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

Amy Royse Orr, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Petvet Care Centers (California) Inc., Petvet Care Centers LLC, Petvet Care Centers Inc., Veterinary Medical and Surgical Group, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Oct. 23, 2020 | Result Date: Sep. 16, 2020 | Filing Date: Sep. 3, 2019 |

Case number: 19CV354063 Settlement –  $3,800,000

Judge

Patricia M. Lucas

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David H. Yeremian
(David Yeremian & Associates Inc.)

Alvin B. Lindsay
(D.Law Inc.)

Emil Davtyan
(D.Law Inc.)


Defendant

Nancy E. Yaffe
(Fox Rothschild LLP)

Daniel V. Kitzes
(Fox Rothschild LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Amy Royse Orr was employed by PetVet Care Centers (California), Inc. as a non-exempt hourly veterinary technician. Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against defendant for wage and hour labor code violations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant failed to pay plaintiff the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Plaintiff also contended that defendants often require plaintiffs to work during their meal breaks and rest breaks in violation of Labor Code Section 226.7. Plaintiff also contended that defendants failed to reimburse plaintiff for the necessary business expenses such using plaintiff's personal cellular phone during work and mileage usage for using plaintiff's car during work in violation of Labor Code Section 2802. Plaintiff contended that defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226(a).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions. The claims involved very small discrepancies in pay, due mostly to errors in paying "meal premiums" when a meal was taken late or missed. Some of PetVet's newly acquired hospitals believed that exceptions applied, and there were disputed issues as to whether employees chose to take meals late or were forced to miss or take late breaks due to work. There was also some inconsistency as to how the various meal waivers were applied.

Result

Defendant agreed to settle the case for $3,800,000.


#135811

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

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