Did Home Depot Use a “Midnight Workday” to Short Overnight Workers on Overtime?

In Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., two employees brought a class action alleging Home Depot designed its defined “workday” to reduce overtime owed to workers on overnight shifts.

Case: Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Court: Sacramento County Superior Court

Case No.: 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD

The Plaintiff: Bell v. Home Depot

Sandy Bell and Martin Gama are the named plaintiffs who filed this class action against Home Depot. The plaintiffs are former Home Depot employees who worked overnight shifts in California. Both workers were hourly, non-exempt Home Depot employees alleging that when their shifts crossed midnight and exceeded eight total hours, Home Depot’s timekeeping system treated the shift as split into two workdays, resulting in overtime they claim they should have received but did not.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is the defendant in the lawsuit.

Home Depot is a national home improvement retailer with stores throughout California and the United States. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that Home Depot controlled the payroll and timekeeping policies that defined the “workday” and that those policies affected overtime calculations for overnight employees when their shifts crossed midnight.

A Brief History of the Bell v. Home Depot Case

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 in the California state court. It was later moved to federal court and consolidated with a related case, Henry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., which raised similar overtime concerns for employees working shifts that extended past midnight.

The plaintiffs’ claims ultimately hinged on the central allegation that Home Depot’s policies resulted in inadequate overtime compensation for overnight shifts.

The Main Question in the Case

Can an employer avoid overtime pay obligations by defining a “workday” to split a continuous shift into two consecutive calendar days? When employees work a single overnight shift that crosses midnight and the total hours exceed eight, splitting the shift into separate parts reduces overtime pay. The court must consider whether this practice violates California wage-and-hour laws and related protections.

The Allegations: Bell v. Home Depot

Home Depot faces numerous allegations in the recent overtime pay lawsuit. Generally speaking, the plaintiffs argue that Home Depot’s time-keeping system’s definition of a “workday” as the period between 12 am and 11:59 pm on a given calendar day violated labor laws.

Home Depot’s Definition of a “Workday:” Plaintiffs argue that Home Depot applied that definition in a way that reduced or avoided overtime owed for overnight shifts.

Overnight Shift Splitting: The plaintiffs claimed that when employees worked a continuous overnight shift (crossing midnight), Home Depot allegedly treated the hours after midnight as belonging to a new workday, even though the shift remained an uninterrupted work period.

Company Avoided Overtime Pay for Single Shifts Exceeding Eight Hours: California law generally requires overtime pay (time-and-a-half) for hours worked beyond eight in a single workday (and double time for hours exceeding twelve in a workday). Plaintiffs in the case alleged Home Depot’s workday definition allowed the company to pay straight time for hours that, in the context of one continuous shift, should have triggered overtime pay.

Class-wide Impact Supported by Centralized Time Records: The plaintiffs alleged that Home Depot’s timekeeping data could be used to identify class members and evaluate claims in accordance with uniform policies and consistent records.

Why Overnight Overtime Cases Often Focus on the “Workday”

Overtime claims are not always about what an employee did. Sometimes they’re about how the employer counted their time on the clock. When a company’s timekeeping system breaks one continuous overnight shift into two shifts, workers will see a decrease in the number of overtime-eligible hours.

In order to determine liability, the court focused on Home Depot’s intent. The court had to consider whether Home Depot had a legitimate business purpose for its workday designation, or whether it was a method of avoiding overtime pay.

For employees who clock in and out on the same calendar day, this type of workday definition would not typically pose a problem, but it can be significantly detrimental to workers with overnight shifts that cross midnight. The definition itself can result in hours that would otherwise be eligible for overtime pay no longer qualifying.

In this case, the court focused on the company's intent, emphasizing that Home Depot’s liability turned on whether the workday designation had a legitimate business purpose or was intended to evade overtime obligations. The existence of detailed timekeeping records was also important because it could help determine who fell within the class definitions and how any unpaid overtime might be calculated.

Class definitions and covered time periods:

The case involves certified classes tied to overnight shifts crossing midnight:

Bell certified class (hourly-paid supervisors):

All persons who worked for Home Depot in California as a non-exempt, hourly-paid supervisor from August 14, 2009 through June 1, 2016, who worked at least one overnight shift that crossed midnight of more than eight hours, and who, as a result, were not paid overtime for the hours worked over eight hours during such overnight shift.

Henry certified class (hourly/non-exempt positions):

All persons employed by Home Depot in hourly or non-exempt positions in California from September 18, 2010 through May 3, 2016, who worked a shift past midnight where the total hours for that shift exceeded eight hours.

The class is described as including approximately 20,000 individuals who worked more than eight hours and past midnight.

Settlement: Preliminary Approval Granted

The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion requesting preliminary approval of the class and PAGA settlements, approval of the class notice, and appointment of a settlement administrator.

Under the settlement agreement described, the parties agreed to a gross settlement amount of $3,350,000. The settlement is described as non-reversionary, meaning that no portion of the settlement returns to Home Depot if it is not paid out. The court reviewed the factors applied to class settlements (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23) before granting the unopposed motion for preliminary approval. This preliminary approval stage typically allows notice to be sent to class members and sets the case on the path toward a final approval request.

FAQ: Bell v. Home Depot

Q: Why does it matter if a shift crosses midnight?

A: When a shift crosses midnight, the beginning of one continuous shift is one “day,” while the second portion is on a different “day.” Depending on which timekeeping system the company uses and how the system defines a “workday,” this could prevent workers from receiving overtime pay for eligible hours simply because, according to the record, the single, continuous shift was split into 2 separate workdays.

Q: What overtime rule are the plaintiffs relying on?

A: The allegations rely on California’s daily overtime requirements, including time-and-a-half after eight hours in a workday and double time after twelve hours in a workday, along with weekly overtime concepts.

Q: What is the main allegation about Home Depot’s “workday” definition?

A: The plaintiffs alleged Home Depot’s midnight-to-midnight workday definition split a single overnight shift into two calendar days in a way that reduced or avoided overtime pay for hours worked beyond eight in a continuous overnight shift.

Q: What are Labor Code sections 203 and 226 generally about?

A: Section 203 is commonly associated with waiting time penalties for certain final pay issues, and Section 226 generally relates to wage statement requirements. In this case, the remaining claims included alleged violations of these provisions along with related wage-and-hour claims.

Q: What does “preliminary approval” of a class settlement mean?

A: Granting preliminary approval occurs in the early stages when the court considers whether or not a proposed settlement agreement is generally fair enough to notify class members. After notice is sent to class members, the court reviews any objections before granting final approval.

If you believe your employer’s timekeeping policies caused you to miss overtime pay, shorted you on wages earned during overnight shifts, or resulted in inaccurate wage statements or final pay issues, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did Wells Fargo Misclassify Senior Premier Bankers and Deny Overtime Pay?

A group of Wells Fargo employees filed a lawsuit alleging the bank misclassified Senior Premier Bankers as exempt from overtime requirements, even though their work largely involved routine customer service and sales tasks.

Case: Sabrina Perez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Case No.: 2:24-cv-04077

The Plaintiff: Perez v. Wells Fargo

Sabrina Perez is one of the named plaintiffs seeking to represent a broader group of Wells Fargo employees who held Senior Premier Banker-related roles. In the complaint, the plaintiffs describe the Senior Premier Banker position as focused on day-to-day branch banking work. The plaintiffs allege that, despite performing routine, sales-oriented tasks, they were classified as exempt employees and therefore did not qualify for overtime pay.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

The defendant in the lawsuit is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Wells Fargo is a national banking institution that operates retail branches nationwide. According to the plaintiffs, Wells Fargo’s handling of staffing levels, job expectations, time demands, and classification decisions for their Senior Premier Bankers roles resulted in unpaid overtime and wage-and-hour violations.

A Brief History of the Perez v. Wells Fargo Case

The Perez v. Wells Fargo case began when five Wells Fargo employees filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, hoping to represent a class of Senior Premier Bankers. The lawsuit listed FLSA claims and related state-law wage-and-hour claims.

On September 4, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a proposed settlement.

What Is the Main Question in the Case?

Did Wells Fargo improperly classify Senior Premier Bankers and related roles as exempt from overtime requirements? And if so, did the exempt classification, in combination with the working conditions described in the lawsuit, lead to unpaid overtime and related wage-and-hour violations, including meal and rest break violations, and civil penalties under PAGA?

The Allegations: Perez v. Wells Fargo

The lawsuit includes numerous allegations, including:

1. Misclassification as exempt: The plaintiffs allege that Senior Premier Bankers were classified as exempt from overtime requirements, even though their duties allegedly included routine customer service tasks, such as opening and closing accounts and selling banking products, which the plaintiffs claim do not qualify for an exemption.

2. Unpaid overtime: The plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo allegedly understaffed branches, forcing Senior Premier Bankers to work more than 40 hours per week. Despite the long workweeks, the plaintiffs allege they did not receive overtime pay for those extra hours.

3. Related wage-and-hour violations: In addition to overtime claims, the plaintiffs allege related violations, including failures tied to meal and rest breaks.

4. PAGA penalties claim: A Senior Premier Banker also filed a claim seeking civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The lawsuit describes PAGA as a mechanism that allows employees to seek penalties for certain California Labor Code violations on their own behalf, on behalf of other employees, and on behalf of the State of California.

As with any civil case, these are allegations. The court has to evaluate the claims through motion practice, evidence, and applicable legal standards, or through the settlement approval process if the case resolves before trial.

Why Misclassification Cases Can Become High-Stakes Wage-and-Hour Disputes

Overtime exemptions are not based solely on job titles. In many misclassification lawsuits, the key issue becomes what employees actually did in practice during the workday. When an employer classifies a role as exempt, employees generally do not receive overtime even if they regularly work more than 40 hours per week. If a court later determines that the role did not meet the legal tests for exemption, the alleged unpaid overtime can become the central damage claim.

Misclassification cases often involve additional allegations, particularly when plaintiffs assert that the same policies and staffing decisions that led to an unhealthy workload also resulted in meal and rest break violations.

Proposed $48.5 Million Settlement to Resolve Claims

Wells Fargo agreed to resolve the claims with a $48,500,000 settlement. The plaintiffs requested preliminary approval in September 2025. If approved, the settlement would cover payments to approximately 4,230 class members (as well as covering attorneys’ fees, costs, etc.)

The settlement is described as covering certain job titles, including Premier Bankers, Premier Bankers 2, and/or Senior Branch Premier Bankers, who were employed at Wells Fargo during specified time periods.

If preliminary approval is granted, eligible participants would typically receive notice (often by mail and email) explaining what the settlement covers, how payments are calculated, and the options available.

FAQ: Perez v. Wells Fargo

Q: What does it mean to be “misclassified as exempt”?

A: It generally means an employer treated a role as exempt from overtime requirements, even though the employee alleges their pay structure and job duties did not meet the legal standards for an exemption.

Q: What job duties do the plaintiffs say Senior Premier Bankers performed?

A: The lawsuit alleges their work included routine customer service tasks, such as opening and closing accounts, and selling banking products.

Q: Why does understaffing matter in an overtime lawsuit?

A: The plaintiffs allege that understaffing contributed to longer workweeks, which can be important to claims that employees regularly worked more than 40 hours and should have received overtime pay.

Q: What is PAGA, and why is it included here?

A: PAGA refers to California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which the lawsuit describes as allowing employees to pursue civil penalties for certain Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California.

Q: Does a proposed settlement mean Wells Fargo admitted wrongdoing?

A: Not necessarily. Settlements can resolve claims without an admission of liability, and courts still review proposed class settlements through preliminary and final approval processes.

Q: How will workers know if they’re included in the settlement?

A: If the court grants preliminary approval, eligible participants typically receive notice (often by mail and email) with information about eligibility, estimated payments, deadlines, and options.

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt, worked more than 40 hours without overtime pay, or were denied legally required meal and rest breaks, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did Honda and Adecco Short Hourly Workers on PPE and Overtime?

A newly filed federal lawsuit alleges that American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc. required hourly workers to put on and remove required PPE off the clock, and then calculated overtime in a way that allegedly failed to include certain nondiscretionary bonuses in the “regular rate.” The case is in its earliest phase. At this point, these are allegations only, and the court has not made findings.

Case: Mayes v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Case No.: 2:25-cv-11253

The Plaintiff: Mayes v. American Honda

Fareed Mayes, the plaintiff, is a former hourly employee of American Honda.

The Defendants: Mayes v. American Honda

The defendants in the case are American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc.

Case History: Mayes v. American Honda

According to the public docket, the case was filed on November 24, 2025, in the Central District of California as an FLSA matter. The docket reflects the complaint and initial filing paperwork, which is typical at the start of a federal wage-and-hour lawsuit.

The Main Question in the Case:

If hourly workers must put on required protective gear before clocking in and remove it after clocking out, is that time “work” that must be paid and counted toward overtime? And if workers receive certain attendance or shutdown bonuses, must those bonuses be included when calculating the “regular rate” for overtime?

The Allegations: Mayes v. American Honda

Based on published reporting summarizing the filing, the lawsuit’s core allegations include:

Unpaid PPE time (donning/doffing): Workers allegedly had to don company-required gear at the worksite before clocking in, and remove it after clocking out. The claimed time is roughly 10–15 minutes pre-shift and 10–15 minutes post-shift, which the lawsuit frames as off-the-clock work that should be compensable.

Pressure through policies: The suit alleges attendance/adherence policies effectively pushed workers to complete PPE-related steps off the clock.

Overtime “regular rate” issue: The lawsuit also challenges overtime calculations, alleging the companies did not include certain nondiscretionary bonuses (described as “Shutdown” and “Monthly Attendance” bonuses) when computing the regular rate used for overtime.

Scope and format of the case: The action is described as a proposed FLSA collective action and also a Rule 23 class action for related state-law theories (as reported).

Why “PPE Time” Can Become a Real Legal Fight:

Federal wage-and-hour law has a whole vocabulary for this: “principal activities,” “integral and indispensable,” and what counts as “preliminary/postliminary” time.

The Supreme Court has held that some pre-shift and post-shift activities can be compensable when they’re tightly connected to an employee’s principal work activities.

At the same time, the Court has also emphasized limits, rejecting compensation for activities that are not “integral and indispensable” to the job’s core productive work (even if the employer requires them).

There’s also a union-contract carveout in some workplaces (29 U.S.C. § 203(o)) that can affect whether “changing clothes” time is paid, depending on the facts and whether a collective bargaining agreement applies.

FAQ: Mayes v. American Honda

Q: What is “donning and doffing” time?

A: It’s the time spent putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) required gear such as uniforms or safety equipment, often around the start and end of a shift.

Q: Does the FLSA always require employers to pay for PPE time?

A: Not always. Whether it’s compensable can depend on whether the activity is considered integral and indispensable to the employee’s principal work, and on other legal and workplace factors.

Q: What’s the “integral and indispensable” test?

A: It’s a standard the Supreme Court has used to determine whether certain pre- or post-shift activities are part of the employee’s principal activities and therefore potentially compensable

Q: What is the “regular rate,” and why does it matter for overtime?

A: Overtime is generally calculated based on an employee’s regular rate of pay. Certain forms of compensation must be included in that regular rate, which can increase overtime owed.

Q: Do nondiscretionary bonuses affect overtime calculations?

A: Often, yes. The U.S. Department of Labor explains that nondiscretionary bonuses are generally included in the regular rate unless a specific exclusion applies.

Q: Has the court decided whether Honda or Adecco did anything wrong here?

A: No. The case was filed on November 24, 2025, and at this stage the public record reflects initial filings. Allegations are not findings.

If you believe you were required to perform off-the-clock work, were not paid for all time worked, or your overtime rate didn’t reflect all required compensation, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

California Court Clarifies Limits in Pacific Gas & Electric Wrongful Termination Case

In a recent decision that will shape how employment lawsuits are litigated in California, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District clarified that employees cannot recover damages for defamation when the alleged defamatory statements are tied directly to the same conduct underlying a wrongful termination claim. The case, Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025) is a good example of how overlapping tort claims are evaluated during wrongful termination cases.

Case: Todd Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Court: California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Division Three

Case No.: 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025)

Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case, Todd Hearn:

Todd Hearn, the plaintiff in the case, was an experienced lineman for Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). Hearn was suspended and later terminated from his lineman position after the company conducted an internal investigation into alleged timekeeping and GPS record discrepancies indicating Hearn's reported work hours were inaccurate. According to the company’s investigation, there were inconsistencies between Hearn’s reported work hours and the GPS location data of his vehicle.

Hearn argued that the company investigated his reported hours in retaliation after he complained about unsafe working conditions. After his termination, he filed a civil lawsuit asserting multiple claims:

• Retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation),

• Retaliation for complaints about unsafe conditions under Labor Code § 6310,

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and

• Defamation based on the allegedly false information circulated during the investigation.

Both the retaliation and defamation claims proceeded to trial.

Get to Know the Defendant: Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is one of California’s largest public utilities providers. In response to Hearn's allegations, the company insisted that the investigation was legitimate and adhered to company protocol. PG&E denied retaliatory motive allegations and argued that its managers acted within the scope of their employment when they reported and documented the alleged timekeeping discrepancies. At trial, the jury sided with PG&E on the retaliation claim but found in favor of Hearn on the defamation claim, awarding him damages for harm allegedly caused by statements in the internal investigation report. PG&E appealed the defamation verdict, arguing that Hearn’s defamation claim was derivative of his wrongful termination claim and therefore barred under California law.

A History of the Case: Appeal and Reversal

On appeal, the jury’s defamation award was reversed, with the California Court of Appeals ruling that an employee cannot obtain separate tort damages for defamation when the claim arises from the same conduct or injury as a wrongful termination claim.

The Court’s reasoning emphasized two key principles:

• Defamation claims must be based on conduct distinct from the termination itself.

• Damages for defamation cannot be identical to those resulting from the termination.

Because the alleged defamatory statements—contained in internal investigative reports—were created as part of the disciplinary and termination process, the Court held that Hearn’s defamation claim was not independent from his termination. The Court concluded that Hearn could not “recover damages for wrongful termination by recasting his claim as one for defamation.” He had not demonstrated any reputational harm beyond the financial and emotional damages associated with losing his job.

The Main Question Being Considered: Can Termination-Related Statements Support a Defamation Claim?

The central issue in Hearn v. PG&E was whether an employee can pursue a defamation claim when the allegedly defamatory statements are part of the termination process. The Court’s answer: No—unless the statements or damages are distinct from the termination itself. So communications or reports created during internal investigations (such as disciplinary findings or HR summaries) are generally protected when they directly relate to an employee’s termination. However, defamatory statements made after termination or outside the scope of an internal investigation may still give rise to valid claims.

Why This Case Matters to California Workers and Employers

The Hearn decision provides critical clarity for both sides of employment disputes.

For Employees: The case underscores the importance of identifying distinct harms when bringing multiple claims. If all alleged damages stem from termination itself, courts may reject related defamation claims as duplicative.

For Employers: The ruling in the case reinforces that internal investigation communications (when made in good faith and within the scope of employment) are generally protected from defamation liability. However, companies should use caution as statements made outside disciplinary channels or shared with individuals not directly involved in the investigation could still expose employers to risk.

The case ultimately strengthens existing legal protections for fair internal investigations while confirming limits on overlapping tort recovery in employment cases.

FAQ: Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Q: What did the Court of Appeal decide in Hearn v. PG&E?

A: The Court ruled that employees cannot recover defamation damages when the alleged defamatory statements are part of the same conduct underlying a wrongful termination claim.

Q: Why did the Court reverse the jury’s verdict?

A: The Court found that Hearn’s alleged reputational harm was not distinct from his loss of employment. The investigative reports that formed the basis of his defamation claim were created as part of the termination process itself.

Q: What does this mean for California employees bringing multiple claims?

A: Employees must show that each claim—such as defamation, retaliation, or wrongful termination—is based on separate conduct or results in distinct damages. Otherwise, the claims may be deemed duplicative.

Q: How can employers use this decision in future cases?

A: Employers can cite Hearn v. PG&E to defend against defamation claims tied to internal investigations, provided those communications were limited to individuals with a legitimate business reason to receive them.

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated or defamed during a workplace investigation, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about your rights under California labor law.

$1.2 Million Settlement Resolves Betacom Wage and Hour Allegations

A recent class action settlement against telecommunications companies Betacom Holdings Inc. and Betacom Inc. brings closure to a multi-year wage and hour dispute involving more than 600 field employees. The lawsuit claimed Betacom failed to pay overtime wages in compliance with state and federal labor laws. The companies have now agreed to a $1.2 million settlement that resolves those allegations without admitting liability.

Case: Lmar Lay v. Betacom Holdings, Inc. and Betacom Incorporated

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle

Case No.: 2:24-cv-01195

The Plaintiff: Lmar Lay

Lmar Lay, a former field employee, brought the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of Betacom field workers who were allegedly denied full overtime pay. The complaint claimed that Betacom required field employees to work long hours—including through unpaid meal periods—without properly compensating them for overtime. Lay alleged that the company failed to include certain earnings and bonuses in employees’ “regular rate of pay,” resulting in lower overtime rates than the law allows. The lawsuit also alleged violations of both federal and state labor laws.

The Defendants: Betacom Holdings, Inc. and Betacom Incorporated

The defendants in the case are Betacom Holdings Inc. and Betacom Inc., telecommunications infrastructure companies providing construction, installation, and maintenance for major wireless network towers. The lawsuit centered on allegations that Betacom’s field employees, who perform demanding on-site technical and maintenance work, were improperly compensated for overtime hours worked. Betacom denied all wrongdoing, but in order to avoid further litigation, the company did agree to settle. The class includes Betacom employees (for either defendant) between August 6, 2021 through August 8, 2025.

A History of the Case: Overtime Claims and Settlement Approval

After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a $1.2 million settlement to resolve the wage and hour claims. According to the settlement agreement, Betacom’s payroll records identified 617 eligible class members who may claim payments.

The total settlement fund covers:

• Settlement administration costs: Up to $15,000

• Attorneys’ fees: $480,000

• Attorneys’ expenses: Up to $19,000

• Service award to lead plaintiff: Up to $10,000

• Net settlement available to class members: Approximately $676,000

Each class member’s share will be determined pro rata, based on the number of overtime workweeks and their individual pay rate. On average, payouts are expected to range between several hundred and several thousand dollars.

Under the agreement, half of each payment will be treated as W-2 wages (subject to payroll taxes) and half as 1099 income. Eligible employees must file a claim with the settlement administrator by December 17, 2025, to receive payment. Uncashed checks after 120 days will be turned over to the Washington Unclaimed Property Fund. The settlement resolves all claims under federal and state wage laws (including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Massachusetts Wage Act). It also provides Betacom with a full release moving forward.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were Overtime Hours Fully Compensated?

At the heart of Lay v. Betacom was a common problem in wage and hour litigation—whether field employees were fully paid for all hours worked, including time spent working through meal periods or performing tasks outside scheduled shifts. Federal and state laws require overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week (and daily overtime in some states) at 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay. Employers must also include bonuses, incentives, and other forms of pay when calculating that rate.

According to the lawsuit, Betacom's pay practices under-reported employee overtime hours and excluded some forms of compensation from the calculation used to determine the employee's "standard rate of pay", which both reduced the employees' total wage payment. Betacom denied these allegations, but in agreeing to the settlement, will provide direct compensation for affected workers and reaffirms the importance of accurate timekeeping and wage calculations going forward.

Why This Case Matters to California and Washington Workers

Although the Lay v. Betacom case was filed in Washington, its implications extend across state lines. Both Washington and California impose strict wage and hour standards designed to protect employees from unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work. Field technicians, installers, and other employees who travel or work irregular hours are especially vulnerable to wage errors when companies rely on automated time systems or classify meal breaks as unpaid; even when work continues during those periods. This settlement reinforces that overtime compliance is not optional. Employers must track all hours worked, compensate for all required overtime, and ensure pay rates reflect every form of compensation earned.

FAQ: Lay v. Betacom Holdings, Inc. and Betacom Incorporated

Q: What laws were at issue in this case?

A: The lawsuit alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state wage laws, claiming Betacom failed to pay employees for all overtime hours worked and miscalculated overtime rates.

Q: Who is included in the class settlement?

A: The class covers 617 field employees who worked for Betacom Holdings Inc. or Betacom Inc. between August 6, 2021, and August 8, 2025.

Q: How much will Betacome employees with eligible wage and hour claims get from the settlement?

A: The total settlement in the case is $1.2 million, with approximately $676,000 allocated to class members after fees and costs. Average payments are expected to be around $1,000–$5,000 per class member. The exact amount depends on each person’s overtime hours and pay rate.

Q: What is the deadline to file a claim?

A: Eligible employees must submit a claim by December 17, 2025. Claims can be filed online or by mail through the settlement administrator, CPT Group Inc.

If your employer fails to provide accurate overtime pay or properly include all forms of compensation in your pay calculations, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our experienced employment law attorneys at our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how labor laws protect your rights on the job.

Did Amazon Misclassify Its Flex Drivers in Violation of Labor Law?

The number of employment law violation complaints lodged against Amazon continues to rise. A New Jersey filing has the court considering Amazon's classification of Amazon Flex drivers to determine if misclassification allegations are valid.

Case: Robert Asaro-Angelo, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc.

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division – Essex County

Case No.: SX-L-008049-25

Did Amazon Engage in Systemic Misclassification Violations?

The civil action claimed that Amazon's practices constituted a systemic violation of labor laws (wage and hour laws, benefit laws, and tax laws) by allegedly misclassifying thousands of Amazon Flex delivery drivers as independent contractors. As independent contractors, the workers are not eligible for the majority of protections provided to America's workforce by state and federal labor laws. The plaintiff argues that according to the legal definition, Amazon Flex drivers should be classified as employees.

Defining Employee in Asaro-Angelo v. Amazon: According to New Jersey labor law, workers are defined as "employees" unless the employer can prove otherwise using the strict "ABC test." The Department argues that Amazon cannot meet that requirement, as the company exercises substantial control over when, where, and how Flex drivers perform their work.

The Defendants: Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc.

Amazon.com, Inc. and its subsidiary Amazon Logistics, Inc. are named defendants. The complaint focuses on the Amazon Flex program, launched in 2015, which uses individuals—called "Delivery Partners"—to deliver packages using their own vehicles.

According to the filing, Amazon dictates nearly every aspect of drivers' work through its proprietary smartphone app. Flex drivers must accept delivery blocks through the app, follow Amazon's instructions on timing and routes, and comply with the company's extensive Terms of Service. The state argues that this level of control is indicative of a traditional employment setup rather than the situation seen with a hired independent contractor.

The lawsuit also notes that Flex drivers are financially disadvantaged by this model. They are responsible for gas, tolls, maintenance, and insurance costs, and often earn less than minimum wage once expenses are factored in. The Department contends that these drivers should receive the same protections as other Amazon employees, including access to disability coverage, paid sick leave, and unemployment insurance.

A History of the Case: The State Files Suit to Address the Issue

The state's detailed complaint (filed on October 20, 2025 in Essex County Superior Court) marks one of the most aggressive state-level enforcement actions Amazon has faced yet in connection to alleged employment law violations.

The state alleges that Amazon's classification system violates multiple New Jersey labor laws, including:

• The Wage and Hour Law (WHL)

• The Wage Payment Law (WPL)

• The Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL)

• The Unemployment Compensation Law (UCL)

• The Temporary Disability Benefits Law (TDBL)

The lawsuit seeks 1) injunctive relief (to stop Amazon from misclassifying drivers), 2) declaratory relief (affirming that Flex drivers are employees), and 3) monetary penalties (for each misclassified worker). Under N.J.S.A. 34:1A-1.18, penalties may include administrative fines and payments to misclassified workers of up to 5% of their gross earnings over the past twelve months.

The filing also references ongoing audits and investigations of Amazon's practices under the state's unemployment and benefits programs, suggesting a broader compliance inquiry into how the company treats gig-based workers.

The Main Question Being Considered: Employee or Independent Contractor?

The heart of the case lies in whether Amazon Flex drivers are true independent contractors or employees under New Jersey law.

To defend its model, Amazon will likely rely on its argument that Flex drivers choose their schedules and use their own vehicles—features typically associated with independent contracting. However, the state contends that Amazon's pervasive control over drivers' work patterns, routes, and performance metrics makes them employees in every meaningful sense.

Under the ABC test, a worker is an independent contractor only if:

A) They are free from the company's control in performing their work;

B) Their work falls outside the usual course of the company's business; and

C) They operate an independently established trade or business.

The Department argues Amazon fails all three prongs.

Why This Case Matters to Workers Nationwide

Although filed in New Jersey, this lawsuit reflects a growing national debate over the "gig economy" and the rights of workers employed through digital platforms. Similar lawsuits and audits have been filed against Amazon in other states, including cases referencing Amazon Flex under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

For California workers (who are protected under the Dynamex and AB 5 rulings), the case underscores how state-level enforcement continues to challenge corporate attempts to bypass employment protections. Misclassified workers lose not only overtime and benefits but also long-term rights to unemployment, family leave, and workers' compensation coverage.

FAQ: New Jersey Department of Labor v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Q: What is Amazon accused of in this lawsuit?

A: The Department of Labor alleges that Amazon misclassified Flex delivery drivers, and in doing so, denied wages, benefits and legal protections they should have received.

Q: What laws are cited in the complaint?

A: The complaint cites violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, Wage Payment Law, Earned Sick Leave Law, Unemployment Compensation Law, and Temporary Disability Benefits Law, along with penalties under N.J.S.A. 34:1A-1.18.

Q: What penalties could Amazon face?

A: The state seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, plus financial penalties for each misclassified worker—potentially up to 5% of each worker's gross annual earnings—and recovery of unpaid wages and benefits.

If you are misclassified on the job or denied your wages or benefits, contact our experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Dedicated labor law attorneys are ready to help you learn about your rights and how to pursue fair compensation under state and federal labor laws at our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did Odoo Misclassify Its Sales Representatives? $4.6 Million Settlement Resolves Overtime Allegations

A class action lawsuit against Odoo, Inc., a global business software company, shows how quickly overtime disputes can grow when they affect hundreds of employees across multiple states. In Kayed, Prado, Carr, and Rivas v. Odoo, sales representatives alleged they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay. The case has now ended in a $4.6 million settlement, bringing long-awaited relief to nearly 600 workers.

Case: Omar Kayed, Jesus Prado, Spencer Carr, and Alonzo Rivas v. Odoo, Inc.

Court: Northern District Court of California

Case No.: 3:23-cv-03728

The Plaintiffs: Odoo Sales Representatives

Four former Odoo employees—Omar Kayed, Jesus Prado, Spencer Carr, and Alonzo Rivas—filed the original complaint in July 2023, alleging that Odoo had misclassified its sales representatives as exempt from overtime.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of employees in California and New York who held titles such as Account Executive, Account Manager, and Customer Success Manager. According to the complaint, these employees primarily engaged in routine sales and customer service duties, including contacting clients, scheduling demos, and closing deals.

Their lawsuit claimed these duties did not meet the criteria for exemption under either federal or state law. The plaintiffs also alleged that Odoo imposed aggressive sales quotas and productivity goals, requiring employees to routinely work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay.

The Defendant: Odoo, Inc.

Odoo, Inc., the U.S. arm of a global enterprise software company headquartered in Belgium, provides business management solutions to clients worldwide. The plaintiffs accused Odoo of systematically denying overtime pay, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and failing to reimburse California employees for work-related expenses, such as phone and internet costs.

The complaint asserted violations of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws, including California’s Labor Code and New York wage and hour statutes. California plaintiffs also pursued civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

What is PAGA? PAGA allows employees to act on behalf of the state to seek penalties for labor law violations.

A History of the Case: From Filing to $4.6 Million Resolution

The class action was filed in the San Francisco federal court in July 2023. The parties' counsel litigated the case for close to two years including extensive discovery and settlement discussions.

On December 12, 2024, Judge Cisneros granted final approval of the $4,647,474.68 settlement to resolve the dispute. Under the agreement, Odoo will provide payments to 599 class members, as well as pay attorneys’ fees, and administrative costs associated with the case.

According to court documents, the average class member payout is approximately $4,850.46, while the highest payment exceeds $24,000. Though Odoo did not admit liability, the settlement represents a meaningful recovery for affected employees who worked long hours under demanding sales targets.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were Odoo’s Sales Reps Exempt or Not?

The main question in the case is if Odoo's sales representatives were correctly classified as exempt or not. Under federal and state labor law, exemptions usually apply to executive, administrative or professional employees whose main job duties require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment regarding significant business matters.

The plaintiffs argued that Odoo’s sales employees were closely supervised, followed standardized scripts, and worked within strict performance metrics—factors that typically characterize non-exempt positions.

Ultimately, while the case ended in settlement rather than trial, the resolution underscores how easily misclassification disputes can expand into multi-state class actions when large groups of employees share similar job structures and claims.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

California’s wage and hour laws impose some of the nation’s toughest overtime requirements, and they apply even to white-collar professionals in sales and tech. Employers cannot rely solely on job titles or salary levels to deny overtime. The actual day-to-day duties determine exemption status.

This case reinforces that California workers (especially those in high-pressure sales environments) should not assume that “salaried” means “exempt.” If your job requires long hours, detailed oversight, and scripted tasks, you may be entitled to overtime pay even if your employer labels you as a manager or executive.

FAQ: Kayed, Prado, Carr, and Rivas v. Odoo, Inc.

Q: What laws did this case involve?

A: The lawsuit cited violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws in California and New York, including California Labor Code provisions governing overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for business expenses.

Q: What is the value of the settlement?

A: The settlement totals $4,647,474.68, covering payments to 599 class members, with an average payment of about $4,850 and a maximum payment of $24,064.03, subject to court-approved deductions for fees and costs.

Q: What is a PAGA claim?

A: The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows California employees to act as “private attorneys general” and recover civil penalties for labor law violations on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the State of California.

If you believe your employer has misclassified your position or failed to pay overtime, contact our office today to discuss your potential claim and learn more about your rights under California and federal law. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.