Did C4 Technical Services Fail to Provide Workers with Compliant Breaks?

In recent news, C4 Technical Services faces allegations that they violated labor law by failing to provide their workers with compliant meal breaks and rest periods.

Case: Tekeio Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

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

Case No.: 25STCV34843

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

Tekeio Phillips, the plaintiff, allegedly worked for the defendants in California from October 2013 through August 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Phillips filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees, claiming that the defendants used common pay, staffing, and timekeeping practices that allegedly resulted in employees missing legally required breaks and not receiving all wages owed.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case are C4 Technical Services, LLC, KGPCo Services, L.L.C., and KGP Telecommunications, LLC, which the complaint alleges operated a telecommunications staffing business in California. The lawsuit claims these entities acted as joint employers and controlled employees’ hours, wages, and working conditions, making them collectively responsible for the alleged wage-and-hour violations.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

During their time at the company, the plaintiff noticed standard practices that allegedly violated labor law. Some of the allegations included in Tekeio Phillips’ complaint include:

• Failing to pay employees for all time worked.

• Requiring off-the-clock work (like sending/receiving work communications)

• Requiring work during breaks (that should have been off duty)

• Failing to provide appropriate meal breaks and rest breaks (breaks were regularly late, short, or interrupted)

• Failing to provide premium pay for missed breaks

• Underpaying regular wages and overtime wages

• Inaccurately calculating overtime pay rates.

• Failing to include incentive/bonus pay when calculating the regular rate (affecting overtime wages, premiums, and sick pay)

• Failing to provide legally compliant, accurate wage statements

• Engaging in timekeeping manipulation, including fictitious meal break entries, and rounding practice that reduced paid time.

• Failing to pay wages promptly.

• Failing to reimburse necessary work expenses.

The Main Question of the Case: Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

The core issue is whether the defendants maintained common staffing, scheduling, and timekeeping practices that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock communications and unpaid work tied to meal periods. The court will also need to determine whether employees were provided legally compliant, duty-free meal and rest breaks, or whether employees were effectively kept on duty/on call and then not paid the required premium pay when breaks were missed. Another key question is whether the defendants correctly calculated and paid minimum wage, overtime, and double time, including whether incentive/bonus pay was properly included in the regular rate used for overtime, premiums, and sick pay. Finally, the court will evaluate whether the alleged practices also produced inaccurate wage statements, late wage payments, and unreimbursed business expenses across the proposed class.

FAQ: Phillips v. C4 Technical Services

Q: Do after-hours phone calls about work count as “off the clock” work?

A: They can; if the calls are work-related and the employer requires or expects employees to take them, that time may be compensable even if it happens after hours.

Q: Can employees be required to remain on call or respond to messages?

A: Employers can require on-call responsiveness, but if that requirement cuts into legally compliant off-duty meal/rest breaks or adds uncompensated work time, it may trigger wage-and-hour violations and premium pay.

Q: Do all California employers have to provide their employees with rest breaks and meal periods?

A: Most California employers must provide compliant meal and rest breaks to non-exempt employees, though the exact rules can vary by industry, wage order, and specific job duties.

Q: What is the difference between exempt and non-exempt for rest breaks in California workplaces?

A: In California, non-exempt employees are generally entitled to paid rest breaks and meal periods. However, exempt employees typically are not because they are paid on a salary basis and meet specific duties and pay tests.

Q: Is it legal for a California employer to round recorded hours down in their payroll system?

A: Time rounding can be legal, but only if it’s neutral on its face and in practice over time. However, a system that consistently rounds employees’ time down (reducing paid time) can violate California wage-and-hour laws.​

Q: When do bonuses/incentives have to be included in the “regular rate,” and why does that matter for overtime and other pay?

A: Nondiscretionary bonuses and incentives generally must be included in the regular rate, which can increase overtime, premium pay rates, and other pay calculations tied to that rate.

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 San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Nordstrom Distribution Center Claims Company Violated Labor Law

In recent news, a California worker filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that, during his time at the Nordstrom Distribution Center, the company engaged in multiple labor law violations.

Case: Ricardo Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC

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

Case No.: 25STCV34977

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse

Ricardo Barahona, the plaintiff, is a former non-exempt, hourly employee. Barahona worked for the California-based Defendant from April 2025 through May 2025. After his time with the company, he filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated non-exempt employees who performed work at Nordstrom Distribution Centers during the class period. He claims the defendants’ shared pay and scheduling practices caused employees to miss compliant breaks and lose wages, including pay for all time worked and related premium payments, overtime pay, etc.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendants in the case are Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC; Randstad US, LLC; and Randstad Professionals US, LLC. According to the complaint, the defendants operated as the plaintiff’s joint employers in California. The complaint describes them as operating a staffing agency and exerting control over employees’ hours, wages, and working conditions.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

The plaintiff included multiple allegations in the original employment law complaint filing, including:

1. Failing to pay employees for all time worked, including off-the-clock work and work performed during meal periods.

2. Failing to provide employees with uninterrupted, off-duty meal breaks as outlined by labor law

3. Requiring employees to stay on duty/on-call during “off-duty” breaks

4. Failing to pay premium pay for missed breaks

5. Inaccurate overtime pay calculations (including inaccurate rate calculations, including incentive/bonus pay)

6. Failing to provide employees with accurate wage statements that comply with labor law requirements (and include all required information, i.e., correct hours/rates, etc.)

7. Failing to pay wages on time

8. Failing to reimburse employees for business expenses (including personal cell phone use)

9. Inaccurate timekeeping practices (including editing/rounding time)

The Main Question in the Case: Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse

The key issue is whether the defendants maintained common timekeeping and work-practice policies that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock work and unpaid time connected to meal periods. The court will also need to determine whether employees were provided legally compliant meal and rest breaks, or whether staffing demands and work requirements effectively denied those breaks, triggering premium pay obligations. Another central question is whether the defendants correctly calculated pay obligations such as overtime (and other payments tied to the “regular rate”), including how incentive/bonus compensation was treated. Finally, the court will evaluate whether alleged pay-practice issues also resulted in inaccurate wage statements, late wage payments, and unreimbursed business expenses across the proposed class.

FAQ: Barahona v. Randstad Inhouse

Q: When must off-the-clock time be paid?

A: Any off-the-clock work the employer requires or permits must be paid.

Q: If an employee works during a meal break or while they are clocked out, are they due wages?

A: That time may be compensable and, if a compliant off-duty meal period wasn’t provided, the employee may also be owed premium pay.

Q: When are first and second meal periods required, and what makes a meal period “off-duty”?

A: A first meal period is generally required by the end of the fifth hour of a work shift, and a second may be required on longer shifts. An “off-duty” meal period means the employee is fully relieved of all work duties.

Q: How many rest breaks are required based on shift length

A: Rest breaks generally accrue with hours worked (typically 10 minutes per four hours or major fraction), and if they aren’t provided, the employee may be owed premium pay.

Q: What happens if a California employer doesn’t provide an employee with their rest breaks?

A: Employers are required to provide employees with premium pay for any missed breaks. Premium pay is one additional hour at the employee’s regular rate (owed for each workday in which a compliant meal or rest break is not provided as required).

Q: How can incentive/bonus pay affect overtime calculations and other payments tied to the regular rate?

A: Certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentives must be included in the regular rate, which can increase overtime and other pay amounts calculated from that rate.

If you believe your employer failed to pay you for all your hours, miscalculated your overtime rates, or engaged in other labor law violations, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Hilbers Class Action: Alleged Wage and Hour Allegations

In recent news, Hilbers faces wage and hour violation allegations in a California class action.

Case: Martin Couch v. Hilbers, Inc.

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

Case No.: 25STCV34742

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Couch v. Hilbers

The plaintiff in the case, Martin Couch, is an individual who alleges he worked for the Hilbers entities as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California from January 2024 through May 2025. He filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees, claiming the defendants engaged in uniform wage-and-hour practices that, among other things, failed to pay employees for all time worked (including alleged off-the-clock work) and failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods (and related premium pay), along with other associated Labor Code violations tied to pay practices and recordkeeping.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant in the case, Hilbers, employed the plaintiff at a California operation. The plaintiff claims Hilbers engaged in wage-and-hour violations tied to its standard pay practices for non-exempt employees. The allegations would constitute 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 Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

According to the class action, the plaintiff alleged that Hilbers engaged in various business practices that violated labor law, including:

1. Failing to pay employees for all the time they worked, including time worked “off the clock.”

2. Expecting employees to complete pre-shift and post-shift work (like attending meetings) that wasn’t fully recorded or paid

3. Failing to provide meal breaks, cutting breaks short, or requiring employees to work while clocked out during what was supposed to be an off-duty meal period.

4. Failing to pay the additional “premium” hour of pay owed for missed meal breaks

5. Underpaying overtime/double time (and other pay tied to the “regular rate”) because incentive/bonus pay wasn’t properly included when calculating the pay rates

6. Failing to provide compliant paystubs/wage statements

7. Failing to reimburse required business expenses (like personal cell phone services used for work)

8. Failing to provide reporting-time pay when workers are required to report to work without being provided enough work

The Main Question of the Case: Couch v. Hilbers

The core question is whether the Hilbers entities had company-wide pay and scheduling practices that caused non-exempt employees to perform compensable work without full pay, including alleged off-the-clock work before/after shifts and during meal periods. The court will also need to evaluate whether employees were provided legally compliant meal and rest breaks, or instead were kept on duty/on call, interrupted, or required to work through breaks without receiving the required premium pay. A related issue is whether the employer correctly calculated and paid overtime and other wages tied to the “regular rate,” including whether incentive/bonus compensation was properly included. Finally, the case raises whether any alleged timekeeping and pay practice problems also resulted in non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses across the proposed class.

As of January 2026, the case is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.

FAQ: Couch v. Hilbers

Q: What counts as “hours worked” in California?

A: “Hours worked” generally includes any time an employee is under the employer’s control or is allowed to work, including pre-shift/post-shift tasks.

Q: If an employee attends meetings or completes tasks off the clock, what wage rights may be triggered?

A: If that work is required or allowed, it should be paid and may also count toward overtime depending on the total hours worked in the day or week.

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

A: To qualify as “off duty,” an employee must be fully relieved of all work, and if the employee is required to work, the time may be compensable and can trigger premium pay penalties.

Q: How many rest breaks are required based on shift length, and what happens if staffing/workload prevents breaks?

A: Rest break entitlements generally increase with shift length, and heavy workload or staffing issues do not excuse missed breaks; when breaks are missed, premium pay may be owed to the employee.

Q: What is “premium pay” for missed meal/rest breaks, and when is an additional hour of pay owed?

A: Premium pay is one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate owed when an employer fails to provide a compliant meal or rest break.

Q: How does bonus or incentive pay affect the “regular rate” used for overtime and other wage calculations?

A: Certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentives must be included in the regular rate, which can increase the overtime rate and total wages owed.

If you believe your employer’s standard wage payment practices or overtime pay rate calculations may result in labor law violations, 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.

California Wage and Hour Lawsuit Claims Hyatt Violated Labor Law

In recent news, Hyatt Corporation faces allegations of California Labor Code violations stemming from employee claims that it did not pay for all hours worked.

Case: Josh Montes v. Hyatt Corporation dba The Seabird

Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: 25CU065911N

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Montes v. Hyatt

The plaintiff, Montes, filed a class action complaint against Hyatt Corporation for allegedly failing to provide meal and rest breaks. Montes claims that rigorous work schedules left Hyatt employees unable to take off-duty rest breaks and not fully relieved of duty during rest periods. The plaintiffs specifically claimed that they were required to work more than 4 hours without a 10-minute rest period due to excessive workload and inadequate staffing. From time to time, employees were also allegedly denied both their legally mandated ten-minute rest breaks for shifts lasting 6 to 8 hours and all three of their legally mandated ten-minute breaks for shifts lasting 10 hours or more. According to the plaintiff, Hyatt Corporation also allegedly failed to provide the required one-hour wage payment for missed breaks.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant in the case, Hyatt Corporation (dba The Seabird), faces allegations that it violated multiple California State Labor Code Sections, including §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

In the court documents, the plaintiffs allege the company engaged in multiple labor law violations. In summary, the plaintiffs allege that the company failed to: pay at least minimum wages, pay accurate overtime wages, provide legally required meal breaks and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, provide wages promptly, and reimburse workers for required business expenses.

The Main Question of the Case: Montes v. Hyatt

The main question in this case is whether Hyatt Corporation maintained policies, staffing levels, or scheduling practices that resulted in employees performing compensable work without lawful pay (including time tied to missed, late, or interrupted rest periods) in violation of California wage-and-hour requirements. The lawsuit alleges employees were overburdened and inadequately staffed, leading to situations in which they worked more than 4 hours without receiving the required 10-minute rest breaks and, in some instances, were denied the correct number of rest periods for shifts spanning 2–4 hours, 6–8 hours, and 10+ hours. A related issue is whether Hyatt allegedly failed to provide premium pay (one additional hour at the employee’s regular rate) when compliant rest periods were not provided, and whether those alleged break violations also connect to broader claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, wage statement inaccuracies, late payment of wages, and unreimbursed business expenses under the Labor Code sections cited in the complaint.

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

FAQ: Montes v. Hyatt

Q: What are California’s rest break rules, and how many 10-minute breaks are required based on shift length?

A: California Labor Law requires employers to provide nonexempt employees with a paid, uninterrupted 10-minute rest break for every 4 hours worked. When feasible, the break must be in the middle of the work shift.

Q: If an employee works more than four (4) hours without a rest break, what pay or remedies may be owed?

A: If a nonexempt employee is not provided with a break during a work shift lasting more than four hours, the California employer is required to pay the employee “premium pay” as a penalty.

Q: What is “premium pay” for missed rest breaks, and when must an employer pay one additional hour of wages?

A: “Premium pay” is a penalty California employers are required to provide when they fail to provide a nonexempt employee with a legally mandated rest period or meal break. Premium pay equals one additional hour at the employee’s regular pay rate.

Q: Can “inadequate staffing” or heavy workloads be used to justify missed or shortened rest periods under California law?

A: No, inadequate staffing or heavy workloads do not excuse missed breaks, shortened breaks, or interrupted breaks. Employees must permit compliant rest breaks for their nonexempt employees and cannot use operational demands as justification for violating labor law requirements.

Q: How can rest break violations lead to additional claims for unpaid overtime, minimum wage shortfalls, or inaccurate wage statements?

A: In many cases, rest break violations result in other wage and hour claims “stacking” up. Missed, interrupted, or shortened breaks regularly lead to employees working “off-the-clock” or having their work hours recorded inaccurately. The violations trigger additional violations for: missed premium pay, inaccurate wage statements, minimum wage shortfalls, and unpaid overtime.

Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in class actions to show a pattern or practice of missed rest breaks (e.g., schedules, time records, policies, staffing data)?

A: In California, class actions attempting to establish a pattern or practice of missed rest periods and meal breaks often depend on a variety of evidence, including written policies or training manuals, payroll records, work schedules, or break logs (or log of a lack of breaks), labor budgets and staffing levels, manager communications, employee testimony, etc.

If you believe your employer’s regular business practices violate California labor laws, 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 Poultry Processors Fix Worker Wages? $398.05 Million Class Settlement Receives Final Approval in 2025

A sweeping worker class action accused many of the country’s largest poultry processors of secretly coordinating to keep compensation artificially low in an alleged wage-fixing scheme.

Case: Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.

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

Case No.: SAG-19-2521 (also docketed as No. 1:19-cv-02521)

Final approval date: June 5, 2025

Total settlements approved: $398.05 million

Who Were the Parties in the Case?

The plaintiffs are a proposed class of non-supervisory poultry-industry workers (typically production and maintenance employees) who allege they were harmed by an industry-wide agreement that depressed wages and benefits for workers in their positions at poultry processing facilities. Perdue Farms, Inc. and other poultry processors were the defendants in the case, with the plaintiffs alleging they worked together to use a wage-suppression conspiracy to their financial advantage.

A Brief Run Down of the Case History:

The litigation began in 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs alleged that major poultry companies used shared wage data and coordinated practices to reduce competition for labor and minimize their own labor costs. This kept compensation below what a competitive market would have set and allegedly limited workers in the industry's ability to earn a fair wage.

The case stretched across several years, including amended pleadings, motion practice, and discovery. During this time, groups of defendants reached separate settlement agreements at various points. By late 2024/early 2025, additional settlements pushed the combined total close to $400M, with the recovery described in public reporting as one of the largest of its kind for worker antitrust claims.

The court granted final approval to the settlements totaling over $398 million on June 5, 2025, and certified the settlement class to distribute the recovery.

The Main Question the Court Considered in the Case: Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.

There was a fairly high-stakes question at the center of this case: Did poultry processors unlawfully conspire to suppress worker compensation by coordinating wages and benefits, rather than competing for workers? If the court determined the answer to be yes, the action was a violation of federal antitrust law.

What Were the Allegations Against the Poultry Farms?

The workers alleged that participating companies shared sensitive compensation information and used it to align pay practices across the industry, reducing normal competitive pressure that would otherwise increase wages.

Unlike a typical overtime or off-the-clock lawsuit, the theory here was not that workers were denied overtime premiums under wage-and-hour statutes. Instead, the allegation was that an anti-competitive agreement distorted the labor market, leading to lower pay rates than they should have been for the work performed.

Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.: Settlement Outcome

The Maryland federal court granted final approval to settlements totaling just over $398 million, making it a Landmark Worker-Pay Settlement in 2025 for three practical reasons:

1. The size of the recovery. A $398.05 million class settlement is extraordinary in worker-pay litigation, even before considering the number of potentially eligible workers nationwide.

2. It targets wage-fixing directly. The case reflects an ongoing trend of using antitrust law to challenge alleged wage suppression, treating workers as participants in a competitive market that the law protects from collusion.

3. Industry-wide impact. The allegations and settlements involved multiple major processors across the poultry sector, making the litigation a major event for how large employers manage compensation benchmarking and information sharing.

FAQ: Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.

Q: What’s the difference between “wage-fixing” and an overtime violation?

A: Overtime cases typically allege violations of wage-and-hour statutes (like the FLSA). Wage-fixing cases generally allege an anti-competitive agreement that suppresses wages; an antitrust theory focused on market competition.

Q: Who could be included in the settlement class in this case?

A: The settlement described the class as non-supervisory workers employed at poultry processing operations and related facilities during a certain time period (subject to the class definitions approved by the court).

Q: For a class action, what does “final approval” mean?

A: Final approval means the court has reviewed the class action settlement’s terms and concluded it is legally acceptable under current standards. Final approval clears the way for administration and payments.

Q: How are settlement payments typically calculated for this type of case/settlement?

A: Payment formulas commonly consider factors like how long a person worked during the class period and compensation-related information, with payments made on a pro rata basis under the plan approved by the court.

If you believe your employer kept your pay unlawfully low, failed to pay you all wages owed, or engaged in practices that shortchanged workers, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you understand your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential wage-and-hour or related worker-protection claims.

Did Disneyland Underpay Workers Under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance? $233 Million Settlement Approved for 51,000+ Employees

When the long-running wage-and-hour class action against Disneyland finally ended, it was resolved with a $233 million settlement. Approved in September 2025, the settlement covered more than 51,000 of the popular amusement park resort’s employees.

Case: Grace et al. v. Walt Disney Co. et al.

Court: California Orange County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2019-01116850

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Grace et al. v. Walt Disney Co. et al.

The plaintiffs are a group of current and former nonexempt hourly workers at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim, California, who alleged they were not paid the minimum hourly rate and related service-charge amounts required under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance during the covered period.

The Defendants in the Case: Grace v. Walt Disney Co.

In Grace et al. v. Walt Disney Co. et al., the defendants are The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. To further define the relationship between the two listed defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company is the parent holding company, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. is commonly the operating subsidiary for parks/resorts.

A Brief Rundown of the Case History

The case against Disneyland questioned whether Disney was required to pay a higher hourly wage under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance (Measure L), and if so, what back pay was owed to employees whose wages did not meet the minimums. When Measure L was approved in 2018, it established a living wage requirement for some types of hospitality employers tied to the Anaheim Resort District and/or city subsidies (a starting rate of $15/hr in 2019, with scheduled increases thereafter).

In December 2019, workers filed a putative class action in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that the Disneyland Resort violated Measure L by failing to pay the required minimum wage.

Litigation commenced - and continued - for several years while the parties disputed whether Disney was subject to the ordinance and, if so, what remedies would apply to the situation. A settlement was preliminarily approved in spring 2025, notices were issued to class members in May 2025, and the court granted final approval in mid-September 2025.

Main Question in the Case:

The main question in the case is whether the Living Wage Ordinance applies to Disney and, if so, whether hourly employees were underpaid relative to the ordinance’s minimum wage requirement.

Summary of the Allegations in the Wage and Hour Complaint:

The plaintiffs alleged that Disney failed to pay covered hourly workers the minimum hourly wage and related amounts mandated by Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance, beginning January 1, 2019.

Public settlement materials describe the ordinance as requiring escalating minimum hourly rates over time, including (as presented in the settlement information) $15/hour for 2019, followed by annual increases through 2025.

2025 Settlement Outcome of the Disneyland Wage and Hour Class Action

The court approved a $233,000,000 settlement for a reported class of 51,478 employees with $179.575 million distributed to class members, $17.475 million designated for civil penalties, and the remainder covering fees/costs, etc.

Settlement administration updates indicated that the order approving the settlement became “final” on November 17, 2025 (the “Effective Date” referenced by the administrator), after which payments began processing.

Why This Was a Landmark California Wage-and-Hour Settlement in 2025

1. The number of workers affected. In 2025, California reached one of the biggest wage-related settlements with a single employer. It covered more than 51,000 current and former employees.

2. Local laws that set minimum wages could lead to a lot of exposure. This disagreement was about a city law that raised wage requirements, not the state or federal minimum wage. The discussion shows how municipal wage laws can significantly increase the back pay that big businesses must pay when they work under public agreements or benefits.

3. Fines and back pay. The settlement structure showed how wage-and-hour cases in California can include both compensation and penalty components, with a large LWDA penalty component alongside employee payments.

FAQ: The Disneyland Wage and Hour Case

Q: What is Anaheim's "Living Wage Ordinance" (Measure L)?

A: Measure L, a voter-approved ordinance in Anaheim, establishes a higher minimum wage for specific hospitality employers linked to city subsidies and/or the Resort District. It will begin at $15 per hour in 2019 and gradually increase.

Q: Who can file a wage and hour lawsuit?

A: Any employee who believes their employer failed to pay all wages owed—such as minimum wage, overtime, meal/rest breaks, or off-the-clock work—may be able to file a wage-and-hour lawsuit, either individually or with other workers in a class or collective action.

Q: Who was covered by the settlement class?

A: The settlement class was defined to include nonexempt current and former workers employed at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim during the covered period who were not paid at least the amounts required by the ordinance.

Q: What’s the Benefit of Filing a Wage and Hour Lawsuit?

A: Filing a wage-and-hour lawsuit can help you recover unpaid wages (and often additional damages and penalties), hold your employer accountable for illegal pay practices, and in some cases push the employer to change policies that impact you and your coworkers.

Q: Was Disney found liable by the court during the trial?

A: A court-approved class action settlement ended the litigation without a verdict on the merits of the case.

Q: What is Anaheim's "Living Wage Ordinance" (Measure L)?

A: Measure L, a voter-approved ordinance in Anaheim, establishes a higher minimum wage for specific hospitality employers linked to city subsidies and/or the Resort District. It will begin at $15 per hour in 2019 and gradually increase.

If you believe you were underpaid, denied legally required wage increases, or did not receive all compensation required under California wage laws or local wage ordinances, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you assess your potential claims. Contact one of the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your options for pursuing unpaid wages and accountability under the law.

Did the Logan Inn’s Tip Pool Violate Wage Laws? Third Circuit Ruling Reshapes FLSA Settlements

In 2025, the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision on Lundeen v. 10 W. Ferry St. Operations LLC, clarifying the FLSA’s opt-in rule as a procedural requirement.

Case: Lundeen v. 10 W. Ferry St. Operations LLC

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Appellate Docket No.: No. 24-3375

District Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court Case No.: 2:24-cv-00109-JDW

Get to Know the Parties: Lundeen v. 10 W. Ferry St. Operations LLC

Graham Lundeen, the plaintiff, worked as a bartender and server for the defendant at New Hope’s Logan Inn in Pennsylvania from September 2021 through December 2022. He filed the case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated hourly bartenders and servers.

A Brief History of the Case:

Lundeen filed the original wage and hour complaint in January 2024 in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, alleging federal and state labor law violations related to the Inn’s tip-pooling policy. Filed as a hybrid case, the two claims proceeded separately - the FLSA claim as a collective action (opt-in) and the PMWA claim as a class action (opt-out). Parties agreed to a conditional certification of the FLSA collective, and notice was issued to eligible workers. (Lundeen and 9 others filed written consents). After discovery and a settlement conference, the parties proposed a settlement in June 2024. The proposal included an opt-out class settlement to resolve state wage claims and release FLSA claims for class members who did not opt out, even if they never opted in to the FLSA collective. The district court denied preliminary approval, stating that, under labor law, written consent to serve as a party plaintiff is required, so the settlement cannot require class members who did not opt in to release FLSA claims. The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case.

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central question was whether the FLSA’s opt-in requirement in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) prohibits an opt-out Rule 23 class settlement from releasing unasserted FLSA claims held by class members who never opted into the FLSA collective.

Summary of the Allegations

Lundeen alleged that the Logan Inn operated a tip pool funded by bartenders’ tips, but, according to the complaint, the bar manager (a salaried supervisory employee) allegedly also received distributions from this pool. The plaintiff argued that this practice violated both federal and Pennsylvania wage laws.

What is a Tip Pool?

A tip pool is a shared fund of tips redistributed among a designated set of workers. Employees collect all or a portion of their tips into a shared fund/tip pool, with the original intent to ensure an equitable distribution of gratuities. However, the tip pool creates the opportunity for mismanagement that can lead to dissatisfaction and labor law complaints.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

The Third Circuit vacated the order and remanded so the district court could consider the settlement for fairness under Rule 23. While § 216(b) sets the procedure for litigating FLSA claims (opt-in), it does not determine the conditions for waiving or releasing claims through settlement.

FAQ: Wage and Hour Violations

Q: Why was Lundeen v. 10 W. Ferry St. Operations LLC a landmark wage and hour case in 2025?

A: The case addresses resolving hybrid cases, a recurring issue in wage and hour litigation, efficiently and fairly.

Q: What does this case change for wage-and-hour settlements?

A: It provides precedential support for resolving hybrid cases through an opt-out Rule 23 settlement that can include FLSA releases, subject to judicial review for fairness and adequate notice.

Q: What is Rule 23?

A: Courts use the familiar Rule 23 framework to evaluate settlements for notice, opportunity to opt out, objections, and judicial review.

Q: What Can You Do If Your Employer Violates Labor Law?

A: If you believe your employer’s business policies or standard practices violate labor law, reach out to an experienced local employment law attorney to discuss your options.

Q: What is the difference between an FLSA “collective action” and a Rule 23 “class action”?

A: In an FLSA collective action, workers must generally opt in by filing a written consent. In a Rule 23 class action, workers are included unless they opt out after receiving notice.

Q: Did the Third Circuit rule that the settlement in Lundeen was automatically fair?

A: No. The court did not approve the settlement. It held only that § 216(b) does not prohibit the settlement structure and remanded the case for a full Rule 23 fairness review.

If you believe your tips were improperly diverted, your employer used an unlawful tip credit, or you were denied legally owed wages, the employment law attorneys contactat Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you assess your wage-and-hour rights and options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss pursuing unpaid compensation and accountability under the law.