Class action against beauty salon chain
Law firms Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld and The Liu Law Firm have filed a class action lawsuit against the US's biggest beauty retailer, Ulta. The firms are acting on behalf of three former Store Managers at California outlets of the store.
The former employees – Jaimie Quinby, Linda Gomes and Eric Fontes – allege that Ulta incorrectly classified them as being exempt from the overtime requirements set by California law. They say that the store does not hire sufficient staff which means that store managers must spend much of their day performing non-managerial tasks.
The complaint reads: "Because Defendant allocates insufficient staff hours to each store, while simultaneously requiring [store managers] to perform the full gamut of customer service, sales, stocking, and cleaning tasks, Plaintiffs and Class Members are misclassified as exempt because they are forced to spend the majority of their working time performing the same non-managerial tasks being performed by non-exempt employees, such as Cashiers and Stock Associates. As a result, [store managers] work long hours and often skip their meal and rest breaks, without receiving any overtime compensation or compensation for missed meal and rest breaks."
Gay Grunfeld, Attorney at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, said: "Ulta is a hugely profitable public company that is taking advantage of its store managers by incorrectly classifying them as exempt employees." Jennifer Liu, acting as the plaintiff's co-counsel at The Liu Law Firm, added: "Ulta has enjoyed rapid expansion, big profits and a soaring stock price. It's unfortunate that this success has been built on Ulta's failure to comply with the law and refusal to pay proper compensation to the hard-working employees who make its success possible."
Current and former Ulta store managers who wish to learn more about the case or report their experiences are invited to get in touch with the plaintiffs. The case is filed as Quinby et al v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc, US District Court, Northern District of California, Case 3:15-cv-04099