(949) 863-9800

(949) 863-9800

  • Home
  • Resume
  • Case Summaries
    • Misclassification
    • Contract Disputes & Other
    • Wage & Hour
    • Harassment & Retaliation
    • FMLA & CRFA
    • Disability & Medical
    • Class Action
    • FEHA/EEOC/Title VII
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Home
    • Resume
    • Case Summaries
      • Misclassification
      • Contract Disputes & Other
      • Wage & Hour
      • Harassment & Retaliation
      • FMLA & CRFA
      • Disability & Medical
      • Class Action
      • FEHA/EEOC/Title VII
    • Testimonials
    • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Resume
  • Case Summaries
    • Misclassification
    • Contract Disputes & Other
    • Wage & Hour
    • Harassment & Retaliation
    • FMLA & CRFA
    • Disability & Medical
    • Class Action
    • FEHA/EEOC/Title VII
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
Robert D. Coviello, Esq.

Robert D. Coviello, Esq.

Robert D. Coviello, Esq.Robert D. Coviello, Esq.

Case Summaries

Class Action

  • PAGA representative action; several private security guards filed a PAGA representative action against their employer for failure to provide duty free compliant meal periods and rest breaks.


  • Class Action Wage/Hour Litigation; Plaintiff asserted claims against the defendant’s company on behalf of 400 + current and former employees alleging meal/rest violations; failure to pay overtime and the clock work; 203 and 226 penalty violations; PAGA claims.


  • Wage/Hour – Failure to consider bonus compensation when calculating regular rate for overtime purposes; meal period violation – 40% of class commenced their meal periods after the 5th hour of work; 226 – wage statement violations; failure to set forth the overtime hours and rate.


  • Plaintiff and putative class members were employed as Account Representatives by a state-wide lending institution. Plaintiff alleged various wage/hour claims including off-the-clock, meal/rest, overtime issues and failure to reimburse for necessary expenses (L.C. 2802).


  • Plaintiff worked for a large manufacturing company and alleged class claims on behalf of approximately 1,100 putative class members. The claims included allegations of improper overtime calculation; meal/rest violations, failure to reimburse for uniform cleaning and related PAGA penalties.


  • Representative PAGA action filed by former employee of popular restaurant. Primary alleged violation was failure to provide compliant meal/rest periods.


  • Large putative class of non-exempt employees, working for a restaurant/music venue with several state-wide locations, alleged various wage/hour violations including: meal/rest period violations, split shift issues, donning and doffing issues; validity of “short-shift” waivers and PAGA penalties.


  • Agency providing in-home elder care services was sued by a former employee alleging class claims including overtime, travel time, 2802 reimbursement, meal/rest, split-shift premiums and on-call waiting time pay together with PAGA penalties.


  • Class action against state-wide hotel chain with 2,800 putative class members; claims included: regular rate calculation (was bonus included?), meal/rest premium pay; 2802 (cell phone use) and on-call issues.


  • Wage/Hour Class Action brought on behalf of certain registered pharmacists employed by a large national grocery retailer. Allegations included failure to provide and/or make available meal and rest periods due to business needs.


  • A group of servers employed by a statewide restaurant chain alleged wage/hour violations including: split-shift premiums, meal/rest violations and on-call issues.


  • Employee challenged validity of an adopted alternative work-week (4 x 10) alleging the voting procedure was not compliant with existing law.


  • National trucking company sued by two former employees alleging that the FLSA Exception (29 USC 13; 49 USC 31502) did not apply and therefore substantial overtime and penalties was due to the large putative class.


  • A group of town truck drivers alleged they and other similarly situated drivers should be paid for their “on-call” time. They argued the on-call requirements were unduly restrictive and therefore should be compensated as hours worked.



Copyright © 2023 Robert D. Coviello, Esq. - All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Developed by ADR Services, Inc.