HANDLING ALL JOB RELATED LEGAL ISSUES FIND OUT MORE CALL NOW
1-877-525-0700
FPI Management’s paystubs may have reported strange overtime
rates for numerous employees. The Employment Lawyers Group has
paystubs from one FPI Management employee who is reported to
have approximately 16 different overtime rates none of which
make any sense, or correspond to his hourly rate. A failure to
properly report rates of pay on paystubs lead to fines of
$100.00 per paystub. The statute of limitations for this theory
may only be one year so employees facing paystub errors should
take legal action immediately.
The Employment Lawyers Group is presently investigating just
how many employees received paystubs from FTP Management with
erroneous rates of pay. A putative class action has been filed
against FPI Management alleging they provided employees
paystubs with erroneous rates of overtime pay that did not
correspond with their rates of pay.
The group of persons who will be in the potential class action
for paystubs errors has been defined in the lawsuit to include
all persons, whether permanent, probationary, or temporary,
employed by Defendant FPI Management within the State of
California from January 2, 2017 to present who were furnished
inaccurate wage statements in violation of the requirements set
forth in California Labor Code Section 226(a) because the wage
statements failed to include the employee’s correct hourly
rates, including those for overtime and/or double time,
accurate gross and net wages earned, and the correct itemized
deductions for rental credits paid by Defendant FPI Management
as compensation in excess of the allowable limits under Wage
Order 5. Employees who were subjected to improper FPI rent
credits who worked for FPI before January 2, 2017 may be
members of the rent credit class in the lawsuit, but not
necessarily the part of the case dealing with improper
paystubs.
California Labor Code Section 226 requires employers to provide
all rates of pay for employees. This means their correct hourly
rate must be included on the paystub. It also means the correct
overtime and double time rates must be on the employee’s
paystubs. If a rate of pay has been changed due to a rent
credit or piece rate work the rate of pay must reflect those
unusual circumstances. Additionally, paystubs cannot report an
amount for a rent credit in excess of Wage Order 5’s
limitations discussed earlier in this article. The FPI
paychecks Employment Lawyers Group has reviewed show paychecks
illegally claiming the payment of the entire rent credit as
wages.
Karl Gerber and/or Brett Gunther are available to speak to any
FPI Management employee who has questions about the putative
class action that was filed including rent credits and paystub
issues. Wage and hour lawsuits are technical and so are the
variety of laws pertaining to employee wages. For these
reasons, and due to the prior lawsuits against FPI management
it is important to contact the Employment Lawyers Group and
give as much and as honest information about your employment as
possible so they can determine how you might be effected by the
present putative class action lawsuit they filed.
The Employment Lawyers Group law firm, run by Karl Gerber
who has represented California since 1993, has filed a lawsuit
against FPI Management. The California lawsuit alleges FPI
Management required their employees to live on premises, and
enter into rent credit agreements. The rent credit agreements
assign values to apartments in excess of that which allowed
under California Wage Order 5. In other words, FPI Management
is taking a greater rent credit towards their employees’ wages
than allowed under California law.
Although there have already been several class action lawsuits
against FPI Management by their employees it does not appear
any of these lawsuits dealt with their improper rent credits.
Even if they did, the class periods in those lawsuits ended by
the latest in July of 2017. Although the lawsuit the Employment
Lawyers Group filed asks for a longer class period, it may be
limited to improper rent credits by FPI Management from July of
2017 to whenever the lawsuit is certified as a class action, or
preliminarily certified for settlement purposes if either of
those events occur.
The employees in the putative class action against FPI
Management include all California employees who worked for
Defendant FPI Management within the State of California from
January 2, 2014 to present and who were required to live
on-site at a property managed by Defendant FPI Management and
who received a rent credit in excess of the maximum allowed
under the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order 5. These
employees include property managers, maintenance employees, and
any other employees whose wages were reduced by rent credits in
excess of the limitations in Wage Order 5.
While earlier lawsuits against FPI Management only covered
nonexempt employees this particular lawsuit could cover exempt
employees who received illegal rent credits. If that is the
case the period of time the lawsuit can go back is all the way
back to January 2, 2014.
While Wage Order 5 allows rent credits of approximately $600 a
month for single employee residents, the employee who filed the
lawsuit was credited more than $2,000 for his apartment.
Instead of receiving more than $2,000 in wages he was provided
with an apartment he was forced to live in, and not paid more
than $1,500 a month in wages he worked for. While FPI
Management could have credited the employee’s wages less than
$600 a month they credited his wages more than $2,000 a
month.
Apartment managers and maintenance workers of FPI will be class
members in this lawsuit if the court certifies it as a class
action. Class action treatment for the lawsuit appears
appropriate because the same rent credit agreement was used for
approximately 500 employees, and a rent credit for more than
allowed by California law was taken.
Employees in the putative FPI Management class action for
improper rent credits may be able to obtain the amounts of rent
improperly taken from their wages. They may also be able to
obtain interest on these improper rent deductions. Several
additional penalties may also be obtained including $100 per
paycheck that improperly reports rent credits, and 30 days of
wages if the employee is no longer employed by FPI
Management.
Several legal theories have been alleged in the FPI Management
lawsuit. These different legal theories allow employees to go
back in time for wages and penalties for differing amounts of
time. For the rent credits the lawsuit seeks to go back three
to four years from January 2, 2018. Whether some of this period
is wiped out due to a prior class action that went through July
of 2017 is still unknown. Regardless, these practices continue
to exist so this lawsuit may lead to recovery into periods of
time well beyond prior class actions brought for the same legal
violations, for slightly different reasons.
If the Labor Workforce Development Agency does not investigate
this issue, the putative class action against FPI Management
will be amended to ask for Private Attorney General Penalties
which class members may be able to share in. The period of time
for Private Attorney General Penalties may be limited to one
year from the date of administrative exhaustion of these
penalties. The Employment Lawyers Group has already exhausted
administrative remedies for the FPI Management lawsuit.
The Employment Lawyers Group has offices throughout Los Angeles including Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Sherman Oaks, Oxnard, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Riverside, Tustin, Torrance, and Ontario. We have represented more than 500 individual workers in wage lawsuits, many thousands in class actions, collective actions, and Private Attorney General (PAGA) Actions in order to collect wages and/or penalties for employees. Please feel free to contact the Employment Lawyers Group if you have a question about wages owed to you regardless of whether FPI Management owes you the wages, or another employer.
ALTHOUGH THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS LEGAL INFORMATION IT CAN ALSO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES