5662453 Tel: 7 Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179) Byron Goldstein (SBN 289306) GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 763?9800 Fax: (510) 835?1417 David H. Browne (SBN 261345) david@brownelaborlaw.eom Devin Coyle (SBN 267194) dcoyle@workerseounsel.eom BROWNE LAB OR LAW 475 Washington Marina del Rey, CA 90292 (310) 4214810 Fax: (310) 421?4833 moose Van ranmsm gaggmm Seem mas Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Vilma Zenelaj and Greta Zenelaj SUPERIOR COURT OIT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO VILMA ZENELAJ AND GRETA ZENELAJ, in their representative capacity, Plaintiff, VS. HOMEJOY, INC. CORPORATION (DBA HOMEJOY) and DOES 1?20, inclusive Defendants. CaseNoL:C t? 5 4 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 459a? Violation of the Private Attorneys GeneraI Act of 2004, California Labor Code 2698 et seq. Demand for Jury Trial PAGA COMPLAINT 3662453 Plaintiffs Vilma Zenelaj and Greta Zenelaj, in their representative capacity, allege as follows: ENTRODUCTION 1. Each Plaintiff worked as a ?Cleaning Professional? for Homejoy, Inc. (?Homej Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 California Labor Code 2698 et seq, on a representative basis. All current and former Homejoy Cleaning Professionals are aggrieved employees. 2. The California Labor Code requires employers to provide to its employees, among others things, itemized wage statements, meal and rest periods, minimum and overtime wages, reimbursement of necessary expenses, and promptpayment of wages upon termination Homej oy failed to comply with California Labor Code requirements due to the erroneous, willful and intentional classi?cation of its Cleaning Professionals as independent contractors. Plaintiffs, in their representative capacity, seek civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA. 3. Homejoy has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: misclassifying Cleaning Professionals as independent contractors instead of properly classifying them as employees; (2) permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring Cleaning Professionals 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 Cleaning Professionals a minimum wage for all hours worked; (4) failing to provide Cleaning Professionals-with adequate off?duty meal periods of at least one half hour for every five hours worked; (5) failing to provide Cleaning ProfessiOnals with adequate off?duty rest periodslof at least ten minutes for every four hours or maj or fraction thereof worked; (6) willfully failing to pay compensation owed to Cleaning Professionals whose employment with Homej oy terminated; (7) requiring Cleaning Professionals to incur business?related expenses failing to fully reimburse them for these costs; (8) knowingly and intentionally failing to ?lmish timely itemized statements accurately showing the total hours worked by or hourly rate paid to Cleaning Profesionals; (i9) unlawfully failing to keep accurate payroll records of total hours worked and wages paid to Cleaning Professionals; and (10) failure to pay all wages twice during each calendar month on A days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. 1 PAGA 5662453 isPlaintiffs seek civil penalties for the above acts, which violate the California Labor Code, under the Private Attorneys General Act Cal. Labor Code 2698 et seq. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs? claims for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act Cal. Labor Code 2698 et seq. 6. Venue is proper because Homejoy?s principal place of business is in San Francisco. PARTIES 7. Plaintiffs Vilma Zenelaj (?Vilma?) and Greta Zenelaj (?Greta?) are sisters who currently reside in Brentwood, California, which is located in Los Angeles County, Califomia. Plaintiffs were employed as a Cleaning Professionallbetween approximately July 2014 and October 2014. While employed as Cleaning Professionals, Plaintiffs worked in Los Angeles County, where they procured cleaning jobs through Homejoy?s website and/or online platform. 8. Defendant Homej 0y, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Homejoy is a ?person? within the meaning of Califomia Civil Code 9. The true names and capacities of DOES 1?20, inclusive, Whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show the true names, capacities, and involvement of DOES l~20, inclusive, once they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is responsible in somemanner for the events, happenings, and omissions described herein, and that Plaintiffs? injuries and damages were proximately caused by said defendants. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the DOES 1?20, inclusive, was an agent, employee, successor, predecessor, parent, and/or subsidiary of each of the remaining defendants, and each of them was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of the applicable relationship. PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION AELEGATTONS 10. On November 12, 2014, Plaintiffs gave written notice by certified mail of Homejoy?s violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged in this complaint to the Labor 2 PAGA 3662453 and Workforce Development Agency and Homej oy. See Letter from David H. Browne to Homejoy (November 12, 2014) attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. The LWDA did not provide notice of its intention to investigate Homejoy?s alleged violations within thirty?three (33) calendar days of the November 12, 2014 postmark date of the notice sent by Plaintiffs. See Cal. Lab. Code 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Homej oy uniformly misclassifies all of its cleaning professionals as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees. 13. Hornejoy exerts significant control over its cleaning professionals. For example, Homej oy cleaning professionals cannot determine the specific homes they clean, cannot negotiate their pay, cannot determine number of cleaning hours based on cleanliness of the house, and cannot subContract their work. Homej oy cleaning professionals lack the opporhinity to increase their profit on the basis of their own skills, efforts, and/or business ideas. Homejoy cleaning professionals can be terminated at will and placed on performance improvement plans. Homej oy fines Cleaning Professionals who are late for a cleaning or who cancel a cleaning. 14. Homej 0y failed to provide Plaintiffs and other aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, and overtime wages, lawful meal or rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary expenses. Homej oy also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved employees? hours worked and wages paid. I. 15. Plaintiffs allege that Homej oy violated PAGA in the following ways: (1) permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring Cleaning Professionals to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or in excess of forty hours per week without paying them overtime compensation in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and Labor Code 510, 558, 1194 and 1198; (2) failing to pay Cleaning Professionals a minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and Labor Code 1182.12, 1194, and 1197; (3) failing to provide Cleaning Professionals with adequate off?duty meal periods of at least one half hour for every five hours worked in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 558; (4) failing to provide Cleaning Professionals with adequate off?duty rest periods of at least ten minutes for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked in violation of 3 PAGA COMZPLAIN .20 366245.Wage Order No. 5 and Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 558; (5) willfully failing to pay compensation owed) in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiffs and other aggrieved employees whose employment with Homejoy terminated in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and Labor Code 201, 202, 203, 512, and 558; (6) requiring Cleaning Professionals to incur business?related expenses but failing to fully reimburse them for these costs in violation of Labor Code 2802; (7) knowingly and intentionally failing to furnish timely itemized statements accurately showing the total hours worked by or hourly ratepaid to Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees in violation of Labor Code 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5; and (8) failure to pay all wages twice during each calendar month on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays in violation of Labor Code 204. I FACTUAL BACKGROUND 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy has operated and conducted business as an employer of home cleaning professionals in the state of California. 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based-thereon allege, that there is an application process to become a cleaning professional. The application process includes an in?person interview and a cleaning evaluation. 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy uses its website, Homejoycom and/or its online platform, to schedule home cleaning jobs. 19. Before assigning a job to each new cleaning professional, Homejoy instructs cleaning professionals to choose a territory and to give their availability for each day of the week, including windows of availability within each day. Homejoy assigns work based on the cleaning professionalsD inputs. Homejoy fines Cleaning Professionals who are late for or who cancel one of these jobs. I 20. Each assignment lists the job start time, job duration, address, and number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Homej oy 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. Homejoy also provides cleaning professionals a checklist for a standard cleaning in each job assignment communication. 4 PAGA COMPLAINT 5562453 21. Upon information and belief there is a checklist for each part of the house. 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, floors mopped and/or vacuumed, furniture and visible surfaces are wiped, baseboards are dusted, reachable vents are dusted, and that trash is emptied. 22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that cleaning professionals are paid only for the time they spend in a home cleaning. Homej oy tells cleaning professionals that in order to receive an increased hourly rate they need to receive high customer ratings and do a suf?cient volume of jobs, Upon information and belief, Homejoy imposes a minimum number of obs that cleaning professionals need to complete each week in order to remain on the platform. 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy bars cleaning professionals from accepting jobs from Customers unless the Customer purchases the cleaning only from Homej oy. 24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based'thereon allege, that Homejoy exercises extensive control over the manner and means by which cleaning professionals perform their jobs. Examples of this control include, but are not limited to, Homej oy?s ability to terminate cleaning professionals at will, Homejoy?s prohibition against cleaning professionals hiring other people to assist in the cleaning jobs, Homej oy?s control over the location of the cleaning job, and Homcj oy?s control of . the amount charged to the customer. 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy provides training and instructions on how its cleaning professionals should complete their tasks, monitors and tracks performance, and counsels of underperforming cleaning professionals to meet Homej oy?s expectations. 26 . Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy controls the distribution of daily assignments to cleaning professionals, including choosing which part of their territory the cleaning professional will work, how short or long the gaps between each job will be, the start and end time of each job, how far the cleaning professional will need to commute between jobs, 5 PAGA COMPLAIN ?x?lONUW-566245.35 including whether the profeSSional will work within one city in their territory on a given day, or multiple cities; Speci?cally, Homej oy decides whether a Cleaner who chooses Oakland and San Francisco as part of their territory, Whether the cleaner will stay in Oakland on a given day, stay inSan Francisco on a given day, or travel in between the two cities multiple times on a given day. 27. Cleaning professionals lack control over the Specific homes they can clean. Cleaning professionals 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. 28. in addition, cleaning professionals do not have discretion to pick and choose their cleaning tasks or create their plan of action at the customer?s home. 29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy has the exclusive control over the price and length of time for each cleaning job. Cleaning professional compensation amounts and terms are not negotiable. The cleaning professionals can neither negotiate the price nor the length of cleaning. When the length of cleaning is decided, the cleaning professionals have no input. Also, Homej oy prevents the cleaning professionals from negotiating the length of the cleaning time with the Customers. 30. Because the cleaning professionals can neither negotiate cleaning time nor have input into the length of cleaning, Homejoy controls the quality of the cleaning job. For example, the more time that a cleaning professional has to complete a cleaning job, the more likely the quality of the cleaning job will increase. 31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that cleaning professionals are an integral part of Homejoy?s business of providing cleaning services to its customers. 32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the skills required of cleaning professionals in rendering services to Homej oy are such that those services can be, and generally are, perfonned by employees, rather than by specially skilled independent workers. 33. As a result of the control exercised by Homejoy over the work performed by Plaintiff and the other cleaning professionals, an employer~employee relationship exists and has existed at all times material to this action between Homej oy and each aggrieved employee. 6 PAGA COMPLAINT 3662453 - 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homejoy uniformly, willfully and intentionally misclassifies all of its cleaning professionals as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees. Homej oy requires Cleaning Professionals to sign an ?Independent Contractor Agreement.? 35- Homej oy retains the right to unilaterally terminate the cleaning professionals at any time; 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Independent Contractor Agreement was drafted exclusively by Homej oy and/or its legal counsel. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Independent Contractor Agreement purports to classify the cleaning professionals as independent contractors to conceal the true employment relationship between Homej oy and its cleaning professionals. 38. The Independent Contractor Agreement provides, among other things, that: Homej oy retains the right to unilaterally terminate the cleaning professionals at any time and with or without cause. 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that before every cleaning, Homej oy sends an email to its cleaning professionals that tells the cleaner to, among other things: arrive 5?10 minutes early to the job with all supplies; identify themselves as a H-omej oy Cleaning Professional; 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 Homejoy; submit only the time that they cleaned; and, that cancelling last minute or not showing up will result in your account access being immediately suspended 40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy illegally, willfully and intentionally misclassified its cleaning professionals as independent contracts when they were, in fact employees as defined by Wage Order 5?2001 203), and 3 and California common law. 41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that cleaning professionals 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. 7 PAGA COMPLAINT 3562453 42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy?s cleaning professionals spend part of their work time cleaning homes. 43. In addition, cleaning professionals 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 Homej oy. 44. Cleaning professionals also spend time traveling between the homes that they clean. 45. Cleaning professionals must attend an orientation. 46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy compensates cleaning professionals by the hour for the time they spend in the home cleaning. Homej oy does not pay cleaning professionals any other form of compensation beyond this hourly rate for time spent cleaning in the home. Cleaning professionals regularly work over eight hoursper 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 spent completing other work tasks required by Homej oy including logging onto the platform and making phone calls, texts, and sending emails before and after cleanings. 47. Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees are, and at all relevant times were, covered by Wage Order No. 5?2001 and 15?2001. Section 3 of the Wage Order, along with Labor Code 510, required employers to pay employees one~and?one?half times their normal hourly rate for hours wOrked in excess of eight per day and in excess of forty per week, and at twice the normal hourly rate for hours worked in excess of twelve per day and eight on the seventh day worked in a work week. However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy has had a policy and/or practice of failing to compensate cleaning professionals for all overtime hours worked. As a result of these violations, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq- i 48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homejoy does not maintain a policy that compensates Homejoy cleaning professionals an amount equal to or greater than the minimum wage for all hours worked, as required by California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1 8 PAGA COMPLAINT 366245.13 24 25 26 27 28 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5?2001 and 15?2001. For example, Homejoy does not compensate its cleaning professionals for time spent driving or otherwise commuting between jobs. Homejoy only pays its cleaning professionals for time spent at each job site. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5?2001 for failure to pay minimum wage, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. i 49. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy does not provide cleaning professionals with a thirty minute, duty?free meal break. Homej oy has no policy of providing cleaning professionals with a thirty minute, duty?free meal break within the first ?ve work hours in a work day or a second 30?minute, duty?free meal break after ten hours worked in a worked day. Due to the volume of scheduled work assignments and the associated travel time, cleaning professionals regularly either skip their lunches altogether, continue to work while eating their lunches, or take their lunches only after they have worked more than five or ten hours in that workday. As a result of these violations, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. 50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy does not provide cleaning professionals with two ten minute, duty?free paidrest breaks during each workday. Homej oy has no policy of providing cleaning professionals with a ten minute, duty?free rest break for every feur hours or major fraction thereof worked during a workday. Due to the volume of scheduled workassignments and the associated travel time, cleaning professionals regularly do not receive their statutorily required rest breaks. As a result of these violations, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. 1 51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy does not properly compensate Homejoy cleaning professionals for hours worked in excess of eight in a day and forty in a week, as well as for missed meal periods. Accordingly, Homejoy violated California Labor Code 204(a), which requires that employers pay ?all wages . twice during each calendar month on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays? (emphasis added). As a result, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. 9 PAGA COMPLAINT 42.24 3662453 25 26 27 28 52. Homej oy has failed to keep payroll records showing total hours worked and wages paid to employees. Under California Labor Code 1174(d), employers must keep ?payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to . . . employees . Because Homejoy did not keep accurate time records reflecting hours worked for Homej oy cleaning professionals, it is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 er seq. 53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy does not fully-reimburse cleaning professionals for all reasonable and necessary business expenditures they incurred while completing their job duties as required by Labor Code 2802. Cleaning professionals 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, and cleaning supplies. Cleaning professionals necessarily and reasonably incurred these expenditures, but Homej oy refused to fully reimburse cleaning professionals for these business costs. As a result of these violations, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 ez? seq. 54. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based thereon allege, that Homej oy has failed to pay all compensation due and owing to Plaintiffs and all former cleaning professionals upon separation, as required by Labor code ?201 and 2-02. Plaintiffs further allege that this failure to pay all compensation due Was willfully done by Homejoy. As a result of these violations, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. 55. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Homej oy has knowingly and intentionally failed to ?irnish Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees with timely, itemized wage statements accurately showing, among other required things, total hours worked or hourly rate paid,.as required by Labor Code 226(a). As a result of these violations, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. 10 PAGA 3662453 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT (California Labor Code 2698 et seq.) 56. Plaintiffs are ?aggrieved employees? under PAGA, as they were employed by Homejoy during the applicable statutory period and suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set forth herein. Accordingly, they seeks to recover on behalf of themselves and all other current and former aggrieved employees of Homej oy, the civil penaltiesprovided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorney?s fees and costs. 1 57- Plaintiffs seek to recover the PAGA civil penalties through a representative action permitted by PAGA and the California Supreme Court. in Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 969'. Therefore, class certification of the PAC-A claims is not required. 58. Plaintiffs seek civil penalties pursuant to PAGA for violations of the following Labor Code provisions: a. failure to provide prompt payment of wages to cleaning professionals upon termination and resignation in violation of Labor Code 201, 202, 203; b. failure to provide itemized wagestatements to cleaning professional employees in violation of Labor Code 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5; 0. failure to provide meal and rest periods in Violation of Wage Order No. 5 and 1 and Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 558; d. failure to keep required payroll records in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and 15 and Labor Code 1174 and 1174.5; e. failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and 15 i and Labor Code 510, 558, 1194 and 1198; i f. failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Wage Order No. 5 and 15 and Labor Code 1182.12, 1194, and 1197; g. failure to reimburse cleaning professional employees for all reasonably necessary expenditures and losses incurred by cleaning professional employees in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, including but not limited to fuel, insurance, maintenance, parking, public transportation and toll costs, 11 PAGA COMPLAINT 566245.cellular phone costs and cellular phone plans, and cleaning supplies in violation of Labor Code 2802; h. failure to provide itemized wage statements to cleaning professionals in violation of Labor Code 226(a); and i. failure to pay all wages twice during each calendar month on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays in violation of Labor Code 204. 59. With reSpect to violations of Labor Code 226(a), Labor Code 226.3 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation of Labor Code 226(a). 60. With respect to violations of Labor Code 510, 512, Labor Code 55 8 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of ?fty dollars for initial violations for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, and one hundred dollars ($100) for subsequent violations for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. Moreover, Plaintiffs seeks civil penalties in the amount of unpaid wages owed to aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code 558(a)(3). 61. 1 With respect to violations of Labor Code 1174, Labor Code 1174.5. imposes a civil penalty of $500. 62. Labor Code 2699 et seq. imposes a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) per pay period, per aggrieved employee for initial violations, and two hundred dollars ($200) pay period, per aggrieved employee for subsequent violations for all Labor Code provisions for which a civil penalty is not speci?cally provided, including Labor Code 226.7, 226.8, 1174, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1198, and 2802. I PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the aggrieved employees, prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: I 12 PAGA COMPLAJN '17 5662453 award of civil penalties pursuant to B. An award of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code 2699(g) and/or other applicable law; C. Prerjudgment and post?judgment interest as provided by law; and D. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: March 9, 2015 Respectfully submitted, GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN HO Byron stein Attorneys for Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees 13 PAGA COMPLAINT PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 475 Washington Blvd, Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: (310) 421-4810 - Fax: (310) 421?4833 NOvember 12, 2014 Via Certi?ed US. Mail California Labor Workforce Development Agency 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Homej oy, Inc. CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street, 2?d Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: PAGA Notice Pursuant to California Labor Code 2699 Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that Vilma Zenelaj and Greta Zenelaj (collectively referred to as the ?Plaintiffs?) have retained Browne Labor Law, Professional Law Corporation to represent them and other aggrieved employees for wage and hour claims against their current employer, Homej oy, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ?Homej Homej oy is a company located in California that provides, inter alia, home cleaning services. In order to provide these services, Homej oy utilizes numerous ?Homejoy Cleaning Professionals? including Plaintiffs. Homejoy misclassified Plaintiffs and continues to misclassify other Homejoy Cleaning Professionals as independent contractors. In reality, Plaintiffs and other Homej oy Cleaning Professionals are employees. Homejoy has violated, and/or has caused to be violated, several Labor Code provisions, and is therefore liable for civil penalties under California Labor Code 2698 et seq. We request that your agency investigate the claims alleged against it below. This will letter will serve as notice of these allegations pursuant to the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004 Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3. Unlawful Faiiure to Pay Overtime Homejoy has failed to maintain a policy that compensates Homejoy Cleaning Professionals for all hours worked, including overtime. Speci?cally, Homej oy only pays Homejoy Cleaning Professionals for the majority of time that they spend at a home cleaning. Homejoy does not pay Homejoy Cleaning Professionals for time spent driving between jobs, or for time spent completing other Homejoy tasks. Plaintiffs and other Homej oy Cleaning Professionals routinely work over eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours per week but are not paid one and one?half their regular rate of pay for overtime work. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 510, 1194, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 5?2001 and 15?2001 for failure to pay overtime, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 55 8 and 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Provide Unpaid Balance of Full Amount of Overtime Compensation As described above, Homejoy has required Homejoy Cleaning Professionals to work hours in excess of eight hours in a day and forty in a week, but has not paid these employees overtime compensation. As a result, Homejoy Cleaning Professionals have been denied ?the unpaid balance of the full amount of this . . overtime compensation? as required by California Labor Code 1194, and Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Pay Minimum Wage Homej oy has failed to maintain a policy that compensates Homej oy Cleaning Professionals an amount equal to or greater than the minimum wage for all hours worked, as required by California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 52001 and 15?2001. 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. Homej oy did not compensate Homejoy Cleaning Professionals for time spent driving between jobs, among other Homej oy tasks. Homej oy only paid its professionals for time spent at each job site. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 1194, 1197, 1197.1 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 5?2001 and 15 ?2001 for failure to pay minimum wage, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 558, 1197.1, and 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Provide Uninterrupted Off?Duty Meal Periods Homej oy has failed to maintain a policy that provides Homejoy Cleaning Professionals with off~duty meal periods as required by California law. Plaintiffs and similarly situated Homej 0y Cleaning Professionals regularly worked in excess of five (5) hours a day without being provided at least half-hour meal periods in which they were relieved of all duties, as required by Labor Code 226.7, 512, and Wage Orders 5-2001 and 15 ?2001. Homejoy failed to pay Homej oy Cleaning Professionals the premium compensation mandated by Labor Code 226.7(b) for these missed meal periods. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 226.7 and 512 and Wage Orders 5?2001 and 15? 2001, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 558 and 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Provide Uninterrupted Off?Duty Rest Periods Homejoy has failed to maintain a policy that provides Homejoy Cleaning Professionals with off?duty rest periods as required by California law. Plaintiffs and similarly situated Homej oy Cleaning Professionals regularly worked in excess of four hours or major fraction thereof during work days without being provided at least a ten minute rest period in which they were relieved of all duties, as required by Labor Code 226.7, 512 and Orders 52001 and 15-2001. Homeij failed to pay Homejoy Cleaning Professionals the premium compensation mandated by Labor Code 226.7(b) for these missed rest periods. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 226.7, 512 and Wage Orders 5?2001 and 15-2001, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 558 and 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Reimburse Expenses 7 Homejoy has failed to indemni?/ Plaintiffs for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by Plaintiffs. Homej oy did not reimburse Plaintiffs for cleaning supplies, mileage between job sites, parking at job sites, vehicle wear and tear, uniform maintenance, cell phone usage, and vehicle insurance. California Labor Cede 2802 requires the employer to indemnify employees for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred'by employees in direct consequence of the discharge their duties. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 2802, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Labor Code 558, 2802 and 2698 er seq. Unlawful Failure to Furnish Wage Statements Homejoy has violated California Labor Code 226(a) by willfully failing to furnish its Homejoy Cleaning Professionals with accurate, itemized wage statements showing the actual hours worked on a daily basis. When Homejoy compensated Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals it only provided gross pay data to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals. As a result of violations of California Labor Code 226(a), Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Labor Code 226.3 and 2698 seq. Unlawful Failure to Keep-Accurate Payroll Records of Daily Hours Worked Homejoy has failed to keep payroll records showing total hours worked and wages paid to employees. Under California Labor Code 1174(d), employers must keep ?payroll records showing the hours worked daily by and the wages paid to . . {employees . Because Homej oy did not keep accurate time records re?ecting hours worked for Homejoy Cleaning Professionals, it is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. To the extent that Homejoy?s failure to keep accurate payroll records was willful, it is liable for civil penalties under California Labor Code 1174.5. Unlawful Violation of California Labor Code 8 1199 Under California Labor Code 1199(a) and and 2699.5 et seq, an employer who ?requires or causes any employee to work for longer hours than those fixed? or ?violates or refuses or neglects to comply with any provision of? the Labor Code regarding employees? wages, hours, and working conditions, is subject to PAGA penalties. As described above, Homejoy has required Homej oy Cleaning Professionals to work hours in excess of eight (8) in a day and forty (40) in a week (thereby violating 1 199(a)) and has violated numerous provisions of the Labor Code pertaining to employee wages and hours (thereby violating 1199(b)). Accordingly, Homej oy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Pay All Wages Twice Each Calendar Month Upon information and belief, Homej oy failed to properly compensate Homejoy Cleaning Professionals for hours worked in excess of eight (8) in a day and forty (40) in a week, as well as for missed meal periods. Accordingly, Homej oy violated California Labor Code 204(a), which requires that employers pay ?all wages . twice during each calendar month on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays? (emphasis added). As a result, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. Failure to Enforce Maximum Hours of Work Additionally, because Homejoy failed to enforce the maximum hours of work'fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission with respect to Homejoy Cleaning Professionals as required by California Labor Code 1198, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 et seq. Unlawful Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination Homejoy has violated California Labor Code 201 and 202 by willfully failing to pay all compensation due and owing to all former Homejoy Cleaning Professionals at the time employment was terminated. Homejoy willfully failed to pay Homej oy Cleaning Professionals who are no longer employed by it all compensation due upon termination of employment as required under California Labor Code 201 and 202. Pursuant to 203 and 256 of the Labor Code, Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals are now also entitled to recover up to thirty (30) days of wages due to Defendant?s ?willful? failure to comply with the statutory requirements of sections 201 and 202 of the Labor Code. Additionally, because Homejoy violated California Labor Code 201, 201 and 203 of the Labor Code, Homejoy is liable for civil penalties pursuant to California Labor Code 2698 ez? seq. Conclusion Homejoy has violated or has caused to be violated a number of California wage and hour laws. Plaintiff requests the agency investigate the above allegations and provide notice of the allegations pursuant to provisions. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the agency inform her if it does not intend to investigate these violations so that she may amend her lawsuit to include the violations discussed in this letter. Sincerely, xi: David Browne