Complaint Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 14, 202010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOSE MACIAS, JR. Bar No. 265033 jose@maciasrodriguez.com HECTOR J. RODRIGUEZ, Bar No. 305446 hector@maciasrodriguez.com TRAVIS M. ADAMS, Bar No. 303447 travis@maciasrodriguez.com MACIAS RODRIGUEZ LLP 1550 The Alameda, Suite 332 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: 408.455.1243 Attorneys for Plaintiffs E-FILED 8/14/2020 9:30 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara ZOCV369344 Reviewed By: R. Walker SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SUSANA LUNA, an individual; and CLAUDIA UCHICUA, an individual; 0n behalf of themselves and other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. ESCUELA POPULAR DEL PUEBLO, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. CaseNm 20CV369344 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: 1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; 3. Failure t0 Provide Off-Duty Meal Periods; 4. Failure to Provide Off-Duty Rest Periods; 5. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; 6. Failure to Pay Wages Due at Termination; 7. Failure t0 Indemnify for Necessary Expenditures; and 8. Unfair Competition. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs SUSANA LUNA and CLAUDIA UCHICUA (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys ofrecord, allege and complain against Escuela Popular del Pueblo, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (collectively the “Defendants”): INTRODUCTION 1. For the past 35 years, Defendant Escuela Popular del Pueblo has presented itself t0 the community 0f East San Jose as a family learning center grounded 0n the teaching principles of Paulo Freire - a revolutionary Brazilian thinker who wrote extensively about the power and ability of an educator to effectuate change in society. Freire’s philosophical and pedagogical principles are grounded 0n the idea that the educator must humble himself/herself in order to develop a condition of reciprocal trust and communication With those s/he seeks to teach and educate. Freire urged teachers and students t0 unlearn social constructs 0f race, class, and gender privileges t0 permit an open dialogue with those 0f differing Views and experiences. Freire asked the more privileged educational and revolutionary leaders t0 struggle in partnership With the “oppressed” t0 bring about a more enlightened and equitable world. The ultimate goal 0f Freire’s philosophy of education is t0 develop an organic political consciousness rooted in humanitarian principles in the participants of the educational process. 2. Freire does not counsel educational institutions t0 deprive teachers 0f a livable wage 0r to deprive teachers 0f basic rights, such as meaningful health and safety breaks. In fact, it would be antithetical to Freire’s philosophy t0 fithher oppress others t0 carry out an educational project. 3. For at least the past four years, Defendant Escuela Popular has betrayed its founding principles and violated the California Labor Code by engaging in a scheme to misclassify Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated teaching Instructors, as exempt employees. 4. At all times during their employment With Defendant Escuela Popular, Plaintiffs, like other teaching Instructors, were paid a fixed biweekly amount, as specified in their individual employment agreements. The fixed biweekly amount received by each Instructor did not increase or decrease depending 0n the hours worked, 0r the quantity and/or quality of the work. 5. During the past four years of employment at Escuela Popular, Plaintiffs were not compensated for a single hour 0f overtime. Regardless of how many hours they worked in any 2. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 particular workday or workweek, Plaintiffs’ biweekly compensation remained fixed. Defendant Escuela Popular also never tracked or recorded the time worked by its Instructors. 6. Defendant Escuela Popular does not require its Instructors to have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution of higher learning. Defendant Escuela Popular also does not require its Instructors t0 possess any teaching credentials from a certificating authority in California or any other state. Even though Defendant Escuela Popular did not require its Instructors t0 have the aforementioned experience and credentials, Defendant Escuela Popular nevertheless held all its Instructors t0 the same standards as its teachers and required its Instructors t0 perform the same duties as its teachers 0n a daily basis, including the preparation of lesson plans, documentation of students’ progress, assignments of homework, and the grading of tests, among others. Instructors at Escuela Popular did not have any supervisory or managerial duties, as they had t0 follow lesson plan goals set by their Instructional Leaders. 7. Despite the fact that Plaintiffs, and other Instructors, did not fit into any overtime exemptions under the California Labor Code, Escuela Popular misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt from overtime pay and paid Plaintiffs a fixed salary without paying them overtime compensation and Without providing them any meal and rest breaks. Consistent With the duties required 0f credentialed teachers, Plaintiffs and other Escuela Popular Instructors, worked long hours to meet the needs 0f their students and t0 execute all the educational goals set by Defendant Escuela Popular. For example, Plaintiffs and other Instructors regularly worked sixty (60) t0 seventy (70) hours per week and regularly attended mandatory meetings and educational committees. 8. This Class Action seeks t0 recover restitution for unpaid wages and t0 prosecute private enforcement of various civil penalties under the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s (“IWC”) Wage Orders, the California Business and Professions Code, and other statutes and regulations applicable to non-exempt employees in the State 0f California. 9. Because Defendant Escuela misclassified Plaintiffs and other Instructors as exempt employees, Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint against Defendant Escuela Popular for the recovery of unpaid wages and penalties for: (i) failing to pay minimum wages; (ii) failing to pay overtime wages; (iii) failing t0 provide uninterrupted off-duty meal periods and/or required meal 3. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 period premiums; (iv) failing t0 provide uninterrupted off-duty rest periods and/or required rest period premiums; (V) failing to furnish accurate wage statements; (Vi) failing to maintain wages due upon termination; (Vii) failing t0 indemnify necessary business expenditure; and (viii) engaging in unfair competition. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Class Action Complaint is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiffs, 0n behalf of themselves and other similarly situated non-exempt hourly Instructors, exceed the minimal jurisdiction limits 0f the Superior Court 0f California and will be established according t0 proof at trial. 11. This Court has original jurisdiction over this Class Action Complaint pursuant t0 California Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, Which grants the Superior Court 0f California “original jurisdiction in all other causes” except those causes given by statute t0 other courts. The statutes under Which this Class Action Complaint are brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 12. Upon information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants in this Class Action Complaint because each party is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as t0 render the exercise ofjurisdiction over it by California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 13. Venue is proper in the County of Santa Clara pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5. Plaintiffs were employed and performed work for Defendants in the County 0f Santa Clara, California, during the time period relevant to this Complaint. Moreover, Defendants maintain offices, have agents, and/or transact business in the County of Santa Clara. PARTIES 14. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs Susana Luna and Claudia Uchicua resided in the County Santa Clara, California. 15. Plaintiff Susana Luna is an individual over the age 0f eighteen (18) residing in Santa Clara County, California. Plaintiff Luna worked for Escuela Popular for approximately thirteen (13) years, from 2007 through June 2020. At all times relevant t0 this lawsuit, Plaintiff Luna worked for 4. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Escuela Popular as an Instructor. 16. Plaintiff Claudia Uchicua is an individual over the age 0f eighteen (18) residing in Santa Clara County, California. Plaintiff Uchicua worked for Escuela Popular for approximately ten (10) years, from 2009 through 2019. At all times relevant t0 this lawsuit, Plaintiff Uchicua worked for Escuela Popular as an Instructor. 17. Defendant Escuela Popular del Pueblo is a California State corporation located in the City of San Jose. Escuela Popular maintains its principal business and executive office in Santa Clara County, located at: 149 North White Road, San Jose, California 95127. 18. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, whether corporate, associate, individual or otherwise, are unknown t0 Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs therefore sue these DOE defendants by fictitious names. On information and belief, each 0f the DOE defendants is liable for the unlawful acts alleged in this Class Action Complaint and proximately caused the injuries and damages t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members prosecuting this Class Action Complaint. Once Plaintiffs ascertain the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants, Plaintiffs Will seek leave 0f court to file an amended Class Action Complaint. 19. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants were the “employer” of Plaintiffs within the meaning of all applicable California laws and statutes. 20. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants were subject t0 the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 because their employees worked in the County of Santa Clara and the State 0f California. 21. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, each of the Defendants were the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors-in- interest, co-conspirators and/or assigns, 0f each 0f the other Defendants. 22. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, each 0fthe Defendants were acting Within the course and scope oftheir authority as such agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-conspirators and/or assigns, and all acts 0r omissions alleged in this Class Action Complaint were committed with the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and/or consent of each alleged DOE Defendant. 5. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23. Plaintiffs further allege Defendants directly or indirectly controlled or affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of Plaintiffs and Class Members so as to make each of the Defendants liable under the statutory provisions set forth in this Class Action Complaint as joint employers. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated Who were affected by Defendants’ Violations of the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, and Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. 25. Plaintiffs bring and maintain this Class Action Complaint under Code 0f Civil Procedure section 382 because a well-defined community 0f interest exists among the persons who comprise readily ascertainable classes, as defined below. 26. Relevant Time Period: The Relevant Time Period is the time period beginning four years prior to the filing 0f this Class Action Complaint until judgment is entered. 27. Class Definitions: a. Minimum Wage Class: A11 0f Defendants” current and former non-exempt Instructors in California Who were subject to Defendants’ timekeeping policies/practices, during the Relevant Time Period. b. Overtime Class: A11 of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt Instructors in California who worked more than eight hours per day and/or forty hours per week and were subjected to Defendants’ timekeeping policies and practices, during the Relevant Time Period. c. Meal Period Class: A11 of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt Instructors in California who worked at least one shift in excess of five (5.0) hours during the Relevant Time Period. d. Rest Period Class: A11 0f Defendants’ current and former non-exempt Instructors in California who worked at least one shift in excess of three and one-half (3.5) hours during the Relevant Time Period. 6. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e. Wage Statement Penalty Class: A11 0f Defendants’ current and former non- exempt Instructors in California Who received a wage statement from Defendants, during the period beginning one year before the filing 0fthis action and ending When final judgment is entered. f. Waiting Time Penalty Class: A11 0f Defendants’ non-exempt Instructors in California who separated from their employment with Defendants during the period beginning three years before the filing of this action and ending when final judgment is entered. g. Business Expenses Reimbursement Class: A11 of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt Instructors in California who incurred necessary business expenses during their employment with Defendants and Who were not indemnified by Defendants for those expenses during the Relevant Time Period. h. UCL Class: A11 members 0f thez; (i) Minimum Wage Class; (ii) Overtime Class; (iii) Meal Period Class; (iv) Rest Period Class; (V) Wage Statement Penalty Class; (Vi) Business Expenses Reimbursement Class; and (Vii) Waiting Time Penalty Class. 28. Plaintiffs reserve the right t0 seek leave 0f this Court to amend this Class Action Complaint t0 plead additional subclasses or modify any Class definition as Plaintiffs deem appropriate, based 0n their investigation, discovery, and specific theories of liability. 29. Members of the Classes described above will be collectively referred t0 as “Class Members” in this Class Action Complaint. 30. Numerosity: The Class Members are so numerous that joinder 0f all Class Members is impracticable. The entire memberships of the Classes are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time; however, the Classes are estimated to be greater than forty (40) individuals for each Class and the identities 0f Class Members are readily ascertainable by an inspection 0f Defendants’ employment records. 31. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all 7. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Class Members and predominate over any questions that affect only individual Class Members. These common questions include, but are not limited to: a. Whether Defendants had a corporate policy and practice of failing to pay their hourly non-exempt Instructors within the State 0f California for all hours worked; Whether Defendants failed t0 pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs and Class Members for all hours worked; Whether Defendants failed t0 pay overtime wages t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members for all overtime hours worked; Whether Defendants” failure to pay wages, including minimum and overtime pay, Without abatement 0r reduction in accordance With the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 was willful; Whether Defendants required Plaintiffs and Class Members t0 work over eight (8) hours per day and/or over forty (40) hours per week and failed to pay the legally required overtime compensation t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members; Whether Defendants had a corporate policy and practice of failing t0 pay Plaintiffs and Class Members premium pay for missed meal and rest periods (short, late, interrupted, and/or missed altogether) in Violation 0f California law; Whether Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and Class Members 0fmeal and/or rest periods or required Plaintiffs and Class Members t0 work during meal and/or rest periods without compensation; Whether Defendants failed to timely pay all wages due t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members during their employment; Whether Defendants failed to pay all wages due t0 Plaintiffs and Class Members within the required time upon their separation - discharge or resignation; Whether Defendants provided accurate, itemized wage statements to Plaintiffs and Class Members as required by California law; 8. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 k. Whether Defendants failed t0 reimburse Plaintiffs and Class Members for necessary business-related expenses and costs; 1. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful or reckless; m. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair business practices in Violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; n. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to compensatory damages pursuant t0 the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001; and o. The appropriate amount 0f damages, restitution, and/or monetary penalties resulting from Defendants’ Violation of California law. 32. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims 0f other Class Members. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants have a policy 0r practice of failing to comply with the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 and the Business and Professions Code as alleged in this Class Action Complaint. 33. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each Class Member, with whom they have a well-defined community 0f interest and typicality of claims, as demonstrated in this Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs have n0 interest that is antagonistic t0 the other Class Members. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules governing class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur during the pendency of this Class Action Complaint, costs and attorneys” fees that have been, are, and Will necessarily be expended for the prosecution 0f this Class Action Complaint for the substantial benefit 0f each Class Member. 34. Superiority: A class action is superior t0 other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation because individual joinder 0f all Class Members is impractical. 35. Public Policy Considerations: Certification 0f this Class Action Complaint as a class action Will advance public policy objectives. Employers throughout the State of California Violate employment and labor laws on a daily basis. Current employees are often reluctant to assert their rights individually because of fear 0f direct or indirect retaliation by their employers. Class actions however provide Class Members, who are not specifically named in the Class Action Complaint, with 9. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 anonymity that allows for the Vindication 0f their rights Without fear of direct or indirect retaliation by their employers. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 36. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other California residents as hourly employees Within the State of California, including the County 0f Santa Clara. 37. During the four years immediately preceding the filing of this Class Action Complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiffs as full-time and/or part-time Instructors. 38. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Escuela Popular is a charter school. Escuela Popular operates four (4) different educational academies: (1) Childcare Academy; (2) TK-8th Dual Language Academy; (3) High School Youth Bilingual Academy; and (4) High School Adults Bilingual Academy and Vocational Training. A11 0f these academies are operated independently from the local school districts and are geared to serve the community 0f East San Jose. 39. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege, that during the four years preceding the filing of the Class Action Complaint and continuing t0 the present, Defendants employed Instructors in each of their four educational academies. The Instructors hired were not required to have teaching credentials nor a bachelor’s degree. 40. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendants compensated their Instructors With an average rate 0fpay ranging from $15.00 t0 $20.00 per hour. 41. Plaintiff Luna specifically worked as an Instructor for the following courses: English as a Second Language - Level 2A; English as a Second Language - Level 3A; English as a Second Language - Level 3B; Basic Math (Modules E, F, F2, and L); Math Lab; and Theatre. 42. Plaintiff Uchicua specifically worked as an Instructor for the following courses: English as a Second Language - Level 1B; English as a Second Language - Level 2A; English as a Second Language - Level 2B; English as a Second Language - Level 3A; English - Level 1; Basic Math (Modules F, G, and H); and Social Studies. 43. Defendants continue to employ and misclassify hourly, non-exempt Instructors in California. 10. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Job Duties and Responsibilities 44. As Instructors, Plaintiffs and Class Members were charged With performing all the duties and responsibilities assigned t0 credentialed teachers at Defendant Escuela Popular. These duties and responsibilities included: (1) providing multiple subj ect instruction in Spanish and English; (2) preparing daily lesson plans using textbook materials, supplemental instructional materials, and audio Visual aids; (3) implementing curricula and classroom activities t0 comply with state standards; (4) conferring With parents and students periodically to assess progress; (5) providing behavioral and academic intervention for students; (6) supervising and disciplining students in accordance with the student discipline code; (7) evaluating students through teacher-made tests, standardized tests, and observations; (8) participating in extracurricular and school community activities; (9) collaborating With colleagues t0 align curriculum and share best practices; and (10) maintaining office hours to attend to educational student needs and concerns. 45. Plaintiffs’ and Class Members” job duties did not involve exercising discretion over matters of significance at Defendant Escuela Popular. For example, Instructors did not have any supervisory authority over any other employees. Moreover, Instructors did not have input concerning the educational curricula for the various classes they taught at Defendant Escuela Popular. In fact, Plaintiffs Luna and Uchicua reported directly to the instructional leaders and principals 0fthe morning and afternoon shifts. 46. Although Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ daily schedule varied from day t0 day, Plaintiffs and Class Members generally worked a shift of eight (8) t0 ten (10) hours per day 0n the premises of Defendant Escuela Popular, which included making themselves available to students for office hours. Plaintiffs and Class Members also performed work outside 0f the school’s premises t0 prepare lesson plans, prepare progress examinations, and grade exams and assignments. 47. As part 0f their job duties, Plaintiffs and Class Members also were required to participate in at least three different school committees. For example, Plaintiff Luna was required t0 participate in the Awards and Day of the Dead Committees. Plaintiff Luna also was required t0 organize and participate in the annual parents/teachers conference held at Defendant Escuela Popular. On some occasions, Defendant Escuela Popular forced Instructors to carry out their committee work 1 1. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 during meal and rest break periods. On other occasions, Defendant Escuela Popular required Instructors to attend committee activities 0n the weekends, especially When such activities included field trips t0 various locations throughout the Bay Area. 48. At all relevant times during their work-related travels, Plaintiffs and Class Members were subj ect t0 the control and direction 0f Defendants and their agents. 49. Prior to the start of every school year, Defendant Escuela Popular provided and continues to provide written employment agreements t0 Instructors detailing their yearly compensation, work schedule, and benefits. On information and belief, the Employment Agreements are essentially identical for every Instructor at Defendant Escuela Popular. Notably, the Employment Agreements for Instructors at Defendant Escuela Popular conspicuously and explicitly indicate that Instructors are non-exempt employees at the top 0f the first page. 50. Section B(2) 0f Defendant Escuela Popular’s Employment Agreements for Instructors is entitled “Work Schedule.” Yet, it fails t0 provide a specific work schedule for each Instructor, providing instead that the work schedule is t0 be “determined by Supervisor.” 51. Section B(3) 0f Escuela Popular’s Employment Agreements for Instructors provides the total base compensation that Instructors are t0 receive 0n an annual basis. This Section also indicates that Instructors are t0 be paid in bi-monthly installments. Section B(3) fails t0 provide the regular hourly rate and the overtime hourly rate for each Instructor. 52. Although Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly worked substantially more than eight hours (8) per day and forty (40) hours per week during their employment With Defendants, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members at the mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and in excess 0f forty (40) hours per week, 0r at the mandated double rate for hours worked in excess 0f twelve (12) hours per day. Defendants instead misclassified Plaintiffs as exempt from overtime pay and paid a salary without any overtime pay during their years of employment. 53. Furthermore, because Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and Class Members as exempt employees, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with compliant meal and rest periods. 12. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 54. Among other things, Defendants required Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform an array 0f work exceeding their scheduled work shifts, including performing work before or after scheduled shifts, working through or during meal periods and rest periods, and working on evenings, weekends and holidays Without receiving any compensation. 55. Most importantly, Plaintiffs and Class Members spent their workdays performing non- managerial, non-exempt tasks-duties that did not bring Plaintiffs and Class Members within any exemption from overtime under California law. 56. In misclassifying Plaintiffs and Class Members as exempt employees, Defendants therefore failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members for the regular and overtime hours worked on a daily and weekly basis. 57. In misclassifying Plaintiffs and Class Members as exempt employees, Defendants therefore failed to pay Plaintiffs premiums due for untimely, uninterrupted or non-duty-free meal 0r rest periods. 58. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, 0n information and belief, skilled lawyers, employees, and other professionals who were knowledgeable about California’s wage and hour laws, employment, and personnel practices, and the requirements of California law, advised Defendants. 59. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants t0 compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for all hours worked (including minimum wages and overtime wages) and Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for all wages earned for work that Defendants required them to perform. Furthermore, in Violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and Class Members all wages due-including minimum wages and overtime wages-for all hours worked. 60. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With compliant meal periods 0r pay Plaintiffs and Class Members one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ regular rate 0f pay when Defendants did not provide them with a compliant meal period. On information and belief, in Violation 0f the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, Defendants did not always provide 13. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs and Class Members With compliant meal periods and did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ and Class Members” regular rate 0f pay when Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with a compliant meal period. 61. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members rest periods 0r payment 0fone (1) additional hour ofpay at Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' regular rate ofpay When Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with a compliant rest period. On information and belief, in Violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, Defendants did not always provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with compliant rest periods and Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With payment 0f one (1) additional hour 0f pay at Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ regular rate of pay when Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With a compliant rest period. 62. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants to timely pay Plaintiffs and Class Members their wages due during their employment. On information and belief, in Violation of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and Class Members all of their wages Within the required time periods required. 63. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants to timely pay Plaintiffs and Waiting Time Class Members their wages upon separation of employment. On information and belief, in Violation 0f the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and Waiting Time Class Members all 0f their wages due upon separation of employment within the required time period , including, but not limited t0: unpaid minimum and overtime wages. 64. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with accurate and itemized wage statements in accordance With California law. On information and belief, in Violation of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with accurate and itemized wage statements detailing their total hours worked, number of hours worked at each hourly rate, and gross and net wages, among other required information . 14. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 65. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs and Class Members for business-related expenditures. On information and belief, in Violation 0f the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with indemnification or reimbursement for all business-related expenditures, including expenses associated With driving their personal vehicles. 66. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, California law required Defendants t0 fully compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members, and Defendants, despite having the financial ability t0 pay such compensation, willfully, knowingly and intentionally failed t0 d0 so, in order to increase their profits at the expense of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights under California law. 67. In View 0fthe Defendants’ aforementioned Violations 0f the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint on behalf 0f themselves, as individuals, and 0n behalf 0f all Class Members, seeking monetary and injunctive relief against Defendants t0 recover, among other things, unpaid wages, interest, attorneys’ fees, penalties, costs, and expenses. 68. As alleged in this Class Action Complaint, Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern and practice 0fwage theft under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 for the purpose of maximizing profit at the expense 0f their employees’ rights under California law, all of Which contribute t0 Defendants” deliberate unfair competition. 69. Plaintiffs further bring this Class Action Complaint pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 218, which provides that nothing in Article 1 0f the Labor Code shall limit the right of any wage claimant to “sue directly . . . for any wages 0r penalty due t0 him [or her] under this article.” SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages 70. First, Defendants had, and continue t0 have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice of understaffing their academies t0 maximize profits. This practice resulted in chronic understaffing, such that there were insufficient employees on duty to handle the workload. Without proper staffing, Defendants lacked the necessary coverage t0 relieve Instructors 0ftheir duties. As a result, Defendants 1 5. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 did not always provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With meal periods as required by California law. That is, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With meal periods that were timely, complete, and uninterrupted, if any meal periods were provided at all. 71. Additionally, Defendants required Plaintiffs and Class Members t0 assist students, administrators, and at times parents, in their classrooms even When they were 0n their meal periods, interrupting their meal periods and forcing them to work without pay. Given that the Instructors did not have a break room, separate and apart from their assigned classrooms, Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly had their meal periods interrupted by students, administrators and students’ parents after they initiated their meal periods and in between assigned classes. As such, Plaintiffs and Class Members missed meal periods and/or had their meal periods interrupted, Without receiving any compensation from Defendants for this time worked. 72. Second, Defendants had, and continue to have, a company-wide policy that fails to pay overtime and double time t0 their Instructors. Defendants instituted this scheme in direct Violation California law, so that Defendants did not have t0 pay statutorily required overtime and double time for hours worked in excess of eight (8) and twelve (12) hours in the same day. T0 effect Defendants’ scheme, Defendants d0 not have a system for tracking and recording the hours worked by their Instructors. Because 0f Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Defendants did not pay overtime wages for all 0f the overtime hours Plaintiffs and Class Members actually worked. Defendants’ failure to pay aggrieved employees statutorily required overtime and double time violates the provisions of California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198. For example, Plaintiff Luna and Uchicua regularly worked shifts in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and workweeks in excess of forty (40) hours per week, Without receiving proper overtime compensation, as required by California law. 73. Third, on information and belief, Defendants had, and continue to have, a company- wide policy that required Plaintiffs and Class Members to spend time outside of their shifts or on their off days preparing lesson plans, drafting quizzes and exams, evaluating students’ performance, attending to school committee responsibilities, attending school-sponsored events, and collaborating with colleagues to align curriculum and share best practices. Even though California law required Defendants t0 pay Plaintiffs and Class Members for this time, as it was time spent under Defendants” 16. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 control and for Defendants’ benefit, Defendants also failed t0 compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for this time. Failure t0 Provide Meal Periods 74. As previously alleged in this Class Action Complaint, Defendants had, and continue t0 have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f understaffing their academies that resulted in an insufficient number 0f Instructors to handle the required workload and a lack 0f coverage to provide Instructors With meal periods as required by California law. Defendants’ intentional and chronic understaffing 0f their academies prevented Plaintiffs and Class Members from taking all timely, complete, and uninterrupted meal periods. As a result 0f Defendants’ practices, Defendants required Plaintiffs and Class Members to work through part 0r all of their meal periods, permitted their meal periods to be interrupted, and/or wait extended periods 0f time before taking meal periods. Furthermore, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with second 30-minute meal periods 0n days that they worked in excess of ten (10) hours in one day. Plaintiffs and Class Members did not sign valid meal period waivers for days in Which they were entitled t0 meal periods and were not relieved of all duties. 75. Defendants knew or should have known that, as a result of their policies, including understaffing, lack of time clocks, and failure to provide meal periods, Defendants did not actually relieve Plaintiffs and Class Members of all their duties, which prevented Plaintiffs and Class Members from taking timely, complete, and uninterrupted meal periods. Defendants also knew or should have known that they did not pay Plaintiffs and Class Members meal period premium wages late, short, and/or interrupted meal periods. 76. Defendants also have engaged in a company-Wide practice and/or policy of not paying meal period premiums for days When they did not provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with compliant meal periods. Because of this practice and/or policy, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and Class Members premium pay for missed, late, short, or interrupted meal periods. Failure to Provide Rest Periods 77. As with meal periods, Defendants’ company-wide policy and practice of understaffing its four academies resulted in an insufficient number of Instructors to handle the required workload 17. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and a lack 0f coverage to relieve Plaintiffs and Class Members of all duties in order t0 provide them With rest periods as required by California law. Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly had their breaks interrupted by students, administrators and students’ parents. In View of the foregoing, when attempting t0 take rest periods, Defendants did not relieve Plaintiffs and Class Members of all duties and instead required Plaintiffs and Class Members to continue working their rest periods. Plaintiffs and Class Members therefore worked shifts in excess 0f 3.5 hours, in excess of 6 hours, and/or in excess 0f 10 hours Without receiving all uninterrupted 10-minute rest periods, as required by California. 78. Defendants also have engaged in a company-wide practice and/or policy of not paying employees all rest period premiums When they failed to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members with compliant rest periods. Because of this practice and/or policy, Plaintiffs and Class Members have not received premium pay for all missed rest periods. Failure t0 Provide Compliant Wage Statements and Maintain Required Payroll Records 79. Defendants have knowingly and intentionally provided Plaintiffs and Class Members with uniform, incomplete, and inaccurate wage statements. Specifically, Defendants violated sections 226, subdivisions (a)(l), (2), (5) and (9). Defendants deducted time worked from Plaintiffs and Class Members’ wage statements and employment records for interrupted 0r missed meal periods (and therefore time for which they should have been paid), and did not record time Plaintiffs’ and Class Members spent working off the clock, Which resulted in an unlawful deduction 0f wages earned and meal period premiums that should have been paid. Thus, Defendants did not furnish wage statements to Plaintiffs and Class Members containing accurate totals 0f: the gross wages earned (Lab. Code, § 226, subd. (a)(1)); the hours worked (Lab. Code, § 226, subd. (a)(2)); net wages earned (Lab. Code, § 226, subd. (a)(5)) and the number ofhours worked at each hourly rate (Lab. Code, § 226, subd. (a)(9)), and. 80. Because Defendants did not calculate Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ regular rate 0f pay correctly for purposes 0f paying overtime, Defendants did not list a total of hours worked or the correct amount 0f gross wages in compliance with section 226, subdivision (a)(l) and (2). For the same reason, Defendants also failed to list the correct amount 0fnet wages in Violation of section 226, 1 8. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 subdivision (a)(S). Furthermore, Defendants failed t0 list the correct amount 0f net wages earned by Plaintiffs and Class Members in Violation 0f section 226, subdivision (a)(S). Defendants also failed t0 correctly list all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, namely, correct overtime rates 0f pay and correct rates of pay for meal and rest premium wages, in Violation of section 226, subdivision (a)(9). 8 1. Defendants failed to maintain and keep required payroll records detailing the name and addresses 0f all employees employed and t0 keep, at a central location in the State of California 0r at the establishments at Which employees are enrolled, payroll records detailing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to all employees employed at the establishment. 82. Moreover, Defendants failed t0 maintain time records detailing when their employee began and ended each work period, meal period, and split shift interval, as required by IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001. Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages During Employment 83. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and Class Members all wages due t0 them, within any time period specified by California Labor Code section 204, including, but not limited to: overtime wages; minimum wages; reporting time pay; and meal and rest period premium wages. Defendants’ failure to timely pay Plaintiffs and Class Members, including requiring them to wait several days after they were provided with their paychecks t0 cash 0r deposit their paychecks. Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages Upon Termination 84. Defendants have a company-wide practice or policy ofnot paying departing employees their final wages on their last day 0femployment 0r within seventy-two (72) hours ofresigning Without prior notice, instead of abiding by the time requirements required by California Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Thus, Defendants failed t0 timely pay Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ owed wages within the required time limit, in Violation 0f California Labor Code section 201. 85. Additionally, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members Who are no longer employed by Defendants all their earned wages either at the time 0f discharge, or within seventy-two (72) hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ in Violation of California Labor Code 19. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sections 201, 202, and 203, including, but not limited t0: overtime wages; minimum wages; and reporting time pay. Failure t0 Reimburse Business Expenses 86. Defendants had, and continue to have, a company-Wide policy and/or practice 0f not reimbursing employees for expenses necessarily incurred, in Violation of California law. 87. First, at all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants required Plaintiffs and Class Members t0 purchase various educational materials for their students, including but not limited to: posters; pens; erasers; highlighters; notebooks; hand sanitizers; cleaning supplies; computer accessories; binders; staplers; and desktop hole punchers. For example, because of the lack 0f materials afforded to Instructors by Defendants, Plaintiffs Luna and Uchicua purchased basic supplies for their students that were necessary t0 present the educational materials 0f each of their assigned classes. Despite their numerous requests t0 the Escuela Popular administration that their expenses be reimbursed, Defendants failed t0 reimburse Plaintiffs and Class Members for the costs 0f their work-related expenses in Violation 0f California law. 88. Second, at all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and Class Members With reimbursement for mileage related t0 their attendance 0f school-sponsored events by using their own personal vehicles. Despite their numerous requests to the Escuela Popular administration that their travel-related expenses be reimbursed, Defendants failed to reimburse these employees for the costs and mileage incurred during such travel in Violation 0f California law. 89. Defendants could have provided Plaintiffs and Class Members with the actual tools for use on the job, including educational supplies necessary t0 fulfilling work-related tasks, or could have reimbursed employees for their actual expenses necessary t0 conduct the Defendants’ academic mission. Defendants also could have reimbursed employees for work-related travel expenses. Instead, Defendants required Plaintiffs and Class Members t0 bear the burden 0f these expenses without reimbursement in Violation 0f California law. // // 20. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Failure t0 Pay Minimum Wages [Ca]. Labor Code, §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198; IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, § 4] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 90. Plaintiffs, 0n behalf of themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 91. California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and IWC Wage Order N0. 4- 2001, section (4), make it unlawful for employers to pay hourly, non-exempt employees less than the minimum wage fixed by California law. 92. California Labor Code sectionl 198 makes unlawful the employment 0f an employee under conditions the IWC prohibits. 93. California Labor Code sections 1194, subdivision (a), and 1194.2, subdivision (a), provide that an employer that has failed to pay its employees the legal minimum wage is liable to pay those employees the unpaid balance of the unpaid wages as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal t0 the wages unpaid, and interest thereon at a rate of ten percent per annum under California Labor Code section 218.6 . 94. At all times relevant time to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants failed to pay minimum wages to Plaintiffs and members 0f the Minimum Wage Class as required by California Labor Code sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and 1198, by having followed and by continuing to follow a policy and practice of failing t0 pay Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class at or above the California minimum wage for many hours worked by Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class, including but not limited t0: hours Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and members 0f the Minimum Wage Class to work from home 0r remotely in order t0 comply with their duties and responsibilities as Instructors; hours that Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class to work late nights 0r weekend hours; hours Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class t0 work in order t0 support school committees; hours that Defendants required, permitted, or suffered 21. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs and members 0f the Minimum Wage Class t0 work in order t0 support off-campus school events; hours Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class to work t0 attend mandatory school meetings; and hours Defendants required, permitted, 0r suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class t0 work through unpaid meal and rest periods. 95. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and members 0f the Minimum Wage Class minimum wages as required by California law. 96. As a direct and proximate result 0f Defendants’ failure t0 pay minimum wages as required by California law, Plaintiffs and members of the Minimum Wage Class sustained damages. 97. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, Plaintiffs and members 0f the Minimum Wage Class can recover from Defendants the unpaid balance 0f their minimum wage compensation not paid t0 them by Defendants, as well as interest at a rate 0f ten percent per annum under California Labor Code section 218.6, costs, attorneys’ fees, and liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Overtime Wages [Ca]. Labor Code, § 510, 1194, 1198; IWC Order N0. 4-2001, § 3] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 98. Plaintiffs, on behalf 0f themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 99. California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198, provide that non-exempt employees are entitled t0 all overtime wages and compensation for hours worked and provide a private right 0f action for the failure to pay all overtime compensation for overtime work performed. 100. More specifically, California Labor Code section 1198 makes unlawful the employment of an employee under conditions the IWC prohibits. Moreover, California Labor Code section 510 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, section (3), require employers to compensate hourly, non-exempt employees With overtime compensation paid at one and-one-half times the employee’s 22. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day 0r forty (40) hours in a week or for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day 0f work, and overtime compensation paid at twice the employee’s regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess 0f twelve (12) hours in a day or in excess of eight (8) hours in a day on the seventh day ofwork. Lastly, California Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), entitles an employee t0 recover in a civil action the unpaid balance 0f all overtime compensation due but unpaid 101. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs and members 0f the Overtime Class are current and former hourly, non-exempt employees entitled to the protections of California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001. 102. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs and members 0f the Overtime Class regularly worked in excess 0f eight (8) hours in a day and/or in excess of forty (40) hours in a week. 103. At all times relevant time to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants failed t0 pay overtime wages t0 Plaintiffs and members 0f the Overtime Class as required by California Labor Code section 510 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, section (3), by having followed and by continuing t0 follow a policy and practice 0f failing to pay Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class at or above the applicable overtime rate required under California law for many hours worked by Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class, including but not limited t0: hours Defendants required, permitted, 0r suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class to work from home 0r remotely in order t0 comply with their duties and responsibilities as Instructors; hours that Defendants required, permitted, 0r suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class t0 work late nights or weekend hours; hours Defendants required, permitted, 0r suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class t0 work in order to support school committees; hours that Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class t0 work in order to support off-campus school events; hours Defendants required, permitted, 0r suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class t0 work t0 attend mandatory school meetings; hours Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class to work through unpaid meal and rest periods; hours that Defendants failed to track in time records; and hours Defendants required, permitted, or suffered Plaintiffs and 23. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 members of the Overtime Class t0 work through unpaid breaks. 104. Defendants committed and continue to commit the acts alleged in this Class Action Complaint knowingly and willfully. 105. As a direct and proximate result 0f Defendants” failure t0 pay overtime wages as required by California law, Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class sustained damages. 106. Pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), Plaintiffs and members of the Overtime Class can recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, as well as interest thereon at a rate often percent per annum under California Labor Code section 2 1 8.6, costs, and attorneys’ fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods or Pay Missed Meal Period Wages [Ca]. Labor Code, §§ 226.7, 512, 1198; IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, § 11] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 107. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 108. California Labor Code section 1198 makes unlawful the employment 0f an employee under conditions the IWC prohibits. 109. California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b), makes it unlawful for employers t0 require hourly, non-exempt employees t0 work during any meal period mandated by an applicable IWC Order. 1 10. California Labor Code section 5 12 and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 section 1 1, subsection (A), prohibit employers from employing a worker for more than five hours Without a meal period of at least 30 minutes. California Labor Code section 512 also prohibits employers from employing a worker for more than 10 hours without a second meal period 0f at least 3O minutes. 1 1 1. Under both California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b), and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 section 11, subsection (B), if an employer fails t0 provide an employee a meal period as required, the employer must pay the employee one hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate 0f compensation for each workday that a meal period is not provided as required. 24. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 112. During the Relevant Time Period, Defendants failed t0 provide Plaintiffs and members of the Meal Period Class with a 30-minute, duty-free meal period for every five hours 0f work. Plaintiffs and members of the Meal Period Class routinely missed meal periods or had late, short, 0r interrupted meal periods due t0 a heavy workload, location of time clocks in relation t0 the employee breakroom, and insufficient staffing. In addition, Defendants did not require Plaintiffs and members 0f the Meal Period Class to clock out for meal periods, thereby creating the false appearance that compliant meal periods were taken when they were not. Lastly, Defendants provided Plaintiffs and members 0f the Meal Period Class a fixed salary as part 0f their misclassification scheme that resulted in creating the false appearance that compliant meal periods were not necessary to track 0r provided. 1 13. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Defendants failed t0 pay Plaintiffs and members 0f the Meal Period Class meal period premium pay due for non-compliant meal periods, pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (c), and IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, section (1 1), subdivision (B). 114. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and members ofthe Meal Period Class premium pay for non-compliant meal periods as required by California law. 115. As a direct and proximate result 0f Defendants’ failure to pay premium pay for non- compliant meal periods as required by California law, Plaintiffs and members 0fthe Meal Period Class sustained damages. 1 16. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (c), and IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, section (1 1), subdivision (B), Plaintiffs and members ofthe Meal Period Class can recover from Defendants one additional hour ofpay at the employees’ regular hourly rate 0f compensation for each workday that a compliant meal period was not provided, interest thereon at a rate 0f seven percent per annum under California Civil Code section 3287, , and costs of suit. // // // // 25. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods or Pay Missed Rest Period Wages [Ca]. Labor Code, §§ 226.7, 1198; IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, § 12] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 117. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 118. California Labor Code section 1198 makes unlawful the employment 0f an employee under conditions the IWC prohibits. 119. California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (a), prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during any rest break mandated by an applicable Industrial Wage Order. IWC Wage Order 4-2001 section 12, subsection (A), requires employers to authorize and permit employees who work three and one half or more hours in a day to take a paid rest break 0f at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, Which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. 120. Under both California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (b), and IWC Wage Order 4-2001 section 12, subsection (B), if an employer fails to provide an employee a rest break as required, the employer must pay the employee one hour 0f pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest break is not provided as required. 12 1. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Defendants required Plaintiffs and members of the Rest Period Class t0 work four (4) or more hours without authorizing or permitting a ten (1 0) minute rest period per each four (4) hour period worked 0r major fraction thereof in Violation 0f California law. 122. At all times relevant to this Class Action Complaint, Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs and members 0f the Rest Period Class with a duty-free rest period of at least 10 minutes for every four hours 0f work 0r major fraction thereof. Plaintiffs and members of the Rest Period Class were unable to take compliant rest periods for the same reasons they could not take compliant meal periods. 123. At all times relevant t0 this Class Action Complaint, Defendants knowingly and 26. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 willfully failed and continue t0 fail t0 pay Plaintiffs and members of the Rest Period Class premium pay for non-compliant rest periods as required by California law. 124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure t0 pay premium pay for non- compliant rest periods as required by California law, Plaintiffs and members of the Rest Period Class sustained damages. 125. Pursuant California Labor Code section 226.7, subdivision (c), and IWC Wage Order 4-2001, section (12), subdivision (B), Plaintiffs and members of the Rest Period Class can recover from Defendants one additional hour 0fpay at the employee’s regular hourly rate 0f compensation for each work day that a compliant rest period was not provided, including interest thereon at a rate of seven percent per annum under California Civil Code section 3287, , and costs 0f suit. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Ca]. Labor Code §§ 204, 226; IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, § 7] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 126. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 127. California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), provides that every employer, like Defendants, must provide each of their employees, like Plaintiffs and members 0fthe Wage Statement Penalty Class, With an accurate itemized wage statement in writing detailing the following information: (1) gross wages earned; (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 5 15 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission; (3) the number 0f piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis; (4) all deductions, provided that all a deductions made on written orders 0f the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item; (5) net wages earned; (6) the inclusive dates 0f the period for which the employee is paid; (7) the name 0fthe employee and his 0r her social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his 0r her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number may be shown 0n the itemized statement; 27. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. 128. California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (e), provides that an employee who suffers injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with section 226, subdivision (a), may recover the greater of actual damages or the civil penalties designated by statute 0f $50 for the initial pay period. 129. California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (e)(2)(B), provides that an employee is deemed t0 suffer injury if the wage statement fails t0 accurately and completely provide certain information and the employee cannot promptly and easily determine such information from the wage statement alone. In relevant part, California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (e)(2)(B), provides that an employee is deemed to suffer injury if the wage statement does not accurately and completely state the total number 0f hours worked by the employee, all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, and the corresponding number 0f hours worked at each hourly rate. 130. Defendants intentionally and willfully failed t0 provide employees with complete and accurate wage statements because the wage statements provided by Defendants failed t0 accurately detail Plaintiffs’ and members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class’s total hours worked and the corresponding hourly rates as a result of Defendants’ failure to pay the outstanding wages alleged in this Class Action Complaint. 13 1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure t0 provide Plaintiffs and members 0f the Wage Statement Penalty Class with accurate itemized wage statements as required by California law, Plaintiffs and members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class suffered injury and damages. 132. Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class were injured by Defendants” intentional Violation of California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), because they were denied both their legal right to receive and their protected interest in receiving, accurate, itemized wage statements under California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a). Plaintiffs and members 0f the Wage Statement Penalty Class were injured by Defendants” intentional Violation 0f 28. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), because it has caused confusion over whether they received from Defendants all of the wages owed to them, in addition to their difficulty and expense in reconstructing pay records and making mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid t0 them did in fact compensate them for all hours worked. 133. Plaintiffs and members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class can recover from Defendants the greater 0f their actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure t0 comply with California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), 0r an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars per employee. 134. California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (h), authorizes courts to issue injunctive relief t0 remedy Violations of section 226, subdivision (a). Plaintiffs and members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class are entitled t0 injunctive reliefunder the governing legal standards and are entitled to an order enjoining Defendants: (i) to immediately begin providing to Plaintiffs and current employee members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class itemized wage statements containing all of the information required t0 be detailed by California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a); and (ii) to immediately provide to all Plaintiffs and members of the Wage Statement Penalty Class the information required be disclosed by California Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), dating back t0 those employees’ beginning of employment or to the start of the applicable limitations period, whichever is further back in time. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure t0 Pay All Wages at Termination [Ca]. Labor Code, §§ 201, 202, 203] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 135. Plaintiffs, on behalf 0f themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 136. California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 provide that if an employer discharges an employee, then the wages earned and unpaid at the time ofdischarge are due and payable immediately, and that if an employee voluntarily leaves his 0r her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter unless the employee has given seventy- 29. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 two (72) hours previous notice of his 0r her intention t0 quit, in Which case the employee is entitled to his 0r her wages at the time of quitting. 137. California Labor Code section 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay wages owed in accordance With sections 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date, and at the same rate until paid 0r until an action is commenced, but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (3 0) days. 138. The unpaid wages owed to Plaintiffs and members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class at the time of termination of their employment include unpaid regular, overtime, and double time wages, as set forth in this Class Action Complaint. 139. By failing t0 compensate Plaintiffs and members 0f the Waiting Time Penalty Class upon separation, including but not limited to Defendants’ failure t0 properly pay Plaintiffs and members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class wages for all hours worked when due, overtime wages, and minimum wages, Defendants have willfully failed and continue to fail t0 pay all accrued wages and other compensation to Plaintiffs and members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class in accordance with California Labor Code sections 201 and 202. 140. As a direct and proximate result 0f Defendants” failure t0 pay all wages due upon separation, Plaintiffs and members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class have suffered damages. 141. Plaintiffs and members ofthe Waiting Time Penalty Class can recover from Defendants the statutory penalty wages for each day they were not paid, up t0 a thirty (30) day maximum pursuant to California Labor Code section 203. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure t0 Indemnify for Necessary Expenses [Ca]. Labor Code, § 2802] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 142. Plaintiffs, 0n behalf of themselves and Class Members, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint. 143. California Labor Code section 2802, subdivision (a), requires an employer t0 indemnify an employee for all necessary expenditures 0r losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence 30. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0f the discharge of his or her duties, 0r 0f his 0r her obedience t0 the directions of the employer. 144. Defendants have failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for all business expenses and/or losses incurred in direct consequence 0f the discharge of their duties. More specifically, Plaintiffs needed t0 purchase various educational materials for their students, including but not limited t0: posters; pens; erasers; highlighters; notebooks; hand sanitizers; cleaning supplies; computer accessories; binders; staplers; and desktop hole punchers. 145. Plaintiffs continuously asked for reimbursement for the educational materials that Defendants required them to purchase, but the Escuela Popular’s administration continuously turned down their requests. 146. By requiring Plaintiffs and members of the Business Expenses Reimbursement Class t0 pay for work-related expenses Without reimbursement have violated and continue t0 Violate California Labor Code section 2802 and IWC Wage Order N0. 4-2001, section (9). 147. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed t0 reimburse Plaintiffs and members of the Business Expenses Reimbursement Class for all necessary business-related expenses and costs. 148. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure reimburse Plaintiffs and members 0f the Business Expenses Reimbursement Class for all necessary business-related expenses and costs as required by California law, Plaintiffs and members 0f the Business Expenses Reimbursement Class sustained damages. 149. Plaintiffs and members 0f the Business Expenses Reimbursement Class can recover from Defendants their business-related expenses and costs incurred during the course and scope 0f their employment plus interest accrued from the date 0n which the employee incurred the necessary expenditures at the same rate as judgments in civil actions in the State 0f California, including interest thereon at a rate 0f seven percent per annum under California Civil Code section 3287, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. / / / / / / // 31. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Business Practices [Ca]. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.] (Brought by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 150. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members 0f the UCL Class, re-allege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs 0f this Class Action Complaint. 15 1. As alleged in this Class Action Complaint, Defendants” conduct, has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiffs and members 0f the UCL Class, and t0 the general public. Plaintiffs seek to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 152. As alleged in this Class Action Complaint, Defendants’ actions Violate California law and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in Violation 0f California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. 153. A Violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. may be predicated on the Violation of any state or federal law. In the present case, Defendants’ policy and practice of not paying all regular, overtime, and double time wages due to Plaintiffs and members 0f the UCL Class violates California Labor Code sections 5 10, 1194, and 1198; Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and members of the UCL Class to work through their meal and rest periods Without paying them proper compensation violates California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 5 12, subdivision (a); Defendants’ policy ofnot timely paying Plaintiffs and members ofthe UCL Class all wages due t0 them during their employment violates California Labor Code section 204; Defendants’ policy and practice of not timely paying all wages owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members upon resignation or termination violates California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; Defendants’ policy and practice of not fully reimbursing Plaintiffs and members 0f the UCL Class for necessary business-related expenses and costs incurred during their employment violates California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; and Defendants’ policy and practice 0f failing t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements violates California Labor Code section 226. As alleged in this Class Action Complaint, Defendants’ unlawful business acts and practices, involve, but not necessarily limited t0 32. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the loss 0fmoney and/or property. 154. Plaintiffs and members of the UCL Class have been personally injured. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., Plaintiffs and the members ofthe UCL Class are entitled t0: restitution from Defendants of the wages withheld and retained by Defendants during a period that commences four years prior t0 the filing 0f this complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to pay all outstanding wages due to Plaintiffs and members of the UCL Class; an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant t0 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws; and an award of costs PRAYER FOR RELIEF 155. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows: a. An award for compensatory damages including, but not limited to, lost wages, unpaid wages, and unreimbursed necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in direct consequence of Plaintiffs’ discharge 0f their duties; An award for statutory penalties provided by law, including but not limited to those in California Labor Code sections 203 and 226, subdivision (e); An award for liquidated damages pursuant t0 California Labor Code section 1194.2, in an amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages; Restitution 0f all amounts owed in unpaid wages, overtime, minimum wage compensation, and unlawful deductions from wages, and interest thereon, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq; Disgorgement of profits and all other appropriate equitable relief authorized by California Business & Professions Code section 17203; Attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant t0 Labor Code sections 218.5, 226, subdivision (h), 1194, subdivision (a), 2802, and California Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and such other provisions as may be applicable; Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest 0n all sums awarded; Costs 0f suit; and For such other and further relief as is equitable, just and proper. 33. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OONON \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: August 14, 2020 JOSE MACIAS, JR HECTOR J. RODRIGUEZ TRAVIS M. ADAMS MACIAS RODRIGUEZ LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUSANA LUNA and CLAUDIA UCHICUA 34. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
