Century Lighting & Electric Sued for Wage-and-Hour Violations in Santa Clara County

Workers at a Bay Area service contractor filed a putative class action alleging broad violations of California wage-and-hour law. The complaint states that non-exempt employees were required to work off the clock, missed legally required meal and rest breaks, and paid work expenses without receiving reimbursement. The case seeks unpaid wages, penalties, and injunctive relief.

Case: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

Case No.: 25CV461988

The Plaintiff: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

The named plaintiff, Cruz M. Juarez, worked as a non-exempt hourly employee from December 2021 to September 2024. He brings the action on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated California employees who were classified as non-exempt.

The Defendant: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Century Commercial Service (doing business as Century Lighting & Electric) is alleged to operate a service contracting business throughout California, including Santa Clara County. The complaint names the company and the Doe defendants.

A History of the Case: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

The plaintiffs filed the Cruz M. Juarez class action in Santa Clara County Superior Court in March 2025, asserting causes of action under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law. Claims include failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, late final pay, unreimbursed business expenses, unlawful deductions, time-rounding and timekeeping manipulation, and failure to produce personnel records.

The Main Question Being Considered: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Did Century maintain policies or practices that violated California wage-and-hour requirements—such as off-the-clock work, noncompliant meal/rest breaks, rounding or altering time records, unpaid overtime at the correct regular rate, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses—on a class-wide basis?

Why This Case Matters: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

California labor law protects the rights of non-exempt employees to take off-duty meals and paid rest breaks, receive payment for all hours worked (including pre- and post-shift tasks), receive accurate wage statements, receive timely final pay, and receive reimbursement for necessary expenses. The allegations here mirror issues many workers face statewide. Understanding these rights—and how timekeeping, rounding, or unreimbursed costs can quietly erode pay—helps employees recognize and address potential wage theft.

FAQ: Cruz M. Juarez v. Century Commercial Service dba Century Lighting & Electric

Q: What court is handling this case?

A: Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV461988.

Q: What time period does the proposed class cover?

A: The complaint seeks relief for non-exempt California employees during the four years preceding the filing date, subject to the court’s determination.

Q: What wage violations are alleged?

A: Missed meal/rest breaks without proper premiums, off-the-clock work, unpaid minimum and overtime wages at the correct regular rate, rounding and altered time entries, unlawful deductions, inaccurate wage statements, late final pay, unreimbursed expenses, and failure to timely provide personnel records.

Q: Does the lawsuit ask for reimbursement of work expenses?

A: Yes. It alleges violations of Labor Code § 2802 for items like required cell phone use, internet, uniforms, and tools.

Q: What remedies does the complaint seek?

A: Unpaid wages and premiums, restitution, penalties (including waiting time and wage-statement penalties where applicable), interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Do Your Wage Statements Match Your Hours Worked?

If wage statements don’t match hours worked, breaks are cut short or on-call, or out-of-pocket costs aren’t reimbursed, those can be violations. Do you have questions about filing a California class action?

Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Your knowledgeable employment law attorneys in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago are ready to help you protect your employee rights.

DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar Faces Class Action Wage and Hour Violation Allegations

A new California class action lawsuit filed in San Diego County alleges that DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar violated California labor laws by denying employees their full wages, meal and rest breaks, and proper reimbursement for expenses. The case could impact numerous current and former workers at the hotel, highlighting the ongoing scrutiny of hospitality employers in California.

Case: Dylan Hobdy v. AHSC DTD LLC (aka DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar)

Court: San Diego County Superior Court

Case No.: 25CU033344C

The Plaintiff: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The plaintiff, Dylan Hobdy, filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly situated current and former employees. Hobdy alleges that the hotel systematically denied workers their full wages and failed to provide legally mandated breaks under the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The defendant, AHSC DTD LLC, operates the DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar. As the employer, the company is accused of violating multiple California Labor Codes, regarding:

• minimum wages

• overtime

• itemized wage statements

• meal and rest periods

• timely payment of wages

• reimbursement of expenses

A History of the Case: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The September 2025 filing alleged that DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar employees were often required to work before and after their scheduled shifts without pay, and perform tasks during their unpaid meal breaks. Plaintiffs also alleged that the hotel failed to provide accurate wage statements, did not timely pay all wages owed, and ignored legal requirements to reimburse certain employee expenses.

The Main Question Being Considered: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The central issue in this lawsuit is whether DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar violated California wage and hour laws when it allegedly required employees to work off the clock, denied proper meal and rest breaks, and failed to pay or reimburse employees for all work performed and expenses incurred.

Why This Case Matters: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The Hobdy v. DoubleTree case spotlights the importance of strict compliance with California’s labor laws in the hospitality industry. The case demonstrates that workers deserve compensation for all the time they work, including even small amounts of time (such as minutes worked before or after shifts, or work performed during meal breaks). For employers, the case serves as a reminder that failure to comply with wage and hour regulations can result in costly class-action litigation.

FAQ: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

Q: What law governs meal and rest breaks in California?

A: According to California law, employees get a 30-minute unpaid meal break every 5 hours on the job and 10-minute paid rest breaks for every 4 hours worked.

Q: Can an employer require employees to work off-the-clock?

A: No. Any time an employee is under the employer’s control is compensable under California law, even if the employee is not actively performing job duties.

Q: Can employees recover damages in wage and hour class actions?

A: Employees may recover unpaid wages, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and in some cases, additional damages under the California Labor Code.

Q: Are there legal requirements for expense reimbursements in California?

A: California employers are required by law to reimburse employees for reasonable business expenses they incur as part of their job duties.

Q: What should workers do if they suspect wage and hour violations?

A: Employees should keep records of hours worked and consult with an experienced California employment attorney to review potential claims.

California Workers: Get to Know Your Employee Rights

The Hobdy lawsuit demonstrates that California workers have powerful legal protections against wage theft, denied breaks, and off-the-clock work.

If you believe your employer has violated your employee rights under the California Labor Code, the attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. With offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento, and Chicago, the firm is ready to assist workers in holding employers accountable.

Ninth Circuit Sends Farmworker Wage and Hour Case Back to California State Court

A recent Ninth Circuit ruling reaffirmed that California farmworkers can pursue wage and hour claims in state court even when employers argue collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) should control. The case of Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc. highlights the ongoing legal battles farmworkers face over minimum wages, sick pay, overtime, and meal/rest breaks.

Case: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Court: U.S. Appellate Court, Ninth Circuit

Case Nos.: 23-3379 and 23-4335

The Plaintiff: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa, a farmworker, brought claims against Sunsweet Growers Inc., alleging that the company failed to pay her and other workers minimum wages, sick pay, and overtime. She also claimed Sunsweet denied legally required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and did not reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Defendant: Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Sunsweet Growers Inc., known for processing and distributing prunes, argued that the case should be decided in federal court because the claims were tied to provisions in a collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 856. The company also sought dismissal, contending that Renteria-Hinojosa failed to follow CBA dispute resolution procedures.

A History of the Case: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Renteria-Hinojosa filed suit in California state court in 2023. Sunsweet quickly removed the case to federal court, claiming Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) preempted the claims. U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta disagreed and sent the case back to state court.

Sunsweet appealed, but the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Calabretta’s ruling in August 2025. The appellate panel explained that while CBAs govern certain topics, state labor law protections — such as those regarding overtime, rest breaks, and wage statements — remain enforceable under California statutes.

The Main Question Being Considered: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

The central question was whether Renteria-Hinojosa’s wage and hour claims were preempted by federal law due to her union’s collective bargaining agreement. The Ninth Circuit ruled they were not. California law provides independent rights that cannot be waived simply by invoking a CBA.

Why This Case Matters: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

This decision reinforces that California workers can rely on state labor law protections even when covered by a union contract. Employers cannot avoid state court scrutiny by funneling disputes into federal court through LMRA preemption arguments. For farmworkers and other unionized employees, the ruling strengthens access to state-based wage and hour protections.

FAQ: Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers Inc.

Q: What did Renteria-Hinojosa claim against Sunsweet Growers?

A: She alleged unpaid minimum wages, sick pay, overtime, denied meal/rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, and a lack of expense reimbursement.

Q: Why did Sunsweet try to move the case to federal court?

A: Sunsweet argued the claims were governed by a collective bargaining agreement, triggering federal jurisdiction under the LMRA.

Q: How did the Ninth Circuit rule on jurisdiction?

A: The Ninth Circuit held the claims belong in California state court because they rely on state labor law protections, not just the CBA.

Q: What does this ruling mean for California workers?

A: It confirms that unionized employees still have enforceable state labor rights and cannot be forced to resolve wage claims only through federal courts.

Q: Why is this case important beyond farmworkers?

A: It sets a precedent that employers can’t misuse CBA preemption to sidestep California’s labor laws, benefiting all unionized workers in the state.

California Workers Should Make it a Priority to Know Their Rights

California’s labor laws provide strong protections for workers, whether or not a union contract covers you. Employers may argue that federal law overrides your rights, but this case shows courts are willing to uphold California protections.

If you believe you have been denied overtime, meal breaks, accurate pay statements, or other rights, the attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. With offices in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago, our experienced employment attorneys are ready to fight for you.

Seattle Jury Awards $98 Million in Unpaid Wages Verdict Against Providence Health & Services

In one of the largest wage-and-hour verdicts in recent years, a Seattle jury found Providence Health & Services liable for unpaid wages to thousands of hourly employees. The April 2024 decision highlights how small, routine wage violations (such as missed breaks or time clock rounding) can accumulate to substantial liability for employers and substantial back pay for workers.

Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 21-2-13058-1 SEA

The Plaintiff: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The plaintiffs in this case were hourly employees of Providence Health & Services. The group is one of the largest hospital systems in the United States. The case represented approximately 33,000 current and former employees who worked across Providence hospitals and healthcare facilities in Washington.

The Defendant: Providence Health & Services

Providence Health & Services is a major nonprofit healthcare organization with hospitals and medical centers throughout Washington and beyond. As an employer of tens of thousands of healthcare workers, Providence was accused of engaging in systemic wage-and-hour violations affecting thousands of nurses and staff.

A History of the Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The lawsuit alleged Providence used practices that violated Washington wage laws, including:

• Failing to provide a legally required second meal break for employees working shifts longer than 10 hours.

• Using timekeeping systems that “rounded” employees’ work hours in ways that disproportionately benefited the employer.

For example, employees who clocked in a few minutes early or stayed a few minutes late often lost that time entirely under Providence’s rounding policies. Similarly, employees frequently worked through required breaks without being paid. After extensive litigation, a King County jury determined Providence willfully violated wage laws, awarding nearly $98 million in unpaid wages and damages.

The Main Question Being Considered: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The key legal question was whether Providence’s timekeeping and break policies violated Washington wage law and deprived employees of earned wages. The case focused on whether the system of rounding and automatic deductions for breaks—even when breaks were not taken—constituted unlawful wage theft.

Even "Small" Labor Law Violations Should Not be Ignored

This case demonstrates that employers cannot dismiss small violations as insignificant. A few missed minutes or overlooked breaks, when applied across tens of thousands of employees, can result in significant liability. It also shows workers that they have the right to challenge unlawful wage practices—even in industries where working through breaks has been normalized.

FAQ: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

Q: How much was the verdict against Providence Health & Services?

A: The jury awarded nearly $98 million in unpaid wages and damages.

Q: How many employees were affected by the lawsuit?

A: About 33,000 hourly employees across the Providence system in Washington were included in the class.

Q: What were the main violations alleged?

A: Missed meal breaks for long shifts and unlawful rounding practices that shaved minutes off employees’ work time.

Q: What does Washington law require for long shifts?

A: Employees working more than 10 hours should receive a second 30-minute meal break, in addition to standard rest breaks.

Q: Why is this verdict significant for workers?

A: It highlights that “small” violations (like shaving a few minutes or denying breaks) can result in large-scale wage theft and that workers have legal recourse.

Workers Should Take Note of Wage Violations

The Providence case is a strong reminder for California workers that wage violations are often systemic, so even seemingly small or insignificant violations are worth challenging. Small discrepancies in pay can add up over time, particularly when applied to thousands of employees.

If you believe your employer has failed to pay overtime, denied breaks, or used timekeeping systems that shortchange your wages, you should speak with an experienced wage and hour lawyer right away. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

$100 Million Swift Transportation Misclassification Settlement: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

The trucking industry has seen some of the nation’s largest misclassification lawsuits, and Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation is no exception. After more than a decade of litigation, Swift Transportation agreed to a $100 million settlement resolving claims that it had misclassified thousands of drivers as “independent contractors” rather than employees. When examining the facts of the Van Dusen v. Swift case, the legal and financial risks employers face when sidestepping wage and hour laws through misclassification are evident.

Case: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Case No.: CV 10-899-PHX-JWS

More About the Plaintiff: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

The plaintiffs were a group of approximately 20,000 truck drivers who alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors. Lead plaintiff Van Dusen and others argued that they performed the work of employees but were denied the same legal protections, such as overtime pay, reimbursement of expenses, and minimum wage guarantees.

The Defendant: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Swift Transportation is known as one of the largest trucking companies in the U.S. Swift utilizes a contractor model requiring drivers to lease their own trucks and pay for fuel, maintenance, and other business expenses directly, while still following Swift’s rules and schedules.

*Swift Transportation is now a part of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings.

A Case of Misclassification: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Filed in 2009, the Van Dusen v. Swift case quickly became one of the most fiercely contested misclassification cases in the transportation industry, with the plaintiffs alleging that Swift’s lease agreements and business practices created a form of economic coercion that trapped their drivers in unfair arrangements. Swift attempted to dismiss the lawsuit and pushed aggressively to enforce arbitration agreements, arguing that drivers had waived their rights to bring class claims in court. However, in a pivotal ruling, the courts determined that interstate truck drivers could not be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

After years of procedural battles and appeals, Swift ultimately agreed to a $100 million settlement in 2019 rather than risk a trial.

The Main Question Being Considered: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

At its core, the question was whether classifying drivers as “independent contractors” complied with labor law requirements. If Swift exercised enough control over the drivers’ work schedules, routes, and methods, then drivers were entitled to employee protections, including overtime and minimum wage.

Why This Case Matters: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

This case illustrates the high stakes of misclassification in industries where companies attempt to cut costs by calling workers “contractors.” The $100 million settlement is one of the largest of its kind and shows that:

• Labels do not determine employment status; courts look at the reality of the working relationship.

• Arbitration clauses cannot always shield employers from large collective actions.

• Misclassification schemes can push workers’ pay below minimum wage, creating liability for unpaid wages, damages, and penalties.

For truck drivers and other workers, the settlement reinforced their right to challenge exploitative “independent contractor” arrangements.

FAQ: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Q: How much did Swift Transportation agree to pay in the settlement?

A: Swift agreed to pay $100 million to resolve the lawsuit.

Q: How many drivers were affected by the lawsuit?

A: Approximately 20,000 truck drivers were part of the class action.

Q: Why were the drivers misclassified?

A: Drivers were labeled “independent contractors” but had to follow Swift’s schedules and rules, wear its branding, and rely on Swift for work—hallmarks of employee status.

Q: Could Swift have forced the case into arbitration?

A: No. Courts ruled that interstate truckers are exempt from forced arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, allowing the case to proceed as a class action.

Q: What lesson does this case teach workers?

A: If your employer controls your work and schedule, you may be an employee regardless of being labeled a contractor, and you may be entitled to overtime and minimum wage protections.

Misclassification Can be a costly violation

The Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation settlement illustrates the significant costs associated with misclassification for employers and the importance of workers understanding their rights.

If you suspect you’ve been misclassified or denied overtime pay, contact the experienced employment attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Our team is ready to review your situation and help you fight for the wages you’ve earned.

$130 Million Settlement Ends Wackenhut Security Meal & Rest Break Case

After nearly fifteen years of litigation, G4S Secure Solutions (formerly Wackenhut Corporation) agreed to pay up to $130 million to resolve a California wage-and-hour class action. The case alleged that thousands of security guards were denied legally required meal and rest breaks and received inaccurate wage statements. At the time, the settlement ranked among the largest wage-and-hour class settlements in California history.

Case: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: B244383

The Plaintiff: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

The plaintiffs were a class of approximately 13,500 nonexempt security officers employed by Wackenhut/G4S in California. They claimed the company’s policies routinely forced them to work through meal and rest breaks without proper compensation and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

The defendant, Wackenhut Corporation (later rebranded as G4S Secure Solutions), was one of the largest private security contractors in the United States. The company faced allegations that its policies violated California’s stringent wage and hour laws, exposing it to massive financial liability.

A History of the Case: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

• Plaintiffs originally filed suit alleging meal and rest break violations and inadequate wage statements.

• The trial court granted class certification, but later, after the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision, Wackenhut moved for decertification.

• The trial court granted the decertification, but the plaintiffs appealed.

• The California appellate court held that the trial court misapplied Wal-Mart by extending its reasoning on statistical evidence too far. It reversed the decertification, allowing the class claims to proceed.

• Following further litigation and clarification of the use of statistical sampling in class actions, as seen in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, the case progressed toward settlement.

• On January 22, 2019, G4S agreed to pay between $100 million and $130 million to resolve the claims.

The Main Question Being Considered: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

The central question was whether Wackenhut/G4S’s policies denied security officers their legally mandated off-duty meal and rest breaks and whether statistical sampling could be used to prove widespread violations across the class.

Why This Case Matters: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

• It underscores the steep cost of failing to comply with California’s meal and rest break requirements.

• It clarified that class actions may rely on statistical evidence to demonstrate common violations when appropriate.

• For workers, the settlement represents one of the largest recoveries for missed break claims in California, affirming that wage protections apply even when an employee is technically off-duty.

• For employers, the case serves as a cautionary tale: ignoring California’s strict break and wage statement rules can result in substantial financial exposure.

FAQ: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

Q: How much did G4S agree to pay to settle the case?

 A: Up to $130 million, with payments covering back wages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: How many workers were affected by this lawsuit?

 A: Approximately 13,500 security guards were employed in California during the nine years covered by the class action.

Q: What were the main violations alleged?

 A: Missed meal and rest breaks, on-duty meal periods without valid agreements, and inaccurate wage statements.

Q: Why did the trial court originally decertify the class?

 A: It relied on Wal-Mart v. Dukes to argue that statistical sampling could not be used; however, that reasoning was later rejected on appeal.

Q: What does California law require for meal and rest breaks?

 A: Nonexempt employees must receive a 30-minute off-duty meal break by the end of the 5th hour of work (and a second off-duty meal break by the 10th hour) and a paid 10-minute rest break every four hours. Employers who fail to provide them owe an additional hour of pay per violation.

If your California employer has denied you meal or rest breaks or pressured you to work through your legally protected break times, you may have legal claims. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP: our employment law attorneys in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago are ready to help.

The $233 Million Win for Anaheim Disney Theme Park Workers

To resolve a class action lawsuit alleging wage violations at Anaheim Disney theme parks and hotels, the company agreed to a $233 million settlement. The suit alleged Disney failed to comply with Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance (Measure L) for hourly and service charge-eligible workers since January 1, 2019. A judge recently approved the settlement, marking what many legal observers believe is one of the largest wage & hour class action recoveries in California history.

Case: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Court: Orange County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2019-01116850-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Plaintiffs include Kathleen Grace, Regina Delgado, Alicia Grijalva, Javier Terrazas, and others who are current or former hourly workers at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim. They allege Disney failed to pay them the minimum wage required under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance, as well as related service charges, overtime, and full wages upon separation, among other violations.

The Defendant: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

The defendants are The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. They are accused of not adjusting wages in accordance with Anaheim’s LWO, despite benefiting from “City Subsidies” (such as tax rebates or reimbursement agreements) under agreements with the City, which the Court of Appeal found make them subject to the law.

A History of the Case: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Measure L (Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance) was passed by voters in 2018 and took effect on December 4, 2018. It requires certain hospitality employers, who benefit from city subsidies, to pay a progressively increasing wage, starting at $15/hr in 2019 and rising each year.

Plaintiffs filed the class action in December 2019.

In 2023, the California Court of Appeals held that Disney was subject to the LWO due to its subsidy arrangements.

After settlement negotiations, a proposed settlement was preliminarily approved, and in September 2025, the Orange County Superior Court granted final approval to the $233 million settlement.

The Main Question Being Considered: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

The question is whether Disney was legally required to comply with Anaheim’s LWO because it benefited from a “City Subsidy,” thus making it obligated to pay its hourly nonexempt employees the wages and service charges prescribed by the ordinance, including retroactive wages, penalties, and damages.

Why This Case Matters: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

This settlement is a precedent-setting example of how municipal living wage laws can hold large employers accountable, even when those employers argue for exemptions or non-coverage.

It demonstrates that “subsidy” agreements—such as tax rebates or reimbursement contracts tied to public infrastructure—can form the legal basis for requiring compliance with living wage ordinances.

For Disney workers, it means tens of thousands are receiving back pay and wage adjustments; for employers, it underscores that compliance with local wage laws isn’t optional if subsidy arrangements bring them under those laws.

FAQ: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Q: What was Measure L / the Anaheim Living Wage Ordinance?

A: A law passed by Anaheim voters in 2018 requiring certain hospitality employers receiving city subsidies to pay increasing minimum wages each year, starting at $15/hr in 2019.

Q: Are “City Subsidies” essential to subjecting Disney to Measure L?

A: Yes. The Court of Appeal ruled that Disney did benefit from “City Subsidies” under agreements with the City (e.g., tax rebates or reimbursement agreements), making the company subject to the wage requirements.

Q: How many workers are affected by this settlement?

A: Approximately 51,478 current and former Disneyland employees in Anaheim are part of the class.

Q: How much will workers receive from the settlement?

A: Of the $233 million total, about $179.6 million is allocated for back wages and related payments to class members; $17.5 million for penalties to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency; and $35 million in attorneys’ fees.

Q: Does Disney admit wrongdoing in this case?

A: No. The settlement explicitly states that it is not an admission of liability; rather, both sides agreed to settle to avoid the time, cost, and uncertainty of continued litigation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action or believe your employer has violated local wage ordinances or denied required wages or service charges, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in their offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.