This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Period

Maria Elena Melgoza and Elder Chocoj, individually and as proxy for LWDA v. Shree Jalaram Motel, L.P., Shree Shiva Muruga, L,P, Shree Jalaram General Partnership, The Greewich Inn, Motel Capri, Balwantsinh Thakor, Bhaveshsinh Thakor, Kiransinh Thakor and Lataben Thakor and DOES 1-100 inclusive

Published: Aug. 21, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 9, 2020 | Filing Date: Sep. 18, 2018 |

Case number: CGC18569872 Settlement –  $15,000

Judge

Ethan P. Schulman

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert J. Wasserman
(Mayall Hurley PC)


Defendant

Michael T. Heath
(Law Office of Michael T. Heath)


Facts

Maria Melgoza worked as a housekeeper for multiple hotels located in San Francisco, and Elder Chocoj provided maintenance services for the hotels. Both Chocoj and Melgoza were hourly, non-exempt employees. Melgoza and Chocoj both initiated a PAGA suit concerning their wages.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended defendants did not pay them their entire wages earned for over 80-hours of work done in a semi-monthly period. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants intentionally capped plaintiffs' hours at 80 hours per pay period in violation of the law. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants arbitrarily raised their wages in an attempt to mislead plaintiffs on their proper overtime pay. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants did not have or inform employees of any policies concerning meal and rest periods. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' conduct violated Labor Code Section 226.7.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiffs miscalculated their wages at the wrong rate and were paid according to the applicable laws. Defendants also contended that plaintiffs were given raises to reflect their performance and were paid fully and in a timely manner.

Result

The court approved the parties' $15,000 PAGA settlement agreement, the rest of the settlement terms were confidential.


#135255

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390