In September 2009, plaintiff Roberto Sabroso was hired as a caregiver for Orchid Villa, a residential care home in Menlo Park. He was later transferred to Orchid Lan, another residential care home in Menlo Park, in January 2010. Plaintiff Miguelio Orsonal was then hired as a caregiver for Orchid Villa in June 2010. Sabroso and Orsonal were supervised by Lana Somporn, who owned and operated both Orchid Villa and Orchid Lan. Sabroso and Orsonal were each paid every two weeks for work performed, which included taking care of the residents and other duties. However, they claimed On Feb. 3, 2012, Sabroso took an unpaid leave due to an illness and need for surgery. His physician allowed him to return to work on Feb. 13, 2012, and Sabroso fully recovered from his surgery by on Feb. 15, 2012, and was ready to return to work. However, when he attempted to return to Orchid Lan on Feb. 16, 2012, he was told to return to Orchid Villa. When Sabroso refused to work at Orchid Villa, he was terminated from his position. In May 2013, Orsonal quit his position. Sabroso and Orsonal claimed that during their employment with Somporn they were not properly paid for all the hours worked or for overtime and that they were not provided rest periods or meal periods. They also claimed that they were not paid for rest or meal periods and that they were not provided proper, accurate itemized wage statements at the end of their employment. Sabroso and Orsonal sued Somporn. They alleged that Somporn failed to pay all the wages owed, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to pay for meal periods and rest periods, and failed to issue accurate wage statements. Sabroso also alleged that Somporn’s action of attempting to transfer him and then terminating him constituted disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Sabroso ultimately dismissed the wrongful termination and discrimination causes of action. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Sabroso and Orsonal consistently worked 10 or more hours per day, and worked approximately five days per week, but sometimes worked six or seven days per week. Thus, counsel argued that Sabroso and Orsonal not paid the California minimum wage for a period of their employment, were improperly compensated for all the hours worked as non-exempt salaried employees, were not paid for overtime when they worked over eight hours per day, and were not paid for overtime when they working over 40 hours per week. Counsel also argued that Sabroso and Orsonal were not provided rest or meal periods, and were not paid rest or meal break premiums. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that Sabroso and Orsonal were not provided proper, accurate itemized wage statements and were not compensated with all wages and premiums due at the end of their employment. In addition, Sabroso claimed that when he recovered from his surgery and attempted to return to work at Orchid Lan, he was told to return to Orchid Villa. However, he claimed he did not want to work at Orchid Villa because he was not provided meal or rest breaks at that location, despite a laborious environment. Defense counsel argued that Sabroso’s termination was voluntary and justified due to Sabroso’s alleged malfeasance at work. Counsel also argued that Sabroso and Orsonal worked a regular schedule of 10 hours per day, five days a week, and were given room and board in addition to minimum wage for 50 hours’ work per week, plus unpaid time off an hour or more each afternoon for break time., Sabroso and Orsonal sought recovery of compensatory and consequential damages, as well as statutory and punitive damages. They also sought recovery of waiting time penalties in accordance with the Labor Code, and attorney fees and costs.