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 Periods

Jacob Blea, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v. Pacific Groservice Inc., Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers Inc. dba Pitco Foods, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Aug. 4, 2023 | Result Date: Dec. 9, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 28, 2020 |

Case number: 20CV375150 Settlement –  $2,500,000

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni

Court

Santa Clara County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas Han
(Justice Law Corporation)

Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh
(Justice Law Corporation)


Defendant

Donald P. Sullivan
(Jackson Lewis PC)

Kathleen B. Roney
(Jackson Lewis PC)


Facts

On December 28, 2020, Jacob Blea, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, brought a putative class action against Pacific Groservice Inc. and Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers Inc. dba Pitco Foods, alleging various Labor Code violations. The class included all hourly-paid or non-exempt employees employed by defendants within California from December 28, 2016, through July 27, 2022, excluding those persons that have signed release agreements.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that he and other employees were regularly denied meal and rest periods or their meal or rest periods were shortened, interrupted, and/or provided late. Further, plaintiff alleged that they were required to work off-the-clock, including attending job training, completing security screenings, and/or completing COVID-19 screenings. Additionally, plaintiff and others were not reimbursed for necessary business expenses like the purchase of safety vests and goggles. Plaintiff also maintained that defendants miscalculated the regular rate of pay for their hourly-paid and non-exempt employees by failing to account for nondiscretionary bonuses and failed to pay all wages owed at separation and to provide complete and accurate wage statements and keep accurate payroll records. Finally, plaintiff argued that defendants engaged in unfair business practices in violations of the California Business & Professions Code.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

Defendants agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle the case.


#141206

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

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