Quantcast

Plaintiff Alleges Satellite Painting Violated Multiple Labor Laws

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Plaintiff Alleges Satellite Painting Violated Multiple Labor Laws

State Court
F47b1f05 1841 48fa a11e 0c8d6d7280cd

Judge | https://www.pexels.com/

In a significant legal move, a class action lawsuit has been filed against a California corporation accused of multiple labor law violations. The complaint was lodged by Rodolfo Jaimes Betancourt on October 24, 2024, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, targeting Satellite Painting, Inc. and other unnamed defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that Satellite Painting, Inc., along with its affiliates, systematically failed to comply with various California labor laws affecting non-exempt employees over a four-year period. The plaintiff claims that the company neglected to pay minimum and overtime wages, did not provide mandated rest and meal breaks, and failed to maintain accurate employment records. Betancourt argues that these actions constitute violations of several sections of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. "Defendants have engaged in unfair and/or unlawful business practices," states the complaint, emphasizing the detrimental impact on employees who were denied rightful compensation.

The case outlines numerous grievances including failure to pay all minimum wages as required by Labor Code section 1197 and overtime wages under section 510. It also highlights inadequate provision for rest periods and meal breaks as stipulated by section 226.7. Furthermore, the complaint accuses Satellite Painting of failing to reimburse necessary business expenses incurred by employees during their duties, in violation of Labor Code section 2802.

Betancourt seeks comprehensive relief from the court for himself and similarly affected employees. This includes compensatory damages for unpaid wages, statutory penalties for delayed payments upon termination under Labor Code sections 201-203, reimbursement for business expenses plus interest under section 2802, as well as restitution for unfair competition practices per Business and Professions Code sections 17200-17210. Additionally, he demands an injunction against further unlawful acts by the defendants.

Representing Betancourt is Melmed Law Group P.C., with attorneys Jonathan Melmed leading the charge. The case is presided over by Judge M. Arechiga under Case ID: 24CV450497.

More News