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.

Staples Faces Labor Law Violation Allegations in Overtime Class Action

An overtime class action lawsuit filed by a former employee alleges Staples failed to compensate nonexempt employees for overtime work. The case highlights ongoing concerns about employee rights and corporate labor practices and leaves Staples under legal scrutiny.

Case: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples, the Office Superstore LLC

Court: US District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:25-cv-00028

The Plaintiff: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples, the Office Superstore LLC

Maraya Lumadue, a former Staples employee, initiated the overtime class action lawsuit. Lumadue claims that Staples required employees to perform tasks off-the-clock, including assisting customers before clocking in for their shift and undergoing bag checks after clocking out. These practices allegedly led to unpaid overtime and violated California labor laws.

The Defendant: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples

Staples, a major retailer with numerous locations across California, is accused of systemic labor violations. The company allegedly failed to provide proper meal periods and rest breaks. The plaintiff also claims that Staples did not compensate workers for completing mandatory tasks outside of scheduled hours, and neglected to reimburse workers for job-related expenses including uniform maintenance and personal cell phone use.

The Case: Maraya Lumadue v. Staples

The lawsuit addresses alleged widespread labor violations affecting nonexempt Staples employees in California. Key allegations include:

• Requiring employees to work off-the-clock before and after shifts.

• Failing to provide workers with legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks.

• Lack of compensation for time spent on mandatory tasks such as bag checks.

• Failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses.

• Inaccurate wage statements

If proven, the various allegations represent significant violations of California labor laws.

What Should You Do If You Suspect Labor Law Violations at Your Workplace?

If you believe your employer is not complying with labor laws—such as failing to pay overtime, not providing required breaks, or not reimbursing work-related expenses—it's important to document these instances and consult an experienced employment law attorney.

When you need help protecting your rights in the workplace, 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.

Core Analytics Radiology Faces Overtime Pay Violation Allegations

In Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology (Case No. 24CV103976), a lawsuit filed in the Alameda County Superior Court of California, the plaintiff claims their employer violated California overtime pay laws when they failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked in addition to a full standard work week.

The Case: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

The Court: Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda

The Case No.: 24CV103976

The Plaintiff: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

Plaintiff Lere Garrett, along with other affected employees, contends that Core Analytics Radiology did not pay overtime wages, violating California labor law. According to the plaintiff, employees worked additional hours under the direct control of their employer, but didn't receive overtime wages at the labor law-dictated overtime wage rate. The situation allegedly resulted in a significant amount of unpaid wages.

The Defendant: Lere Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

According to their LinkedIn profile, Core Analytics Radiology is an independently owned and operated full-service laboratory and radiology clinic that has provided comprehensive lab services in post-acute care settings, healthcare facilities, and physicians' offices for over a decade. While the case is in the early stages of litigation and the defendant has not yet offered a detailed counterargument, they maintain that their timekeeping and compensation policies and procedures do not violate labor law, and any overtime pay discrepancies must be the result of administrative errors or misinterpretations of employee work schedules.

The Ongoing Case: Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology

The case was filed in the California Superior Court, serving Alameda County, based on claims that the company systematically undercompensated workers by using inaccurate timekeeping records. The case brings attention to ongoing concerns that California employers often fail to comply with wage and hour laws, and highlights the need for precise timekeeping procedures.

How Could the Case Affect California Workers?

Garrett v. Core Analytics Radiology highlights the essential nature of accurate and precise timekeeping in strict compliance with overtime laws. If the court hands down a favorable ruling for the plaintiff, the case could also set a new precedent for future California wage and hour claims.

If you need to discuss filing a wage and hour complaint, reach out to 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.