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.
