Did Odoo Misclassify Its Sales Representatives? $4.6 Million Settlement Resolves Overtime Allegations

A class action lawsuit against Odoo, Inc., a global business software company, shows how quickly overtime disputes can grow when they affect hundreds of employees across multiple states. In Kayed, Prado, Carr, and Rivas v. Odoo, sales representatives alleged they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay. The case has now ended in a $4.6 million settlement, bringing long-awaited relief to nearly 600 workers.

Case: Omar Kayed, Jesus Prado, Spencer Carr, and Alonzo Rivas v. Odoo, Inc.

Court: Northern District Court of California

Case No.: 3:23-cv-03728

The Plaintiffs: Odoo Sales Representatives

Four former Odoo employees—Omar Kayed, Jesus Prado, Spencer Carr, and Alonzo Rivas—filed the original complaint in July 2023, alleging that Odoo had misclassified its sales representatives as exempt from overtime.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of employees in California and New York who held titles such as Account Executive, Account Manager, and Customer Success Manager. According to the complaint, these employees primarily engaged in routine sales and customer service duties, including contacting clients, scheduling demos, and closing deals.

Their lawsuit claimed these duties did not meet the criteria for exemption under either federal or state law. The plaintiffs also alleged that Odoo imposed aggressive sales quotas and productivity goals, requiring employees to routinely work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay.

The Defendant: Odoo, Inc.

Odoo, Inc., the U.S. arm of a global enterprise software company headquartered in Belgium, provides business management solutions to clients worldwide. The plaintiffs accused Odoo of systematically denying overtime pay, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and failing to reimburse California employees for work-related expenses, such as phone and internet costs.

The complaint asserted violations of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws, including California’s Labor Code and New York wage and hour statutes. California plaintiffs also pursued civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

What is PAGA? PAGA allows employees to act on behalf of the state to seek penalties for labor law violations.

A History of the Case: From Filing to $4.6 Million Resolution

The class action was filed in the San Francisco federal court in July 2023. The parties' counsel litigated the case for close to two years including extensive discovery and settlement discussions.

On December 12, 2024, Judge Cisneros granted final approval of the $4,647,474.68 settlement to resolve the dispute. Under the agreement, Odoo will provide payments to 599 class members, as well as pay attorneys’ fees, and administrative costs associated with the case.

According to court documents, the average class member payout is approximately $4,850.46, while the highest payment exceeds $24,000. Though Odoo did not admit liability, the settlement represents a meaningful recovery for affected employees who worked long hours under demanding sales targets.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were Odoo’s Sales Reps Exempt or Not?

The main question in the case is if Odoo's sales representatives were correctly classified as exempt or not. Under federal and state labor law, exemptions usually apply to executive, administrative or professional employees whose main job duties require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment regarding significant business matters.

The plaintiffs argued that Odoo’s sales employees were closely supervised, followed standardized scripts, and worked within strict performance metrics—factors that typically characterize non-exempt positions.

Ultimately, while the case ended in settlement rather than trial, the resolution underscores how easily misclassification disputes can expand into multi-state class actions when large groups of employees share similar job structures and claims.

Why Does This Case Matter to California Workers?

California’s wage and hour laws impose some of the nation’s toughest overtime requirements, and they apply even to white-collar professionals in sales and tech. Employers cannot rely solely on job titles or salary levels to deny overtime. The actual day-to-day duties determine exemption status.

This case reinforces that California workers (especially those in high-pressure sales environments) should not assume that “salaried” means “exempt.” If your job requires long hours, detailed oversight, and scripted tasks, you may be entitled to overtime pay even if your employer labels you as a manager or executive.

FAQ: Kayed, Prado, Carr, and Rivas v. Odoo, Inc.

Q: What laws did this case involve?

A: The lawsuit cited violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws in California and New York, including California Labor Code provisions governing overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and reimbursement for business expenses.

Q: What is the value of the settlement?

A: The settlement totals $4,647,474.68, covering payments to 599 class members, with an average payment of about $4,850 and a maximum payment of $24,064.03, subject to court-approved deductions for fees and costs.

Q: What is a PAGA claim?

A: The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows California employees to act as “private attorneys general” and recover civil penalties for labor law violations on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the State of California.

If you believe your employer has misclassified your position or failed to pay overtime, contact our office today to discuss your potential claim and learn more about your rights under California and federal law. 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.

Did Wells Fargo Misclassify Senior Premier Bankers and Deny Overtime Pay?

A high-profile overtime case in federal court alleges Wells Fargo misclassified thousands of “Senior Premier Bankers” as exempt from overtime—despite day-to-day duties that looked more like frontline sales and service. The lawsuit has moved toward resolution with a multi-state settlement valued at $48.5 million, signaling the cost of classification mistakes when they scale across a large workforce.

Case: Sabrina Perez v. Wells Fargo

Court: United States District Court, Central District of California

Case No.: 24-cv-4077-SRM

The Plaintiff: Sabrina Perez (on behalf of a class of Senior Premier Bankers)

Senior Premier Banker Sabrina Perez filed a federal complaint in Los Angeles alleging she and other SPBs were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay. According to the complaint, SPBs routinely performed non-exempt tasks—opening and closing accounts, assisting customers, and selling banking products—while branches were allegedly understaffed, pushing hours well beyond 40 per week without overtime. Perez sought to represent a class and collective of similarly situated SPBs (including Premier Banker roles with similar titles).

The Defendant: Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo denies liability, but the case evolved quickly. Plaintiffs filed a motion on September 4, 2025, asking the court to give the $48,500,000 class settlement preliminary approval. If approved, the settlement would cover approximately 4,230 class members and related fees and costs, with an estimated average recovery of about $7,137 per person. Plaintiffs also alleged meal and rest break violations and brought a claim for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Reports indicate the company has since reclassified SPBs to hourly, non-exempt status, which, if accurate, means overtime must be paid going forward.

A History of the Case: Allegations, Multi-State Scope, and Settlement

The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and parallel state wage laws (including California and Colorado), focusing on two themes:

Misclassification: SPBs were treated as exempt despite primarily providing customer service and sales support—tasks typically non-exempt.

Systemic overtime exposure: Chronic understaffing allegedly led to regular unpaid overtime, along with missed meal and rest breaks.

The proposed settlement covers these job titles during defined periods:

• California: March 27, 2020, through the Release Date*

• Colorado: February 2, 2021, through the Release Date*

• All other states: February 22, 2021, through the Release Date*

*“Release Date” as defined in the settlement papers.

On September 4, 2025, plaintiffs sought preliminary approval. If granted, the court would authorize notice to the class and set a hearing for final approval. According to case updates provided, class members would be notified by mail and email.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were SPBs Exempt—or Entitled to Overtime?

The core legal question is whether Senior Premier Bankers qualify for any white-collar exemption (executive, administrative, or professional). In wage cases, titles don’t decide exemption—actual duties do. Where employees primarily provide customer service, follow scripts, and sell standardized products (instead of exercising substantial discretion on significant business matters), courts frequently find non-exempt status and require overtime for hours worked over 40 in a week (or daily thresholds under California law).

Here, the complaint framed SPB duties as routine and production-oriented—not policy-making or independently discretionary; undercutting exemption defenses and supporting overtime claims under federal and state law.

Why This Matters to California Workers

California has some of the nation’s strictest wage and hour protections, including:

• Daily overtime after 8 hours/day (and after 40 hours/week),

• Meal and rest break requirements, and

• Detailed wage statement obligations.

Misclassification disputes often arise in customer-facing banking, sales, and service roles where job titles sound managerial, but the day-to-day work is standardized and closely directed. This case underscores a practical takeaway for California employees: if your primary duties are sales support and service—and you don’t truly manage people or exercise independent judgment on matters of significance—you may be non-exempt and owed overtime.

FAQ: Sabrina Perez v. Wells Fargo

Q: What laws are at issue in this case?

A: The case alleges violations of the FLSA and state wage laws (including California and Colorado). In California, related claims typically implicate Labor Code sections governing overtime, meal and rest breaks, and wage statements, and may include a PAGA claim for civil penalties.

Q: What is the status of the case?

A: Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $48.5 million settlement on September 4, 2025. If the court grants preliminary approval, notice will be issued to class members, and a hearing for final approval will follow.

Q: Who is included in the proposed settlement?

A: According to the case updates provided, approximately 4,230 class members in defined SPB/Premier Banker roles are covered for work periods beginning in 2020–2021 through the Release Date (varying by state), with an estimated average payment of $7,137 per person (subject to court approval and settlement administration).

Q: Does reclassifying employees fix past wage issues?

A: Reclassification affects future pay practices. Past claims for unpaid overtime, missed breaks, or penalties are typically addressed through settlements or judgments and are not cured by a forward-looking policy change.

If you believe your employer misclassified your role or failed to pay overtime, 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 to discuss your situation and learn about your options for recovering unpaid wages and penalties under California law.

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.

$100 Million Swift Transportation Misclassification Settlement: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

The trucking industry has seen some of the nation’s largest misclassification lawsuits, and Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation is no exception. After more than a decade of litigation, Swift Transportation agreed to a $100 million settlement resolving claims that it had misclassified thousands of drivers as “independent contractors” rather than employees. When examining the facts of the Van Dusen v. Swift case, the legal and financial risks employers face when sidestepping wage and hour laws through misclassification are evident.

Case: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Case No.: CV 10-899-PHX-JWS

More About the Plaintiff: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

The plaintiffs were a group of approximately 20,000 truck drivers who alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors. Lead plaintiff Van Dusen and others argued that they performed the work of employees but were denied the same legal protections, such as overtime pay, reimbursement of expenses, and minimum wage guarantees.

The Defendant: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Swift Transportation is known as one of the largest trucking companies in the U.S. Swift utilizes a contractor model requiring drivers to lease their own trucks and pay for fuel, maintenance, and other business expenses directly, while still following Swift’s rules and schedules.

*Swift Transportation is now a part of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings.

A Case of Misclassification: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Filed in 2009, the Van Dusen v. Swift case quickly became one of the most fiercely contested misclassification cases in the transportation industry, with the plaintiffs alleging that Swift’s lease agreements and business practices created a form of economic coercion that trapped their drivers in unfair arrangements. Swift attempted to dismiss the lawsuit and pushed aggressively to enforce arbitration agreements, arguing that drivers had waived their rights to bring class claims in court. However, in a pivotal ruling, the courts determined that interstate truck drivers could not be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

After years of procedural battles and appeals, Swift ultimately agreed to a $100 million settlement in 2019 rather than risk a trial.

The Main Question Being Considered: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

At its core, the question was whether classifying drivers as “independent contractors” complied with labor law requirements. If Swift exercised enough control over the drivers’ work schedules, routes, and methods, then drivers were entitled to employee protections, including overtime and minimum wage.

Why This Case Matters: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

This case illustrates the high stakes of misclassification in industries where companies attempt to cut costs by calling workers “contractors.” The $100 million settlement is one of the largest of its kind and shows that:

• Labels do not determine employment status; courts look at the reality of the working relationship.

• Arbitration clauses cannot always shield employers from large collective actions.

• Misclassification schemes can push workers’ pay below minimum wage, creating liability for unpaid wages, damages, and penalties.

For truck drivers and other workers, the settlement reinforced their right to challenge exploitative “independent contractor” arrangements.

FAQ: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Q: How much did Swift Transportation agree to pay in the settlement?

A: Swift agreed to pay $100 million to resolve the lawsuit.

Q: How many drivers were affected by the lawsuit?

A: Approximately 20,000 truck drivers were part of the class action.

Q: Why were the drivers misclassified?

A: Drivers were labeled “independent contractors” but had to follow Swift’s schedules and rules, wear its branding, and rely on Swift for work—hallmarks of employee status.

Q: Could Swift have forced the case into arbitration?

A: No. Courts ruled that interstate truckers are exempt from forced arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, allowing the case to proceed as a class action.

Q: What lesson does this case teach workers?

A: If your employer controls your work and schedule, you may be an employee regardless of being labeled a contractor, and you may be entitled to overtime and minimum wage protections.

Misclassification Can be a costly violation

The Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation settlement illustrates the significant costs associated with misclassification for employers and the importance of workers understanding their rights.

If you suspect you’ve been misclassified or denied overtime pay, contact the experienced employment attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Our team is ready to review your situation and help you fight for the wages you’ve earned.

Arizona Drywall and Painting Companies Ordered to Pay $7.45 Million for Overtime Violations

Two Phoenix-area construction companies have been ordered to pay more than $7.4 million to cover back wages and damages. The order followed the U.S. Department of Labor investigation that uncovered a deliberate scheme to deny overtime pay to over 1,400 workers. The consent judgment in Julie Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Inc., Empire Wall Systems Inc., et al marks one of the largest wage theft recoveries in Arizona’s construction industry in recent years.

Case: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

Court: Arizona District Court

Case No.: 2:24-cv-03560

The Plaintiff: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

The plaintiff in the case is Julie Su, Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor (on behalf of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division).

The Defendants: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

1. Apodaca Wall Systems Inc. – Phoenix-based drywall and interior painting company.

2. Empire Wall Systems Inc. – Phoenix-based drywall and interior painting company.

3. Arnold Apodaca – Owner.

4. Michael Apodaca – Owner’s son and co-owner.

5. Brittany Apodaca – Owner’s daughter and co-owner.

History of the Case: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

According to the Department of Labor, Apodaca Wall Systems and Empire Wall Systems willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by using multiple schemes to avoid paying employees legally required overtime wages:

• Paying hourly workers with multiple checks at straight-time rates for all hours worked.

• Using labor brokers that helped them hire hourly workers, they paid them in cash at straight time (even if they worked more than 40 hours a week).

• Paying piece rates (based on square footage completed) to off-the-books workers without regard for total hours worked. While crew leads received piece-rate pay, they redistributed it (denying overtime compensation)

According to the investigation, these unlawful practices impacted over 1,400 employees, many of whom were vulnerable workers relying on overtime wages to support themselves and their families. The U.S. District Court entered a consent judgment on January 15, 2025, that ordered:

1. An injunction that forbids future labor law violations

2. Back payment of overtime wage totaling $3,725,000

3. Payment of liquidated damages totaling $3,725,000

4. Civil penalties for willful FLSA violations totaling $125,000

The Main Question in the Case:

The main question the court has to consider in Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems is whether or not the defendants used illegal pay schemes to deny their employees earned overtime wages and intentionally violated federal overtime laws.

Why This Case Matters: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

This case highlights the Department of Labor’s aggressive enforcement in Arizona’s construction sector. In the past five years, federal investigators have recovered over $22 million in unpaid wages and damages for employees across the state.

FAQ: Su v. Apodaca Wall Systems Incorporated et al

Q: What is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

A: The FLSA is a federal law requiring covered employers to pay eligible employees at least the federal minimum wage and overtime pay (time-and-a-half) for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Q: How did the companies try to avoid paying overtime?

A: By splitting pay across multiple checks, paying in cash at straight-time rates, and misclassifying work as piece-rate to avoid tracking overtime hours.

Wage theft and overtime violations can have devastating effects on workers and their families. If you believe your employer's business practices violate labor law, Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our California employment law attorneys represent workers statewide, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Riverside, and we fight to hold employers accountable for violating employee rights.

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.