1 2 Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, etseq. - Unlawful Business Practices 3 4 (Against all Defendants) Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each  and every allegation set forth above. Defendants are “persons” as defined by California Business & Professions \ Code sections 17201, as they are corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies,  and/or associations.  10 I i 11 CaseNo.l9C I V017ai DUSTY LANDRUM, individually, and on  behalf of other members of the general  public siihilarly situated. Plaintiff 12 IiI 11 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198—Unpaid Overtime (Against all Defendants) Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each  and every allegation set forth above. Labor Code section 1198 makes it illegal to employ an employee under  conditions of labor that are prohibited by the applicable wage order. California Labor Code  section 1198 requires that . . the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall  be the .. . standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee ...  under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful.” California Labor Code section 1198 and the applicable IWC Wage Order  provide that it is unlawful to employ persons without compensating them at a rate of pay  either time-and-one-half or two-times that person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the  number of hours worked by the person on a daily or weekly basis. Specifically, the applicable IWC Wage Order provides that Defendants are and  were required to pay Plaintiff and class members working more than eight (8) hours in a day  or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time and one-half (Wi) for all  hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours in a 12 13 14  12 Violation of California Labor Code § 2802 - Unpaid Business-Related Expenses (Against all Defendants) Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each  and every allegation set forth above. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 2802 provides that  an employer must reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures and losses incurred by  the employee in the performance of his or her job. The purpose of Labor Code section 2802 is  to prevent employers from passing off their cost of doing business and operating expenses on  to their employees. Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., 228 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1144  (2014). The applicable wage order, IWC Wage Order 9-2001, provides that: “[w]hen tools or  equipment are required by the employer or are necessary to the performance of a job, such  tools and equipment shall be provided and maintained by the employer, except that an  employee whose wages are at least two (2) times the minimum wage provided herein may be  required to provide and maintain hand tools and equipment customarily required by the trade  or craft.” 13 14 15  12 Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of each and  all other persons similarly situated, and thus seeks class certification under California Code of  Civil Procedure section 382.  12. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Handbook. 13 14 On information and belief, all transactions regarding hiring, terminations,  promotions, pay increases, and employee transfers, etc., relating to Defendants’ non-exempt,  hourly-paid California employees were submitted to and processed by Defendants’ HR  department in in either Long Beach, California or Long Island City, New York. Additionally,  on information and belief, Defendants’ corporate records, business records, data, and other  information related to Defendants, including, in particular, HR records pertaining to  Defendants’ non-exempt, hourly-paid California employees, are also maintained at  Defendants’ corporate headquarters in either Long Beach, California or Long Island City,  New York.  13. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain a centralized Payroll  department in in either Long Beach, California or Long Island City, New York, which  processes payroll for all non-exempt, hourly-paid employees working for Defendants at their  various locations in California, including Plaintiff and class members. Based upon  information and belief. Defendants issued the same formatted wage statements to all non­ exempt, hourly-paid employees in California, irrespective of their work location. Upon 23  15. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly-paid employees in 4 California. 5 6 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein  mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees  and advisors knowledgeable about California labor and wage law, employment and personnel  practices, and about the requirements of California law. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff and class  members were not paid for all hours worked because all hours worked were not recorded. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive certain wages for  overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for overtime  16. 7 8 9 10  17. n 12  18. 13 14 15 compensation. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to be paid at a regular rate  of pay, and corresponding overtime and double time rates of pay, that included as eligible  income all income derived from shift differential pay, incentive pay, non-discretionary  bonuses, and/or other forms of compensation. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive at least minimum 16  19. 17 18 19 20  20. 21 22 wages for compensation and that they were not receiving at least minimum wages for work  that was required to be done off-the-clock. In violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff  and class members were not paid at least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to meal periods in  accordance with the Labor Code or payment of one (1) additional hour of pay at their regular 23 24 25 26  22. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to timely payment of wages  during their employment. In violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and class  members did not receive payment of all wages, including, but not limited to, overtime wages,  minimum wages, and meal and rest period premiums, within permissible time periods. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to timely payment of all  wages earned upon termination of employment. In violation of the California Labor Code,  Plaintiff and class members did not receive payment of all wages due, including, but not  limited to, overtime wages, minimum wages, and meal and rest period premiums, within  permissible time periods. 14  23. 15 16 17 18  24. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or  should have known that they had a duty to cover the costs and expenses Plaintiff and class  members incurred undergoing mandatory physical examinations and/or drug testing, but  willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so. 25  25 Defendants are the sixth largest airline carrier in the United States, with an  average of 1,100 daily flights serving approximately 101 destinations in the United States, the  Caribbean, and Latin America. Defendants service approximately ten (10) airports in 26  26. 1 should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive reimbursement 2 for alt business-related expenses and costs they incurred during the course and scope of their  employment, and that they did not receive reimbursement of applicable business-related  expenses and costs they incurred. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein  mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate  Plaintiff and class members for all hours worked, and that Defendants had the financial ability  to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so, and  falsely represented to Plaintiff and class members that they were properly denied wages, all in  order to increase Defendants’ profits. 3 4 5 6  27. 7 8 9 10 11 28. 13 14 15  29.  All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiff seeks  relief authorized by California law.  30.  Plaintiffs proposed class consists of and is defined as follows: 16 17 18 19 All persons who worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly-  paid employees in California, within four years prior to the filing  of this complaint until the date of trial (“Class”). Members of the Class are referred to herein as “class members.” 20  31. 21 Plaintiff reserves the right to redefine the Class and to add subclasses as  appropriate based on further investigation, discovery, and specific theories of liability. There are common questions of law and fact as to class members that  predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including, but not limited to: There are common questions of law and fact as to class members that  predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including, but not limited to: Whether Defendants required Plaintiff and class members to work over  32. 22 23  33. 24 25 26  36. 15 16  37. 17 18 19 20  38. 21 22 23 24  40. 3 4 5 6 7  400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063  www.sanmateocourt.org «fil 41. 8 9 10 11 12  42. 13 14 15 16 17 18  43. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  45. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  46. 10 11 12 13 Because Plaintiff and class members worked shifts of eight (8) hours a day or  more or forty (40) hours a week or more, some of this off-the-clock work qualified for  overtime premium pay. Therefore, Plaintiff and class members were not paid overtime wages  for all of the overtime hours they actually worked. Furthermore, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and class members the correct  overtime and double time rates for the recorded overtime hours that they generated. In  addition to an hourly wage, Defendants paid Plaintiff and class members shift differential pay,  incentive pay, and/or non-discretionary bonuses. However, in violation of the California  Labor Code, Defendants failed to incorporate all remunerations, including shift differential  pay, incentive pay, and/or non-discretionary bonuses, into the calculation of the regular rate of  pay for purposes of calculating the overtime and double time wage rates. Therefore, during  times when Plaintiff and class members worked overtime and received shift differential pay,  incentive pay, and/or non-discretionary bonuses. Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages  by paying lower overtime and double time rates than required. Specifically, Plaintiff and class members received shift differential pay that 14  47. 15 16 17 18  48. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  50. 11 12 13 1194, Plaintiff and class members are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation,  as well as interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. 14 15 16 51.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each  and every allegation set forth above.  53. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  54. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  55. 24 25 26 sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198. 27 Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff and class members minimum wages violates  57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each  and every allegation set forth above.  58.  At all relevant times herein set forth, the applicable IWC Wage Order(s) and  California Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), and 1198 were applicable to Plaintiff and class  members’ employment by Defendants.  59.  At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 512(a)  provides that an employer may not require, cause, or permit an employee to work for a period  of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not  less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is  not more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the  employer and the employee. Under California law, first meal periods must start after no more 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 than five hours. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1041-1042 (Cal.  2012). 18 19 20 At all relevant times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 226.7 and  512(a) provide that no employer shall require an employee to work during any meal period  mandated by an applicable order of the IWC. At all relevant times herein set forth. Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a) and  the applicable IWC Wage Order also require employers to provide a second meal break of not  less than thirty (30) minutes if an employee works over ten (10) hours per day or to pay an  employee one (1) additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate, except that if the total  hours worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived by  mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived.  60. 21 22  62. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  63. 13 14 15 16 17 At all times herein mentioned. Defendants knew or should have known that as a 18  64. result of these policies, Plaintiff and class members were prevented from being relieved of all  duties and were required to perform some of their assigned duties during meal periods.  Defendants further knew or should have known they did not pay Plaintiff and class members  meal period premium wages when meal periods were missed, interrupted by work, and/or  taken late. Plaintiff and class members did not sign valid meal break waivers on days that  they were entitled to meal periods and were not relieved of all duties. Moreover, Defendants engaged in a systematic, company-wide practice and/or  policy of not paying meal period premiums owed when compliant meal periods were not  provided. As a result, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and class members compliant  meal periods and failed to pay the full meal period premiums due. Alternatively, to the extent 19 20 21 22 23 24  66. 8 9 10 77. 17 18  78. 19 20 21 22 23 24 For example, Plaintiff was terminated by Defendants on or around November  17, 2017. However, Defendants did not provide him with his final paycheck until November  25, 2017, nearly one week later. Thus, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his final wages  immediately upon termination in violation of Labor Code section 201.  80. 2 3 4 5 6  81. 7 8 9 statutory penalty wages for each day they were not paid, at their regular rate of pay, up to a  thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code section 203. 10 ll 82. 16 17  83. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  85. 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendants engaged in a systematic, company-wide policy to not reimburse  Plaintiff and class members for necessary business expenses. Defendants could have provided  Plaintiff and class members with the actual tools for use on the job, including company  phones, company vehicles, or reimbursed employees for their cellular phone expenses,  mileage, and travel expenses, but instead. Defendants passed these operating costs off onto  Plaintiff and class members.  86. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Defendants’ company-wide policy and/or practice of passing its operating costs 20  87. on to Plaintiff and class members is in violation of California Labor Code section 2802. 21 Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse Plaintiff and class  members for necessary business-related expenses and costs. 22 23 Plaintiff and class members are therefore entitled to recover from Defendants  89. 5 6 7  90. 8 9 Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair,  unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff, class members, and to the general public. Plaintiff has  suffered injury in fact and has lost money as a result of Defendants’ unlawful business  practices. Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the  meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Defendants’ activities, as alleged herein, are violations of California law, and  constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business &  Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. A violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.  may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In the instant case. Defendants’  policies and practices have violated state law in at least the following respects: Requiring non-exempt, hourly-paid employees, including Plaintiff and  class members, to work overtime without paying them proper  compensation in violation of California Labor Code sections 510 and  1198 and the applicable IWC Order and paying Plaintiff and class  members overtime at a lower rate than required by law by failing to  properly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime, as  alleged herein; Failing to pay at least minimum wage to Plaintiff and class members in 10  91. 11 12 13 14 15  92. 16 17 18  94. 18 19 20 21 22  95. 23 24 25 26 27 At all times relevant herein, Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages  97. 7 8 9 At all times relevant herein, California Labor Code section 222.5 requires  employers to pay for the costs an employee incurs for obtaining any required medical or  physical examination. 10  98. 11 12 At all times relevant herein, Defendants implemented, on a company-wide  basis, an employer-imposed requirement that Plaintiff and class members undergo mandatory  drug tests and/or physical examinations, but required them to do so at their own expense. As  stated. Defendants had a company-wide policy requiring that all employees, including  Plaintiff and class members, travel to a specified medical clinic on their own time and use  their own means of transportation to undergo drug testing. At all times, upon information and  belief. Defendants were in control of scheduling the date and time for the drug testing and/or  physical examinations, selecting the provider/facility where the drug testing and/or physical  examinations were to take place, and determining the scope of the drug test and/or physical  MAR 2 6Z013  Cleili ol fhe Supijnor Coiat ■ I I MAR 2 6 2019 demof th© SuptiJiw f 4 i- 5 i 6 1 i 7 5: 8 I 9 MAR 26 2019  of fho UMA RNAU Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1182.12,1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198—Unpaid 17 Minimum Wages  (Against All Defendants)  Violations of California Labor Code, §§ 226.7, S12(a), and 1198—Meal Period Violations (Against all Defendants)  Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 — Wages Not Timely Paid Upon 13 14 Termination 15 (Against all Defendants) Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein each  and every allegation set forth above. At all times relevant herein set forth. Labor Code sections 201 and 202 provide  that if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of  discharge are due and payable immediately, and that if an employee voluntarily leaves his or  her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two  (72) hours thereafter, unless the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of  his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the  time of quitting. • 16 