Did Reed Smith Misclassify a Manager to Avoid Paying Overtime?
/
A California lawsuit against one of the nation's largest law firms highlights a growing problem in white-collar workplaces—misclassifying salaried employees to avoid paying overtime. Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP shows that even major corporate employers are not exempt from scrutiny under California's strict wage and hour laws.
Case: Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP
Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case No.: 25STCV04101
Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case: Medeiros, Former Employee
The plaintiff, Phoebe Medeiros, worked for Reed Smith LLP as a Senior Manager for Business Development and Operations, focusing on the firm's private equity practice. Originally based in New York, Medeiros transferred to Reed Smith's Southern California office in late 2022.
Despite her management title, Medeiros claims that her role functioned more like a traditional employee position. According to her complaint, she worked up to 90 hours per week, often 7 days a week, and occasionally in 36-hour shifts. She alleges that Reed Smith intentionally misclassified her as an exempt manager to avoid paying overtime and other compensation required by California law.
Her lawsuit seeks at least $50,000 in unpaid overtime wages, penalties, and other damages. According to Medeiros, her timesheets were altered to reflect standard eight-hour workdays, even though her actual hours far exceeded that schedule.
The Defendant, Reed Smith Global Law Firm :
The defendant in the case is a global law firm, Reed Smith LLP. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Firm employs more than 1,500 attorneys and staff members worldwide. The firm's clients include Fortune 500 corporations, major financial institutions, and multinational enterprises.
In this case, Reed Smith has been accused of failing to compensate a non-attorney staff member fairly under California's wage and hour statutes, which are among the most employee-friendly in the country. The lawsuit also names Reed Smith partner Mark Pedretti as a central figure in the events leading to the claim, though he was not listed as a defendant. Medeiros alleges that Pedretti directed most of her daily work, including preparing business pitch materials, attending meetings, taking notes, and managing follow-up communications—duties that fell squarely within an employee's role rather than an executive's.
At the time of filing, Reed Smith had not provided a public statement regarding the allegations.
A History of the Case: From Complaint to Courtroom
Medeiros filed her complaint on February 14, 2025, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The filing accused Reed Smith of multiple labor law violations, including unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and wage misclassification.
The lawsuit details how Medeiros's job title did not reflect her actual responsibilities. While labeled as a "manager," she alleges that she had no authority to hire, fire, or make independent business decisions, key criteria required for an employee to be classified as exempt under California labor law.
Medeiros has since left Reed Smith and currently works as a Senior Business Development Manager at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, another major international law firm.
The Main Question Being Considered: Were "Managers" Denied Overtime Pay?
The core issue in Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP is whether the law firm wrongly classified a salaried business development manager as exempt from overtime pay.
California labor law requires employers to pay overtime to most employees who work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week—unless those employees truly qualify as exempt under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. Titles alone aren't enough; the exemption must match the employee's actual job duties and level of discretion.
If Medeiros's allegations prove accurate, this case could serve as a warning to law firms and corporations that rely heavily on administrative or marketing staff who routinely exceed normal working hours without overtime pay.
Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?
Labor laws are in place to protect California employees from overwork and underpayment—regardless of job title. Cases like Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP demonstrate that misclassification is not limited to blue-collar or hourly jobs. White-collar employees in sales, business development, and administrative roles are also vulnerable when employers use inflated titles to skirt wage laws.
For California workers, this case reinforces an important point. If your primary duties don't involve managing people or exercising independent decision-making, you may be entitled to overtime pay, even if your employer calls you a "manager."
FAQ: Medeiros v. Reed Smith LLP
Q: What laws are at issue in this case?
A: The lawsuit cites violations of California Labor Code Sections 510, 512, 226, and 1194, which cover overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, and the right to recover unpaid wages.
Q: Why does a worker's job title matter in wage and hour cases?
A: Job titles don't determine exemption status—job duties do. An employee must regularly perform executive or administrative tasks with significant authority to qualify as exempt. Otherwise, the employee must receive overtime pay for extra hours worked.
Q: What can California employees do if they suspect misclassification?
A: Workers who believe they've been wrongly classified can file a complaint or contact an employment law attorney to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and damages for missed breaks.
If you believe your employer has misclassified your position or failed to pay overtime, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our office in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today for a free consultation to learn about your rights and how to recover the pay you've earned.
