12  MEAL-PE?IOD LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE S 226.7  13  (Against All Defendants)  14   12  13  14  IS  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  JENNIFER CAMPOS, an individual, on  behalf of herself and others similarly situated,  Plaintiff,  vs.  14  FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES  '5  (Against All Defendants)  16   15  REST-BREAK LIABILITY UNDER LABOR CODE § 226.7  16  (Against All Defendants)  17   16   18  VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 221  19  (Against All Defendants)  20   18  VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226(a)  19  (Against All Defendants)  20   28.  Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself an all others similarly situated  10  pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class (or "the Class" or  "Class members") defined as follows: "All individuals employed by Defendants at any time  12  during the period of four (4)years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as  13  determined by the Court ("the Class Period"), and who have been employed by Defendants as  14  non-exempt, hourly associate employees within the State of California."  15  Further, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Subclasses composed of and defined as  16 follows:  17  a.  Subclass 1. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class members who were not  IS  compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage.  19  b.  Subclass 2. Waaes and Overtime Subclass. All Class members who were not  20  compensated for all hours s('orked for Defendants at the required rates of pay, including for all  21  hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a week.  22  C.  Subclass 3. Meal Period Subclass. All Class members who were subject to  23  Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute uninterrupted and duty-  24  free meal periods or one hour of pay at the Employee's regular rate of pay in lieu thereof.  25  d.  Subclass 4. Rest Break Subclass. All Class members who were subject to  26  Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to authorize and pennit Employees to take  27  uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction  28  thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the Employee's regular rate of pay in lieu thereof.  -12-  43.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  17  full herein.  18   44.  Defendants failed to pay Employees minimum wages for all hours worked.  19  Defendants had a consistent policy of misstating Employees time records and failing to pay  20  Employees for all hours worked. Employees would work hours and not receive wages, including  21  as alleged above in connection with off the clock work and regarding rounding of timekeeping  22  entries and revisions made to timekeeping records to reflect less time worked than was actually  23  worked. Defendants, and each of them, have also intentionally and improperly rounded,  24  changed, adjusted and/or nbdified Employee hours, and imposed difficult to attain job and shift  25  scheduling requirements on Plaintiff and the Class members, which resulted in off the clock work  26  and underpayment of all wages owed to employees over a period of time, while benefiting  27  Defendants. During the relevant time period, Defendants thus regularly failed to pay minimum  28  wages to Plaintiff and the Class members, including by unlawful rounding to their detriment.  17-  56.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  14  full herein.  IS   57.  California Labor Code § 1194 provides that "any employee receiving less than the  16  legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to  17  recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime  18  compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit." The action  19  may be maintained directly against the employer in an employee's name without first filing a  20  claim with the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement.  21   58.  By their conduct, as set forth herein, Defendants violated California Labor Code §  22  510 (and the relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission) by failing to pay Employees:  23  (a) time and one-half their regular hourly rates for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a  24  workday or in excess of forty (40) hours in any workweek or for the first eight (8) hours worked  25  on the seventh day of work in any one workweek; or (b) twice their regular rate of pay for hours  26  worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any one (I) day or for hours worked in excess of eight  27  (8) hours on any seventh day of work in a workweek. Defendants had a consistent policy of not  28  paying Employees wages for all hours worked, including by requiring off the clock work and by  6  VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 203  7  (Against All Defendants)  8  100. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  9 ;  I full herein.  10  101. Numerous Employees are no lonàer  employed by Defendants; they either quit  II Defendants' employ or were fired therefrom.  12  102. Defendants failed to pay these Employees all wages due and certain at the time of  13  termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation.  14  103. The wages withheld from these Employees by Defendants remained due and owWng  15  for more than thirty (30) days from the date of separation of employment.  16  104. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members without abatement, all  17  wages as defined by applicable California law. Among other things, these Employees were not  18  paid all regular and overtime wages, including by failing to pay for all hours worked or requiring  19  off the clock work or by unlawful rounding of time entries to the detriment of Employees, and by  20  failing to correctly calculate the regular rate used to calculate and pay overtime compensation, and  21  failed to pay premium wages owed for unprovided meal periods and rest periods, as further  22  detailed in this Complaint. Defendants' failure to pay said wages within the required time was  23  willful within the meaning of Labor Code § 203.  24  105. Defendants' failure to pay wages, as alleged above, was willful in that Defendants  25  knew wages to be due but failed to pay them; this violation entitles these Employees to penalties  26  under Labor Code § 203, which provides that an employee's wages shall continue until paid for up  27  to thirty (30) days from the date they were due.  28  f/I  65.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth  in full herein.  6   66.  At all relevant times hereto, Defendants have been an "enterprise engaged in  7  commerce or in the production of goods for commerce," as defined under 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1).   67.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have  required the Plaintiff and FLSA collective Employees as part of their employment to work off the  10  clock and for less than minimum wage under 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). That Section provides the  following:  12  Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in  13  commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise  engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following  rates:  14  (I) except as othenvise provided in this section, not less than—  (A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007;  C!  15  (B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 monthsafter that 60th day; and  16  (C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day;...  17   68.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that certain or all of the  IX  Employees were not exempt employees under the FLSA's overtime provisions and that  19  Defendants also required Plaintiff and require the FLSA collective. Employees to work without  20  overtime in excess of the forty (40) hours per week maximum under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). That  21  Section provides the following:  22  Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his  employees ... for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives  23  compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate which is  not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.  24   69.  In the performance of their duties for Defendants, Employees as members of the  25  FLSA collective often did work off the clock and over forty (40) hours per week, received non-  26  hourly payments that were not incorporated by Defendants into the regular rate used to calculate  27  and pay overtime compensation. and did not receive minimum wages and other required  28  76.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  IS  full herein.  16   77.  Employees regularly worked shifts greater than five (5) hours and in some  17  instances, greater than ten (10) hours. Pursuant to Labor Code § 512 an employer may not employ  18  someone for a shift of more than five (5) hours without providing him or her with a meal period of  19  not less than thirty (30) minutes or for a shift of more than ten (10) hours without providing him or  20  her with a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.  21   78.  Defendants failed to provide Employees with meal periods as required under the  22  Labor Code. Employees were often required to work through their meal periods or provided with  23  them after working beyond the fifth hour of their shifts. Furthermore, upon information and  24  belief, on the occasions when Employees worked more than 10 hours in a given shift, they did so  25  without receiving a second uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal period as required by law.  26   79.  Defendants thus failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with meal  27  periods as required by the Labor Code, including by not providing them with the opportunity to  28  take meal breaks, by providing them late or for less than thirty (30) minutes, or by requiring them  - 25 -  8.  The Employees who comprise the Class and collective, including Plaintiff, are  17  nonexempt employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the IWC and applicable federal  IS  regulations. Defendants hire associate Employees who work in non-exempt positions at the  19  direction of Defendants in the State of California and throughout the United States. Plaintiff and  20  the Class members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours worked or were not paid at the  21  appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants failed to  22  pay Plaintiff and the Class members all wages due and owing, including by unlawful rounding to  23  their detriment or under-recording of hours worked, made unlawful deductions from their pay,  24  failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements, all in  25  violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders, and the  26  FLSA where applicable.  27   82.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  18 full herein.  19   83.  Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders  20  provide that employers must authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods at the rate of  21  ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) work hours.  22   84.  Employees consistently worked consecutive four (4) hour shifts and were generally  23  scheduled for shifts of greater than 3.5 hours total, thus requiring Defendants to authorize and  24  permit them to take rest periods. Pursuant to the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order,  25  Employees were entitled to"paid rest breaks of not less than ten (10) minutes for each consecutive  26  four (4) hour shift, and Defendants failed to provide Employees with timely rest breaks of not less  27  than ten (10) minutes for eaáh consecutive four (4) hour shift.  28   85.  Labor Code §§ 226.7 and paragraph 12 of the applicable IWC Wage Orders  89.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  21  full herein.  22   9.  During the course of Plaintiff and the Class members' employment with  28 Defendants, they were norpaid all wages they were owed, including for all work performed  90.  California Labor Code § 226(a) requires an employer to furnish each of his or her  23  employees with an accurate, itemized statement in writing showing the gross and net earnings,  24  total hours worked, and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate; these  25  statements must be appended to the detachable part of the check, draft, voucher, or whatever else  26  serves to pay the employee's wages; or, if wages are paid by cash or personal check, these  27  statements may be given to.the employee separately from the payment of wages; in either case the  28  employer must give the employee these statements twice a month or each time wages are paid.  96.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  21  full herein.  22   97.  Labor Code § 221 provides, "lt.shall be unlawful for any employer to collect or  23  receive from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee."  24  Additionally, pursuant to California Labor Code § 204, other applicable laws and regulations, and  25  public policy, an employermust timely pay its employees for all hours worked. Defendants failed  26  to do so.  27   98.  Defendants unlawfully received and/or collected wages from the Employees in the  28  Class by implementing a policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes worth of vested wages,  - 29 -  FAILURE TO PAY WAGES AND OVERTIME UNDER LABOR CODE § 510  12  (Against All Defendants)  13   FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE FLSA  (Against All Defendants)  4   VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.  (Against All Defendants)  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though set forth in  full herein.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, Employees, and the general public, brings this claim  pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17200 ci seq. The conduct of Defendants as alleged in  this Complaint has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Employees and the  general public. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the  meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.  Plaintiff is a "person" within the meaning of Business & Professions Code  12  § 17204, has suffered injury, and therefore has standing to bring this cause of action for injunctive  13  relief, restitution, and other appropriate equitable relief.  14  109. Business & Professions Code § 17200 ci seq. prohibits unlawful and unfair  15  business practices. By the conduct alleged herein, Defendants' practices were deceptive and  16  fraudulent in that Defendants' policy and practice failed to provide the required amount of  17  compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, and failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff and  IS  Class members for all houri worked, due to systematic business practices as alleged herein that  19  cannot be justified, pursuaht to the applicable California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare  20  Commission requirements in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, ci  21  seq., and for which this Court should issue injunctive and equitable relief, pursuant to California  22  Business & Professions Code § 17203, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.  23  110. Wage-and-hour laws express fundamental public policies. Paying employees their  24  wages and overtime, providing them with meal periods and rest breaks, etc., are fundamental  25  public policies of California. Labor Code § 90.5(a) articulates the public policies of this State  26  vigorously to enforce minimum labor standards, to ensure that employees are not required or  27  permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law-abiding  28  employers and their employees from competitors who lower costs to themselves by failing to  -31- 