Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
11
12
SANDRIKA MEDLOCK and LISA Case Number:
13 HARDIMAN, individually, and on behalf
14 of other members of the general public COMPLAINT FOR CLASS ACTION
similarly situated,
15 (1) Violation of California Labor Code
16 Plaintiffs, §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid Overtime);
1 11. Defendant YUM! BRANDS was and is, upon information and belief, a
2 business entity form unknown, doing business, and at all times hereinafter
3 mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout this county, the
4 State of California, or the various states of the United States of America.
5 12. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants
6 sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1-10, but pray for leave to amend and
7 serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become
8 known.
9 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that DOES 1-10
10 are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers or employees of TACO
11 BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL FOUNDATION,
12 INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO
13 BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or YUM! BRANDS, and were acting
14 on behalf of TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO
15 BELL FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
16 ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC., and/or
17 YUM! BRANDS.
18 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each and all
19 of the acts and omissions alleged herein was performed by, or is attributable to,
20 TACO BELL CORP., TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., TACO BELL
21 FOUNDATION, INC., NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TACO BELL
22 ASSOCIATION, INC., TACO BELL, YUM!, YUM! BRANDS, INC. and/or
23 YUM! BRANDS and DOES 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”), each acting as the
24 agent for the other, with legal authority to act on the other’s behalf. The acts of any
25 and all Defendants were in accordance with, and represent the official policy of,
26 Defendants.
27 15. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, ratified
28 each and every act or omission complained of herein. At all times herein
-4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 5 of 21
1 mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions
2 of each and all the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages herein
3 alleged.
4 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of said
5 Defendants is in some manner intentionally, negligently, or otherwise responsible
6 for the acts, omissions, occurrences, and transactions alleged herein.
7 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
8 17. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of
9 each and all other persons similarly situated, and thus, seek class certification under
10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
11 18. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiffs
12 seek relief authorized by California law.
13 19. The proposed class consists of and is defined as:
14 All non-exempt or hourly paid employees who have been employed by
15 Defendants in the State of California within four years prior to the
16 filing of this complaint until resolution of this lawsuit.
17 20. There is a well defined community of interest in the litigation and the
18 class is easily ascertainable:
19 a. Numerosity: The members of the class (and each subclass, if
20 any) are so numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and
21 impractical. The membership of the entire class is unknown to Plaintiffs at this
22 time, however, the class is estimated to be greater than one-hundred (100)
23 individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by
24 inspection of Defendants’ employment records.
25 b. Typicality: Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and
26 adequately protect the interests of each class member with whom they have a well
27 defined community of interest, and Plaintiffs’ claims (or defenses, if any) are typical
28 of all class members’ as demonstrated herein.
-5-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 6 of 21
1 over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay legally required overtime
2 compensation to Plaintiffs and the other class members;
3 b. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement or
4 reduction, in accordance with the California Labor Code, was willful;
5 c. Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class
6 members of meal periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work
7 during meal periods without compensation;
8 d. Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other class
9 members of rest periods or required Plaintiffs and the class members to work during
10 rest periods without compensation;
11 e. Whether Defendants complied with wage reporting as required
12 by the California Labor Code; including but not limited to § 226;
13 f. Whether Defendants failed to promptly pay all wages due to
14 Plaintiffs and the other class members upon their discharge or resignation;
15 g. Whether Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages
16 of Plaintiffs and other class members;
17 h. Whether Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiffs and other
18 class members for necessary and required business expenditures and losses incurred
19 by them in the scope of their employment;
20 i. Whether the Defendants failed to reimburse for employee
21 expenses;
22 j. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless;
23 k. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in
24 violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and
25 l. The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, or monetary
26 penalties resulting from Defendants’ violations of California law.
27 \\
28 \\
-7-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 8 of 21
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2 22. At all times set forth, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other persons
3 as non-exempt or hourly paid employees.
4 23. Defendants employed Plaintiff Medlock as a Shift Manager, which is a
5 non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about October 25, 2005 to on or
6 about July 9, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.
7 24. Defendants employed Plaintiff Hardiman as a Crew Member, which is
8 a non-exempt or hourly paid position, from on or about August 10, 2005 to on or
9 about May 30, 2007, at Fresno, California business locations.
10 25. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt or hourly paid employees
11 within California.
12 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times
13 herein mentioned, Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other
14 professionals, employees, and advisors knowledgeable about California and federal
15 labor and wage law and employment and personnel practices, and about the
16 requirements of California and federal law.
17 27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
18 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other members of the class were
19 entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not
20 receiving certain wages for overtime compensation.
21 28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
22 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
23 receive complete and accurate wage statements in accordance with California law.
24 29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
25 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
26 receive all the wages owed to them upon discharge.
27 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
28 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
-8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 9 of 21
1 receive all meal breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class
2 members’ regular rate of pay when a meal break was missed.
3 31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
4 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other class members were entitled to
5 receive all rest breaks or payment of one hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and class
6 members’ regular rate of pay when a rest break was missed.
7 32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
8 knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other class members were
9 entitled to receive full reimbursement for all business-related expenses and costs
10 they incurred during the course and scope of their employment, and that they did not
11 receive full reimbursement of applicable business-related expenses and costs they
12 incurred.
13 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times
14 herein mentioned, Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to
15 compensate Plaintiffs and other class members, and that Defendants had the
16 financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and
17 intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to Plaintiffs and other class
18 members that they were properly denied wages, all in order to increase Defendants’
19 profits.
20 34. California Labor Code § 218 states that nothing in Article 1 of the
21 Labor Code shall limit the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly...for any
22 wages or penalty due him [or her] under this article.”
23
24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198
26 (Against all Defendants)
27 35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
28 the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 34.
-9-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 10 of 21
1 36. California Labor Code § 1198 and the applicable Industrial Welfare
2 Commission Wage Order provides that it is unlawful to employ persons without
3 compensating them at a rate of pay either time-and-one-half or two-times that
4 person’s regular rate of pay, depending on the number of hours worked by the
5 person on a daily or weekly basis.
6 37. Specifically, the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
7 Order provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other
8 class members employed by Defendants, and working more than eight (8) hours in a
9 day or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, at the rate of time-and-one-half for
10 all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or more than forty (40) hours
11 in a workweek.
12 38. The applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order further
13 provides that Defendants are and were required to pay Plaintiffs and the other class
14 members employed by Defendants, and working more than twelve (12) hours in a
15 day, overtime compensation at a rate of two times their regular rate of pay.
16 39. California Labor Code § 510 codifies the right to overtime
17 compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular hourly rate for hours worked in
18 excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight
19 (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work, and to overtime compensation at
20 twice the regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in a
21 day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day of work.
22 40. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
23 consistently worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day, in excess of twelve (12)
24 hours in a day, or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week.
25 41. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully failed to pay all
26 overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and the other class members.
27 42. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
28 regularly received incentives in the form of bonuses which were not incorporated in
-10-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 11 of 21
1 provides that an employer may not require, cause or permit an employee to work for
2 a period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a
3 second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours
4 worked is no more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived
5 by mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period
6 was not waived.
7 56. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other members of the
8 class who were scheduled to work for a period of time no longer than six (6) hours,
9 and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by mutual consent, were
10 required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
11 less than thirty (30) minutes.
12 57. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
13 who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of six (6) hours were
14 required to work for periods longer than five (5) hours without a meal period of not
15 less than thirty (30) minutes.
16 58. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and other members of the
17 class who were scheduled to work in excess of ten (10) hours but not longer than
18 twelve (12) hours, and who did not waive their legally-mandated meal periods by
19 mutual consent were required to work in excess of ten (10) hours without receiving
20 a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
21 59. During the relevant time period, Plaintiffs and the other class members
22 who were scheduled to work for a period of time in excess of twelve (12) hours
23 were required to work for periods longer than ten (10) hours without a meal period
24 of not less than thirty (30) minutes.
25 60. During the relevant time period, Defendants willfully required
26 Plaintiffs and other members of the class to work during meal periods and failed to
27 compensate Plaintiffs and members of the class for work performed during meal
28 periods.
-13-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 14 of 21
1 costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e).
2 77. Plaintiffs and the other class members are also entitled to injunctive
3 relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code §
4 226(g).
5
6 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802
8 (Against all Defendants)
9 78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege as if fully stated herein
10 the material allegations set out in paragraphs 1 through 77.
11 79. At all times herein set forth California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802
12 provide that an employer must reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures.
13 80. Plaintiffs and other class members incurred necessary business-related
14 expenses and costs that were not fully reimbursed by Defendants, including and
15 without limitation, required shoes, required clothing and related fees and deposits
16 that resulted from their employment with Defendants. Specifically, Defendants had,
17 and continue to have, a policy and practice of requiring employees, including
18 Plaintiffs and class members, to pay for purchase and maintenance of shoes and
19 other required clothing out of their own funds. Defendants had, and continue to
20 have, a policy of not reimbursing employees, including Plaintiffs and class
21 members, for said business-related expenses and costs.
22 81. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to fully reimburse
23 Plaintiffs and other class members for necessary business-related expenses and
24 costs.
25 82. Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover from
26 Defendants their business-related expenses incurred during the course and scope of
27 their employment, plus interest and an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
28 pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and 2802.
-16-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 17 of 21
1 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
2 appropriate.
3 As to the Sixth Cause of Action
4 1. For unpaid wages and such general and special damages as may be
5 appropriate;
6 2. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such
7 amounts were due;
8 3. For all actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages,
9 according to proof;
10 4. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2800 and
11 2802;
12 5. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
13 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
14 appropriate.
15 As to the Seventh Cause of Action
16 1. For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiffs and all class members and
17 prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable;
18 2. For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any
19 and all funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been
20 wrongfully acquired by Defendants as a result of violations of California
21 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
22 3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein that
23 Plaintiffs and other class members are entitled to recover under California
24 Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
25 4. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
26 California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and
27 \\
28 \\
-20-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 1 Filed 09/07/07 Page 21 of 21
1 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
2 appropriate.
3
4 Dated: September 7, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
Initiative Legal Group LLP
5
6
7
By: /s/ Joseph Cho____________
Mark Yablonovich
8 Marc Primo
9
Joseph Cho
Gregory Yu
10 Shawn Westrick
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT