Facts

Jose Celaya was employed by GLP Services and Greenleaf Power's Mecca facility where he worked as a Heavy Equipment Operator, which included loading and unloading wood from the trucks. He was employed from about July 1, 2019 to December 20, 2019, the date he began his medical leave of absence. On June 14, 2021, he filed a complaint against GLP and Greenleaf in Riverside County Superior after first having submitted a letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency detailing his claim of wage-and-hour violations. On June 27, 2021, plaintiff requested that Greenleaf be dismissed without prejudice, which the court did.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that around December 2020, defendants terminated his employment, but prior to his termination, defendants required plaintiff, and other non-exempt employees to complete certain pre-shift tasks--such as obtaining equipment, applying safety gear, servicing machines, and going into the control room--all which took about 20 minutes to complete and for which they received no compensation. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants engaged in certain practices, such as time-shaving and/or rounding of work hours, which would result in defendants' favor and less pay for plaintiffs. Finally, non-exempt employees often worked in excess of eight hours per workday and/or forty hours per workweek without being duly compensated. Though defendant provided "bonuses" or "incentive pay," these forms of payments were not tabulated into their regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, thereby causing plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to be underpaid for all required overtime wages. His complaint alleged the following claims against defendants: failure to pay all minimum and/or overtime wages owed; failure to provide meal or rest periods, or alternatively, premium pay resulting from the failure of such; and failure to timely pay all wages on termination. Moreover, plaintiff contended that due to those violations, defendant engaged in unlawful business practices, and was liable for that accordingly. Finally, plaintiff noted that defendant was also liable for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act based on defendants' volitional conduct.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all plaintiff's claims, asserting it complied with all California laws, and that plaintiffs were properly compensated for all hours worked, were provided with meal and rest breaks, did take meal and rest breaks as required by law, and that it timely paid all wages at separation.

Result

The case settled for a non-reversionary amount of $800,000.