5665055 Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179) Byron Goldstein (SBN 2893 06) GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 David Browne (SBN 261345) Devin Coyle (SBN 267194) dooyle@workersoounsel.con1 BROWNE LABOR LAW 475 Washington Blvd. 7 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: (310) 421-4810 Fax: (310) 421?4833 Attorneys for Plaintiff Diana VentIIra EPA EIORRED 1?31? I $5121 BROWSER 6312115121.! $52113?? PEAR '1 2951.315? CLERK. Cl: @541PAPER: mm; c? DEER E1511 4's I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DIANA VENTURA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. HOMEJOY, INC. CORPORATION (DBA HOMEIOY) and DOES 1?20, inclusive, Defendants. g: Case No.2 Case mm IRA "m i? CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (I) FAILURE TO PAY WAGES (CAL. LAB. CODE 204, 510, 1194 and I.W.C. WAGE ORDERS No. 5- 2001 and 15?2001); (2) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE (CAL. LAB. CODE 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and I.W.C. WAGE ORDERS NO. 5-2001 and (3) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE REQUIRED BUSINESS EXPENSES (CAL. LAB. CODE 2302); (4) FAILURE Io PROVIDE MEAL (CAL. LAB. CODE 226.7, 512 and I.W.C. WAOE ORDERS N0. 5? 2001 and 15?2001); (5) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS (CAL. LAB. CODE 226.7 and I.W.C. WAGE ORDERS NO. 52001 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 and 15-2001); (6) FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE ITEMIEED WAGE STATEMENTS (CAL. LAE. CODE 226); (7) FAILURE TO PAY EARNED WAGES UPON DISCHARGE (CAL. LAB. CODE 201-203); (8) FAILURE TO PROVIDE CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS DISCLOSURE IN WRITING IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE (9) FAILURE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO. REQUEST and RECEIVE COPY OF CONSUMER REPORT IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1786.16(b) I10) UNLAWFUL UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. EUS. PROF. CODE 17200?17208 and CAL. LAB. CODE 1199); JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 Plaintiff Diana Ventura, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, complains and alleges as follows: I INTRODUCTION 1. I Plaintiff brings this class action for violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. on behalf of herself and all of the Cleaning Professionals (collectively referred to as ?Cleaners?) employed by Defendant ?Homej oy, Inc, and DOES 1?20 (collectively referred to ?Homejoy? or ?Defendants?) in California (collectively referred as ?Class Members?) from the date four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action.1 Plaintiff brings individual claims under the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act California Civil Code 1786 et seq. 2. Homejoy has violated California law by misclassifying Cleaners as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees. Due to this unlawful misclassi?cation of Cleaners, Homej oy has iviolated numerous provisions of the California Labor Code, including failure to compensate Class Members for all overtime hours worked despite the fact that Plaintiff and Class Members regularly 'work overtime, failure to pay a minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to provide meal and rest periOds, failure to pay all earned wages at the conclusion of employment, failure to adequately reimburse Class Members for business expenditures incurred and required by their jobs, and failure to furnish timely wage statements accurately showing, among other things, the total hours Class Members worked during each pay period. 3. Homejoy has also violated the specifically, Homejoy violated California Civil Code and by not providing Plaintiff with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing. 4. Plaintiff also alleges that these acts, which violate the California Labor Code, constitute predicate unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Laws. I Plaintiffs California Labor Code and UCL claims. were tolled from February 3, 2015 to February 13, 2015. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 5. I ln this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all Class Members, seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods, reimbursement for required business expenses, statutory penalties, punitive damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys? fees and costs, prejudgmen?t interest, and other relief under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5?2001, 8 Cal. Code of Reg. 11050 (?Wage Order California I.W.C. Wage Order 15?2001, 8 Cal. Code of Reg. 11150 (?Wage Order California Labor Code (?Labor Code?) 201, 202, 203, 204(a), 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1174(d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1199, 2802, California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, UCL, and California common law. 6. The ?Class Period? is designated as the time from four years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint through the trial of this action based upon the allegation that the violatiOns of the Labor Code and UCL, as described more ?illy below, have been ongoing since at least four years prior to the. date of the instant Complaint in this action and are continuing. 7. Homej oy has misclassified all of its Cleaners as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employeesin Violation of Wage Order 5?2001 and 3; Wage Order 15?2001 and 3; and, California common law. 8. During the Class Period, Homejoy has had a consistent poliCy and/or practice of: (1) misclassifying Cleaners as independent contractors instead of prOperly classifying them as employees; (2) permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring Cleaners to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or in excess of forty hours per week without paying them overtime compensation as required by California state wage and hour laws; (3) failing to pay Cleaners a minimum wage for all hours worked; (4) failing to provide Cleaners with adequate off?duty meal periods of at least one half hour for every five hours worked; (5) failing to provide Cleaners with adequate off?duty rest periods of at least ten minutes for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked; (6) willfully failing to pay compensation owed (including unpaid overtime and meal and rest period compensation) in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and other Class Members whose employment with Homej oy terminated; (7) requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to incur business-related expenses as Cleaners, but failing to fully reimburse them for these costs; and, (8) knowingly and intentionally failing to fumish timely 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 itemized wage statements accurately showing the total hours worked by or hourly rate paid to Plaintiff 2 and Class Members. 3 9. Accordingly, Homej oy has violated the UCL, with the violations of the California wage 4 and hour laws described above. 5 10. Homejoy also failed to provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to the Plaintiff of the 6 information required in California Code of Civil Procedure and 7 Homej oy also failed to provide to the Plaintiff, by means of a box to check on a written form, for 8 example, the opportunity to request and receive a copy of Cleaners? consumer background reports, in? 9 violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 10 - JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for unpaid 12 overtime wages under Labor Code 1194. 13 12. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for unpaid 14 minimum wage under Labor Code 510, 1194, and I.W.C. Wage Orders No. 5?2001 and 15?2001. 15 13. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for failure to 16 provide meal periods under Labor Code 226.7, and Wage Orders No. 5?2001 and 15?2001. 17 14. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for failure to 18 provide rest periods under Labor Code 226.7, and I.W.C. Wage Orders No. 5-2001 and 15?2001. 19 15. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for penalties for 20 failure to pay wages of discharged employees under Labor Code 203. 21 16. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for failure to 22 reimburse necessarily and reasonably incurred business expenses under Labor Code 2802. 23 17. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Class Members? claims for failure to 24 furnish timely and accurate wage statements under Labor Code 226. 25 18. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff claim for failure to provide a clear and 26 conspicuous disclosure pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 27 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5865055 5665055 19. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim for failure to provide the opportunity to request and receive a copy of Cleaners? (consumer background reports under California Code of Civil Procedure 20. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff? claims for injunctive relief and restitution of unpaid wages and other ill-gotten bene?ts arising from Defendants? unlawful and/or unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code 17203 and 17204, and Labor Code ?1199. 21. Venue is proper because Homejoy?s principal place of business is in San Francisco. PARTIES 22. Plaintiff Diana Ventura currently resides in Downey, California, which is located in Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff was employed as a Cleaner between approximately, January 2013 through March 2013, and from approximately March 2014 through October 2014. While employed as a Cleaner, Plaintiff worked in Los Angeles County, where she procured cleaning jobs through Homej oy?s website and/or online platform. Homej oy unilaterally terminated Plaintiff? indefinite employment relationship with the company in or around October 2014. Plaintiff is a ?consumer? within the meaning of Califomia Civil Code 23. Defendant Homejoy, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Homej oy is a ?person? within the meaning of California Civil Code 24. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of Defendant sued herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues Defendant by fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure 474?. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to re?ect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agents of the other DOE defendants, carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. i 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homej oy employs over forty Cleaners in the state of California. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27. Homej oy has operated and conducted business as an employer of home Cleaners in the state of California. Cleaners are an integral part of Homejoy?s business of providing cleaning services, among other services, to its customers. Homej 0y has the right to terminate Cleaners at will. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the skills required of Cleaners in rendering services to Homejoy are such that those services can be, and generally are, performed by employees, rather than by specially skilled independent workers. 29. There is an application process to become a Cleaner. The application process includes an in?person interview, background check, and a cleaning evaluation. Regarding the background check, Homej 0y failed to provide to Plaintiff, by means of a box to check on a written form, for example, the opportunity to request and receive a copy of the consumer background report. Homej oy also failed to provide to the Plaintiff a clear and conspicuous disclosure containing the information listed in California Code of Civil Procedure 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homej oy uses its website, Homej oy.com and/or its online platform, to schedule home cleaning jobs. Homejoy recommends a total cleaning time to the Customer, the Customer chooses the total cleaning time, and Homej 0y then quotes a price to the Customer. The Cleaner has no input or control over this negotiation. i 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, before assigning a job to each new Cleaner, Homej 0y instructs Cleaners to provide Homejoy a territory for his or her cleaning jobs. Speci?cally, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, Homej oy initially instructed Cleaners to pick their territories by picking boundaries on a map. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, Homejoy changed that system in or around 2013, and began asking Cleaners to provide the company with zip codes where the Cleaners want to work. 32. Homejoy also instructs Cleaners to provide desired daily availability. For example, a Cleaner can tell Homejoy that that she is available every day of the week from 8am?8pm. Homejoy 5 COMPLAIN FOR DAMAGES 5665055 then assigns jobs. Cleaners are unable to provide any additional information before jobs are assigned. For example, a Cleaner cannot tell Homejoy that while she may have picked different zip codes or cities as part of her territory, she only wants to stay within one zip code, or within one small part of a zip code, each day. Instead, if a Cleaner chooses Oakland and San Francisco as part of her territory, Homej 0y alone determines whether the cleaner will stay in Oakland on a given day, stay in San Francisco on a given day, or travel in between the two cities multiple times on a given day. Furthermore, Cleaners cannot tell Homej oy whether they want a little or a lot of down time between each job, or each job start time or end time. Cleaners cannot tell Homejoy how much driving they prefer to do, whether the jobs need to be near public transportation, whether the Cleaners prefer to be stuck in rush hour traffic or instead on routes that are reverse commutes, how many jobs the Cleaners want to perform each day, or whether or not they want to return to a previous customer. 33. Cleaners lack control over the specific homes they can clean. Cleaners cannot determine whether there are safety concerns in that home, factor in how dirty the home is, and whether the client is likely to become a repeat customer. 34. Upon information and belief, Home} 0y rewards Cleaners who pIOVide more availability by increasing their hourly rates. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Cleaners are paid between fifteen and seventeen dollars per hour only for the time they spend in a home cleaning. 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Cleaners are paid only for the time they spend in a home cleaning. Homej oy tells Cleaners that in order to receive an increased hourly rate they need to receive high customer ratings and do a suf?cient volume of obs. Upon information and belief, Homejoy imposes a minimum number of obs that Cleaners need to complete each week in order to remain on the platform. 36. When Homej oy assign a job to a Cleaner, that job is deemed accepted. If the Cleaner cancels the job within forty?eight hours of the cleaning, she is ?ned $performance improvement plan, and/0r removed from the platform on a temporary or permanent basis (terminated). 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, Homejoy routinely changes Cleaners? schedules as little in advance as the night before the next day?s cleaning(s). For example, a Cleaner based in Oakland who was scheduled for a cleaning at 9am in Oakland may learn that she is now scheduled for an 8am cleaning in San Francisco instead, and that other jobs scheduled for that day have also changed. 38. Each assignment lists the. ob start time, job duration, address, and number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Homej 0y provides notes from customers about what to pay special attention to, how to enter the house, whether to bring supplies, where trash and parking are located, and whether the . customer has pets. Homej oy also provides Cleaners a checklist for a standard cleaning in each job assignment communication. 39. Homejoy instructs Cleaners to wear a shirt with a Homej oy logo. 40. Cleaners do not have discretion to pick and choose their cleaning tasks or create their plan of action at the customer?s home. Upon information and belief, there is a Homejoy checklist for each part of a home. For example, the checklist for the kitchen mandates that sinks and faucets are cleaned, dishes are washed, that the exterior and interior of the microwave is cleaned, countertops and are wiped, cabinet exteriors are cleaned, ?oors mopped and/or vacuumed, furniture and visible surfaces are wiped, baseboards are dusted, reachable vents are dusted, and that trash is emptied. 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that before every cleaning, Homej oy sends an email to the Cleaner that tells the Cleaner to, among other things: arrive 5?1 0. minutes early to the job with all supplies; identi?l themselves-as a Homej oy Cleaner; that cleaning time can only be extended by agreement with the customer and Homej 0y; leave a thank you note encouraging the customer to book them again through Homej 0y; submit only the time that they cleaned; and, that cancelling at the lastfminute or not showing up will result in the Cleaner?s account access being immediately suspended. I 42. Homej oy provides training and instructions on how its Cleaners should complete their tasks, monitors and tracks performance, and counsels of underperforming Cleaners to meet Homej oy?s expectations. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 43. Homej 0y Cleaners cannot determine the speci?c homes they clean, cannot negotiate their pay, and cannot determine number of cleaning hours based on cleanliness of the house. Homejoy Cleaners lack the opportunity to increase their pro?t on the basis of their own skills, efforts, and/ or business ideas. ?Homejoy Cleaners can be terminated at will and placed on performance improvement plans. Homejoy ?nes Cleaners who are late for a cleaning or who cancel a cleaning. 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy has the exclusive control over the price and length of time for each cleaning job. The Cleaners can neither negotiate the price nor the length of cleaning. 45. Upon information and belief, Homej 0y charges Customers more for certain tasks requested by the Customer, including cleaning windows, walls, laundry, insides of ovens and insides of refrigerators. Cleaners? pay does not increase when a Customer requests these or other similar add?ons even though Homej 0y is charging the Customer more for these services. 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy charges Customers at least ?ve dollars if the Customer elects for the Cleaner to use his or her cleaning supplies instead of the Customer?s cleaning supplies. Homej 0y does not remit the ?ve dollars, or any additional money, to Cleanerswho use their own supplies. 5 47. Because the Cleaners can neither negotiate cleaning time nor have input into the length of cleaning, Homej oy controls the quality of the cleaning job. For example, the more time that a Cleaner has to complete a cleaning job, the more likely the quality of the cleaning job will increase. 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejdy bars Cleaners from accepting jobs from Customers unless the Customer purchases the cleaning only from I Homejoy. 49. As a result of the control exercised by Homejoy over the work performed by Plaintiff and the other Cleaners, an employer-employeerelationship exists and has existed at all times material to this action between Homej 0y and each aggrieved employee. 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy uniformly, willfully, and intentionally misclassi?es all of its Cleaners as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees. Homej 0y requires Cleaners to Sign an ?Independent Contractor Agreement.? 8 COWLATNT FOR DAMAGES 5665056 51. The Independent Contractor Agreement was drafted exclusively by Homej oy and/ or its legal counsel. 52. The Independent Contractor Agreement purports to classify the Cleaners as independent contractors to conceal the true employment relationship between Homej oy-and its Cleaners. 53. The Independent Contractor Agreement provides, among other things, that: Homej oy retains the right to unilaterally terminate the Cleaners at any time and with or without cause. 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy illegally, will?ally and intentionally misclassi?ed its Cleaners as independent contracts when they were, in fact employees as defined by Wage Order-52001 and 3; Wage Order 15?2001 203), and 3; and, California common law. 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Cleaners regularly work beyond eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week in order to complete their cleanings, including driving from one cleaning to another. 5 6 . Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homej oy?s Cleaners ispend part of their work time cleaning homes. 57. In addition, Cleaners spend time completing work tasks required by Homej oy that include, but are not limited to preparing in advance for customer assignments, communicating with customers via text and phone calls, communicating with Homejoy supervisors via email, text and phone calls, and submitting completed assignment information to Homejoy. I 58. Cleaners also spend time during the work day traveling betheen the homes that they clean. 59. Cleaners must attend an orientation for which Homej oy does not pay. 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy compensates Cleaners by the hour for the time they spend in the home cleaning. Homej oy does not pay Cleaners any other form of compensation beyond this hourly rate for time spent cleaning in the home. Cleaners regularly work over eight hours per day and over forty hours per week including time spent at the home cleaning, time spent driving Or otherwise commuting to and from each cleaning, and time 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 spent completing other work tasks required by Homej oy including logging onto the platform and 2 making phone calls, texts, and sending emails before and after cleanings. 3 61. Plaintiff and Class Members are, and at all relevant times were, covered by Wage 4 Orders No. 5?2001 and/or 15-2001. Section 3 of the Wage Orders, along with Labor Code .510,? 5 requires employers to pay employees one?and?one-half times their normal hourly rate for hours worked 6 in excess of eight per day and in excess of forty per week, and at twice the normal hourly rate for hours 7 worked in excess of twelve per day and eight on the seventh day worked in a work week. However, 8 Homejoy has had a policy and/or practice of failing to compensate Cleaners for all overtime hours 9 worked. 10 62. Homej oy does not compensate Homejoy Cleaners an amount equal to or greater than 11 the minimum wage for all hours worked, as required by California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 12 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 5-2001 and 15?2001. For example, Homejoy does 13 not compensate its Cleaners for time spent driving or otherwise travelling between jobs during the 14 workday. Homejoy only pays its Cleaners for time spent at each job site. As a result of violations of 15 California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders I 16 2001 and 15?2001 for failure to pay minimum wage, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to 17 California Labor Code 558, 1197.1. 18 63. Homej oy does not provide Cleaners with a thirty minute, duty?free meal break. 19 Homej oy has no policy of providing Cleaners with a thirty minute, duty?free meal break .within the 20 first five work hours in a work day or a second 30-minute, duty?free meal break after ten hours worked 21 in a worked day. Due to the volume of scheduled work assignments and the associated travel time, 22 Cleaners regularly either skip their lunches altogether, continue to work?while eating their lunches, or 23 take their lunches only after they have worked more than five or ten hours in that workday. 24 64. Homej oy does not provide Cleaners with two ten minute, duty-free paid rest breaks 25 during each workday. Homejoy has no policy of providing Cleaners with a ten minute, duty?free rest 26 break for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked during a workday. 27 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy does not 28 fully reimburse Cleaners for all reasonable and necessary business expenditures they incurred while 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 5665055 completing their job duties as required by Labor Code 2802. Cleaners regularly incur reasonable and necessary business expenditures in the course of completing their duties, which include, but are not limited to, wear and tear on personal vehicles used to transport them between cleaning jobs, fuel for those same personal vehicles, tolls, public transportation expenses, parking personal car insurance coverage, purchasing a cellular phone, cellular phone voice and data plans, public transportation ekpenses, tolls and cleaning supplies. Cleaners necessarily and reasonably incurred these expenditures, but Homej oy refused to ?illy reimburse Cleaners for these business costs. 66. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homej oy intentionally and knowingly does not furnish Cleaners with timely and accurate wage statements that Show: (1) all applicable hourly rates in effect during each respective pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked by each respective individual; (2) number of hours worked; (3) gross wages earned; (4) net wages earned; (5) all deductions; (6) inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid; (7) the employee identification or social security number; and, (8) the address of the legal entity that is the employer. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual harm and damages from Homej oy?s failure to provide these accurate itemized wage statements because they remained ignorant of their actual hours worked, overtime worked, and their applicable hourly rate. Thus, the Cleaners were unable to assert their statutory protections to Homej oy?s various Labor code violations at the time the violations occurred. I 67. During the Class Period, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy hasfailed to pay all compensation due and owing to Plaintiff and all former Cleaners upon separation, as required by Labor Code 201 and 202. Plaintiff further alleges that this failure to pay all compensation due was willfully done by Homej oy. 68. Homejoy violated California Code of Civil Procedure 1786.1 because it failed to provide to Plaintiff a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the information listed in California Code of Civil Procedure 69. Homejoy violated California Civil Code 1786. l6(b)(1) because it failed to provide to Plaintiff, by means of a box to check on a written form, for example, the opportunity to request and receive a copy of the consumer background report obtained for Cleaners.? 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 70. During the Class Period, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Homejoy violated the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. and California Labor Code 1199 by the predicate violations of the California wage and hour laws described above. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 71. This action is maintainable as a representative action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 382 as to violations of Wage Orders 5?2001 and 15?2001, Labor Codes and UCL for misclassi?cation of employees as independent contractors, unpaid overtime wages, minimum wage, meal and rest break violations, waiting time penalties, failure to ?rmish timely, itemized wage statements, and attorneys? fees and costs. Plaintiff is a representative of other Cleaners and is acting on behalf of their interests. The similarly situated employees are known to Homej oy and are readily identi?able and locatable through Homej oy?s own employment records. The Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is de?ned as follows: All persons who worked as Cleaners for Homejoy in California at any time from four years prior to the date of ?ling of this action through the date of trial. 72. The individuals included within the alleged Class are so numerous that joinder of each of them would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims in a class action, rather than in numerous individual actions, will benefit the parties, the Court, and the interests of justice. 73. Among the proposed Class there is a well?de?ned community of interest in the questions of law and/ or fact involved, affecting the Class Members. These common questions include, but are not limited to: a. Whether Homej oy?s uniform decision to classify all Class Members as independent contractorsand not as employees violates Wage Order 5?2001 203), and 3; Wage Order 15 ?2001 and 3; and, California common law. b. Whether Homejoy?s uniform right to control requires that the Cleaners be classi?ed as employees under California Law; c. Whether the Cleaners are engaged in a distinct occupation or business from Homej 0y; 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 Whether the skills required for the cleaning jobs support employee status; e. Whether the Cleaners? work is part of Homejoy?s regular business; f. Whether Homej oy?s failure to pay Class Members overtime wages violates Labor Code 510, 1194 and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15-2001; g. Whether Homej oy?s failure to pay Class Members an amount equal to or greater than the minimum wage for all hours worked violates Labor Code 1194; 1197; 1197.1, and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15?2001; h. Whether Homej oy?s failure to pay all wages twice each calendar month violates California Labor Code 204(a); i. Whether Homej oy?s failure to provide meal periods to Class Members violates Labor Code 226.7, 512 and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15?2001; j. Whether Homej oyjs failure to provide paid rest periods to Class Members violates Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15?2001; k. Whether Homej oy?s failure to provide formerly employed Class Members with all wages due upon separation violates Labor Code 201?203; 1. Whether Homej oy?s failure to fully reimburse Class Members for their employment?related expenses violates Labor Code 2802; m. Whether Homej oy?s failure to provide Class Members with itemized statements 7 of wages and hours worked violates Labor Code 226; and; n. Whether Homejoy?s various violations of the Labor Code serve as predicate violations of the UCL. 74. Common questions of law and/ or fact predominate over questions that affect only individual Class Members. Plaintiff claims are typical of those belonging to the members of the Class they seek to represent, and Plaintiff can adequately represent the Class she seeks to represent. I FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Overtime Wages Labor Code 204, 510, 1194, and E.W.C. Wage Orders 5-2901 and 15-2001] 75. Plaintiff re?alleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 1 3 COWLAJNT FOR DAMAGES 4s5665055 76. Labor Code 510 and the ?Hours Days of Work? Section of the Wage Orders entitles non?exempt employees to one and one?half times their hourly pay for any and all hours worked in excess of eight hours in any work day, for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week, and for any work in excess of forty hours in any one work week. Employees are entitled to the times their hourly pay for any and all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any work day and in excess of 8 hours on the 7th consecutive work day. 77. Plaintiff and Class Members regularly worked in excess of eight hours per day and/ or forty hours per week without overtime compensation. 78. By failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and Class Members, Homej oy violated and continues to violate Labor Code ??204, 510 and 1194 and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15-2001. 79. As a result of Homejoy?s unlawful acts, Plaintiff and Class Members have been deprived of overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys? fees and costs, under Labor Code 1194. 80. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, also requests further relief as described below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Minimum Wage Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and I.W.C. Wage Orders N0. 5-2001. and 15-2001] 81. Plaintiff re?alleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 82. California Labor Code 1194, 1 197, 1197.1 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 5?2001, 15?2001 entitle non?exempt employees to an amount equal to or greater than the minimum wage for all hours worked. All hours must be paid at the statutory or agreed rate and no part of this rate may be used as a credit against a minimum wage obligation. 83. Homej oy did not and does not compensate Homej oy Cleaners for time spent driving between jobs during the work day, among other Homej oy tasks. Homej 0y only paid its Cleaners for time spent at each job site. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 84. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 5?2001, 15?2001 for failure to pay minimum wage, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 558 and 1197.1. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses [California Labor Code 2802] 85. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 86. Labor Code 2802 provides that employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.? 87. Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred reasonable and necessary expenses in the course of completing their job duties for Homejoy, which were not reimbursed by Homej oy. These expenses include but are not limited to wear and tear on personal vehicles used to transport them between cleaning jobs, fuel for those same personal vehicles, tolls, public transportation expenses, parking personal car insurance coverage, purchasing a cellular phone, cellular phone voice and data plans, public transportation expenses, tolls and cleaning supplies. 88. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to reimbursement for these necessary expenditures, plus interest and attorneys? fees and costs, under Labor Code 2802. 89. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, also requests relief as described below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Mandated Meal Periods {California Labor Code 226.7, 512, and LWC. Wage Orders 5?2001, 15-2001} 90. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though'fully set forth. 91. Homejoy failed to provide meal breaks as required by Labor Code 226.7, 512 and Wage Orders 5-2001, 15?2001. 92. Plaintiff and Class Members have worked in excess of five hours and at times ten hours a day without being provided at least half hour meal periods in which they were relieved of their duties, as required by Labor Code 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order 5-2001. See Brinker Restaurant 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10566505.53 Corp, 31? al. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1004, 1040-41 (?The employer satis?es this obligation if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits I them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30?minute break, and does not impede or discourage them from doing so . . . first meal period [is required] no later than the end of an employee's ?fth hour of work, and a second meal period [is required] no later than the end of an employee's 10th hour of work?). 93. Because Homejoy failed to provide proper meal periods, it is liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for each work day that the proper meal periods were not provided, pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and 512 and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15?2001, as well as interest thereon, plus reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of suit pursuant to Civil Procedure Code 1021.5. 94. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, also requests further relief as described below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Provide Mandated Rest Periods [California Labor Code 226.7 and E.W.C. Wage Orders 5?2001, 15-2001] I 95. Plaintiff re~alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 96. Defendant has failed to provide the rest periods that are required by Wage Orders 5 2001, 15?2001. See Brinker, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 at 1029 (?Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from three and one~half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so 97. Because Homejoy failed to provide preper rest periods, it is liable to Plaintiff and Class Members for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that the proper rest periods were not provided, pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Orders 5 ?2001, 15- 2001a, as well as interest thereon, plus reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of suit pursuant to Civil Procedure Code 1021.5. 98. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, also requests relief as described below. 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES OONON 5665055 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate itemized Wage Statements [California Labor Code 226} 99. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 100. Labor Code 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing, among other things: (1) all applicable hourly rates in effect during each reSpective pay period and the correSponding number of hours worked by each reSpective 1 individual; (2) total hours worked by each respective individual; (3) gross wages earned; (4) net wages earned; (5) all deductions; (6) inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid; (7) the name of the employee and an employee identification or social security number; and, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. 0 101. In violation of Labor Code 226(a), Homej oy did not provide Plaintiff or Class Members with accurate itemized wage statements in writing showing: (1) all applicable hourly rates in effect during each respective pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked by each respective individual; (2) number of hours worked; (3) gross Wages earned; (4) net wages earned; (5) all deductions; (6) inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid; (7) the employee identi?cation or social security number; and, (8) the address of the legal entity that is the employer. 102. As a result of Homej oy?s failure to provide accurate itemized wages statements, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered actual damages and harm by being unable to determine their applicable hourly rate or the amount of overtime worked each pay period, which prevented them from becoming aware of these violations and asserting their statutory protections under California law. 103. Homejoy has knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Labor Code 226(a) on each and every wage statement provided to Plaintiff and Class and Subclass Members. 104. Pursuantto Labor code 226(e), Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50.00) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 105. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys? fees under Labor Code 226(h). 106. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, also requests relief as described below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Pay Compensation Due Upon Termination/17V aiting Time Penalties Labor Code 201-203] 107. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 108. California Labor Code 201 and 202 require Homejoy to pay all compensation due and owing to former Cleaners immediately upon discharge or Within seventy-two hours of their termination of employment. California Labor Code 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay compensation upon discharge or resignation, as required by Sections 201 and 202, then the employer is liable for such ?waiting time? penalties in the form of continued compensation up to thirty workdays. 109. Homej 0y willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members who are no longer employed by Homejoy compensation due upon termination as required by California Labor Code 201 and 202. As a result, Homejoy is liable to Plaintiff and former employee Class Members waiting time penalties provided under California Labor Code 203, plus reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of suit. 110. Plaintiff, on behalf cf herself self and Class Members, also requests relief as described below. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the California Investigative Consumer Agencies Act for Failure to Provide Clear and Conspicuous Disclosure [Cal Civ. Code 111. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 112. Homej oy willfully violatedLCalifornia Civil Code because it failed to provide to Plaintiff a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing that contained the information listed in California Code of Civil Procedure and 18 . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 113. Homej 0y willfully failed to provide the information described in California Civil Code and '1 14. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code 115. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code 1 78 6.5 NINTH CAUSE 0F ACTION Violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reportng Agencies Act Civ. Code 116. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 117. Homej oy willfully violated California Civil Code because it failed to provide to Plaintiff, by means of a box to check on a written form, for example, the opportunity to request and receive a copy of the consumer background report obtained for Cleaners. 118. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code 119. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code TENTH CAUSE OF ACT-ION Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California [Bus Prof. Code 17200 at 5211.] 120. Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 121. Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually and as a representative of all others subject to Homejoy?s unlawful acts and practices. 122. Business and Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. 123. Business and Professions Code 17204 allows ?any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property? to prosecute a civil action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law. 19 CONLPLAIN FOR DAMAGES 5665055 124. Homej oy has committed unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and practices as de?ned by Business and Professions Code 17200 by failing to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest breaks, to pay wages due at the time of separation, to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, andto reimburse business expenses in violation of state law. 125. The above?described unlawful actions of Homej oy constitute false, unfair, fraudulent and/or deceptive business practices, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. 126. As a result of their unlawful acts, Homej oy has reaped and continues to reap unfair bene?ts and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff, and the Class she seeks to represent. Homej 0y should be enjoined from this activity, caused to speci?cally perform its obligations, and made to disgorge these ill?gotten gains and pay restitution to Plaintiff and the members of the Class including, but not limited to, restitution of all unpaid wages, plus interest, as well as attorneys? fees and costs. 127. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, also requests relief as described below. i PRAYER POR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: i A. Certi?cation of Plaintiffs claims as a class action, pursuant to Cal. Code of 'Civ. Pro. Section 382, on behalf of the proposed class; B. Class notice to all Cleaners in California who worked for Homej oy from four years prior to the ?ling of the original Complaint through the trial of this action; C. That the Court declare that Homejoy?s policies and/or practices of misclassifying Plaintiff and Class Members as independent contractors violate California law; D. That the Court declare that Homej oy?s policies and/or practices of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members violates California Labor Code 510, 1194 and Wage Orders N0. 5?2001 and 15?2001 as to Plaintiff and the Class Members; 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 E. That the Court declare that Homej oy?s policies andfor practices of failing to pay an amount equal to or greater than minimum wage for all hours worked to Plaintiff and Class Members violates 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and Wage Orders No. 5?2001 and 15?2001 as to Plaintiff and the Class Members I F. That the Court declare that Homejoy?s policies and/or practices of failing to enforce maximum hours of work to Plaintiff and Class Members violates California Labor Code 1198 as to Plaintiff and the Class Members; 1 G. That the Court declare that Homej oy?s failure to provide meal periods violates California Labor Code 226.7 and 512, and Wage Orders 5-2001 and 15?2001, by failing to provide them a meal period of at least one half hour in which they were relieved of all duties for every five hours of work; H. That the Court declare that Homejoy?s failure to provide rest periods violates California Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Orders 5?2001, 15-2001 by failing to provide them a rest period of at least ten minutes for every four hours of work or major portion thereof; I I. That the Court declare that, as to former employee Class Members, Homejoy has violated California Labor Code 201-203 for willful failure to pay compensation at the time of termination of employment, resulting in unpaid waiting time penalties; .1. That the Court declare that Homej oy?s failure to reimburse all business expenses incurred by Cleaners in the discharge of their duties as employees of Homejoy violates California Labor Code 2802; K. That the Court declare that Defendants? failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements violates California Labor Code 226; L. That the Court declare that Homej oy? above-mentioned policies and/ or practices violate the UCL (Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17200?17208) and Labor Code 1?199; - M. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Homej oy from engaging in the practices challenged herein; N. An award to Plaintiff and Class Members of damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation, interest, and penalties subject to proof at trial; 21 COMPLAJNT FOR DAMAGES 5665055 0. An award to Plaintiff and Class Members of damages in the amount of unpaid minimum wage compensation, interest, and penalties subject to proof at trial; P. An award to Plaintiff and Class Members of damages in the amount of unpaid unreimbursedbusiness expenses, and interest thereon, subject to proof at trial; Q. An award to Plaintiff and the Class Members of one (1) hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that meal periods were not provided, pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Orders 15?2001(11) and interest thereon; R. An award to Plaintiff and Class Members of one (1) hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that rest periods were not provided, pursuant to California Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Orders 5?2001 (12), 15-2001(12) and interest thereon; S. An award of damages to Plaintiff and the Class Members for Homej oy?s failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, pursuant to California Labor Code 226(a); T. An award of payments due to Plaintiff and Class Members who have left Homej oy?s employ, as waiting time penalties, pursuant to California Labor Code 203; U. Interest accrued to date under the California Labor Code, including under Sections 226.7, 510, and 2802; V. An award of actual or statutory damages to Plaintiff pursuant to California Civil Code 1786.50(a) in an amount subject to proof at trial; W. An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff pursuant to California Civil Code X. For an order that Homej oy make restitution to Plaintiff and Class Members for Homej oy due to their unlawful business practices as described herein pursuant to California BuSiness and Professions Code 17200?17205 and California Labor Code 1199; Y. An award to Class Representative Plaintiff and the Class Members of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs, pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code 1021.5, California Civil Code California Labor Code 226, 226.7, 1194 and/or other applicable law; and, Z. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Dated: March 16, 2015 Re?pectfully submitted, 2 GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN HO 4 5 By%Goldstein 6 Attorney for Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5665055