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
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
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390