Welcome Home Care Facing Labor Law Violation Allegations in Class Action

In recent news, Welcome Home Care faced allegations of labor law violations in a California class action filed by former employee Vanessa Conejo.

Case: Vanessa Conejo v. BCS Partners, Inc. dba Welcome Home Care

Court: Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: 25CV028452

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Conejo v. BCS Partners

Vanessa Conejo, the plaintiff, started working for BCS Partners as a non-exempt employee in April 2023. She claims that at times during her employment, she was paid on a piece-rate basis. Conejo filed the class action on behalf of herself and other current and former non-exempt employees, alleging the company’s pay and scheduling practices caused workers to miss breaks and lose wages. She claims the defendants’ policies resulted in employees not being paid correctly for all time worked and not receiving required premiums and protections under California labor law.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case include BCS Partners, Inc., doing business as Welcome Home Care, along with Welcome Home Care Services (a related business entity), etc. According to the plaintiff, these defendants operated as joint employers and controlled employees’ pay practices, scheduling, and working conditions in California.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

Employees allegedly weren’t paid for all time worked, including off-the-clock work before/after shifts and work performed during supposed break time.

Employees allegedly missed compliant meal breaks (including working more than five hours without an off-duty meal period and, on longer shifts, missing a second meal period).

Employees allegedly missed required rest breaks (or weren’t given the correct number of 10-minute breaks for longer shifts) and didn’t always receive the extra hour of pay owed when breaks weren’t provided.

The company allegedly underpaid overtime/other wages due to incorrect rate calculations and improper handling of incentive compensation.

Employees allegedly received inaccurate wage statements, and wages were not always paid on time.

Employees allegedly weren’t reimbursed for required work expenses (such as personal cell phones used for work, vehicles, and work uniforms).

The complaint also raises issues about timekeeping edits/rounding and access to personnel/pay records.

As of January 2026, the case was pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court of the State of California.

The Main Question in the Case: Conejo v. BCS Partners

The key question in the case is whether the defendants maintained company-wide pay and staffing practices that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock work and unpaid time connected to meal and rest periods. The court will also need to decide whether employees were provided with legally compliant, duty-free meal and rest breaks, or whether work demands and scheduling effectively kept employees on duty/on call, triggering premium pay obligations. Another issue is whether the defendants correctly calculated wage payment (including the “regular rate” used for overtime and premium pay) and provided accurate wage statements. Finally, the case examines whether employees were properly reimbursed for required business expenses and given timely access to employment records as required by California law.

FAQ: Conejo v. BCS Partners

Q: When do California employees get a 2nd meal break?

A: A second meal period is generally required on longer shifts (typically over 10 hours unless a valid waiver applies).

Q: What makes a meal period “off-duty?”

A: A meal period is off-duty only if the employee is fully relieved of all work, able to leave the premises, and free from their employer’s control.

Q: What happens if rest breaks are missed?

A: When a California employer doesn’t provide breaks, missed rest breaks are compensated with “premium pay.”

Q: How much is “premium pay”?

A: Premium pay varies based on the specific employee’s regular rate of pay. Premium pay is one additional hour at the employee’s regular rate and is owed for each workday a compliant meal or rest break is not provided, as required by labor law.

Q: When must employers reimburse employees for work-related expenses (like phones, mileage, or uniforms)?

A: Employers must reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenses when employees are required to use personal resources or incur costs to complete mandatory job duties.

If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks, not paid overtime, provided inaccurate wage statements, or required to use personal devices for work without reimbursement, 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.

Mega International Class Action: Employees Claim California Company Failed to Provide Breaks

In a recent California class action lawsuit, an employee alleged that Mega International failed to provide employees with appropriate meal breaks and rest periods.

Case: Deana Sinforosa Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International, LLC, MCO Services LLC

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

Case No.: 25STCV30670

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International, MCO Services LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Deana Sinforosa Garcia Hernandez, was jointly employed by Mega International and MCO Services from May 2024 through September 2025. Garcia Hernandez was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee, which means she is entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods, as well as minimum wage and overtime pay protections under labor laws. In the California class action, Garcia Hernandez claims the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks mandated by federal and state labor laws.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

According to court documents, the defendants in the case were joint employers of the plaintiff, Garcia Hernandez, who worked for the company for a year and 4 months. Their business services included offering California corporate clients with business support and operational oversight.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

The plaintiff alleged that Mega International/MCO Services violated labor laws governing meal breaks, rest periods, premium pay for missed breaks, etc.

The Main Question in the Case: Did the Company Provide Lawful Meal and Rest Periods?

The California class action lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide its employees with timely off-duty meal breaks and rest periods as required by labor law. As such, the court needed to consider whether the company complied with the applicable requirements of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. Specifically, the court must decide whether workers were relieved of duties and free of employer control during breaks and meal periods. The plaintiffs claim the company did not relieve employees of all their work duties during breaks due to workplace demands, standard policies, and business practices. In direct correlation to compliant breaks, the court must also consider whether the company complied with Labor Code section 226.7 by offering the proper premium pay to employees when compliant breaks were not provided. To determine compliance, the court is likely to consider time records, written policies, witness testimony, and workplace practices to pinpoint isolated incidents or a broader pattern of violations affecting multiple employees.

FAQ: Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International

Q: When are California employees legally entitled to a meal break?

A: California employees are entitled to a meal break (unpaid, off-duty, and at least 30 minutes) when they work over five hours (meal with the meal break starting no later than the end of the fifth hour). If the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours, they are entitled to a second 30-minute minimum meal break (off duty and unpaid).

Q: How many rest periods are California employers required to provide their employees?

A: California employers are legally required to provide all non-exempt employees with one paid 10-minute rest period (uninterrupted) for every four hours they work. Working a 3.5- to 6-hour shift entitles employees to one 10-minute break; working 6 to 10 hours entitles them to two 10-minute breaks; and working 10 to 14 hours entitles them to three 10-minute breaks.

Q: When discussing meal breaks and rest periods, what is the legal definition of “off duty?”

A: When discussing labor law and meal breaks/rest periods, “off duty” means an employee is relieved of all their work duties and job-related tasks, as well as control by the employer for the full break.

Q: What is the “premium pay” provided for missed rest periods at work in California?

A: In California, employers are required to provide compliant rest periods (10 minutes for each 4-hour work shift), and when they fail to comply with this requirement, employees are entitled to one additional hour of pay (referred to as “premium pay”) at their regular rate of compensation. Premium pay is required for each workday a violation occurs, regardless of the number of missed breaks.

Q: What sort of evidence can employees offer the California court to show meal break/rest period violations?

A: California employees attempting to present effective evidence of meal break/rest period violations to the court can present unrounded timecard records, personal logs of hours and breaks, testimony from co-workers, emails/texts showing work occurring during breaks, etc.

Q: Do many California employers violate labor laws governing meal breaks and rest periods?

A: Yes, meal and rest break violations are some of the most common, frequent, and costly labor law violations in California workplaces, frequently triggering class-action lawsuits and PAGA claims.

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.

Did Starbucks Break New York City’s Fair Workweek Scheduling Law? $38.9 Million

Alleged labor law violations led to a multi-year investigation into Starbucks’ scheduling practices, resulting in a $38.9 million settlement, the largest worker-protection resolution in New York City history.

Matter: DCWP v. Starbucks Corporation (Consent Order / Settlement (administrative enforcement))

Enforcing agency: NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)

Public announcement date: December 1, 2025

Total settlement: $38.9 million

Restitution: $35.5+ million to workers

Civil penalties/costs: $3.4 million

Workers covered: 15,000+ hourly NYC Starbucks workers (July 2021–July 2024)

Note: This was not a court class action with a judicial “case number” in the way civil lawsuits are docketed; it was a DCWP enforcement matter resolved by a Consent Order (DCWP’s settlement format).

The Parties Involved: The Workers and Their Employer

The DCWP stated that the settlement will benefit more than 15,000 hourly Starbucks employees in New York City who worked during the specified period. Starbucks Corporation, the employer, is subject to the agreement, which covers scheduling practices at over 300 city locations.

A Brief Timeline of Events Leading to the Settlement:

• 2022: The investigation began due to multiple worker complaints at Starbucks locations.

• Using employee reports and company data they gathered as evidence, the DCWP identified broader patterns of alleged violations, leading to an expanded investigation across Starbucks locations citywide.

• Over 500,000 violations of the city’s Fair Workweek Law have been identified since 2021.

• The case was resolved through a Consent Order requiring monetary relief and future compliance with labor laws.

What Was the Main Issue Being Considered During the Investigation?

The central issue considered was whether Starbucks’ scheduling and hours practices for New York City hourly workers violated the Fair Workweek Law, particularly regarding predictable schedules, access to additional hours, and limits on reductions in hours and on schedule changes.

An Overview of the Alleged Violations Workers Cited:

• Unstable and unpredictable schedules made it difficult for workers to plan for child care, education, secondary employment, and other obligations.

• Unlawful weekly hour reductions; Starbucks routinely reduced its employees’ hours by 15% in one week, which is a violation of Fair Workweek protections.

• Blocking access to additional hours through picking up shifts, which contributed to involuntary part-time employment.

What Are the Protections Provided by Fair Workweek for NYC Workers?

• Employers must provide schedules 14 days in advance

• Employers must offer premium pay for schedule changes

• Employers must allow employees to decline extra time

• Employers must allow employees to pick up new shifts before hiring new staff

• Employers may not schedule workers for consecutive closing and opening shifts without written consent and a $100 premium

• Hour reductions are limited to over 15% without just cause

Learn More About the Starbucks Settlement for NYC Workers:

The settlement totals $38.9 million, including:

• $35.5+ million in restitution to impacted workers

• $3.4 million in civil penalties and costs

• A forward-looking requirement that Starbucks comply with the Fair Workweek Law going forward

• The DCWP stated that most hourly Starbucks employees in New York City will receive $50 for each week worked between July 4, 2021, and July 7, 2024. For example, an employee who worked 78 weeks could receive $3,900.

• The DCWP also stated that employees who experience violations after July 7, 2024, may be eligible for compensation by filing a complaint. The settlement also addressed issues related to layoffs and reinstatement rights under the law.

Worker-Protection Settlement: Why Was This a 2025 Landmark Case?

The DCWP v. Starbucks matter was notable for a few reasons:

1. Scale of Relief & Coverage: The almost $40M settlement covered over 15,000 workers, making this one of the most significant scheduling-law enforcement outcomes in 2025.

2. Fair Workweek Enforcement: This case shows that Fair Workweek laws are enforceable and that substantial restitution and penalties can be obtained for violations involving hour reductions and shift management.

3. Operational Practices & Liability: The DCWP reported over 500,000 violations, demonstrating how widespread scheduling decisions across many locations resulted in massive exposure.

FAQ: DCWP v. Starbucks & Fair Workweek for NYC Workers

Q: What is NYC’s Fair Workweek Law intended to protect?

A: The law is designed to protect the rights of fast food workers by requiring more predictable schedules, limiting last-minute changes and hour reductions, and ensuring workers have a fair opportunity to claim shifts that become available.

Q: Is this different from an FLSA overtime case?

A: Yes, the Fair Workweek Law addresses scheduling stability and hours practices, including advance notice, schedule changes, access to shifts, and protections related to hour reductions, rather than overtime hour calculations, classification, or overtime pay rate calculations.

Q: Does a “Consent Order” mean Starbucks admitted wrongdoing?

A: Not necessarily. A consent order is a settlement document used by the DCWP to resolve allegations and impose enforceable terms, such as payment and compliance obligations.

Q: What should employees do if they think their schedule rights were violated?

A: Workers should document schedule postings, changes, and hour reductions, and may seek relief by filing a complaint with the DCWP or consulting legal counsel regarding potential claims under relevant laws.

Individuals who believe their employer manipulated schedules, unlawfully reduced hours, restricted access to available shifts, or otherwise violated wage-and-hour or worker-protection laws may seek assistance from the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. The firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago are available to discuss potential claims for unpaid compensation and accountability.

Golden Labor Services Class Action: Missed Rest Breaks and Unpaid Wages?

In 2025, Golden Labor Services, LLC was named in a class action lawsuit filed in Kern County Superior Court alleging multiple violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide required rest breaks, did not pay employees for all time worked, and violated various provisions of the California Labor Code.

Case: Patricia Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Court: Kern County Superior Court (California)

Case No.: BCV-25-102982

The Plaintiff: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Patricia Castillo, acting on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, filed a class action complaint alleging that Golden Labor Services failed to provide compliant meal breaks and rest periods and failed to pay employees for all compensable time worked. The lawsuit asserts that workers were required to maintain demanding schedules without sufficient rest time or relief from work duties, in violation of state labor laws. The plaintiffs allege that the company’s staffing practices and workload expectations routinely prevented employees from taking uninterrupted rest periods. In some instances, employees reportedly worked more than four hours without a ten-minute rest break or were denied additional breaks for longer shifts.

The Defendant: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Golden Labor Services, LLC, provides staffing and labor solutions in California, particularly within industries that require manual labor and field operations. According to the complaint, the company’s scheduling and break policies violated several sections of the California Labor Code, including those regulating wages, breaks, and reimbursement for work-related expenses. The lawsuit claims that Golden Labor Services failed to ensure employees were fully relieved of duty during rest periods, often due to inadequate staffing or excessive workload demands. Employees were also allegedly not compensated with the additional hour of premium pay required by law when rest periods were missed or interrupted.

A History of the Case: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Filed in September 2025, the class-action lawsuit remains pending in the Kern County Superior Court. It seeks certification for all non-exempt employees who worked for Golden Labor Services during the relevant time period. The lawsuit claims 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 seek compensation for unpaid wages, penalties, and restitution, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Main Question Being Considered: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

The key issue before the court is whether Golden Labor Services violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide legally required rest breaks and by not paying employees the one-hour premium wage mandated when rest periods are missed. The court will also consider whether the company’s staffing and scheduling practices made it impossible for employees to take uninterrupted rest periods as required under California law, and whether those missed breaks resulted in unpaid wages and penalties owed to affected workers.

Why This Case Matters for California Workers:

If proven, the allegations could highlight widespread wage and hour violations impacting workers throughout the state’s staffing and labor services industry. The case underscores the importance of proper scheduling, staffing, and compliance with California’s strict rest break and compensation requirements. For employees, this case serves as a reminder that California law guarantees the right to take uninterrupted rest breaks and mandates premium pay if those rights are denied.

FAQ: Castillo v. Golden Labor Services, LLC

Q: What is the Golden Labor Services lawsuit about?

A: The lawsuit alleges that Golden Labor Services failed to provide required rest breaks, did not pay employees for all time worked, and failed to provide premium pay for missed breaks.

Q: What specific laws are at issue?

A: The lawsuit cites 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 — covering areas such as overtime, minimum wage, rest periods, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement of work expenses.

Q: Why are rest breaks so important under California law?

A: Employers must provide a ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked, during which employees must be fully relieved of duty. If a rest break is missed, the employer must pay one additional hour of pay at the worker's regular pay rate.

Q: What does the lawsuit seek to recover?

A: The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: What happens next in the case?

A: The case is currently pending in Kern County Superior Court. The court will determine whether the company’s policies violated state wage and hour laws and whether class certification is appropriate.

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.

DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar Faces Class Action Wage and Hour Violation Allegations

A new California class action lawsuit filed in San Diego County alleges that DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar violated California labor laws by denying employees their full wages, meal and rest breaks, and proper reimbursement for expenses. The case could impact numerous current and former workers at the hotel, highlighting the ongoing scrutiny of hospitality employers in California.

Case: Dylan Hobdy v. AHSC DTD LLC (aka DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar)

Court: San Diego County Superior Court

Case No.: 25CU033344C

The Plaintiff: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The plaintiff, Dylan Hobdy, filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly situated current and former employees. Hobdy alleges that the hotel systematically denied workers their full wages and failed to provide legally mandated breaks under the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The defendant, AHSC DTD LLC, operates the DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar. As the employer, the company is accused of violating multiple California Labor Codes, regarding:

• minimum wages

• overtime

• itemized wage statements

• meal and rest periods

• timely payment of wages

• reimbursement of expenses

A History of the Case: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The September 2025 filing alleged that DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar employees were often required to work before and after their scheduled shifts without pay, and perform tasks during their unpaid meal breaks. Plaintiffs also alleged that the hotel failed to provide accurate wage statements, did not timely pay all wages owed, and ignored legal requirements to reimburse certain employee expenses.

The Main Question Being Considered: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The central issue in this lawsuit is whether DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar violated California wage and hour laws when it allegedly required employees to work off the clock, denied proper meal and rest breaks, and failed to pay or reimburse employees for all work performed and expenses incurred.

Why This Case Matters: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

The Hobdy v. DoubleTree case spotlights the importance of strict compliance with California’s labor laws in the hospitality industry. The case demonstrates that workers deserve compensation for all the time they work, including even small amounts of time (such as minutes worked before or after shifts, or work performed during meal breaks). For employers, the case serves as a reminder that failure to comply with wage and hour regulations can result in costly class-action litigation.

FAQ: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar

Q: What law governs meal and rest breaks in California?

A: According to California law, employees get a 30-minute unpaid meal break every 5 hours on the job and 10-minute paid rest breaks for every 4 hours worked.

Q: Can an employer require employees to work off-the-clock?

A: No. Any time an employee is under the employer’s control is compensable under California law, even if the employee is not actively performing job duties.

Q: Can employees recover damages in wage and hour class actions?

A: Employees may recover unpaid wages, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and in some cases, additional damages under the California Labor Code.

Q: Are there legal requirements for expense reimbursements in California?

A: California employers are required by law to reimburse employees for reasonable business expenses they incur as part of their job duties.

Q: What should workers do if they suspect wage and hour violations?

A: Employees should keep records of hours worked and consult with an experienced California employment attorney to review potential claims.

California Workers: Get to Know Your Employee Rights

The Hobdy lawsuit demonstrates that California workers have powerful legal protections against wage theft, denied breaks, and off-the-clock work.

If you believe your employer has violated your employee rights under the California Labor Code, the attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. With offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento, and Chicago, the firm is ready to assist workers in holding employers accountable.

The $233 Million Win for Anaheim Disney Theme Park Workers

To resolve a class action lawsuit alleging wage violations at Anaheim Disney theme parks and hotels, the company agreed to a $233 million settlement. The suit alleged Disney failed to comply with Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance (Measure L) for hourly and service charge-eligible workers since January 1, 2019. A judge recently approved the settlement, marking what many legal observers believe is one of the largest wage & hour class action recoveries in California history.

Case: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Court: Orange County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2019-01116850-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Plaintiffs include Kathleen Grace, Regina Delgado, Alicia Grijalva, Javier Terrazas, and others who are current or former hourly workers at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim. They allege Disney failed to pay them the minimum wage required under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance, as well as related service charges, overtime, and full wages upon separation, among other violations.

The Defendant: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

The defendants are The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. They are accused of not adjusting wages in accordance with Anaheim’s LWO, despite benefiting from “City Subsidies” (such as tax rebates or reimbursement agreements) under agreements with the City, which the Court of Appeal found make them subject to the law.

A History of the Case: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Measure L (Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance) was passed by voters in 2018 and took effect on December 4, 2018. It requires certain hospitality employers, who benefit from city subsidies, to pay a progressively increasing wage, starting at $15/hr in 2019 and rising each year.

Plaintiffs filed the class action in December 2019.

In 2023, the California Court of Appeals held that Disney was subject to the LWO due to its subsidy arrangements.

After settlement negotiations, a proposed settlement was preliminarily approved, and in September 2025, the Orange County Superior Court granted final approval to the $233 million settlement.

The Main Question Being Considered: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

The question is whether Disney was legally required to comply with Anaheim’s LWO because it benefited from a “City Subsidy,” thus making it obligated to pay its hourly nonexempt employees the wages and service charges prescribed by the ordinance, including retroactive wages, penalties, and damages.

Why This Case Matters: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

This settlement is a precedent-setting example of how municipal living wage laws can hold large employers accountable, even when those employers argue for exemptions or non-coverage.

It demonstrates that “subsidy” agreements—such as tax rebates or reimbursement contracts tied to public infrastructure—can form the legal basis for requiring compliance with living wage ordinances.

For Disney workers, it means tens of thousands are receiving back pay and wage adjustments; for employers, it underscores that compliance with local wage laws isn’t optional if subsidy arrangements bring them under those laws.

FAQ: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Q: What was Measure L / the Anaheim Living Wage Ordinance?

A: A law passed by Anaheim voters in 2018 requiring certain hospitality employers receiving city subsidies to pay increasing minimum wages each year, starting at $15/hr in 2019.

Q: Are “City Subsidies” essential to subjecting Disney to Measure L?

A: Yes. The Court of Appeal ruled that Disney did benefit from “City Subsidies” under agreements with the City (e.g., tax rebates or reimbursement agreements), making the company subject to the wage requirements.

Q: How many workers are affected by this settlement?

A: Approximately 51,478 current and former Disneyland employees in Anaheim are part of the class.

Q: How much will workers receive from the settlement?

A: Of the $233 million total, about $179.6 million is allocated for back wages and related payments to class members; $17.5 million for penalties to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency; and $35 million in attorneys’ fees.

Q: Does Disney admit wrongdoing in this case?

A: No. The settlement explicitly states that it is not an admission of liability; rather, both sides agreed to settle to avoid the time, cost, and uncertainty of continued litigation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action or believe your employer has violated local wage ordinances or denied required wages or service charges, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in their offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Alleged Failure to Offer Employee Breaks: Did Starbucks Violate Labor Law?

A California worker filed a PAGA-only action alleging that Starbucks engaged in labor code violations.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court

The Case No.:25CV121089

The Plaintiff: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The plaintiff, Sarah Verduzco, was employed at a California Starbucks location from 2014 to December of 2024. Verduzco claims that due to standard operating procedures in place at the coffee shop, employees worked off the clock and were not paid full wages. According to the applicable California Wage Order, employers are required to provide employees with off-duty rest periods. The plaintiff filed a PAGA-only suit seeking penalties for the alleged violations; doing so allows the State of California to enforce state labor laws through the employee. By filing under PAGA, the employee acts as a proxy for the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. Seeking civil penalties under PAGA is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect the public rather than benefit private parties. Instead of seeking to recover damages or restitution, parties filing a PAGA-only action seek to act as a “deputized” private attorney general and enforce the labor code.

The Defendant: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, is the owner/operator of coffee shops throughout California (and the rest of the world). According to the California wage and hour lawsuit, Starbucks allegedly failed to provide its eligible, non-exempt, hourly employees with legally required meal breaks and rest periods.

The Allegations: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

According to the plaintiff, Starbucks engaged in several day-to-day operating practices that violated labor law and negatively affected their employees, such as:

Off the Clock Work: The plaintiff claims that employees were (from time to time) required to work while they were clocked out on their off-duty meal break.

Shorting Employee Pay: The plaintiff claims that Starbucks’ established company policy and procedure of rounding employees’ actual time worked meant employees received less pay than if the company paid them for the actual hours they worked.

Unpaid Mandatory Covid-19 Checks: As a result of requiring employees to submit to mandatory Covid-19 screenings before clocking in to their work shift, the plaintiff claims employees were subjected to additional off-the-clock hours.

As a result of these combined policies and procedures, the plaintiff alleges that Starbucks violated multiple labor laws protecting minimum wage, overtime pay, employee meal breaks and rest periods, as well as wage and hour standards.

Should Incentive Pay Be Included in the Base Rate of Pay for Overtime Calculations?

In the complaint, the plaintiff also specifically questioned Starbucks’ treatment of employees’ incentive pay when calculating overtime pay. According to Verduzco, Starbucks had a non-discretionary incentive program in place that provided incentive wages to employees based on their performance. All hourly employees were eligible to participate in the incentive program. During the hiring process, management described the incentive program to potential new hires as part of the compensation package. However, when Starbucks determines the regular rate of pay to use in calculations to pinpoint overtime pay rates, and meal/rest break premiums (for missed breaks), the defendant failed to include the incentive wages. According to Verduzco’s complaint, failing to include the incentive wages as part of the “regular rate of pay” is a labor law violation.

FAQ: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

Q: What exactly is a “PAGA-only” lawsuit, and how does it help employees?

A: A PAGA-only action lets a worker act on behalf of California's labor department and sue an employer for civil penalties on the state’s behalf. Unlike a class action (which seeks back wages for each employee and other damages if applicable), a PAGA case seeks penalties meant to deter future labor law violations and protect the public. If the claim succeeds, 75% of the penalties will go to the State of California, while 25% is distributed among the affected employees, still putting money in workers’ pockets while holding the employer publicly accountable.

Q: Do California meal and rest break laws really require that I be completely off the clock?

A: Yes, California law is clear on this issue. Rest periods must be “off-duty,” which means workers are relieved of all work duties and employer control. If your employer calls you back to the register, asks you to prepare drinks, or keeps you “on stand-by” during a break, the time does not count as a lawful rest period, and you are owed premium pay.

Q: My paycheck includes a performance bonus. Should that raise my overtime rate?

A: Yes, it should. When a bonus or incentive is non-discretionary (promised in advance and tied to measurable goals), it must be built into the employee’s “regular rate of pay.” The higher rate then becomes the basis for calculating overtime and missed-break premiums. Excluding incentive pay, as alleged in this case, artificially lowers overtime wages and violates California labor law.

Q: I went through mandatory health screenings before clocking in during COVID-19. Can I claim unpaid wages for that time?

A: Possibly. If the mandatory health screenings were required and you weren’t allowed to clock in first, that waiting time is considered “hours worked.” California law requires you to be paid for all hours your employer controls your activities, including brief pre-shift tasks such as health checks or temperature screenings. You may be entitled to back pay, penalties, and interest for any off-the-clock time.

The Case: Sarah Verduzco v. Starbucks

The lawsuit against Starbucks Corporation is currently pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.