This class action is brought under California labor laws against Georgia-Pacific Corrugated, LLC. The complaint alleges that the company did not properly compensate its non-exempt workers for overtime work, missed meal breaks, and missed rest periods, among other things.
The class for this action is all current and former California-based, hourly-paid or non-exempt employees working for Georgia-Pacific Corrugated, LLC in California at any time between October 7, 2015 and the final judgment in this case.
Jacob Schumacher worked for Georgia-Pacific as a non-exempt, hourly employee between March and May 2018 in California.
He claims to have worked more than eight hours a day or forty hours in a week for the company. However, the complaint alleges, he was not properly paid for the hours of overtime that he worked.
The rate for overtime pay, under California law, is one and a half times the worker’s regular rate of pay. This pay rate applies to hours over eight on any day, through the twelfth hour worked. After twelve hours, the rate of pay is double the worker’s regular pay.
The time-and-a-half rate also applies to hours worked in excess of forty in a week and to the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in the week. For hours worked in excess of eight on this seventh day, the rate is double time.
In addition, he was entitled to certain meal periods and rest breaks. He was not always permitted to take them. In such instances, California law specifies that workers must be paid a one-hour premium at their regular rates of pay for each missed meal or rest break. However, the complaint alleges that the company did not pay them this premium.
When these kinds of basic laws are violated, they usually result in additional violations downstream. The complaint thus adds that Schumacher was not given complete and accurate wage statements reflecting all hours worked and all pay owed; and that the company was not keeping accurate payroll records, as required by law.
Furthermore, since the company did not recognize these additional amounts owed, it did not pay workers all money owed upon termination.
The complaint alleges that the company knew or should have known of the labor laws and its obligations to its workers.
Most of the causes of action in the complaint come under California’s Labor Law and its Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order. In addition, the complaint claims the company has violated the California Business & Professions Code, because they are unlawful business acts and practices that give them an unfair advantage over competitors.