Luxury Retailer Hermès Faces California Class Action for Wage and Hour Violations

Luxury fashion powerhouse Hermès of Paris, Inc. faced serious allegations after a former employee filed a California class action lawsuit claiming that the brand systematically violated labor laws. Justin Lewis filed the original complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court, and the class action could impact a significant number of Hermès employees throughout California.

Case: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris, Inc.

Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Case No.: CGC-24-618955

Case Background: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

In Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris, Inc. (Case No. CGC-24-618955), plaintiff Justin Lewis accuses Hermès of failing to uphold key provisions of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint outlines a pattern of misconduct by Hermès, including:

• Failure to pay overtime wages

• Inaccurate or incomplete timekeeping records

• Noncompliant meal and rest break practices

• Potential violations of wage statement requirements

These claims reflect recurring concerns in California's retail and luxury goods sector, where employees often work long shifts under strict supervision, with little room to advocate for basic labor rights.

Plaintiff Details: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

Justin Lewis, the lead plaintiff, alleges that Hermès engaged in a systemic denial of legally protected breaks, as well as underpayment for hours worked beyond the standard 8-hour day or 40-hour week. The suit also argues that the company failed to maintain accurate time records, which is a legal requirement under the California Labor Code. Lewis brings the action as a proposed class representative, seeking to represent other current and former hourly employees who worked for Hermès (who qualify according to the class definitions approved by the court).

Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris: The Defendant, Hermès' Position

As of now, Hermès has not publicly responded to the lawsuit, and no formal answer has been filed in court. However, it's expected that the company will deny the allegations and possibly seek to compel arbitration or oppose class certification—a common strategy in wage and hour defense. Luxury retailers like Hermès often maintain detailed internal policies and strict scheduling systems, but California law requires more than precision—it mandates compliance with employee protections designed to prevent exploitation.

What's at Stake for California Workers?

Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris highlights the importance of enforcing California's labor protections, particularly in high-pressure industries like luxury retail. If the class members are successful, the lawsuit could result in:

• Back pay and penalties for unpaid overtime

• Premium pay for missed breaks

• Corrective action regarding timekeeping systems

• Civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

For California workers, this case highlights that even elite employers must adhere to the same standards when it comes to fair labor practices.

FAQ: Justin Lewis v. Hermès of Paris

Q: What is this case about?

A: A former Hermès employee filed a class action alleging the company failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, and maintain proper time records in violation of California labor laws.

Q: Who is included in the class?

A: The proposed class includes all hourly, non-exempt Hermès employees in California who may have experienced similar wage and hour violations during the applicable period.

Q: What could Hermès be required to pay?

A: If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, Hermès could owe back wages, penalties, premium pay for missed breaks, and potentially significant civil penalties under PAGA.

Q: Has Hermès responded yet?

A: As of now, Hermès has not filed a formal response in court. The case is in its early stages, and a defense strategy has not been made public yet.

Do you have questions about filing a California class action? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

RTX Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement Approved for $19.9M

Employees in California have secured preliminary approval of a substantial $19.9 million settlement with subsidiaries of aerospace and defense giant RTX Corp., resolving allegations regarding wage and hour violations.

The Case: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

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

The Case No.: 3:20-cv-00574

The Plaintiff: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

Nathaniel Morgan, a former employee of Rohr Inc., initiated this class-action lawsuit, later joined by plaintiffs Michael Bevan and Antonee Harris. Morgan alleged the company consistently violated labor laws associated with meal periods/rest breaks, overtime compensation, minimum wages, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for necessary business expenses. The plaintiffs represented a broader class of approximately 1,755 non-exempt union employees.

The Defendant: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The defendants in this case include Rohr Inc., Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. (or Collins Aerospace), and their parent company RTX Corp., formerly United Technologies Corp. before its merger with Raytheon. Rohr Inc., responsible for the entire settlement payout, faced allegations of systematically breaching California labor laws by inadequately compensating employees and neglecting mandated employment standards.

The Case: Nathaniel Morgan v. Rohr Inc. et al.

The case was filed in March 2019 in California state court but was later moved to federal court. The lawsuit underwent extensive litigation (multiple rounds of discovery, document production, and depositions, including more than 30 witnesses). The case also required significant employment data analysis. Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted preliminary approval for a $19.9 million settlement after deeming it fair and reasonable (especially considering the risks of ongoing litigation). Initially, a trial was scheduled for June 2024. However, the parties resolved the complaint in settlement discussions before the case could go to trial. Under the settlement, $500,000 will address claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and $100,000 is specifically allocated to collective claims under FLSA.

The Implications of the California Class Action Case:

California workers and employers alike should heed the implications of this case, emphasizing diligent adherence to labor laws to avoid costly disputes and settlements.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Are California Employees Protected from 24/7 On-Call Requirements?

Dusty Coupwood, a former senior social media analyst and content creator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), filed a lawsuit alleging illegal employment practices related to continuous on-call requirements in alleged violation of California Labor Laws.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 25STCV12374

The Plaintiff: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Dusty Coupwood began his employment with PETA in March 2020, fulfilling a role demanding substantial responsibility as a senior social media analyst and content creator. According to Coupwood, he was expected to comply with PETA's rigorous 24/7 on-call policy that mandated constant availability and frequent engagement with work tasks beyond standard work hours. According to the plaintiff, the policy resulted in Coupwood putting in from 55-60 hours per week. Despite the excessive hours, Coupwood claims that he was only compensated for time actively spent on tasks, which resulted in significant unpaid wages (regular and overtime).

The Defendant: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

The defendant, commonly called PETA, is known globally for its animal rights advocacy. However, in this instance, the group finds themselves accused of bad behavior, or more specifically, violating various California labor laws. Allegations brought forward by Coupwood detail that PETA's employment policies required constant employee availability and participation in work tasks without adequate compensation, neglected meal and rest breaks, and engaged in retaliatory behaviors against employees who challenged these practices or sought unionization.

The Case: Dusty Coupwood v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.

Filed on April 28, 2025, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, this lawsuit highlights critical issues regarding employer obligations under California labor laws. Coupwood's claims include unpaid wages and overtime, denial of meal and rest periods, inadequate expense reimbursement, and retaliation resulting in wrongful termination. Other employees also filed wage and hour complaints against PETA. After the series of complaints were filed, PETA allegedly terminated several employees involved, creating what the plaintiff describes as a hostile work environment that forced him to resign in July 2024. PETA denies the allegations, asserting that Coupwood's claims lack merit and vowing to vigorously contest the lawsuit.

Can Employers in California Require Employees to be “On Call” 24/7?

Employers in California may require employees to be on-call; however, specific conditions must be met:

• Employees must receive compensation for on-call time if restrictions significantly limit their personal activities.

• An employer is required to pay employees overtime wages for any hours they work over 40 in one work week.

• Employers must ensure compliance with mandated meal and rest breaks, even during on-call periods.

Violating labor law can lead to significant legal consequences, as demonstrated by Coupwood's claims against PETA.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Overtime Pay Violations Allegations: Rocket Mortgage's $3.5 Million Settlement

When facing improper overtime payment practice allegations, Rocket Mortgage resolved the class-action lawsuit with a settlement agreement. Mortgage bankers claimed the company miscalculated their regular pay rates, leading to inadequate overtime compensation. The $3.5 million agreement underlines the critical importance of precise compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and wage calculation accuracy.

The Case: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court of Arizona

The Case No.: 2:23-cv-00010-CDB

The Plaintiff: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

Current and former mortgage bankers allege that the defendant, Rocket Mortgage, failed to pay accurate overtime wages. According to the plaintiffs, the employer systematically failed to provide accurate overtime compensation and incorrectly calculated their regular rate of pay by excluding incentives and bonuses that should be factored into the equation. As a result, mortgage bankers were allegedly underpaid significantly.

The Defendant: Gilburd v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The defendant, Rocket Mortgage, LLC, is a leading mortgage lending company. The company faced numerous labor law violation allegations when a group of current and former mortgage bankers filed an employment law complaint. According to the plaintiffs, the company had improper overtime pay practices and inaccurate methods of calculating regular pay rates (for use in overtime pay rate calculations). Despite agreeing to settle for $3.5 million, Rocket Mortgage denied all allegations of wrongdoing and maintained that the settlement implied no admission of liability.

The Case: Gilburd (etc.) v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

The plaintiff filed the original complaint against Rocket Mortgage LLC in 2023. The plaintiffs alleged that the company's practice of excluding alternate forms of payment from the regular pay rate calculations resulted in improperly low overtime pay rates. Both parties entered a mediated settlement agreement in April 2024 to resolve the dispute.

How Essential are Accurate Pay Rate Calculations?

Accurate pay rate calculations and overtime pay rate calculations are essential. Miscalculations can lead to costly lawsuits or settlements, and regulatory compliance is increasingly scrutinized. Employers who create standard payroll practices and systems that accurately reflect labor law and comply with regulations experience a healthier workforce with improved morale. Companies that actively review and update their standard payroll practices can remain compliant despite regulatory changes.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Staples Settles $38 Million Class Action Over Assistant Manager Overtime Pay

In a significant resolution to longstanding labor disputes, Staples Inc. agreed to a $38 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging the misclassification of assistant managers as exempt from overtime pay. The case, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Orange, underscores the importance of proper employee classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Case: Williams v. Staples Inc.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange

The Case No.: 816121

The Plaintiff: Williams v. Staples Inc.

The plaintiffs, led by Williams, comprised a group of current and former assistant managers employed by Staples in California. They alleged that Staples misclassified them as exempt employees, denying them overtime wages, meal and rest breaks, and other protections afforded to non-exempt workers under California labor laws.

The Defendant: Williams v. Staples Inc.

Staples is a popular, and well-known big box store. When Williams filed his complaint, the prominent office supply retailer faced allegations that their classification practices violated state labor laws. Williams accused the company of implementing a standard practice and policy that misclassified Staples store assistant managers with the purpose of avoiding payment of overtime wages and providing benefits that would be required for non-exempt employees.

The Case: Williams v. Staples

Williams' claims were centered around the allegation that assistant managers working for the big box office supply retailer were systematically misclassified, which resulted in the loss of overtime pay, and the denial of of duty meal periods and rest breaks as required by labor law. The plaintiffs filed suit seeking compensation for the alleged violation, and the case was eventually resolved with a $38 million settlement agreement. The agreement was designed to compensate affected employees and rectify the issues created by Staples' worker classification practices.

What Constitutes Employee Misclassification in California?

If an employer identifies an employee as an exempt employee or an independent contractor when they are actually a non-exempt employee, it's considered misclassification. An exempt or independent contractor classification excludes workers from wage and hour protections. Misclassified employees may be entitled to recover unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour lawsuit, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Supreme Court on Groff v. DeJoy: Clarifying Religious Accommodation Requirements for Employers

Groff v. DeJoy clarified legal requirements employers must meet for employees seeking religious accommodations at work (referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII). Before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in this case, the "de minimis" standard was accepted. However, the Supreme Court's decision redefined the standard for religious accommodations in the workplace, moving beyond the previous standard and emphasizing that employers must demonstrate that accommodating an employee's religious observance would substantially increase costs relative to their business operations.

Case: Groff v. Dejoy

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Case No.: 22–174

The Plaintiff: Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian and former postal worker in Pennsylvania sought exemption from Sunday work to observe his Sabbath. Initially, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) accommodated his request. However, as operational demands increased, Groff was scheduled for Sunday shifts. However, Groff refused to work the assigned Sunday shifts (due to religious reasons), and his refusal to work Sunday shifts led to disciplinary actions that prompted him to resign from his position and file a labor law lawsuit alleging his employer violated Title VII.

The Defendant: Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

The USPS was represented by Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, in the lawsuit. USPS argued that to exempt Groff from Sunday shifts posted an undue hardship that required them to reassign his duties to other workers, and claimed the situation would result in potential disruptions to mail delivery.

The Case: Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy

The court ruled for Groff - unanimously. The court clarified the "undue hardship" standard under Title VII as requiring employers to show that providing requested accommodations for an employee's religious practices would significantly increase costs relative to overall operations costs. The clarification moved away from the previous interpretation that allowed employers to deny accommodations based on a minimal burden.

Can Employees Obtain Religious Accommodations at Work?

Employees are empowered to seek accommodations for their religious practices, with the assurance that their requests cannot be dismissed based on minimal inconvenience to the employer. Employers must carefully consider requests for religious accommodations and make sure that any accommodations request denial is based on evidence showing fulfilling the request would cause a significant increase in costs or a significant disruption of day-to-day operations.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Staples Faces Renewed Scrutiny Over Manager Misclassification in Wesson Lawsuit

Another lawsuit makes labor law violation allegations that call Staples Inc.'s practices into question. In Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al. the plaintiff claims that the big box store misclassified general managers as exempt employees. The case underscores ongoing concerns about employment classification practices within large corporations.

Case: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

Court: Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County

Case No.: BC593889

The Plaintiff: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

Fred Wesson, a former general manager at Staples, initiated the lawsuit alleging that he and approximately 345 other general managers were misclassified as exempt employees. Wesson claims that despite holding managerial titles, the duties performed were predominantly non-exempt tasks, such as customer service and stocking shelves, which should have entitled them to overtime compensation under California labor laws.

The Defendant: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

The plaintiff claims that Staples implemented a standard policy that misclassified general managers so they could avoid paying overtime wages. Staples maintains that its classification practices are lawful and that general managers meet the exempt status criteria, including managerial responsibilities and decision-making authority.

The Case: Fred Wesson et al. v. Staples Inc. et al.

The lawsuit centers on the assertion that Staples' general managers were systematically misclassified, resulting in unpaid overtime and denial of meal and rest breaks. Wesson sought nearly $36 million in civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), representing himself and other affected employees. However, the trial court struck the PAGA claim, deeming it unmanageable due to the individualized assessments required for each manager's duties and classification. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and emphasized the need for manageable litigation and the employer's right to a fair trial.

What Constitutes Employee Misclassification Under California Law?

California law distinguishes between exempt and nonexempt employees based on the nature of the worker's job duties, their level of autonomy, and the level of control exercised over the employee and their job duties by the employer. When an employer inaccurately classifies a worker as an independent contractor or exempt employee, they deprive the employee of labor law protections. Misclassified employees may be entitled to recover unpaid wages, overtime, and other benefits.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced and knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you at one of their various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.