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

Justin Adamo, an individual; Gabriel Padilla, an individual; Brigitte Reyes, an individual; individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), pursuant to Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. v. Clark Pest Control Inc.; JMP Bros. Inc.; James F. Clark Jr., and Does 1-5, inclusive

Published: Jul. 8, 2022 | Result Date: Aug. 24, 2021 | Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2020 |

Case number: 20CECG00418 Settlement –  $150,000

Judge

D. Tyler Tharpe

Court

Fresno County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael J.F. Smith
(Michael J.F. Smith APC)

John L. Migliazzo
(Michael J.F. Smith, APC)


Defendant

Daniel K. Klingenberger
(LeBeau Thelen, LLP)


Facts

Clark Pest Control is a pest control company headquartered in Bakersfield, California. Plaintiffs were various "residential technicians, commercial technicians, or lead/route supervisors" working for Clark that were classified as non-exempt, hourly employees. Plaintiffs sued Clark Pest Control, alleging various Labor Code violations during their time with the company. The parties reached a settlement after mediation and subsequent settlement negotiations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they were not paid for the time before and after their scheduled shifts and that defendant had a practice of inputting employees' hours worked on a universal time sheet but specifically excluded all hours worked before the start and end of each shift. In particular, plaintiffs would perform work preparing the work truck, receiving work orders, going over the schedules for the workday, among other general prep work. Further, defendant caused plaintiffs to sign off on this universal time sheet without regard to the actual amount of hours worked by plaintiffs. Moreover, plaintiff Reyes worked on Saturdays without pay while employed as a "salesperson" during the relevant time period and was not paid minimum wages, regular wages, or overtime for this work. Plaintiff also alleged that the paid production bonuses and commission made in addition to their base pay was not used in computing their regular rate of pay. Plaintiffs maintained that because of the nature of their work, they were unable to take duty-free meal periods since they were required to be in close proximity to the company vehicle at all times and that they were mandated to work through their meal periods by the nature of their job. Finally, plaintiffs maintained that defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements because the work statements provided omitted payment for authorized rest periods and non-productive time.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

Plaintiffs settled their claims for a payment of $150,000


#139005

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

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