DOES 73. 8a ace, and at all times relevant hereto:were
persons acting, on behalf of TENET HEALTH in the establishment of, or ratification of, the
aforementioned’ illegal wage: and hour practices: of policies. Defendait TENET Operates in San|~
Joaquin County and émployed P inuff and. other putative class member it San Joaquin County. ‘at
‘its business logaied. at 1208 ‘Notth St, Manteca, CA: 5336.

18. ‘Pleistift i is informed. and believes atid ereon alleges that Defendants DOES 84 -

his or her capacity as:an, agent, shareholder, ¢ owner, Feptesentative, aianages,. supervisor; independent
contractor andlor éinployée’ of each Defendant. and farticipated in the establishment of, or
ratification. of, the afoteiientioned illegal wage and hour practices or polici

the ‘trae names of Defendants’ DOES t ifough i 106. Plaintulf

sues said defendants: by said fictiticnis vames,: and wil

16. Plaintiff is wiawas é

nid thiis: ‘complaint: when ihe trué nanies
and capacities aré aS¢ertaified’.or ‘when such facts. péitaining to liability: are ascertained, or as
permitted by Jaw on bythe’ Couit: Plaintiff is informed-and believes thal'each of the ‘ictitiously

named Defendants -is- in: some. ananiier responsible for. the evenis and allegations. set forth in-this

complaint.

eiedn alleges. tlat:atall relevant times; each

tH; partner, joint venturer; officer. director,

INDED. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAG!
TGcontrolling sharéhilder; subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest and/or
Bredecessér in interest of'sortie orall-of the other Defendants, and was-engaged with some or all of |
the other defendants in a joint einterprisé for profit, ‘and bore such other relationships to some or all
of the other defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with Fespect to the malteérs alleged i in this
complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and believes: ‘and’ theréon alleges that each défendant acted
pursuant to and ‘within the scope, of the. -felatioxiships alleged above, and that,at-all relévant ‘times,
: have iown ‘abo
cofiduct of ail other defend

each defendant knew. -or . sh

3 authorized, ratified, adopted, approved,

controlled, aided and: abet
"Defendant* ineand’ ‘Dein

5. ASsused in this complaint,
TS. An each of them! all fefeis td: the Defénitants famed ‘in the
particular cause: of action:in whi ihe word ‘appears, ‘an ) fendants DOCTORS: HOSPIT. ‘AL.OF
MANTECA, IN a AUXILIARY OF DOCTORS HOSPITAL. OF ‘MANTECA; DRS HOSP OF
MANTECA INC; SP OF MANTECA ING; TENET: HEALTHCARE CORPORATION: TENET
HEALTH INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC TENET HEALTH, ‘and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.

18, Atal times mentioned herein; each Defendant \ was the: ‘co-bongpitaton;, agent; servant,
employee, and/or j joint Venturer of | each of the other defendants and was acting withimthe course and
scape of said conspiracy, agency; ehiployinent, and/or joint venture and with the permission and/
consent of each, of the othér- Defendants. :

19. Plaintiff makes the allegations inthis -omplaint. swithout ariy admission that, as-to/any|.
particular allegation, Plaintitt bears the burden of pleading; proving, or, persuading. and: Plaintiff
seServes all of Plaintiff rights fo plead ‘in the alternative.

Iv.

DESCRIPTION-OF ILLEGAL PAY PRACTICES

20. : Purstiafit’to the applicable dndustrial’ Welfare Commission CWC") Wage’ Order
("Wage Orde:"), codified at Califomia. Code of Regulétions litle 8, section 1.1050, Defendants arié
employers of Plaintiff within. the: meaning of the applicable Wage Order‘and applicable California’
Labor Code seétions. Theretére, “éach of thesé Deferidants is jointly and’ severally Hable: for the:
wrongs complained of herein‘in yiolation of the Wage Ordet- arid the California’ Labor Code.

__ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
PEST AN eePlaintiff and: -suilarly.situat di

employees to, clock out of their sliifts Prior tos changing gut of their scrubs.

“| worked at least at'a- minimum.

21. Failure to “pay wages: for all hours worked. at the Ipgal: ‘minimuin wage:

Defendants. eniptoyed many of ‘their employees, including Plaintiié, as ‘hourly’ non-exerapt
‘employees. In California,an: employer is required to pay hourly-ernployees for all “hours Worked,”
which includes‘all timne that an employed is under caritrol of the. etployer sind all-time the employee

is suffered and Permitted to work. ‘This includes. the’ flime an employee spends; either directly or

indirectly, perforniiig Services ‘whieHi inkre.to the benefit of the eraployer,
22. Califomia Labor Code Séetions 1194 ‘and 1197 tequire an employer to compensate,

employees for all “hours worked”* at least ata miniinuin wage Tate of ‘pay as established by the |.

23. ik this case, Defendants employed. a ‘policy, “Practice, atid/or procedure whereby So

yees were required toarrive approximately 15-minutes. pir to
the start of their-shift in drder to change into scrubs prior to clocking in-for their shift Similarly,
Defendants einployed a policy; Practice, and/or protedie whereby Plaintiff and similarly-situated

24.0 hn addition, Defendants employed a policy, practice, and/or procedure whereby they
Touhded down di shaved down Plaintilf and similarly. situated employees’ ‘daily hours worked ta the
nearest quarter hour and did hot pay Plaintife and similatiy situated craplayees ‘wages for tat time.

25. “Finally, - Defendarits Fequired Plaintiff? and sitilacly situated employees to. be. “on-
call,” but did not pay them wages ‘for’ ‘on-call time. During: “on-call” time Plaintiff's and similarly
situated employes” activities ‘were so restricted that being “on-call” “preveiited them from engaging :
in personal activities. Nevertheléss, Defendants failed to Sompensate Plaintiff and similarly situated |
employees for “oreeall™ time.

26. Desbite the fa hat Caliéomia lavir requires employers to'pay: employees for all hots

: ate, ‘because of Deferidants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly |
situated hourly non-exempt employees for-time spent donning and doffing scrubs, failéd to. pay for |'
all daily hours “aiotked dite to- Defendants’ policy; practice, wand proceduie of rounding: down or

shaving dewa employees’ daily hows: ‘worked to the nearest quarter hour, and failing: to compensate

Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees" “on-call” hours. The foregoing

_ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST ‘AM ENDED COMPLAINT FoR! DAMAresulted in hotly employees working time for which they were not’ compensated any wages, in
violation of. Califia Labor ‘Code seétions 1194, 1197, aid the Wage Orders.

27. Failure to pay. wages for all hours worked at-the employee's overtime rate of
pay: As described above, Defendaits’ “policies; ‘practices: -and- procedures require Plaintiff ‘and

similarly situated employees to dont anid doff their's scrubs off the clock, round down. or shave down

employees daily ours down ti ‘the sriearest quater: ‘hour, ‘and: require, that an employees to-remain

“on-call” without being compénsated 4 for that time. The foregoing resulted in time each work day
which Plaintiff: ‘aid similarly situated employees werd: under control af Defendants. but were not
compensated.

28. Labor Code cis 510 arid 1id4 require an émployer to compensate employees a
higher rate of pay for-liours worked inl egoeas of 8 hours: iis a workday, 40 hours in a workiyesk; and
on any seventh consecutive day of Work in a workweek,

Atiy ‘work in éxéesg of eight hours. in one workday. and any. work: iin
‘excess of 40-hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours
worked on the seventh day Of work in any une workweek’ shall be
edrtipensatéd at the’ rate of sno less than one and-onechalf timés the
regular rate of pay fur'an employee. _ Anywork ii excess of 12 houts in
oie day’ shall -be compensated’ at the-rate of no less than twice the
regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of
eight on ‘any: seventh day of a workweek shall be comipensated
at the vate of no Jess thar twice the regular rate of p ‘pay of ai employee,

| (Lab, Code'g5105

29. Despite, that Califomia law requires employers to.pay employées for all hours. worked
and at a higher rate’ of f pay ‘whens those 1 hours fall: during otk péridds -in excess of 8 hours i ina
Workday and 40: hours‘ sina workweels Defendarits would fail to pay einpldyees wages fox the time-it

| tovk to don arid dol theit scrubs, for the time each watt ay that’ ‘eiriployees” were. not: -compensated
for due to Defendants” policy, prictice, and/or pipéedure of rounding down or shaving down
employees’ daily. hours down to thé nearest quarter hour, and requiring that an employees reiiain

“on-call” withont being compensated.for that time which Plaintiff'and similarly. situated employees |
were under control of Defendants. To thé extent the employees liad already worked 8 houfs.in'the

day and on workweeks they had already-worked 40.houirs in a workweek. the emplogeds:stiould

PLAESTIFE'S PIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
y "have been paid Gvertime for this inipaid time. This resulted ivi non- -exempt employees. working time

which should have been paid at, i legal overtime, tate, but Was not paid-any: wages in violation of.
Labor Cade sections § 5 10, ‘1194, anid. the Wage Orders.

30. Failure: to pay: hourly employees Wages ‘to compensate ‘them. for warkiays |
Detendants failed to provide required. meal periods: Defendants. often, cniployed hourly
employces, ineluding the named: Plainuiit and.all others ‘similacly- esituated, for shifts loiger than 10
hours in length.

3. California law "req ines an employer’ to authorize or parmit an employee -an

uninterrupted Teal peridd of no less: tha 30-minutes in whicli the employee i is relieved of. all duties

atid the employer

*s aétivities prior. to the eniployee's 8 sixth
hour-of work. Cal. Lab. Cod §§ 226.7, 512; Wage Oder 9- 2001; Lip Brinker Rest. Corp. Super

1 ishes costo! Over thie empl

Ct. (Hohnbaim) 2012) 53 Cal: 4th 1004: An employer may not employ an employee for a work
period of mare than 10 hours per day: without providing the employee with a second such. meal
period of not less than .30 ininutes Bfior to the ‘star of tlie ‘eleventh hou of work. [a If the
employee is not rélieved.of all duty duriag 4 mealy period, the meal period shall ‘be considered: an “on
duty" meal period and counted-as time worked, A paid “on. duty” meal period. is. oxily permitted
when: (1) the nature of the work. prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty; and (2) the}
parties have a written agreémenit agreeing to on duty meal. periods, ]
32. If'an employer fails:to pidvide an employee a meal period in accordance with the |
law, the employer must pay the employee one ‘hour of;pay:atihe eniployee's Tegillar rate of pay for
each work day that alegally iequired: meal period. ‘was not timely provided or was not duiy-fize: Id.
33. Pia tiff and ‘similarly siniated employees would work on workdays in shifts long

enough to entitle hem to. bot first and secand meal periods under: California law. Despite the fact

that California law yequires einiployers' (0 authorize orpermit an uninterrupted, duty-free first real

period of nat less than 30 minutes ptlor to. their ‘sixth houi of work when they worked: shifts more

‘| than five hoins in length and a second, duty-frée meal period of not les-than 30 minutes when they

worked shifts over 10 hours in lengia, Defendants routinely failed to authérize or permit first.meal

periods of not tess thari 30 minutes because Defendants would require Plaintiff and similarly

F SHIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
0[six and ten hoisig bi Jéngtli, 30 minute’ Ros shifts belween 10 nnd. 14 Holla

situated employees 10 don their scrubs. prior fo eonelusion of. their fitst meal pariods and failed to
authorize. or permit second meal petiods-aitogether when employees worked shifts of more'than 10
hours, :

34, In ‘addition; Defehdaits failed to. pay premium wages “to Plaintitf-dad sitnilarly
situated employées to ‘compensate. them for ach woikcay the eniployeés did not receive all legally
required duty-freé meal petiods: ‘Defeidants employed. policies and procedures which ensured
employees did not receive: any. premium wages to compensate them for the workdays in which they:
did not receive all legally fegjuired meal periods.

other similarly. situated. employées fot

35. This practice regulted in, Plaintiff and

Teceiving premiiidy wages io coniperisate them for workdays which Defendants did not provide them
with either fist of second duty free’ meal feriods, or both; in cornpliative with California law.
36. Failaré to. “pay _ hourly employces wages. fo compensate them for workdays

Defendants often etapléved” hourly

Defendants faied to provide: required rest’ perio

‘employees, ineluding, the. named Plaintiff and all others.similarly-situated, for shifts at least there

and one-half (3. 3) tours in n length.

37. California law eS an, employer to provide an etnployee a@ rest period of tent 10)

net minutes for every four hours rs worked, “ ‘Sylhich insofar: as. Braclicable stialt be in the middle of
each work period.” Cal, Leb, Cade $226.7; Wage Ordes §12, Ths, employees are entitled 1910

minutes resi for shifis from three and one-half’ to six hours in length, 20 minutes, for shifis between:

in length, and goon.” Sze:

Brinker, supra.

38. de the employer { fails. t0. provide-a-réquiréd rést period, thetemplayer must pay the
émployee one | ‘hour of p pay at the : sraployes” 5: regular fate! oF compensation: for each-wark day-the
employer did 0k provide all legally requived rest periods. fd.

39. Defendants: employed; ‘policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and. similarly
situated employées would ot receive all legally required rest. ‘periods, ‘Specifically, if the emplayees
worked shifts between 10 and 14 holirs. in length, Defendants did nol, authorize or perinit and:

therefore failed to:provide a third rest | riod often net minutes.

“ PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT] FOR: DAMAGES
it :| Termination/Resignation: : “An. einployer is « stequite

40. Defendants also employed policies and procedurés which ensured Plaintiff and
similarly situated: employees did not receive any premiviea wages to compensate them for workdays
that they did not teceive all legally tequited rest periods: .

41, These practices resulted i in Plaintiff arid’ all other similarly situated eniployees- not
receiving wages to Gomnpensite 1 tien: for workdays which Deféudants did not provide them with all
rest periods required by Califor ia law.

42. ‘Pay Stub Violations: Califia Labor Code séction: Bae provides, inter alia, that,

upon paying'an amployee| his or he ‘A as: the ‘einployer must “furniis

+». an itemized shitement i in

ting showing (1) gross Wages eamed, (2) total hours worked: by: the
employee, except for any employes whose comhpensation is solely based on a salary and who is
exempt from paymeiit of overtime: under: subdivision’ ®) of Section-515 or or any applicable order of
the Industrial Welfare. Commission,.(3) the number. of piece-rate: Ainits euméd and any applicable |
piece rate if the eriaploycé- is: paid-on a piece-iate ‘basis, (4) all deductions, provided, that ali
deductions madé'oh written orders of the employee may. be aggregated and shown as one item,.(5)
net wages cared, (6) the inclusive dates of the pay period for which the. employec'is paid, (7) the

name of the eiiployee and his or her social secirity number, (8).the fame and address of the legal

| entity that is the. eniiployer, ane (9) all: applicable hourly tates in effect-during the pay period and the
i corresponding umber of hdurs worked.at each hourly tate ‘by the employee. 2

43. Defendants Ovi ide. acura avageand hotir statements 10 Plaintiff. and

similarly situated’ empléyees who were : subject to Def 8? control for. uncompensated time: and

who did not receive, the wages they. eamed. (including minimum wages, overtime wages, as. well as
failure to pay premiuini wages far thissed: real and fest Betiods).
44, Failure to Pay California Emloyees Ail Wagés Due at Time of

‘pay Al! unpaid-iwages timely. after an}:
employee's employment ends. The wages are due iminidiately upon termination (California Laber
Code sectiori 201) or within 72, hours of. resignation (California Labor Cade section 202).

45. Becatise Defendants failed to pay Plaititiff and other similarly situated employees all

their eamed wages Cincluding 4

wages, overtime wages, and unpaid meal. and. test period

RLAINTH MENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. *

12premium waues), Defendants failed -to pay those employees timely after each employee's
termination and/or resignation.
Vv. CLASS. DEFINITIONS. AND. .CLASS ALLEGATIONS
46. Plaintiff brings this ‘action. on behalf at himself, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Publi, and as a thember of a Class defined as follows:
A. ‘Unpaid Work Minimum Wage Clase: All cuneiit and fornier non-exenipt
employees employed by Defendants iri California at any time within the four years prior ta the filing

of the initial complaint in this action and through, the: date notice i is mailed to a certified olass,, who

were under contro!’ ‘of Deferidints during time prior to ‘and after loi x work period, whose daily, hours

worked were rounded down: or shaved down to the. nearest quarter of ait hour and/or who. were

required to be:“on- nal” and i Defkindénls: aid. not pity ‘wages for that time at the legal minimum: wage

rate. ~ .

| BL i
employees employed by Deferidamts j it California at anyet time within the four years prior to the filing

of the initial complaint i in thig action and through the date notice is mailed to a certified class, who
were under contfol of Defendants. during time pridr to a-work period and on workdays they had |
already worked in exeeas of 8 hours ina day, 40 hours i in.a week, or were working on a seventh
consecutive day of work and Defendants did not pay wages for that t time.

cL. Meal Period ‘Class:, All current. and former howly employees. employed by
Defendants in California at any time within the four years prior to the fi ling of the initial complaint.

in this action and. through ie'date notice is éd toa certified class who worked: shifts of at least
six hours yét Deieiidants did ot provide iequired: duty free meal periods of not Jess than. 30}
niinutes, and/of- “who worked’ shifts { more than ten hoties yet Defendaiits did not provide required
duty-free meal periods. of not less' than 30 hinutes prior tothe start: of thei eleventh hour of work,

B. Rest Period Class: All current-and former. hourly employees employed by]
Defendants. iti California at. any time within the four years grior to the filing of the initial complaint |
in this action arid through the date notice is-mailed to # certified clés who worked at-least three and:

one-half (3.5) or mofe hours in day wi vired rest periods often, net minutes Yest

PLAIRTIEPS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT! FOR DAMAGES
3 :by Defendants iit California at any:
in this action, and through the

jor all unpaid. wages upon senarati

time for every four howts worked Betneea three and:ons-half-and six: hours; six and:ten, en. hous, or ten
and fourteen hours:

B. Wage’ Stateuient Class: An caireiat and former hontty eitiployess employed
ewithin the one year Prior tothe fi ling of the initiat complaint |

ative ds miailed. to a certified, class. who received. inagewnite or’

incomplete wage’ ‘and hour st teins
B. Waiting’ Tine:

Defendants in California at any

in this'action and throt

of employment within’ the stay time. pet

G ¢ liforn ia Class: All aforementioned dlasses are: igre calestivey referred to

as the “California Glass."

47. There. i is asyell defined -conitiunity of interest’in the litigation. arid: the classes, are

ascertainable: .°

limited to:

and 1197 by rot paying employee: ages at a a tints: wage Tate. for alt time that the Sinai

Work Minimum. Wage Class Meinbeis « vere subject t6 Defendants? contol bul were not paid;
ii. Whether Defendants violated Californis Labor. Code sections:510-and

1194 by not payitig: emplo ees”: Wangs: vat an, overtime swage rate "for all: overtime hours: that the
Unpaid Work Overtime: Wage Class’ Menibers ‘yere'subject to Defendants? centro] but were not
paid; : :

INT FOR DAMAGESii, Whether Defendants violated Califorhia Labor Codé Sections $12 and
226.7, as well as the applicable: Wage Order, by employing Meal Period Class: “Memibers Without
providing all their required nieal’ periods or ‘Paying meal period premium wages;
iv. Whether Defendants violated the Wage Order and Califortiia Labor
Cade section 226. 7 and ihe applicable Wage Older. by employing, Rest. Period Class “Members,
without providing all their required rest periods or paying rest Beriod preditum wages;
ye ~ AWhether Defendants failed: to ptovide: the Wage Statement ‘Glass

Membeis will accurate itehnized statement atthe tine they received their itemized statements;

‘vis “Whether Defendants foiled to provide: the ‘Waiting Time Class
Members with ail of theit eained wages pon separation of employment within the statutory time
period; .

Mii. ‘Whither Defendants committed: unlatfial business acts oF practice

within the meaning of Business aad Professions Code Section” 17200 er 94,5

viii. Whetler Class Membets-are entitled to nnpaid wages, penalties and
other relief pursuant to their claims;
| ix. Whether, asa ednsequence of Defendant's unlawful conduct, thé Class|
Menibers are entitled to restitution: and/or equitable telicf and

R ‘Whether Defendant's, affirmative defenses, if any, raise any common

issues of law or fact as'to Plaintiff and

stothe Glass Mémbers as a.whole.
c. Typica lainitiff’s claiins are typical of the claims of the class members
in each of the: classes, Plain tif and the members of the Ufpaid Work Minimum Wage Class
sustained damages arisirig out.of f Defendants’ failure to pay wages at least at minimum wage for all
time the employees Were subject'to Defendants’ éontral.- Plaintiff and the: members of the Unpaid |
Work Overtitie Wage ‘Class suistaitiéd dathages arising out of, Defendants’ failure ‘to pay wages at}

the overtime wage for all overtime hours the employees were Stibject to Defendants’ coiilrol.

Plaintiff and the members of the Meal Period Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’
failure to provide employees all legally required meal periods and- failure to. pay mea! period

premium wages as compensition, Plaintift And the members of the Rest Period Glass sustained |

PLAIWTH FPS: FURST ‘ADL ENDED COM: PAINT FOR DAMAGES
MSThe expenses aud putdens: of:

damages arising out of Defendants? falluze to provide cmployees all legally required rest pesiods and

|| tailute to pay: rest petiod premium wages as comperisation, Plaintiff and the: mmembers'of. the Waee

Statement Class susitined damages arisin out of: Defendants’ ‘failure to:

all unpaid yer: camied Wages due 1
“. a dey

interests of the tethers of. gach traless. Plaintiff has no terest: that i h edveise to the interests of the

other class mémbers:.
E Superiority! A class actionis superior to other available theans for the. fair] -
and efficient adjudication. of this ‘controversy. Because individual. jeinder of all members’ of each,

class is impractical, Glass ati: treatment will petit a large nuniber 6f: similarly situated f

prosecute their commin claims in a-single form sinultancously, fife iciently, and without the

utinecessary uiplication Of efor

pense ‘that: numerous. individual actions-Would éngéndei.

ividual: litigation: would -make it diffienlt or inipossible for

4 individual members ‘Of each ‘class: to tedéess. the wrongs dorie. fo then, while important public

interests will bé: served by. addressing the: neuter as a class‘ action. The. cost fo and burden: ‘on the

‘court system of! adjudication of if indvilingd ‘Atigation-avould be substantial, anid. snbauaaly

| Class actions provide the, “elas tmombers who até not, pamed 4 in the Satna witls a:

anonymity ther ullows for viadiemtion of their rights:
He
ii

F FS RST. “AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DANIAGES
# ief eChss) .
x corpora by reference page i. 47 above, aS if fully ‘Set.

Minimum, Wage Class tc torbe. engaged, suffered, or persed 16’ work without boing pie wa
all of the time: in whet they were subject to Defendants’ contol.

interest thereon, ie jidated: danas

fees and casts,
ffi
dbf
tit

PAINTS FIRST ANEADED ce iBLAINT FOR DAMAGES
: ae *te

SCOND. CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES, IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTIONS

198
(As Against All Defendaii sand DOK Defendanes by the Unpaid Work Overtime Class)

55. Pldintiff hereby incorporates by’ fefetence Paragraphs I-34 aove, as if filly: set
herein by refeférics: , =

56. Ab ines relevant to. this Cotnplaint, Plaintiff and the membérs.of the Unpaid Woik
Overtime Class were non-éxenipt Employees of Defendants covered by California Labor Code:
sections $10 and 1194 sid the Wage Orier a :

87. . Pursuant to-Cal Labor Code sectiduis 510 and:1194 and the Wage Order, non-

exempt einpliyees ate entitled te ze IVE a higher fale oF pay for all hours: worked ia excess: of 8
hours in a- workday. : :

58.

étion SiO, subdivision (a), states in televant part:

Eight hours of labor constitutes a day's work. Any work: ti ‘excess’ of eight
‘hoties in. oné workday and any work “in excess of 40, hours in any one
workweek and the firsteight hours worked on: the seventh day of work if any
one workweek shall be compensated at the, fate:of 1id' less than one and ane~
half times the regulay rate of pay for ar employer. Any Work inexcess of 12 ©
Hours ih one, day. shall be ‘compensated at the cate of no- less than twice the.
regular rate of pay for'un employee: In addition; any work, inextess of eight
houts ou any seventh day of a workweek shall’ be ‘comperisated:at the rate’of
‘no less than twice the tegillar tate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this
Section requires an, employer to Gombine moré than one sate. of overtime:
_ compensation in order t6 caleulate the amount-to be paid to-an employes for
any hour ofoveriime work. : : :

59.” Furthet, California Labor Code section 1198 provides,

: : i
‘The maximunt houts of work and ‘the standard conditions of labor fixed: by
the -commissioit shall be: the maximum hours of work and the standard
conditions of labar for employees. The employment of any employee for

| longer hours: than those fixed by the. order or under conditions of labor

prohibited by the order is unlawful.
60. Defendants? payroll. policies and procedures tequired employees of the Overtime

Class to work in eXcéss of, eight hours in a-workddy but Defendants did not ‘pay cinployees' wages

PLAINTIFF'S. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
: 18‘for this time.

61. In addition, Defendants” ‘policies, Prectices, and/or proceduies requirihg employees! ‘to.

don and doff tlieir sctibs off the-eto ind down of shave down employees’ daily hourg ‘noted,

and’ requirement: that employees’ remain “on-call” Subject to Defendants* control resulted. in

workdays in which: Class. Members. worked in Sxocas cof eight hours'i in. a workday but Detendants

did not pay employees" wages for this time. This vipa ime often 'oeeuved:t in work periods during

which the Cliss'Members ‘had aad workéd at least ght hours in a workday. To the extent the

t.forced the Class Members to work.
overtime hours during é a wit: Deféndants were required to pay einployees ‘waues-at-an ovértinin
vate of pay. .

42, As a tesult Of Defendants’ unlavéful conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Unpaid
Work Overtinne Class have-suffered damages i in an-amount subject to Proof, to the. extent that they
were not paid wages at an overtime vate of pay for all’ on-the-clock and offs the-clock hours worked
which constitute overtime. . .

63. Pursuant. to ‘California. Labor Code section 1194, Plaintil® andthe Unpaid Werk
Overtime Class members ate. ‘entitled to récover the i amount of their impaid overtime. wages,
prejudgment interest and-attoriieys? fees and costs,

64. Sursuant to California Labor’ Code section 1194, Plaintiff and the members of the
Regular Rate Class are entitled .to recover the full amount of their unpaid overtime wages,
prejudgment interest and ee fees and:cogts:

THIRD: CAUSE | OF ACT 10N
FAILURE. TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MEAL PERIODS IN-‘VIOLATION OF:
CALIFORNIA LABOK CODE SECTIONS 512. AND 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER
(As Agaitist all Defendants and DOK Defendants by tle Méal Period Class)

65. Plaintity hereby tocorporates by reference: paragraphs 1-64 above, as if filly sel}
herein by reference. :

66. At afl times: yelevant to this. Complaint, Pint and the members of tlie Meal-Periad

Class were hourly employees of Deleridants, covered by: California Labor Code sections 2 aud

PLAINTIFE'S, TIRST -ASTENDED COMPLAINT FoR DAMAGES,work prevents: ait employee from being: rélieved of all duty; and (2) the parties have a written

226.7 und the Wage Order.

67. California law. requires an employer. 16 provide: an employee. an uninterrupted meal
peried of no less than 30-niiniites in which thie employee i ig relieved of all: duties and the einployér
relinquishes control over the employee's aétivities no later than the employee's sixth hour of Work.
Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 5 12; Wage Order §11; Brinker Rest, Corp. v. Super Ct. Hohnbenan)
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. An employer may nat employ-ari employee for a work period of more than
10 hours per day without providing’ the employee with a second such meal period of not less than 30
minuies by no later than. the'start of the eleventh hour of work. fd Ifthe employee is not relieved
of all. duty during a meal Period, thé meal period shall be considered ¢ an “on duty®: medi periéd and.
counted as time: worked. A paid: “oy duty? meal period is oily permitted when: (1) the nature of the

agreement agreeing to-on duty: meal periods,

68. - Plaintiff and similarly ‘situated employees worked. in shifis long enough to entitle’
them to both first and second meal periods under California law. Defendants failed to authorize or
permit employees'a full 30- tninute ‘meal period for each fivé hour period of work as required by law,

With regard to first meal periods, Defendants failed to-authorize or permit a full 30 minute. first
meal period because Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to don their scrubs
prior to the end Gf their rheal périods.

69, ‘With regard to second teal periods, Plaiitiff-and similarly situated employees. also
would work on workdays i in shifts long enough to entitle them to second meal periods under
California law. Defendants eiployed a policy arid procedure that did not provide « atall for a second
30-minute meal period when the employees Worked shifts of more than ien hours

70. ‘Defendants-routingly failed 16 authorizé: or pemit first meal petiods of at least 30
Thinutes and failed to autliorizé or permit second meal periods altogether when employees worked
shifts of more than {0 hours,

71. Defendants also failed to provide premiums wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated

employees to compensate them’ for warkdays they did not receive their. legally required duty ftee

meal periods of not less thar 30 minutes. Defendants emplayed policies and procedures which

PLAINTIFE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
20ensured employees did not receive premium wages to compensate them for workdays that they did
not receive a first meal period -of, no-less than 30 minutes, or 4 second fill: meal Period, or both.
This practice resulted in Plaintiff and all other similarly situated eniployees not receiving premium
Wages to campensate them for workdays which Defendant failed to authorize or permitall required
teal periods, in. compliance with Califomia law.

72. Defendants’ policies and procedures preveiited Plaintiff and other Meal Period ‘Class
Members from tiniely receivirig and/or receiving all legally reqaired meal periods or Defendants
from providing such meal periods to Plaintiff and. other Meal Period’ Class. Membeis. during
workdays the employees worked more than six hours and/or more than ten-hours in one shift.

73. ‘Defendants’ unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred. in the course of employment
of Plaintiff and all others ‘similarly situated and such conduct'has continued through the filing of this
Complaint. , .

74, Because Defiitdatits tiled to provide pifier meal periods, they are liable to Plaintiff
and the Meal’ Period Class Meinbers for one hour of additional pay st the regular rate of.
compensation for each workday.that the proper meal period was not provided, pursuant to Califomia
Labor Code section 226.7 and the ‘Wage Order.

FB. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Meal Period Class, seeks damages and all
other relief allowable, inclisding:a.meal period premium, wage for each workday Defendants failed | -
to provide all requited 30-minute iminterrupted meal pexlods, plus pre-judgnient interest.

1¥, FOURTH CAUSE GF ACTION
FANLURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED REST PERIODS iN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
LABOR CODE SECTION 226.7 AND THE WAGE ORDER
(As. Against all Deferidants and DOE Defendants by the Rest Period Class)

76. Plaiouitr hereby: incorporates by teferenics. paragraphs 1-75 above, as if folly set
herein by reference.

77. Atalbtimes relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the Rest Period
Class were employees of Defendants, covered by Califomia Labor Code section 226.7 and the
Wage Order.

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
ce , 278. California law requires an employer to authorize or permit-an employee 1o-take a rest
period of ten (10)-net minutes for-eyery four hours worked, Cal. Lab. Code §226.7; Wage Oder
§12. Such rest periods must be in ihe middle of the fotir-hour period “insofar as practicable.” Jd. If
the employer fails to provide any tequired rest period, the employer Taust pay the employee one hour
of pay at the employce’s régular rate of compensation for each work day the employer did not
provide at least one legally required rest period, Id.

79, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class Members all required rest
periods and failed to pay premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly. situated employees to
compensate them for cach workday they did not receive.all legally required rest periods, Defendants
employed policies-and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would
not receive all legally requited rest periods. Specifically, Defendants failed to authorize or permit
third rest periods when the employees were-subject to Defendants’ control between 10 and 14-hours.

80. Defendants einploged policies and procedures which ensured Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees did not receive. any premium wages to compensate them, for workdays that they
did not receive all legally required rest periods.

81. This practice resulted in Defendants failing to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly

situated employées-premium wages to compensate them for workdays in which Defendants did not

| provide the employees with all required rest periods, in violation of California law.

82. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Rest Period Class, seeks damages
and all other reliéf allowable including: rést period premium ‘wages for each workday the employee
was not provided With all required rest periods of ten net itjinutes; and prejudgment interest.

33, Pursuant to California Labor Code séction:226.7 and the Wage Order, Plaintit¥ and
the Rest Period Class‘Members are entitled to one hour of pay for each workday Defendants failed
to'provide all required rest periods, pilus pre-judgment interest.

x. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION’

FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE WAGX STATEMENTS, IN
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 226

(As Against all ‘Defendants and DOE Defendarits by the Wage Statement Class)

PLAINTIFF! S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2284. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs [ through’ 83 of this.complaint as if fully alleged
herein.

85, At all. times relevant to thi$ Complaint, Plaintiff and the otlier niembers of the Wage
Statement Class were hourly employees of Defendants,:covered by California Labor Code section
226,

86. Pursiant to Califomia Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), Plaintiff aid the
other members af the class were entitled to.seceive, semimonthly or at the time.of each payiment of

‘Wages, in itemized wage statement accurately Stating the following:

{1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee,
except for any employee whose compensation is solely. based on a
salary and who is exempt from payment of overtinie under
subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial
‘Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and
any applicable piece rate if the employec:is paid on a piéce-tate basis,
(4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders
of the employee may. be aggregated arid shown as one item, (5) niet
wages eared, (6) the inclusive dates.of thie period for which the
employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social
security number, except that by January ‘1, 2008, only the Jast four
digits of -his’ or her social security number or an employee
identification number other than a social’ security number may be
shown on the itemized. statement, (8) the name and address of the
legal entity that is the etnployer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay. period and the corresponding number ‘of hours
‘worked at each hourly rate by the employee. .

87. Defeniiants failed to include the last-four digits of Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees’ social security number or an employee identification number other than their social
security number on their wage and hour statements as required by Labor Codé § 226(a)(7)

88. Moreover, Detendaiits’. illegal wage practices, ineiudiig but not limited to
Defendants’ failure-to pay at least. minimum wage for all time worked, overtime wages. of all
overtime hows worked, and