366265.3, Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179) Iho@gbdhlegal.com Byron Goldstein (SBN 289306) brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 David H. Browne (SBN 261345) david@brownelaborlaw.com Devin Coyle (SBN 267194) deoyle@workerscounsel.com BROWNE LABOR LAW 475 Washington Blvd Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: (310) 421-4810 Fax: G10) 421-4833 ENDORSED LED minty Superior Court MAR ~ 9 2015 CLERK OF THE COURT 9y;___DENNIS TOYAMA Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Vilma Zenelaj and Greta Zenelaj SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. VILMA ZENELAI AND GRETA ZENELAS, in their representative capacity, Plaintiff, vs. HOMEIOY, INC. CORPORATION (DBA HOMEJOY) and DOES 1-20, inclusive Defendants, |cweno:0 BC -15.-5 44599 REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. Demand for Jury Trial PAGA COMPLAINT308248.3 10 u 12 13 “ 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 28 26 2 28 Plaintiff Vilma Zenelaj and Greta Zenelaj, in their representative capacity, allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Each Plaintiff worked as a “Cleaning Professional” for Homejoy, Inc. (“Homejoy”). Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. on a representative basis. All current and former Homejoy Cleaning Professionals are aggrieved employees. 2. The California Labor Code requires employers to provide to its employees, among others things, itemized wage statements, meal and rest periods, minimum and overtime wages, reimbursement of necessary expenses, and prompt payment of wages upon termination. Homejoy failed to comply with California Labor Code requirements due to the erroneous, willful and intentional classification of its Cleaning Professionals as independent contractors. Plaintiffs, in their representative capacity, seek civil penalties on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA. 3. Homejoy has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) misclassifying Cleaning Professionals as independent contractors instead of properly classifying them as employees; (2) permitting, encouraging, and/or requiring Cleaning Professionals to work in excess of eight hours per day and/or in excess of forty hours per week without paying them overtime compensation as required by California state wage and hour laws; (3) failing to pay Cleaning Professionals @ minimum wage for all hours worked; (4) failing to provide Cleaning Professionals with adequate off-duty meal periods of at least one half hour for every five hours worked: (5) failing to provide Cleaning Professionals with adequate off-duty rest periods of at least ten minutes for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked; (6) willfully failing to pay compensation owed to Cleaning Professionals whose employment with Homejoy terminated; (7) requiring Cleaning Professionals to incur business-related expenses failing to fully reimburse them for these costs; (8) knowingly and intentionally failing to furnish timely itemized statements accurately showing the total hours worked by or hourly rate paid to Cleaning Profesionals; (9) unlawfully failing to keep accurate payroll records of total hours worked and wages paid to Cleaning Professionals; and (10) failure to pay all wages twice during each calendar month on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. 1 PAGA COMPLAINT5062484 4, Plaintiff's seek civil penalties for the above acts, which violate the California Labor Code, under the Private Attomeys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq JURISDICTION AND VENUE, 5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for civil penalties under the Private Attomeys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seg. 6. Venue is proper because Homejoy’s principal place of business is in San Francisco, PARTIES 7. Plaintiffs Vilma Zenelaj (“Vilma”) and Greta Zenelaj (“Greta”) are sisters who currently reside in Brentwood, California, which is located in Los Angeles County, California. Plaintifis were employed as a Cleaning Professional between approximately July 2014 and October 2014. While employed as Cleaning Professionals, Plaintiffs worked in Los Angeles County, where they procured cleaning jobs through Homejoy’s website and/or online platform, 8 Defendant Homejoy, In. is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Homejoy is a “person” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1786.2(a). 9. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-20, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown (o Plaintiff. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show the ‘true names, capacities, and involvement of DOES 1-20, inclusive, once they are ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is, responsible in some manner for the events, happenings, and omissions described herein, and that Plaintiffs? injuries and damages were proximately caused by said defendants. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the DOES 1-20, inclusive, was an agent, employee, successor, predecessor, parent, and/or subsidiary of each of the remaining defendants, and each of them was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of the applicable relationship. PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 10. OnNovember 12, 2014, Plaintiffs gave written notice by certified mail of Homejoy’s violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged in this complaint to the Labor 2 AGA COMPLAINT