In the wake of a settlement involving three lawsuits, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has dismissed a state court case involving former and current Peloton workers — some who worked in Riverside County — who alleged they were not granted all owed overtime, meal and rest breaks and reimbursement for personal expenses.
The Los Angeles Superior Court suit was brought under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes allegedly “aggrieved employees” to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state for purported Labor Code violations.
On Tuesday, Judge Nicholas F. Daum dismissed the state case given the finalization of the settlement involving the case before him as well as two in federal court. The complete terms were not divulged.
According to the suit filed in November 2022, Peloton’s policies, practices and procedures require plaintiffs “to routinely skip their meal and rest breaks, or cut their meal and rest breaks short, yet do not provide them with requisite premium payments for missed meal and rest breaks.”
Peloton’s alleged conduct was “willful” and “carried out in bad faith,” the suit further alleged.
The plaintiffs and “aggrieved employees” include Joshua Reyes, a former warehouse associate, and Timothy Van Nortwick, an ex-assembly technician, who all worked until 2023 at the company’s warehouse and distribution center in Perris. Other plaintiffs and “aggrieved workers” were employed at Peloton warehouses at San Jose, Richmond and Newark in Northern California.
The plaintiffs and “aggrieved employees” were denied meal breaks either because Peloton requires they work through their breaks or due to the workers being too busy to have time to take such breaks because of the high workload and staff shortage, the suit alleged.
One plaintiff alleged he usually received two rest breaks during a five- to six-day workweek due to the amount of work Peloton required him to complete and the lack of staff to relieve him.
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiffs and “aggrieved employees” were required to undergo daily temperature screenings before they were able to clock in for their shifts, but were not paid for the five to 10 minutes it took to do so, nor did they get overtime pay for the time off-the-clock spent communicating with clients, supervisors and co-workers, the suit stated.
Some “aggrieved employees” are also required to use their personal vehicles to travel between customers’ homes, installation work sites and/or work facilities to handle installations and provide customer service without reimbursement, the suit stated.