$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.

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

What began as a simple workplace complaint over a poorly placed time clock became one of the most influential retaliation decisions in recent employment law history. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. clarified a key protection for American workers: employees cannot be fired for raising oral complaints about wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Case: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

Court: Wisconsin Western District Court

Case No.: 07 C 0686 (W.D. Wis.); 09-834 (U.S. Supreme Court)

The Plaintiff: Kevin Kasten

Kevin Kasten worked for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, a manufacturer of high-performance materials used in automotive and industrial applications. During his employment, Kasten began questioning the company’s timekeeping practices—specifically, the placement of time clocks between the changing area and the production floor.

He argued that this setup effectively denied workers pay for the time spent putting on and taking off required protective gear, which could violate the FLSA’s rules on compensable work time. When Kasten complained to management, both orally and in writing, he alleged that his concerns were dismissed.

Shortly thereafter, Kasten was terminated—officially for failing to record his time properly. He believed, however, that the termination was a form of retaliation for his repeated attempts to raise the issue.

The Defendant: Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

The defendant in the case, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, is a multinational manufacturer. They denied Kasten's allegations and maintained that his termination was based on policy violations, not retaliation. In court, the company argued that even if Kasten had complained, his oral statements didn't constitute “filed” complaints (under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision). Their argument hinged on the FLSA's language, which indicates the intention to protect employees who have “filed any complaint.” Saint-Gobain contended that this phrase covered only written complaints; a narrow interpretation that would exclude many informal, verbal reports from legal protection.

A History of the Case: From Wisconsin to the Supreme Court

The district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals initially sided with the employer, agreeing that the FLSA did not extend to verbal complaints. Kasten appealed.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 6–2 decision reversing the lower courts ruling. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, held that both oral and written complaints are protected under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Court reasoned that excluding oral complaints would undermine the Act’s purpose; to protect workers who seek to assert their wage and hour rights, especially those who may lack the literacy or resources to file formal written reports.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing that the plain text of “filed” implied a written document. Nonetheless, the majority opinion established that an oral complaint made to an employer or a government agency is enough to trigger federal anti-retaliation protection.

The Main Question Being Considered: What Constitutes a “Complaint” Under the FLSA?

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain, the main question was simple but far-reaching: Does the FLSA protect workers who make verbal complaints about wage violations?

The Supreme Court’s answer reshaped labor law enforcement. By confirming that oral complaints count, the Court broadened employee protections and encouraged open communication about wage violations without fear of retaliation.

Employers now face heightened responsibility to take verbal reports seriously, document internal investigations, and avoid punitive action against workers who speak up.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

California’s wage and hour laws are already among the nation’s strongest. Still, the Kasten decision reinforces a key principle: employees don’t have to put their concerns in writing to be protected.

Under both federal and California law, workers who report labor violations (verbally or in writing) are shielded from retaliation. So if an employee complains about unpaid overtime, missed breaks, or unsafe conditions, firing or disciplining them for speaking up can expose their employer to liability for wrongful termination, retaliation, or whistleblower claims.

For California workers, this case underscores the importance of knowing your rights, and for employers, it highlights the need for consistent policies that treat all employee complaints as protected activity.

FAQ: Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.

Q: What law was at the center of this case?

A: The case centered on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets national standards for minimum wage, overtime pay, and worker protections. The dispute focused on the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Court ruled that both oral and written complaints about FLSA violations are protected, meaning employees cannot be legally terminated or punished for raising verbal concerns about pay or working conditions.

Q: How does this ruling affect California workers?

A: It strengthens retaliation protections for all employees, aligning with California’s own Labor Code Section 98.6, which similarly protects workers from retaliation when they raise wage and hour concerns—whether the complaint is written or verbal.

If you’ve been retaliated against or wrongfully terminated after reporting wage violations or workplace concerns, 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. Contact our office today for a free consultation and learn how we can help you protect your rights.

Wage & Hour Violations: Did La Mesa Healthcare Center Violation Labor Law?

In 2025, La Mesa Healthcare Center was named in a representative action lawsuit filed in San Diego County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all hours worked and by issuing inaccurate wage statements.

Case: Najee Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU032683C

The Plaintiff: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Najee Ellick filed the representative action on behalf of current and former employees of La Mesa Healthcare Center, alleging that the company failed to compensate workers for all time properly worked and did not provide legally compliant wage statements.

The Defendant: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

La Mesa Healthcare Center is operated by Elm Holdings, LLC. The company provides healthcare and rehabilitation services in and around San Diego, California. According to the lawsuit, the company failed to comply with California’s strict wage and hour requirements, including:

1. itemized wage statements

2. payment of wages due upon separation

3. accurate overtime pay

4. legally compliant rest periods and meal breaks

A History of the Case: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Filed in September 2025, the lawsuit remains pending in San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiffs seek civil penalties and restitution on behalf of the affected employees for violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. If proven, the claims could result in significant financial penalties and required changes to the company’s wage reporting and timekeeping practices.

The Main Question Being Considered: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

The court will determine whether the company’s payroll practices reflect isolated administrative errors or a broader pattern of systemic noncompliance affecting multiple employees.

Why This Case Matters: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

If proven, the allegations could expose ongoing wage and record keeping violations within the healthcare industry; a sector that employs large numbers of hourly and shift-based workers across California. This case highlights the importance of accurate wage documentation and transparent pay practices. For employees, it reinforces that employers are required by law to issue complete, itemized wage statements and pay for all hours worked, including overtime and time spent under employer control.

FAQ: Ellick v. La Mesa Healthcare Center

Q: What laws are cited in the complaint?

A: The lawsuit references California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, which regulate wages, overtime, breaks, and expense reimbursements.

Q: What is a representative action?

A: A representative action allows an employee to bring a lawsuit on behalf of other current or former employees who were allegedly affected by the same labor code violations.

Q: Why are wage statements important under California law?

A: Labor Code Section 226 requires employers to provide detailed, accurate pay stubs showing total hours worked, pay rates, and deductions. Failing to provide compliant wage statements can result in penalties.

Q: What relief does the lawsuit seek?

A: The plaintiffs seek civil penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees for alleged wage and hour violations.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Southern California Edison Class Action: Does the California Employer Require Off-the-Clock Work?

In 2025, Southern California Edison Company was named in a class-action lawsuit. The suit alleged that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by requiring employees to work off the clock, failing to provide off-duty meal and rest periods, and not compensating workers for all time worked.

Case: Michelle Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25STCV26455

The Plaintiff: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

Michelle Pottenger filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of herself and other eligible class members. The plaintiff alleges that the company’s scheduling and workload expectations required employees to perform tasks "off the clock," depriving them of earned wages, and resulting in inaccurate wage statements, unpaid overtime, and failure to reimburse for work-related expenses.

The Defendant: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

Southern California Edison Company is one of the largest electric utility providers in California. The company is responsible for delivering power to millions of California residents. According to the lawsuit, the company exercised significant control over its employees’ schedules and daily tasks but failed to fully compensate them for time spent under its direction and control. The complaint alleges that employees were required to remain on duty during breaks or continue working off the clock before or after their scheduled shifts. As a result, they were denied compliant meal and rest periods and were not paid premium wages for those missed breaks as required under the California Labor Code.

A History of the Case: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

The class action lawsuit was filed in September 2025 and remains pending before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiffs in the case seek class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Southern California Edison Company during the applicable statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Main Question Being Considered: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

The main question before the court is whether Southern California Edison violated California’s wage and hour laws by requiring employees to perform work off-the-clock and by failing to provide lawful, off-duty meal and rest periods. The court will determine whether the company’s practices constituted a pattern of systemic labor violations and whether employees were entitled to additional compensation for the time they spent performing job duties outside their recorded hours.

Why This Case Matters: Pottenger v. Southern California Edison Company

The case highlights ongoing wage and hour compliance issues in California’s utility and energy industries, where employees often face demanding workloads and strict operational schedules. The case emphasizes that even large, established corporations must ensure employees receive full compensation for every minute worked and that meal and rest periods are truly off-duty, as required by state law.

FAQ: More About the Southern California Edison Lawsuit

Q: What is the Southern California Edison lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employees were required to perform work off-the-clock before and after shifts and during meal breaks, resulting in unpaid wages and missed rest periods.

Q: What laws are at issue in the case?

A: The lawsuit cites alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802, which govern payment of wages, overtime, breaks, and reimbursement of work-related expenses.

Q: What does “off-the-clock work” mean under California law?

A: When discusssing in connection with employment law, off-the-clock work refers to any time an employee is required to perform job duties outside of their paid hours. California law requires employers to compensate workers for all time they are under the employer’s control.

Q: What is the lawsuit seeking?

A: The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It underscores that California’s wage and hour protections apply to all industries, including large utility companies, and that employers must accurately track and pay for every hour worked.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Culinary Specialties Faces Class Action Over Denied Meal Breaks and Wage Violations

In 2025, Culinary Specialties, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with lawful, off-duty meal breaks and by failing to provide full compensation for time worked.

Case: Erika Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU046725N

The Plaintiff: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Erika Montoro filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, alleging that Culinary Specialties failed to provide required off-duty meal periods and did not pay premium wages when those breaks were missed or interrupted. According to the complaint, employees were routinely required to work more than five hours without receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period, and some were denied a second meal period during shifts exceeding ten hours. The plaintiffs also claim that workers were required to remain "on call" during meal periods, forcing them to stay available for work-related duties and thus preventing them from fully discharging their job responsibilities.

The Defendant: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Culinary Specialties, Inc. operates as a food production and manufacturing company based in Southern California. The lawsuit alleges that the company's policies and scheduling practices violate several sections of the California Labor Code, including those governing wages, meal periods, and reimbursement of expenses. Employees were allegedly required to remain on duty or subject to employer control throughout their shifts, including during designated meal breaks. The complaint further alleges that Culinary Specialties failed to compensate workers with the additional hour of premium pay required under Labor Code Section 226.7 for each day a compliant meal period was not provided.

A History of the Case: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Filed in September 2025, the class action is still pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Culinary Specialties during the statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The Main Question Being Considered: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

The primary question before the court is whether Culinary Specialties violated California's meal-period laws by requiring employees to remain on duty during their "off duty" meal breaks or by interrupting those breaks for work-related tasks. The court will determine whether the company's practices effectively denied employees their legally mandated off-duty meal periods and whether failure to provide additional compensation constituted a systemic violation of California wage and hour statutes.

FAQ: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc.

Q: What does the Culinary Specialties lawsuit claim?

A: The lawsuit alleges that employees were required to remain on duty or available for work during meal breaks, were denied a second meal period on longer shifts, and were not paid premium wages for missed breaks.

Q: What labor laws are at issue?

A: The complaint cites California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802, which govern pay, breaks, and reimbursement of expenses.

Q: What is an "off-duty" meal period?

A: An off-duty meal period means the employee is fully relieved of all job duties and free to leave the work area. If the employee remains under employer control, the meal period is not considered compliant.

Q: What relief are the plaintiffs seeking?

A: They seek unpaid wages, premium pay for missed meal breaks, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

Q: Why does this case matter for workers?

A: It emphasizes that California law requires meal breaks to be truly off-duty, and employers must pay additional compensation whenever employees are not provided that opportunity.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Class Action Alleges Syska Hennessy Violated Labor Law with Missed Rest Breaks

In 2025, Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company failed to provide employees with lawful meal and rest periods, failed to pay all wages due for time worked, and violated multiple sections of the California Labor Code.

Case: Anthony Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: 25CU046687C

The Plaintiff: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Anthony Tilley filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current and former employees, alleging that Syska Hennessy Group required workers to maintain demanding schedules that frequently prevented them from taking required rest and meal breaks. The complaint alleges that the company failed to provide employees with pay for all their hours worked, labor law compliant overtime pay, and premium pay when workers missed their rest periods. According to the plaintiff, the company also failed to provide legally required accurate, itemized wage statements and appropriate reimbursement for work-related expenses.

The Defendant: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. is an engineering and consulting firm with offices and projects across California. According to the lawsuit, the company’s staffing levels and scheduling practices led to employees working through their rest periods and performing duties while off the clock. Tilley claims the company did not fully relieve workers of job duties during their breaks; that they were still expected to be available to respond to job-related matters, and continue working on assignments.

A History of the Case: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

The case was filed in September 2025 in San Diego County Superior Court and remains pending. It seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Syska Hennessy Group during the relevant time period. The complaint alleges violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

The Main Question Being Considered by the Court in this Case

The primary issue before the court is whether Syska Hennessy Group violated California’s wage and hour laws. The court will evaluate whether the company’s work demands, project schedules, and staffing policies effectively denied employees the opportunity to take uninterrupted breaks, and whether such practices constitute systematic violations of the California Labor Code.

Why This Case Matters: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

For employees, the case can serve as a reminder that all workers (regardless of industry) are entitled to uninterrupted rest periods and proper compensation when those breaks are not provided.

FAQ: Tilley v. Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.

Q: What is the Syska Hennessy Group lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks, required employees to work through rest periods, and did not pay premium wages as required by California law.

Q: What is premium pay for missed breaks?

A: When an employee is denied a required meal or rest break, California law requires the employer to pay one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each day a break is missed.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek to recover?

A: The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, premium pay, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: Why is this case important?

A: It highlights that California’s rest and meal break protections apply broadly — not only to field or hourly workers — and that employers must ensure compliance across all departments and job types.

If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.