Headway Faces a Class Action Alleging Overtime Pay Violations

Headway, a platform that matches patients with high-quality mental healthcare professionals to meet their needs, is accused of violating labor laws in a California class-action lawsuit.

Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway

Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: 25CU053855C

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway.

The plaintiff in the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to pay its employees for all hours worked accurately. Headway employed the plaintiff from August 2024 to May 2025.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant in the case is Therapymatch, Inc.; however, hereinafter we’ll refer to them as Headway. Headway is a Delaware-based company doing significant business in California, including San Diego County. The company owns and operates a platform that connects patients with mental health care professionals.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

As is often the case with California employment law claims, the plaintiffs allege that their employer violated multiple labor laws. The following labor law violation allegations were included in the complaint:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay accurate overtime wages

• Failure to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to pay wages promptly

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

The Main Question of the Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway

In Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway, the main legal question was whether or not Headway’s wage statements complied with labor law. According to the plaintiff, Headway failed to provide all the required information on their wage statements (violating California Labor Code Section 226). Additionally, the court needs to consider the company’s history of wage payments, overtime calculations, and compensation practices to determine whether it violated labor laws governing minimum wage rates, overtime pay, and exempt classification.

FAQ: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway

Q: Has the Court decided on the Headway Overtime Class Action?

A: As of October 2025, the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway, was still pending in San Diego County Superior Court.

Q: Are California employers required to provide their employees with specific pay and wage information?

A: Yes, labor law is very specific about what data is required on an “accurate itemized wage statement.”

Q: What information is required on wage statements to comply with California Labor Code Section 226?

A: California employers must include the following information on wage statements to comply with labor laws: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece-rates, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates of the pay period, employee name, last four digits of the employee’s social security number (or employee id number), name and address of the employer, hourly rates that apply to the pay period, and number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate.

Q: What qualifies as an exempt employee in California?

A: ​​To qualify as an exempt employee, California workers must pass a two-part test. First, the duties test. They must be “primarily” engaged in the duties that meet the test of the exemption. Second, the salary test. They must earn a monthly salary of at least twice California’s minimum wage for full-time employees (Labor Code § 515).

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay, or you were not paid for all hours worked, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate your wage-and-hour claims and explain your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to recover unpaid wages and pursue accountability under the law.

Did Cracker Barrel Face a Nationwide Overtime Lawsuit That the Ninth Circuit Narrowed on Jurisdiction Grounds?

Current and former Cracker Barrel servers filed a nationwide wage-and-hour lawsuit alleging violations of labor laws related to tip pooling practices.

Case: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Docket Nos.: 23-15650 and 24-1979

Decision Date: July 1, 2025

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

District Court Case No.: 2:21-cv-00940-DJH

Get to Know the Plaintiffs in the Case:

The plaintiffs, Andrew Harrington, Katie Liammaytry, Jason Lenchert, and Dylan Basch, are current and former Cracker Barrel employees who allege violations related to pay practices for tipped workers.

Learn More About the Defendant in the Case:

The defendant, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., is a restaurant chain incorporated and headquartered in Tennessee.

Case History: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The case was filed in Arizona District Court as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The district court authorized notice to a proposed collective that included servers in multiple states where Cracker Barrel allegedly used a tip-credit pay model, using the standard two-step conditional certification process.

Cracker Barrel objected to nationwide notice, arguing that some workers may be subject to arbitration agreements and that the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state opt-ins with no connection to Arizona. The district court still authorized nationwide notice based on an Arizona-based named plaintiff. Cracker Barrel responded by obtaining an interlocutory appeal. As a result, the case ended up in the Ninth Circuit Court.

What is the Main Question Considered in the Case?

The main issue was whether the Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb personal-jurisdiction framework applies to FLSA collective actions in federal court. The court needed to decide if it must evaluate personal jurisdiction for each opt-in plaintiff’s claim instead of relying on a named plaintiff’s forum connection to support claims nationwide.

Summary of the Allegations: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The plaintiffs alleged that Cracker Barrel violated the FLSA regarding wages for tipped employees, particularly in its use of the federal tip credit. Although the Ninth Circuit’s opinion focused on procedural issues, the case was a nationwide wage-and-hour dispute over tip-credit practices.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit made three key holdings:

• The two-step conditional certification process is permissible. The panel found the district court did not abuse its discretion by using this procedure at the preliminary stage.

• If the validity of arbitration agreements is genuinely disputed, the district court is not required to resolve arbitrability for absent employees before authorizing notice.

• The Ninth Circuit held that Bristol-Myers applies to FLSA collectives. When a court relies on specific jurisdiction, it must determine whether each opt-in plaintiff’s claim is sufficiently connected to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. The panel vacated the nationwide notice order and remanded the case because the district court did not conduct the Bristol-Myers analysis.

• In a separate memorandum disposition issued the same day, the Ninth Circuit also addressed Cracker Barrel’s motion to compel arbitration as to one plaintiff’s claims.

Why This Was a Landmark Wage-and-Hour Case in 2025

The decision in this wage and hour case didn’t change overtime law, but it reshaped where and how nationwide wage and hour cases can be litigated in the Ninth Circuit.

1. Limits nationwide FLSA collectives filed outside an employer’s home state.

2. Affects early case strategy

FAQ: Harrington, et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

Q: What is an FLSA “collective action”?

A: It is a procedure under the FLSA that allows employees to pursue overtime or minimum-wage claims together, but workers generally must opt in by filing a written consent.

Q: What did the Ninth Circuit actually “narrow” in this case?

A: The court narrowed the ability to send nationwide notice from a forum that may not have personal jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state workers. The district court must evaluate jurisdiction for each opt-in claim when the case relies on specific jurisdiction.

Q: Does this decision mean workers can never bring nationwide FLSA cases?

A: Not necessarily. It means plaintiffs must choose a forum that can support jurisdiction over the broader set of claims (for example, where the employer is subject to general jurisdiction) or tailor the collective to workers whose claims have a sufficient connection to the forum.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit decide whether Cracker Barrel violated wage laws?

A: No. The opinion addressed procedural issues—notice, arbitration timing, and personal jurisdiction—not the ultimate merits of the wage claims.

If you believe you were denied overtime pay, paid under an unlawful tip-credit practice, or not compensated for all hours worked, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you evaluate your options under federal and state law. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential unpaid wage claims.

Did Innovative Wall Systems Shortchange Workers on Overtime and Travel Time?

In recent news, the wage and hour enforcement case alleging that Innovative Wall Systems, Inc. engaged in multiple labor law violations came to an end with the Court ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Case: Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Case No.: 3:25-cv-02240-GPC-DDL (also listed as 3:2025cv02240)

Filed: August 28, 2025

Disposition: Consent Judgment signed September 11, 2025 and filed September 12, 2025

Presiding Judge: Gonzalo P. Curiel

Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case:

The plaintiff is Lori Chavez-DeRemer, in her official capacity as the U.S. Secretary of Labor, bringing the action under federal enforcement authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping violations affecting 580 workers. The case serves as a solid reminder to employers that, even when workers are paid on a per-unit or production basis, accurate time records must be maintained and overtime premiums must be paid when employees exceed 40 hours in a workweek.

Who Was the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant, Innovative Wall Systems, Inc., is a California corporation doing business as Alta Drywall, and Jason Shane Bellamy (identified in public summaries as the company’s president and CEO).

A Brief History of the Case: Lori Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division conducted an investigation into Innovative Wall Systems’ timekeeping and pay practices.

Aug. 28, 2025: The Department of Labor filed an enforcement lawsuit against Innovative Wall Systems in the Southern District of California.

Aug. 28, 2025: Notice of settlement was filed (same day complaint was filed).

Sept. 11, 2025: Consent of judgment was signed.

Sept. 12, 2025: Consent of judgment was filed.

The consent judgment imposed injunctive relief (prohibiting future FLSA violations), back wages, liquidated damages, and a civil money penalty.

What Were the Labor Law Violation Allegations?

Federal investigators alleged that Innovative Wall Systems failed to accurately record compensable time, including pre- and post-shift work, travel time (to and from job sites), and Saturday work. The complaint also alleged that the company failed to pay accurate overtime wages and that its problematic timekeeping practices resulted in wage-and-hour violations.

The Outcome of the Wage and Hour Action: Court-Ordered Relief

The consent judgment required the company to pay $790,000 in back wages to affected employees, liquidated damages, and a civil penalty.

Becoming a Landmark Wage-and-Hour Case of 2025

What makes this particular wage and hour case a landmark case of 2025? There are several reasons. First, it was a big case, in terms of the number of affected workers and the reach of the ripples it made in the industry. The alleged violations affected 580 identified workers. Second, the case also serves as an obvious example of how quickly federal enforcement can yield binding injunctive and monetary relief, with the exceedingly rapid progression from filing to settlement. Third, the case’s allegations centered on travel time as “compensable time,” a common sore spot in labor law in the construction industry. And fourth, the fact that a civil money penalty was included underscores that the government did not view this as a minor or technical offense, but a serious one that needed a heavy-handed consequence.

FAQ: Chavez-Deremer v. Innovative Wall Systems

Q: What is “travel time” and when can it be compensable?

A: Certain travel time can be compensable under wage-and-hour law, including (in many settings) travel that occurs during the workday, such as travel between jobsites (depending on the facts and the applicable rules).

Q: What are my rights regarding overtime pay in California?

A: In California, most employees are entitled to receive overtime pay for hours worked over 8 in a day or 40 in a week. Specific exemptions may apply, so it’s essential to consult with an attorney to understand your rights.

Q: How can I determine if I am misclassified as an exempt employee?

A: Misclassification can occur when employers incorrectly classify employees as exempt from overtime. If you believe you should be eligible for overtime pay, consider speaking with an employment attorney who can review your job duties and classification.

Q: What does it mean when a case ends in a “consent judgment”?

A: A consent judgment is basically a settlement that becomes a court order. The parties agree to specific terms, the judge signs off, and those terms are enforceable—so failing to follow them can lead to serious consequences.

Q: Does a consent judgment mean the employer admitted wrongdoing?

A: Not always. Many consent judgments resolve a dispute without a full trial or a formal admission of fault. But the bottom line is the same: once the court enters it, the order is binding.

If you believe you were denied overtime, shorted on travel time or other compensable hours, or paid in a way that did not meet minimum wage and overtime requirements, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help evaluate your potential claims. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your options for pursuing unpaid wages and accountability under the law.

Did a Federal Court Block the DOL’s 2025 Overtime Salary Threshold Increase Nationwide?

For employers and salaried workers alike, the Department of Labor’s 2024 overtime rule promised a major shift in who would qualify for overtime pay starting January 1, 2025. But a federal court in Texas ultimately set aside and vacated the rule nationwide, preventing the planned 2025 salary-threshold increase from taking effect and resetting compliance expectations across the country. Below is a case-study summary of State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor, the decision frequently described as a “national vacatur” because it did more than block enforcement for a single plaintiff; it invalidated the rule nationwide.

Case: State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)

Case No.: Civil No. 4:24-cv-499-SDJ (lead case), consolidated with 4:24-cv-468-SDJ

Decision Date: November 15, 2024

Judge: District Judge Sean D. Jordan

Outcome: The “2024 Rule” was set aside and vacated

The Plaintiff in the Case: The State of Texas

The lead plaintiff was the State of Texas, joined in the consolidated litigation by a coalition of employer and trade-organization plaintiffs challenging the Department of Labor’s overtime rule as exceeding the agency’s statutory authority.

Get to Know the Defendant in the Case: U.S. Department of Labor

The defendant was the U.S. Department of Labor and agency officials responsible for implementing and enforcing the overtime rule (including the Department's leadership and the Wage and Hour Division).

A Brief Case History: State of Texas v. U.S. DOL

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor finalized a rule that revised the salary thresholds for “white-collar” FLSA exemptions for executive, administrative, and professional employees. Under the new rule, a two-step salary threshold increase was implemented alongside an automatic updating mechanism:

On July 1, 2024, salary thresholds increased from $684/week ($35,568/year) to $844/week ($43,888/year)

On January 1, 2025, salary thresholds were scheduled to increase to $1,128/week ($58,656/year)

In addition, highly compensated employees (HCE) were also going to see an increase; with the salary threshold scheduled to rise to $151,164/year on January 1, 2025, and undergo automatic updates beginning in 2027.

Challenging the Rule in Court: Texas v. U.S. DOL

Responding to the new rule affecting salary thresholds for white-collar exemptions under FLSA, Texas filed a lawsuit attempting to stop it before it went into effect. In June 2024, the court issued an injunction preventing the Department from enforcing the rule against Texas as an employer. However, the July 1, 2024 increase continued to apply to other employers nationwide.

The cases were consolidated and proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 15, 2024, Judge Jordan granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and issued a memorandum opinion and order that set aside and vacated the 2024 Rule.

The federal government appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit. The dispute remained active into 2025.

What is the Main Question in the Case?

The main question in the case was whether the U.S. Department of Labor exceeded its authority to define and “delimit” the FLSA executive, administrative, and professional exemptions when it issued the 2024 rule raising salary thresholds and adding an automatic updating mechanism.

What Were the Allegations and Arguments in the Case?

The plaintiffs argued that the 2024 rule exceeded the FLSA's limits because it raised the salary level so significantly that it would override the duties-based inquiry Congress wrote into the statute, effectively making exemption status turn primarily on pay level rather than job duties for millions of workers. Additionally, the court had to consider the automatic updating mechanism and arguments that it would unlawfully allow future salary threshold increases without undergoing the notice-and-comment rulemaking process that generally governs such major regulatory changes.

The Court’s Decision: Texas v. U.S. DOL

The court ruled for Texas and the other plaintiffs and held that the Department’s rule exceeded its statutory authority, granting summary judgment and ordering that the 2024 Rule be “set aside and vacated.” Since the rule was vacated, the planned salary threshold for January 1, 2025 did not take effect. The ruling also nullified the prior July 1, 2024 increase, so thresholds reverted to pre-rule status.

What Makes this Wage-and-Hour Decision a Landmark Case?

Although the order was issued in late 2024, its practical impact landed squarely in 2025. The DOL’s rule was designed around a major January 1, 2025, increase in the salary threshold and a new standard for recurring updates. By vacating the rule nationwide, the Court changed the compliance landscape overnight, particularly for employers that had prepared for (or already completed) reclassifications and pay adjustments in anticipation of the 2025 increase scheduled under the 2024 rule.

Just as importantly, the decision is frequently cited for its remedy: rather than limiting relief to the plaintiffs, the court vacated the rule itself—functionally removing it from the books nationwide, at least unless and until it is revived through appellate review or future rulemaking.

FAQ: Texas v. U.S. DOL

Q: What did the DOL’s 2024 overtime rule try to change?

A: It raised the minimum salary level for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions from $684/week to $844/week (July 1, 2024), then planned to raise it again to $1,128/week on January 1, 2025, and also increased the HCE threshold—plus it added automatic updates beginning in 2027.

Q: What did the court do in State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor?

A: The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered that the 2024 Rule be set aside and vacated.

Q: Did the decision only apply in Texas?

A: No. The earlier injunction was limited to Texas as an employer, but the November 15, 2024 order vacated the rule, and it has since been widely understood to apply nationwide.

Q: What salary threshold applied after the rule was vacated?

A: The salary level reverted to $684/week ($35,568/year) for the standard salary threshold, and the HCE threshold reverted to $107,432/year.

Q: Was the decision appealed?

A: Yes. The federal government appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit, and the litigation remained active into 2025.

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt, denied overtime, or not paid for all hours worked, the wage-and-hour attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help assess your potential claims and explain your options under federal and state law. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to pursue unpaid wages and accountability.

The E.M.D. Suit: A Misclassification Complaint that Reshaped Overtime Exemption Disputes

The E.M.D Sales, Inc. v. Carrera case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court's 2025 decision reshaped how overtime exemption disputes are proven under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). At the center of the case is whether workers classified as “outside sales” were improperly denied overtime, and what level of proof employers must meet to defend an exemption.

The Supreme Court case, E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera arose from an FLSA overtime lawsuit originally filed in Maryland (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland).

Case: Carrera v. E.M.D. Sales, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Maryland

Case No.: 1:17-cv-03066-JKB

Where the Case Started: District Court

The case began as an overtime lawsuit filed in 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland: Carrera et al. v. E.M.D. Sales, Inc. et al., Civil No. JKB-17-3066 (1:17-cv-03066). The plaintiffs, Faustino Sanchez Carrera, Magdaleno Gervacio, and Jesus David Muro, worked as sales representatives. The group sued their employer and its CEO, claiming they failed to pay overtime wages (violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)). However, E.M.D. argued the workers were exempt as “outside salesmen.”

The Two Parties in the Case: Carrera v. E.M.D. Sales, Inc.

The plaintiffs who originally filed the suit are Faustino Sanchez Carrera, Jesus David Muro, and Magdaleno Gervacio, who worked as sales representatives for E.M.D. Sales. The plaintiffs alleged they regularly worked more than 40 hours in one week but were denied overtime pay, a practice that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendants are E.M.D. Sales, Inc., a food-products distributor, and its CEO, Elda M. Devarie. The company maintained that the plaintiffs were properly treated as exempt “outside sales” employees and therefore not entitled to overtime under the FLSA.

After the Bench Trial: Circuit Court

After the bench trial in March 2021, the district court ruled in favor of the employees, finding that E.M.D. failed to meet the clear-and-convincing standard for the outside sales exemption under that circuit's law. Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and maintained the heightened proof standard (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case Nos.: 21-1897 and 21-1924).

Petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court:

After the Fourth Circuit affirmed and maintained the District Court’s decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, E.M.D. petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari (June 17, 2024), heard argument (November 5, 2024), and decided the case (January 15, 2025). In doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers need only prove FLSA exemptions by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Main Question in the Case:

The central legal question was what burden of proof an employer must meet to establish that an employee falls within an exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Here, the “outside sales” exemption is used to deny overtime pay. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed whether an employer must prove an exemption by clear and convincing evidence (a heightened standard applied by the Fourth Circuit) or by the ordinary civil standard, preponderance of the evidence.

A Summary of the Allegations in the Case:

The plaintiffs—three sales representatives—alleged that E.M.D. Sales denied them overtime pay required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), even though they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week. They contended their day-to-day work did not fit the “outside sales” exemption because much of their time was spent on non-exempt tasks tied to servicing existing accounts (rather than primarily making sales away from the employer’s place of business).

E.M.D. Sales disputed the claim and maintained the workers were properly classified as exempt outside sales employees, meaning the company argued overtime was not owed under the FLSA.

FAQ: E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera

Q: What is the “outside sales” exemption under the FLSA?

A: It is an overtime exemption that can apply when an employee’s primary duty is making sales (or obtaining orders/contracts), and the employee is customarily and regularly working away from the employer’s place of business.

Q: In E.M.D.Sales, Inc. v. Carrera: What was the Supreme Court’s decision?

A: The Court held that employers must prove exemptions under FLSA using the ordinary civil standard (preponderance of the evidence) rather than a heightened clear and convincing standard.

Q: Did the decision in this case result in a change to the definition of “outside sales exemption?”

A: No, the definition of “outside sales exemption” remained the same. However, the Court’s decision addressed the strength of evidence the employer must provide to establish that an exemption applies.

Q: What is the practical meaning of “preponderance of the evidence”?

A: This phrase means the employer must show it is more likely than not that the exemption applies based on the evidence presented in the case.

Q: What should employees and employers take away from this case?

A: Employees should understand that exemption disputes are heavily fact-driven (what the job actually requires day-to-day). Employers should ensure that job duties, supervision, and documentation align with any exemption they rely on, because they still bear the burden of proving it.

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay, or you were not paid for all hours worked, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate your wage-and-hour claims and explain your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to recover unpaid wages and pursue accountability under the law.

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.