When will employers ever learn that they need to respect the rights of their workers? Although the laws in California and throughout the country are totally clear, employers continue to violate the rights of their employees through underpayment, refusal to pay overtime wages, denial of benefits and breaks and other obvious violations.
You Have Rights
However, even though employers continue to violate the rights of workers, the workers continue to fight back through legal action. If you have any concern that your employer is violating your legal rights in California, talk to a lawyer right away to discuss your rights and options. You could have a legal case to protect your rights, bring justice against the employer who has mistreated you and potentially obtain compensation.
An Important Class Action Claim in California
According to a recent report in lawyersandsettlements.com, California employees are bringing a class-action employment lawsuit, totaling just under $5 million, against Interstate-RIM Management Company LLC.
The allegations against Interstate-RIM Management Company LLC include:
The incentive pay was not accurately reflected in the hourly wages of non-exempt employees for the purposes of overtime pay.
No policy was in place to facilitate the legally regulated 30-minute lunch break in every eight-hour shift.
Non-exempt employees were required to stay at work after they clocked out in order to answer emails without compensation.
The lawsuit states that there is evidence of the company’s policies and practices in the company’s business records.
This is a serious claim citing multiple violations. If the plaintiffs prove the allegations they’re bringing as a class, it will cost the employer significantly and provide them with compensations for the mistreatment they have had to endure in the workplace.
A case like this is one more proof that employers cannot simply violate their workers’ rights with impunity. If you or a loved one has experienced a rights violation at work, talk with an experienced employment law attorney right away.
Quick Navigation
Free Consultation
"*" indicates required fields
Undisclosed
Settlement
TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.
TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.
Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.
TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.
TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.
Class-wide settlement in wage and hour independent contractor misclassification class action on behalf of approximately 1,800 valet employees. Final approval granted.
Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.
$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.
One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.
Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.
Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.
With so many law firms in Southern California and throughout the United States, why choose the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman?
Todd Friedman has been named a 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 Super Lawyer, a distinction of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Speak directly with attorney Todd Friedman about your case. Todd will evaluate your situation and provide prompt and straightforward feedback, saving you time and alleviating uncertainty.
Our firm has earned an A+ Rating from the Better Business Bureau, and has been accredited since 2010.
We are strong advocates for our clients and have the resources necessary to take on powerful opponents and win.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site, including collecting and providing that information to third party vendors to improve our experience, and for marketing purposes. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
