Arthur Barnes v. Target Corporation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2020, Barnes filed a Complaint against Target in San Bernardino Superior Court, asserting class claims for relief arising out of Barnes’s employment. Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-A. The class claims alleged (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide itemized wage statements; and (3) failure to pay waiting time penalties. Id. ¶¶ 29-40. Barnes asserted his class claims on behalf of “all other persons similarly situated who worked for Target at its Rialto T-3806 Distribution Center in California between March 21, 2019 and August 11, 2019, as a non-exempt hourly employee.” Id. ¶ 4. The Complaint also alleges three sub-classes. Id. ¶¶ 15-20.
CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 20-00831JVS(SPx) Date 6/25/2020 Title Arthur Barnes v. Target Corporation, et al
Distribution Center (the “Rialto DC”). Id. ¶ 30. Barnes claims that Target utilized an unlawful alternative week schedule (“AWS”) to systematically under-compensate employees who worked in excess of 8 hours in a day/shift. Id. Moreover, he alleges that Target “knowingly and intentionally” provided…