A former employee of Mindbody claims the company violated labor code by failing to properly pay him and others for their hours worked.
A complaint filed on July 1 against Mindbody, alleges that Daniel Cardwell and all current and former hourly paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Mindbody any time during the period of four years before the filing of the complaint were not paid for all the hours worked and missed meal periods.
The complaint states that Cardwell doesn't know which other employees might be in the same situation, but he estimates that there are more than 50 people and "the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by inspection of defendant's employment records."
Mindbody employed Cardwell and other individuals as hourly paid or non-exempt employees from March 2017 to November 2017, the lawsuit claims.
Cardwell worked more than eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week during his employment with the company, according to the lawsuit, and did not receive overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.
The complaint claims that Mindbody engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against its hourly paid or non-exempt employees.
The company, the complaint alleges, did not give Cardwell meal periods or a regular rate of pay when a meal period was missed and did not give at least minimum wage for all hours worked. The complaint also alleges that Cardwell did not receive all wages owed to him upon discharge or resignation.
Furthermore, according to the complaint, Cardwell and other individuals did not receive complete and accurate wage statements from the company, and he accuses Mindbody of not keeping complete and accurate payroll records.
"[Mindbody] had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so and falsely represented to Cardwell and other individuals that they were properly denied wages in order to increase the company's profits," the complaint reads.
New Times reached out to Mindbody officials, who stated they "could not comment on pending litigation."
The parties must appear for a first case management conference on Oct. 24 at San Luis Obispo Superior Court. Δ