SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF STANISLAUS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 1 1 Steven D. Waisbren, Esq., SB # 1 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN D. WAISBREN 0 Canoga Avenue, Suite 00 Woodland Hills, California 1 Tel. ( - Scott A. Miller, Esq., SB # 0 Bonnie Fong, Esq., SB # LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER A Professional Law Corporation 0 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 0 Sherman Oaks, California 0 Tel. ( -01 Kelly Ann Buschman, Esq. SB # LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT A. MILLER A Professional Corporation 0 Autumn Hills Drive Reno, Nevada Tel. ( 0- SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF STANISLAUS John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro, and Mike Helfgott on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. Super Store Industries, a California General Partnership, and DOES 1-0, Defendants. Case No.: 0 CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1 Failure to provide off-duty meal periods under Labor Code., 1 and and IWC Wage Order -01; Failure to provide second meal period when or more hours worked in a day under Labor Code., 1 and and IWC Wage Order -01; Failure to pay overtime wages: Donning and Doffing under Labor Code,,, and IWC Wage Order -01; Failure to pay overtime wages: No overtime pay over hours worked in a day under Labor Code,,, and IWC Wage Order - 01 and failure to institute a lawful alternative workweek schedule; Waiting Penalties Under Labor Code ; Failure to Provide an Accurate, Itemized Wage Statement Under Labor Code (a; Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint 1

2 Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked Under Labor Code,.,, and.1; Business & Professions Code 0 et seq.; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code 1 1 Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

3 1 1 Comes now Plaintiffs John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro, and Mike Helfgott ( Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated and the general public and allege: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein pursuant to California Labor Code, (a,.,, 1,,,.,,.1,, California Business & Professions Code 0, and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order Venue is proper in this Court because the events giving rise to this action took place within this judicial district. PARTIES AND BACKGROUND. Plaintiff John Hance is a resident of Ceres, California and at all times relevant herein was employed by Defendant and operated Defendant s machines for production and/or distribution of Defendant s products and/or labeled Defendant s products for their production and/or distribution.. Plaintiff Joseph Ribeiro is a resident of Turlock, California and at all times relevant herein was employed by Defendant and labeled Defendant s products for their production and/ or distribution.. Plaintiff Mike Helfgott is a resident of Vacaville, California and at all times relevant herein was employed by Defendant as a stationary engineer, also known as a maintenance engineer and repaired equipment and repaired and maintained the Defendant s premises. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

4 1 1. Defendant Super Store Industries (hereinafter Defendant is a California General Partnership, doing business within the State of California. Defendant operates plants within the state of California that process and distribute dairy products.. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of Defendant DOES 1 through 0, inclusive, and therefore, sue them by those fictitious names. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO CLASS ACTION CLAIMS FOR: (Failure to provide off-duty meal periods under Labor Code., 1, and IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01; Failure to provide second meal period when or more hours worked in a day under Labor Code., 1, and IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01; Failure to pay overtime wages: Donning and Doffing under Labor Code,, ; Failure to pay overtime wages: No overtime pay over hours worked in a day without lawfully instituted alternative workweek schedule under Labor Code,,, and IWC Wage Order -01 and/or - 01; Waiting Penalties Under Labor Code ; and Failure to Provide an Accurate, Itemized Wage Statement Under Labor Code (a and Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked Under Labor Code,,.1 and. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, are or were employed by Defendant working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or perform repair and maintenance duties for Defendant in the State of California within the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint ( Class Period.. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are or were required to wear special clothing and/or gear for protection, employee identification and/or sanitation. These facts in this Paragraph apply to members of subclasses I, III, and VII defined herein.. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of the subclass I performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or performed repair and/or maintenance duties to maintain Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period. Plaintiffs and members of subclass I wore uniforms that were not allowed off the Defendant s premises. Plaintiffs and members of subclass I also have been Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

5 1 1 denied genuine and lawful off-duty meal periods of at least 0 minutes on shifts where meal periods were required by law. This occurs because the employees are not permitted to leave the premises unless they take off their uniforms and special equipment, and are required to put them back on before beginning work. The amount of time allotted for a meal period is far too short to allow the employees to don and doff their uniforms and special equipment, and also have a meal period of at least 0 minutes during which they are free from interruption and free to attend to their personal pursuits. The time needed to don and doff the special equipment and uniforms is work time and cannot under applicable law be counted as part of the 0 minute uninterrupted meal period. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of subclass I lunches were occasionally interrupted by management and co-workers asking work questions and requests for information.. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of subclass II performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or performed repair and/or maintenance duties of Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of subclass II worked more than hours within a workday without being allowed to take a second meal period in violation of California Labor Code. and IWC Wage Order -01 and frequently worked more than 1 hours within a workday without being allowed to take a second meal period. Plaintiffs and members of subclass II did not sign a waiver of any of their meal periods. 1. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of subclass III performed off-the-clock work, specifically donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment, walking to and from the entrance of the Defendant s facility to the locker rooms, unlocking the padlocks on their lockers, changing out of their regular clothes into the required Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

6 1 1 uniform and personal protective gear, storing their regular clothes in their lockers, locking their lockers, sometimes walking from the locker rooms to other locations where uniforms were kept if no uniforms were available in the locker rooms, walking from the locker rooms to the sanitization stations, waiting in line at the sanitization stations, performing sanitization duties and walking from the sanitization stations to the time clocks, all prior to clocking in. Additionally, during the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of subclass III performed off the clock work, specifically walking from the time clocks after clocking out to the locker room, removing special uniforms and equipment, changing into their regular clothes, placing special uniforms in laundry bins, and storing the special equipment in their lockers and locking their lockers, all after clocking out. Such time spent by these employees donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment and performing sanitization and storage duties occurred before and after the employee s regular full work day either in excess of eight ( hours per day for those employees working a day week and ten ( hours per day for those employees working a day week. Such time spent by Plaintiffs and members of subclass III was not compensated at one and one half times these employees regular rate of pay by Defendant in violation of California Labor Code,,. Additionally, the Plaintiffs and members of subclass III were subject to Defendant s policy of rounding up their clock-in time from their actual start time to their scheduled start time on a regular and repeated basis when the employee s clocked in prior to their scheduled start time. Although Defendant claimed that this was a result of a policy in which the Defendant would round up and down five minutes prior to and five minutes after the employees start time, the time records will reflect that Defendant actually rounded up the clock in time of the employees who clocked in early but did not round down when the employees clocked in late, on a regular Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

7 1 1 basis. This rounding resulted in the employees not being paid for all time worked and because the employees regularly worked overtime as set forth herein, this policy resulted in Plaintiffs and members of subclass III not being compensated at one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in violation of California Labor Code,,. 1. Plaintiffs and members of subclass IV performed duties working to produce and/ or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or performed repair and/or maintenance duties on Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of subclass IV worked ten or more hours within a work day without overtime pay for all hours worked over eight ( within in a workday. Although Defendant attempted to institute an alternative workweek schedule, it did not do so properly and the alternative workweek schedule is invalid because Defendant failed to comply with several of the requirements for instituting a proper alternative work week set forth in both IWC Wage Order -01((C(1, (, ( and ( and -01((C(1, (, ( and (, which both provide as follows: (C Election Procedures Election procedures for the adoption and repeal of alternative workweek schedules require the following: (1 Each proposal for an alternative workweek schedule shall be in the form of a written agreement proposed by the employer. The proposed agreement must designate a regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are regularly recurring. The actual days worked within that alternative workweek schedule need not be specified. The employer may propose a single work schedule that would become the standard schedule for workers in the work unit, or a menu of work schedule options, from which each employee in the unit would be entitled to choose. If the employer proposes a menu of work schedule options, the employee may, with the approval of the employer, move from one menu option to another. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

8 1 1 ( In order to be valid, the proposed alternative workweek schedule must be adopted in a secret ballot election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (/ vote of the affected employees in the work unit. The election shall be held during regular working hours at the employees work site. For purposes of this subsection, affected employees in the work unit may include all employees in a readily identifiable work unit, such as a division, a department, a job classification, a shift, a separate physical location, or a recognized subdivision of any such work unit. A work unit may consist of an individual employee as long as the criteria for an identifiable work unit in this subsection are met. ( Prior to the secret ballot vote, any employer who proposed to institute an alternative workweek schedule shall have made a disclosure in writing to the affected employees, including the effects of the proposed arrangement on the employees wages, hours, and benefits. Such a disclosure shall include meeting(s, duly noticed, held at least days prior to voting, for the specific purpose of discussing the effects of the alternative workweek schedule. An employer shall provide that disclosure in a non- English language, as well as in English, if at least five ( percent of the affected employees primarily speak that non-english language. The employer shall mail the written disclosure to employees who do not attend the meeting. Failure to comply with this paragraph shall make the election null and void. ( Only secret ballots may be cast by affected employees in the work unit at any election held pursuant to this section. The results of any election conducted pursuant to this section shall be reported by the employer to the Division of Labor Statistics and Research within 0 days after the results are final, and the report of election results shall be a public document. The report shall include the final tally of the vote, the size of the unit, and the nature of the business of the employer. In this case, Defendant failed to comply with the following election procedure set forth above: 1 it failed to hold a meeting days prior to the voting for the purpose of discussing the effects of the alternative work week; the ballots of the employees contained the printed name and signature of the voting employees and were handed directly to the employee from the supervisor who watched the employee make his selection and print and sign it and were directly handed back to the supervisor, all of which is a violation of the secret ballot requirement; and Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

9 1 1 the results of the election were not reported to the Division of Labor Statistics and Research, which has no record of results for this employer. Additionally, some of the employees never even elected to work four ten hour days, but instead were just told that was their schedule. Any one of these failures to comply by itself is sufficient to nullify the election. As there was no lawfully instituted alternative workweek in place, the Defendant is required to pay overtime for all hours worked over eight within a work day.. Plaintiffs and members of subclass V are employees of Defendant whose employment terminated and to whom Defendant failed to pay all wages owed at the time of termination of their employment in violation of California Labor Code. Specifically Plaintiffs and Members of subclasses I, II, III, IV and VII who were owed wages for 1 Defendant s failure to provide off duty meal periods, owed wages for Defendant s failure to provide a second meal period when more than ten ( hours were worked in a workday, Defendant s failure to pay overtime wages for time spent before and after eight hours within a workday donning and doffing uniforms, special equipment, walking to locker rooms, sanitization stations, performing sanitization duties, putting uniforms in laundry bins, storing uniforms and special equipment and other duties these individuals were required to perform before clocking in and after clocking out; Defendant s failure to pay overtime pay for hours worked over eight ( within a workday because Defendant failed to institute a lawful alternative work week; and Defendant s failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked to employees in subclass VII who were required before and after eight hours within a workday to don and doff uniforms, special equipment, walk to locker rooms, sanitization stations, perform sanitization duties, put uniforms in laundry bins, store uniforms and special equipment and other duties these individuals were required to perform before clocking in and after clocking out for which they Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

10 1 1 received no compensation whatsoever for these tasks.. Plaintiffs and members of subclass VI performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or repair and/or maintain Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of subclass VI were not provided accurate itemized wage statements that showed the total amount of hours worked and all pay earned within the pay periods in violation of California Labor Code (a. Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of subclass I were owed an extra hour of pay for occurrences where Defendant failed to provide an off-duty meal period. Such extra hour of pay was not paid and not included on Plaintiffs and members of subclass I paystubs. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of subclass II were owed an extra hour of pay for each second meal period missed. Such extra hour of pay was not paid and not included on Plaintiffs and members of subclass II paystubs. Additionally, Plaintiffs and members of subclasses III, IV, and VII spent time donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment, performing sanitization duties, walking to and from locker rooms to sanitization stations and from sanitization stations to the time clocks. None of this time spent working by these employees was compensated at minimum wage and/or the appropriate overtime rate and none of this time appeared on their paystubs.. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of subclass VII performed off-the-clock work, specifically donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment, walking to and from the entrance of the Defendant s facility to the locker rooms, unlocking the padlocks on their lockers, changing out of their regular clothes into the required uniform, storing their regular clothes in their lockers, locking their lockers, sometimes walking from the locker rooms to other locations where uniforms were kept if no uniforms Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

11 1 1 were available in the locker rooms, walking from the locker rooms to the sanitization stations, waiting in line at the sanitization stations, performing sanitization duties and walking from the sanitization stations to the time clocks, all prior to clocking in. Additionally, during the Class Period, Plaintiffs and members of subclass VII performed off the clock work, specifically walking from the time clocks after clocking out to the locker room, removing special uniforms and equipment, changing into their regular clothes, placing special uniforms in laundry bins, and storing the special equipment in their lockers and locking their lockers, all after clocking out. Such time spent by these employees donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment and performing sanitization and storage duties occurred before and after the employee s regular full work day either in excess of eight ( hours per day for those employees working a day week and ten ( hours per day for those employees working a day week. Such time spent by Plaintiffs and members of subclass VII was not compensated at all, thus causing these employees to work without receiving the minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code,,.1 and. Additionally, the Plaintiffs and members of subclass VII were subject to Defendant s policy of rounding up their actual clock-in time to their scheduled start time on a regular and repeated basis when the employee s clocked in prior to their scheduled start time. Although Defendant claimed that this was a result of a policy in which the Defendant would round up and down five minutes prior to and five minutes after the employees start time, the time records will reflect that Defendant actually rounded up the clock in time of the employees who clocked in early but did not round down when the employees clocked in late, on a regular basis. This rounding resulted in the employees not being paid minimum wages for all time worked in violation of California Labor Code,,.1 and. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

12 1 1. The foregoing violations constitute unlawful and unfair business acts and practices under Bus. & Prof Code 0 et seq., in that they have allowed Defendant to gain an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors while depriving Plaintiffs and the putative class money and property.. Plaintiffs seek full restitution and compensation on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for these unpaid wages, including overtime premiums, wage premiums for the denial of genuine meal periods, liquidated damages, penalties and interest. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief, including restitution and interest. Finally, Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorneys fees and costs under the Labor Code and Code of Civil Procedure.. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure for violations of California s Labor Code and Business & Professions Code 0. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following Classes of workers, defined as follows: SUBCLASS I - All present and former employees of Defendant who performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or repair and/or maintain Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period who are/were required to wear special clothing and gear for protection and sanitation of which such clothing is/was not allowed off the Defendant s premises such that members of subclass I have been denied genuine and lawful off-duty meal periods of at least 0 minutes on shifts where meal periods were required by law. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint 1

13 1 1 SUBCLASS II All present and former employees of Defendant who performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or repair and/ or maintain the Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period who worked more than ten ( hours within a workday without being allowed to take a second meal period in violation of California Labor Code. and IWC Wage Order SUBCLASS III - All present and former employees of Defendant required to wear uniforms and other special equipment that was not allowed off Defendant s premises so that the members of Subclass III were required to perform off-the-clock work, specifically donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment, walking to and from the entrance of the Defendant s facility to the locker rooms, unlocking the padlocks on their lockers, changing out of their regular clothes into the required uniform, storing their regular clothes in their lockers, locking their lockers, sometimes walking from the locker rooms to other locations where uniforms were kept if no uniforms were available in the locker rooms, walking from the locker rooms to the sanitization stations, waiting in line at the sanitization stations, performing sanitization duties and walking from the sanitization stations to the time clocks, all prior to clocking in and all without payment for those employees and removing and storing said uniforms and special gear after clocking out at the end of the day, and all employees who s actual clock in times were rounded up resulting in the employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked, which time was not compensated at one and one half times these employees regular rate of pay by Defendant in violation of California Labor Code,,. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint 1

14 1 1 SUBCLASS IV All present and former employees of Defendant who performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or repair and/or maintain Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period who worked ten or more hours within a work day without overtime pay for all hours worked over eight ( in a day without having a lawfully instituted alternative work week in place by the Defendant in violation of California Labor Code, and IWC Wage Order -01((C(1, (, ( and ( and -01((C(1, (, ( and (. SUBCLASS V All present and former employees of Defendant whose employment terminated and to whom Defendant failed to pay all wages owed at the time of termination of their employment in violation of California Labor Code. SUBCLASS VI All present and former employees of Defendant who performed duties working to produce and/or prepare Defendant s products for distribution and/or repair and/ or maintain Defendant s premises in the State of California within the Class Period who were not provided accurate itemized wage statements that showed the total amount of hours worked and all pay earned within the pay periods in violation of California Labor Code (a. SUBCLASS VII All present and former employees of Defendant who performed off-theclock work, specifically donning and doffing special uniforms and equipment, walking to and from the entrance of the Defendant s facility to the locker rooms, unlocking the padlocks on their lockers, changing out of their regular clothes into the required uniform, storing their regular clothes in their lockers, locking their lockers, sometimes walking from the locker rooms to other locations where uniforms were kept if no uniforms were available in the locker rooms, walking from the locker rooms to the sanitization stations, waiting in line at Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

15 1 1 the sanitization stations, performing sanitization duties and walking from the sanitization stations to the time clocks, all prior to clocking in and performing the same duties at the end of their shift after clocking out at the end of the day who compensated at all for this time spent working, and all employees who s actual clock in times were rounded up resulting in the employees not being paid minimum wage for all hours worked, thus causing these employees to work without receiving the minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code,,.1,.. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the putative subclasses that include, but are not limited to, the following: (a Whether Defendant unlawfully denied Plaintiffs and members of the putative subclass I, off-duty meal periods by prohibiting them from leaving the Turlock facility in their special clothing and gear, walking to and from different stations and locations within the Defendant s facility, waiting in line at various locations, performing sanitization and storage duties, while at the same time not providing them adequate time to change out of and back into their special clothing and gear during the time allotted for meal periods and whether Defendants compensation policies omitted any provision or procedure for providing Plaintiffs and members of the Class with premium or other additional wage in lieu of off-duty meal periods; (b Whether Defendant unlawfully required and/or suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and members of putative subclass II to work for more than ten ( hours within a workday without being allowed to take a second meal period and whether Defendants compensation policies omitted any provision or procedure for providing Plaintiffs and members of the subclass with premium or additional wage in lieu of their second meal period; Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

16 (c Whether Defendant unlawfully required and/or suffered and permitted Plaintiffs 1 1 and members of putative subclass III to perform work off-the-clock through a policy and practice of having Plaintiffs and members of the putative class clock in after they first donned special clothing and gear, walked to and from different stations and locations within the Defendant s facility, waited in line at various locations, performed sanitization and storage duties, and clocked out before they perform these same duties (except sanitization; (d Whether Defendant unlawfully required and/or suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and members of putative subclass IV to work overtime hours without receiving overtime wages for hours worked after eight ( in a work day in alternative work-weeks not lawfully instituted and whether Defendant s rounding policy was unlawful causing Plaintiffs and members of putative subclass IV to work overtime hours without receiving overtime wages for all overtime hours worked; (e Whether Defendant implemented and utilized an unlawful policy pursuant to which Plaintiffs and all members of the subclass V terminated their employment with Defendant and did not receive all of their wages owed by Defendant at the time of their termination of employment; (f Whether Defendant implemented and utilized an unlawful policy pursuant to which Plaintiffs and all members of the subclass VI were not provided with paystubs that accurately listed the amount of hours worked or wages earned; (g Whether Defendant unlawfully required and/or suffered and permitted Plaintiffs and members of putative subclass VII to perform work off-the-clock through a policy and practice of having Plaintiffs and members of the putative class clock in after they first donned special clothing and gear, walked to and from different stations and locations within the Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

17 1 1 Defendant s facility, waited in line at various locations, performed sanitization and storage duties, and clocked out before they perform these same duties (except sanitization at the end of the workday and whether Defendant s rounding policy was unlawful causing Plaintiffs and members of putative subclass VII to work without receiving the minimum wage for all hours worked;. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims in the sub-classes that Plaintiffs seek to represent. Defendants common course of conduct with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the subclasses has caused Plaintiffs and members of the subclasses to sustain the same or similar damages.. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the sub-classes because the Plaintiffs are members of the subclasses and the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those in the subclasses.. Plaintiffs request permission to amend the complaint to include additional class representatives if Plaintiffs are deemed not to be adequate representatives of the sub-classes. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Provide Off-Duty Meal Periods in Violation of California Labor Code.(a; 1(a; ; IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01 (Against Defendant Super Store Industries on behalf of Plaintiffs John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro and Mike Helfgott and SubClass I. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation contained above, and reallege said allegations as if fully set forth herein.. California Labor Code. states: (a No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. (b If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

18 1 1 rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.. California Labor Code 1 states in part: (a An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 0 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 0 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 1 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.. IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01 provide in pertinent part:. Meal Periods (A No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five ( hours without a meal period of not less than 0 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six ( hours will complete the day s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 0 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an on duty meal period and counted as time worked. An on duty meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. (B If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1 hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. (C In all places of employment where employees are required to eat on the premises, a suitable place for that purpose shall be designated. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

19 1 1. California Labor Code Section provides in pertinent part:. (a Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1 For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($0 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. ( For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($0 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.. At all times relevant, Defendant has not allowed Plaintiffs and the putative members of subclass I to leave the Turlock facility while wearing their special clothing and gear. Defendant also does not provide Plaintiffs and putative members of Class I time to change out of and back into their special clothing and gear and perform sanitization and storage duties such that they could leave the Turlock facility during their meal period for a full 0 minutes. As a result, Plaintiffs and putative members of Class I are not able to leave the premises and engage in private pursuits during their meal periods. 0. During the four years preceding the filing of this complaint, the nature of the work did not prevent members of Subclass I from being relieved of all duty such that they could leave the premises. Moreover, there was no written agreement between any members of the Subclass I and the Defendant to an on-duty meal period. Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs and members of the Subclass I an extra hour of wages at the regular rate of pay for the missed offduty meal period. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

20 1. Defendant s failure to provide Plaintiffs and the putative members of subclass I the proper meal periods violates the California Labor Code, and Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all putative members of subclass I seek the maximum amount of compensation available for Defendant s failure to comply with Labor Code., IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01, penalties under California Labor Code and attorneys fees and costs. 1 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Provide Second Meal Period for Employees Working More Than Ten ( Hours in a Workday in Violation of California Labor Code., 1,, IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01 (Against Defendant Super Store Industries on behalf of Plaintiffs John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro and Mike Helfgott and SubClass II. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation contained above, and reallege said allegations as if fully set forth herein.. California Labor Code. states: (a No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. (b If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.. California Labor Code 1 states in part: (a An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 0 minutes, except that if the Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

21 1 1 total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than 0 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more than 1 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.. IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01 provide in pertinent part:. Meal Periods (A No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five ( hours without a meal period of not less than 0 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six ( hours will complete the day s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 0 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an on duty meal period and counted as time worked. An on duty meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. (B If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1 hour of pay at the employee s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided. (C In all places of employment where employees are required to eat on the premises, a suitable place for that purpose shall be designated.. California Labor Code Section provides in pertinent part:. (a Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1 For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($0 for each Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

22 1 1 underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. ( For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($0 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.. At all times relevant, Defendant has not allowed Plaintiffs and the putative members of subclass II to take a second meal period but required Plaintiffs and the putative members of subclass II to work more than ten hours in a workday.. Defendant s failure to provide Plaintiffs and the putative members of subclass II a second meal period after ten hours worked in a workday violates the California Labor Code, and Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all putative members of subclass II seek the maximum amount of compensation available for Defendant s failure to comply with Labor Code., IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01, penalties under California Labor Code and attorneys fees and costs. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Provide Overtime Compensation For All Overtime Hours Worked in Violation of California Labor Code ;, (a, ; IWC Wage Order -01 and/or -01 (Against Defendant Super Store Industries on behalf of Plaintiffs John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro and Mike Helfgott and SubClasses III and IV. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation contained above, and reallege said allegations as if fully set forth herein. 0. California Labor Code (a states: (a Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

23 1 1 thereon, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit. (b The amendments made to this section by Chapter of the Statutes of 1 shall apply only to civil actions commenced on or after January 1,. 1. IWC Wage Order -01( and/or -01( state in pertinent part: Such employees shall not be employed more than eight ( hours in any workday or more than 0 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half (/ times such employee s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 0 hours in the workweek. Eight ( hours of labor constitutes a day s work. Employment beyond eight ( hours in any workday or more than six ( days in any workweek is permissible provided the employee is compensated for such overtime at not less than: (a One and one-half (/ times the employee s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight ( hours up to and including 1 hours in any workday, and for the first eight ( hours worked on the seventh (th consecutive day of work in a workweek;. California Labor Code Section states in pertinent part:. (a Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1 For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($0 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. ( For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($0 for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.. California Labor Code Section states:. The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor 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. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

24 1 1. Under California law, an employer does not violate the foregoing provisions if it institutes a regularly scheduled alternative workweek of not more than ten hours per day in a forty hour week provided that the employer has complied with the election procedures set out in the appropriate wage orders. Such procedures include that the employer proposed an alternative workweek schedule to employees in the form of a written agreement; that the employer disclose in writing to affected employees the effect of the alternative workweek schedule; that the employer hold a meeting with affected employees at least fourteen days prior to the alternative workweek schedule election; that the employer conduct the election by secret ballot; that at least two-thirds of each work unit approves the alternative workweek schedule in the election; and that the employer report to the California Division of Labor Statistics and Research, within thirty days after the results are final, the final tally of the vote, the size of the work unit, and the nature of the business of the employer.. Defendant has not lawfully adopted their alternative workweek schedule for Plaintiffs and members of the subclasses in that Defendant failed to comply with the mandatory election procedures of the Wage Order, including without limitation failing to hold a meeting prior to the election, failing to conduct the ballot secretly and failing to even allow some employees to elect to work an alternative work week and failing to disclose to the California Division of Labor Statistics and Research any election results conducted among the work units.. Despite this, throughout the Class Period, Defendant required, encouraged, and/or permitted members of the subclass IV to work alternative workweek schedules requiring more than eight hours of labor in a day and paid these sub-class members only their respective hourly, non-premium rates for work during the daily overtime hours. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendant knew that members of the subclass had performed the Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

25 1 1 ninth and tenth hours of work daily.. As Defendant failed to lawfully implement an alternative workweek schedule, members of the putative class who worked schedules requiring more than eight hours of work in a day at any time during all relevant times are entitled to overtime pay for the daily overtime hours worked each day under said schedule pursuant to Labor Code,, and IWC Wage Order -01 and/or Under California law, time spent donning and doffing special clothing and gear, performing sanitization duties, waiting in line at sanitation stations, retrieving and storing special clothing and gear and time spent walking to different departments and locations within Defendant s facility is time that the employee is subject to the control of the employer and that must be compensated.. Beginning at least four years preceding the filing of this complaint, Plaintiffs and members of subclass III worked more than eight hours each for each workday that they worked and more than 0 hours a workweek. Specifically, the time Plaintiffs and members of the putative class took to change into and out of their special clothing and gear at the beginning and end of their shift and performing sanitization duties, waiting in line at sanitation stations, retrieving and storing special clothing and gear and time spent walking to different departments and locations within Defendant s facility constitutes hours worked that must be added to the eight hours of daily work and 0 hours of weekly work they put in at their workstation. Defendant routinely did not record this time or pay Plaintiffs and members of the putative class the overtime premiums due on this time. 0. Beginning at least four years preceding the filing of this complaint, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and members of subclass III were entitled to overtime Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

26 1 1 wages for hours worked above eight in each day under an alternative workweek schedule for this time spent under Defendant s control and working. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are thus entitled to recover nominal and actual damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial and penalties as set forth in California Labor Code. 1. Beginning at least four years preceding the filing of this complaint, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and members of subclass III were entitled to overtime wages for hours worked above eight in each day and/or over forty in each workweek and knew or should have known that Defendant s policy of rounding up the actual clock-in time for these employees was denying them overtime compensation due. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Waiting Penalties Under California Labor Code (Against Defendant Super Store Industries on behalf of Plaintiffs John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro and Mike Helfgott and SubClass V. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation contained above, and reallege said allegations as if fully set forth herein.. California Labor Code states: (a If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 1, 1., 1.,, and., any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 0 days. An employee who secretes or absents himself or herself to avoid payment to him or her, or who refuses to receive the payment when fully tendered to him or her, including any penalty then accrued under this section, is not entitled to any benefit under this section for the time during which he or she so avoids payment. (b Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise. Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint

27 . Plaintiffs and all members of subclass V employment terminated without being paid all wages due upon termination. Specifically, as set forth above, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and members of subclasses I, II, III, IV and VII for all time spent working for Defendant. Thus, Plaintiffs and putative class members in subclass V are entitled to penalties up to and including 0 days of full pay as waiting penalties.. Therefore, Plaintiffs and members of subclass V demand payment of waiting penalties for class members whose employment terminated without being paid the proper wages owed. 1 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Provide a Detachable Wage Statement Reflecting All Hours Worked in Violation of California Labor Code (a (Against Defendant Super Store Industries on behalf of Plaintiffs John Hance, Joseph Ribeiro and Mike Helfgott and Subclass VI. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate each and every allegation contained above, and reallege said allegations as if fully set forth herein.. California Labor Code (a states: a Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1 gross wages earned, ( 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 overtime under subdivision (a of Section or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, ( the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint