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.

Labor Law
Unfair Labor Practices
Fair Labor Standards Act

Efren Moreno v. Capital Building Maintenance & Cleaning Services Inc.

Published: Apr. 15, 2022 | Result Date: Sep. 10, 2021 | Filing Date: Oct. 28, 2019 |

Case number: 4:19-cv-07087-DMR Settlement –  $325,000

Judge

Donna M. Ryu

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joseph D. Sutton
(Advocates for Worker Rights LLP)

Marco A. Palau
(Advocates for Worker Rights LLP)

Eric S. Trabucco
(Advocates for Worker Rights LLP)

Tomas E. Margain
(Justice at Work Law Group)


Defendant

Azniv Darbinian
(Gordon & Rees LLP)

Mollie M. Burks
(Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP)


Facts

Capital Building Maintenance & Cleaning Services, Inc., provides various labor services, including window washing, construction cleanup, floor maintenance, pressure washing, trash removal, and graffiti removal, among others. Efren Moreno is a former unionized employee of Capital Building. Moreno and other Capital Building employees received an hourly wage rate negotiated by their representatives in the Northern District Council of Laborers. Moreno filed a class action lawsuit against Capital Building. The action was brought on behalf of all hourly employees who received two wage statements, one of which did not properly list the union designated regular rate of pay.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff alleged that defendant improperly calculated his overtime wages based on a reduced regular rate rather than the actual regular rate set by his union contract. For example, plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $22.73 per hour but his overtime rate was only $27.00 per hour. Plaintiff claimed that he received a check and wage statement for his regular hours and a separate check and wage statement for his overtime hours, and the wage statement for his overtime hours did not list his regular rate of pay. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant's pay system did not properly record all hours worked because the system rounds time into half hour intervals rather than reflecting the actual amount of time worked. As a result, workers were not paid for all of the hours they worked.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Settlement Discussions

The parties reached a settlement agreement through mediation before Jeffrey Ross.

Result

The case settled for $325,000.


#138667

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

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