Case Background
Loma Linda University Shared Services (LLUSS) provides administrative and infrastructure support to the Loma Linda University Health network. The company manages a centralized human resources and payroll department that dictates policies for its various locations throughout California. Tamika Simmons worked for the company as a central scheduler in San Bernardino between March 2017 and July 2018. Precious Cisneros also worked as a scheduler during the same period, and Merrisa Ortiz served as an emergency department registration specialist until June 2021. These former employees alleged that the company’s corporate-wide practices systematically deprived workers of their legally mandated wages and breaks. They eventually filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all non-exempt, hourly workers employed by the company in California over the preceding four years.
Cause
The Plaintiffs claimed that LLUSS maintained a company-wide policy of understaffing its facilities while assigning heavy workloads to its staff. They argued that these pressures made it impossible for employees to take their required meal and rest breaks. According to the complaint, supervisors frequently interrupted workers during their breaks or pressured them to return early to handle high call volumes and patient needs. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to record all hours worked and did not include bonuses and incentive pay when calculating overtime rates.
Injury
The workers suffered financial losses because the company did not pay them for all the time they spent working. They regularly missed their thirty-minute meal periods or had them cut short without receiving the extra hour of "premium pay" required by California law. The employees also missed ten-minute rest periods and were often forced to remain on the premises during their breaks, preventing them from truly resting. Additionally, workers like Tamika Simmons incurred personal expenses, such as vehicle mileage, while traveling for mandatory medical tests that the company never reimbursed.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought the recovery of unpaid overtime and minimum wages for all time spent working off-the-clock. They requested premium pay for every day the company failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods. The lawsuit also asked for "waiting time penalties," which are daily wages owed to former employees when a company fails to pay all final wages on time upon termination. Finally, the workers sought reimbursement for business expenses and interest on all unpaid amounts.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Tamika Simmons | Precious Cisneros | Merrisa Ortiz
· Counsel for Plaintiffs: Melissa Grant | Roxanna Tabatabaeepour | Ryan Tish | Alexander Wallin
Defendants: Loma Linda University Shared Services
· Counsel for Defendants: Jon Kardassakis | Michael K. Grimaldi | Eleonora Antonyan
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The legal team for the workers argued that LLUSS prioritized its profits over following state labor laws. They presented evidence that the company's centralized management implemented policies that intentionally ignored the reality of the workplace, where high demand and low staffing levels forced workers to skip breaks. Counsel highlighted that LLUSS knew its obligations but willfully failed to pay its staff correctly, even after they left the company.
In response, the defense for LLUSS issued a general denial of all allegations. They argued that the company had not caused any damage to the employees and had complied with its legal obligations. The defense maintained that the claims were not suitable for a class action and that any missed breaks or unpaid time resulted from individual circumstances rather than a systemic company policy.
Claims
The lawsuit included nine primary legal claims. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime and minimum wages. They also claimed the company failed to provide legal meal and rest periods. Other claims involved the failure to pay all wages on time during employment and upon termination, as well as the failure to reimburse business-related expenses. Finally, the Plaintiffs argued these actions constituted unlawful and unfair business practices under California’s Business and Professions Code.
Defense
LLUSS asserted several affirmative defenses to shield itself from liability. They argued that some of the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, meaning the workers waited too long to sue. The company also contended that it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe its pay practices were legal. They further argued that the employees were responsible for any inaccuracies in their own timecards and that the company should not be penalized for errors it did not knowingly commit.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to a jury trial in the San Bernardino Superior Court under Judge Carlos M. Cabrera. On February 19, 2026, the jury returned its special verdict after hearing the evidence. The jury found that Loma Linda University Shared Services had indeed failed to provide Tamika Simmons and the other workers with the meal and rest periods they were owed. Specifically, the jury determined the company owed Simmons premium pay for the missed or shortened breaks she experienced during her tenure.
However, the jury also found that LLUSS’s failure to pay these meal period premiums at the time Simmons's employment ended was not "willful". Because the jury decided the company had a good faith dispute regarding whether those wages were actually owed, they did not award Simmons any additional waiting time penalties. On March 26, 2026, the Court officially entered a judgment based on these findings, ordering LLUSS to pay the damages determined by the jury for the labor violations.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
