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.

Did Lion Farms Violate Migrant Farmworker Protections? A 2025 Landmark Federal Enforcement Case

In 2025, the federal enforcement case against Lion Farms LLC concluded with a consent judgment and permanent injunction. The employer and its owners were ordered to pay $128,899.50 in back wages and civil money penalties for alleged violations affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.

Case: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Case No.: 1:25-cv-00312-KES-EPG (also listed as 1:2025cv00312)

More About the Plaintiff: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

The U.S. Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, took action through the Department of Labor to address claims that MSPA and its rules were violated. The U.S. Department of Labor investigated a crash involving workers on February 23, 2024, which prompted the action.

Defendants in the Case: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

The defendants are Lion Farms LLC and its owners and operators: Bruce Lion, Alfred Lion, and Daniel Lion.

A Brief Case History: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

After a car accident on February 23, 2024, that killed seven employees and seriously hurt another while they were on their way to work, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division looked into Lion Farms. The Department said the employer did not follow the federal government's rules for transporting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers.

The Secretary of Labor filed the lawsuit on March 14, 2025, in the Eastern District of California. The case was resolved by a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered on August 26, 2025.

What Did the Court Need to Take Into Account?

In this enforcement action, the court had one main question to consider. Did Lion Farms and its owners comply with MSPA regulations? (Particularly the regulations pertaining to safe transportation, accurate wage-statement disclosures, and lawful wage payments).

What Were the Case's Alleged Violations?

The Department of Labor alleged the following MSPA violations:

• Unsafe or illegal transportation practices, including use of vehicles and drivers that did not meet MSPA licensing and insurance requirements.

• Charging workers a transportation fee that investigators deemed unlawful due to the alleged transportation violations.

• Failure to provide required wage statement information, such as workers’ permanent addresses and the employer’s identification number.

Unpaid wages: The agency calculated $39,013 in back wages owed to 12 employees.

The consent judgment also references alleged MSPA violations from October 16, 2022 through February 24, 2024.

What Was the Outcome of the Case?

The August 26, 2025 consent judgment:

1. Entered judgment totaling $128,899.50, consisting of: $39,013.00 in back wages, and $89,886.50 in civil money penalties.

2. Imposed a permanent injunction requiring future compliance and prohibiting further MSPA violations.

Why This 2025 Wage-and-Hour Enforcement Case Was Historic

Regarded as a landmark case for 2025, this wage-and-hour enforcement combined back pay/wage relief, significant civil money penalties, and a permanent injunction in a matter involving alleged safety and pay violations affecting vulnerable agricultural workers, despite the fact that MSPA is a farmworker protection statute rather than the FLSA.

FAQ: Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC

Q: What is MSPA?

A: MSPA is a federal law setting protections for migrant/seasonal agricultural workers. Protections include requirements regarding disclosures, wage statements, and certain working-condition safeguards (including transportation safety standards).

Q: What monetary relief did the court order in the Chavez-DeRemer v. Lion Farms, LLC case?

A: The consent judgment totaled $128,899.50 ($39,013.00 in back wages and $89,886.50 in civil money penalties).

Q: What is a consent judgment?

A: A consent judgment is a court order entered based on the parties’ agreement. It is binding and enforceable even though it resolves the case without a trial.

Q: Did the court’s order include future compliance requirements?

A: Yes. The order included a permanent injunction designed to prevent future violations and require compliance going forward.

If you believe you were denied earned wages, charged improper work-related fees, or not provided required wage information, 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 recovery of unpaid wages and legal accountability.

Can a $22,000 Wage-and-Hour Settlement Still Support a Large Attorneys’ Fee Award?

In Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., the Ninth Circuit addressed a question that shows up often in California wage-and-hour litigation: when a plaintiff settles individual claims for a relatively modest amount, can she still seek substantial attorneys’ fees for work that also touched related class or PAGA theories? The court held that a section 998 settlement agreement did not automatically bar recovery of fees for work on related claims if that work was intertwined with the individual claims. But the Ninth Circuit also made clear that fee awards cannot be “because vibes.” Trial courts must explain how they arrived at the number. Here, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award and sent the case back for a clearer explanation.

Case: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 23-3927

The Plaintiff: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The plaintiff is a former employee of a large retail company who worked for approximately six weeks at a California store. She alleged that during her employment she was denied meal and rest breaks, was not paid overtime, did not receive compliant wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work-related tasks without reimbursement. Based on those allegations, she filed a lawsuit asserting individual claims as well as putative class and PAGA claims for violations of California’s Labor Code.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is the defendant in the case.

Wal-Mart is a nationwide retailer with operations throughout California. In this lawsuit, the company was accused of wage-and-hour violations involving breaks, overtime, wage statements, and expense reimbursement policies and practices. The case also addresses how employers can structure settlements and litigation strategy when a case begins with class and PAGA theories but later proceeds primarily on an individual basis.

A Brief History of the Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Case

The plaintiff filed the action in state court, asserting individual, class, and PAGA claims. The company removed the case to federal court.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification on the remaining class claim. After that, the plaintiff continued pursuing her individual claims and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties resolved the individual claims through a $22,000 settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998. As part of the deal, the plaintiff dismissed her PAGA claims without prejudice and preserved her right to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to her individual claims.

After the settlement, the district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs. The record reflects that the plaintiff had already voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half, excluding time spent on class certification work and certain legal assistant time.

Wal-Mart appealed. The Ninth Circuit held the section 998 settlement did not automatically preclude a fee request for work on related claims, as long as the work was sufficiently intertwined with the individual claims under the framework courts use to evaluate fee requests in cases with mixed success. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award. It remanded the case because the district court did not provide a sufficiently clear explanation of how it arrived at the awarded amount.

The Main Question in the Case

When a plaintiff settles her individual wage-and-hour claims under section 998 and agrees to dismiss other claims (like PAGA) without prejudice, can she still recover attorneys’ fees for work that also related to other claims that were not ultimately litigated to judgment, so long as the work was intertwined with the individual claims? And what level of explanation must a district court provide when awarding attorneys’ fees?

The Allegations: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

The case involved wage-and-hour allegations commonly seen in California employment litigation, including:

1. Meal and rest break violations

The plaintiff alleged she was denied the legally required meal and rest breaks during her employment.

2. Unpaid overtime

She alleged she worked overtime hours without receiving proper overtime compensation.

3. Wage statement violations

She alleged the wage statements she received did not comply with California Labor Code requirements.

4. Expense reimbursement for required cell phone use

She alleged the employer required her to use her personal cell phone for work-related purposes without reimbursing the related costs.

The appellate decision discussed in your summary focused less on whether those violations occurred and more on what fee recovery is permitted and how fee awards must be justified procedurally.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling: Fees May Be Recoverable, But the Court Must Explain Why

The Ninth Circuit addressed two key points.

1) The court held that the settlement agreement did not categorically bar attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard used to evaluate fee requests in cases where a party achieved partial success. The key question is whether the work on related claims was intertwined with and contributed to the individual claims that were actually settled. If the claims share a common core of facts and legal work, time spent on related claims can still sometimes be compensable.

2) The court found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to offer a clear explanation. Even if a fee award is legally permitted, the judge still has to show the math and reasoning. The Ninth Circuit faulted the district court for failing to provide a concise yet clear explanation of how it determined the final fee amount. Because the explanation was insufficient, the appellate court vacated the award and remanded the case to the district court for a more transparent fee analysis.

Why This Case Matters for Wage-and-Hour Litigation

This decision underscores two practical realities:

* Fee exposure can be significant even when the damages recovered by an individual plaintiff are relatively modest, especially in wage-and-hour cases where fee-shifting statutes may allow prevailing employees to recover reasonable fees.

* Trial courts must create a record. Fee awards cannot be affirmed on appeal if the judge does not clearly explain the basis for the number, particularly when the requested amounts are large and the litigation involves multiple claims with mixed outcomes.

FAQ: Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Q: What is a section 998 settlement?

A: California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 is a settlement tool that can shift certain costs and influence fee exposure depending on whether a party beats or fails to beat the offer at trial. Parties often use it to encourage settlement and manage litigation risk.

Q: Why would attorneys’ fees be much higher than the settlement amount?

A: In wage-and-hour cases, fee-shifting statutes can allow a prevailing employee to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees. Litigation can be time-intensive even when the employee’s personal damages are relatively small.

Q: Did the Ninth Circuit say the plaintiff could not recover fees?

A: No. The Ninth Circuit held that the settlement did not automatically preclude recovery of fees for intertwined work. Still, it vacated the award because the district court did not adequately explain how it reached the fee amount.

Q: What does it mean for claims to be “intertwined”?

A: It generally means the claims share a common core of facts and legal work, so time spent on one claim also reasonably advances the other.

Q: What happens on remand?

A: The district court must reassess the fee request and provide a concise but clear explanation for any fee award it enters.

If you believe you were denied meal or rest breaks, not paid overtime, provided inaccurate wage statements, or required to use personal devices for work without reimbursement, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

Did Honda and Adecco Short Hourly Workers on PPE and Overtime?

A newly filed federal lawsuit alleges that American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc. required hourly workers to put on and remove required PPE off the clock, and then calculated overtime in a way that allegedly failed to include certain nondiscretionary bonuses in the “regular rate.” The case is in its earliest phase. At this point, these are allegations only, and the court has not made findings.

Case: Mayes v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Case No.: 2:25-cv-11253

The Plaintiff: Mayes v. American Honda

Fareed Mayes, the plaintiff, is a former hourly employee of American Honda.

The Defendants: Mayes v. American Honda

The defendants in the case are American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc.

Case History: Mayes v. American Honda

According to the public docket, the case was filed on November 24, 2025, in the Central District of California as an FLSA matter. The docket reflects the complaint and initial filing paperwork, which is typical at the start of a federal wage-and-hour lawsuit.

The Main Question in the Case:

If hourly workers must put on required protective gear before clocking in and remove it after clocking out, is that time “work” that must be paid and counted toward overtime? And if workers receive certain attendance or shutdown bonuses, must those bonuses be included when calculating the “regular rate” for overtime?

The Allegations: Mayes v. American Honda

Based on published reporting summarizing the filing, the lawsuit’s core allegations include:

Unpaid PPE time (donning/doffing): Workers allegedly had to don company-required gear at the worksite before clocking in, and remove it after clocking out. The claimed time is roughly 10–15 minutes pre-shift and 10–15 minutes post-shift, which the lawsuit frames as off-the-clock work that should be compensable.

Pressure through policies: The suit alleges attendance/adherence policies effectively pushed workers to complete PPE-related steps off the clock.

Overtime “regular rate” issue: The lawsuit also challenges overtime calculations, alleging the companies did not include certain nondiscretionary bonuses (described as “Shutdown” and “Monthly Attendance” bonuses) when computing the regular rate used for overtime.

Scope and format of the case: The action is described as a proposed FLSA collective action and also a Rule 23 class action for related state-law theories (as reported).

Why “PPE Time” Can Become a Real Legal Fight:

Federal wage-and-hour law has a whole vocabulary for this: “principal activities,” “integral and indispensable,” and what counts as “preliminary/postliminary” time.

The Supreme Court has held that some pre-shift and post-shift activities can be compensable when they’re tightly connected to an employee’s principal work activities.

At the same time, the Court has also emphasized limits, rejecting compensation for activities that are not “integral and indispensable” to the job’s core productive work (even if the employer requires them).

There’s also a union-contract carveout in some workplaces (29 U.S.C. § 203(o)) that can affect whether “changing clothes” time is paid, depending on the facts and whether a collective bargaining agreement applies.

FAQ: Mayes v. American Honda

Q: What is “donning and doffing” time?

A: It’s the time spent putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) required gear such as uniforms or safety equipment, often around the start and end of a shift.

Q: Does the FLSA always require employers to pay for PPE time?

A: Not always. Whether it’s compensable can depend on whether the activity is considered integral and indispensable to the employee’s principal work, and on other legal and workplace factors.

Q: What’s the “integral and indispensable” test?

A: It’s a standard the Supreme Court has used to determine whether certain pre- or post-shift activities are part of the employee’s principal activities and therefore potentially compensable

Q: What is the “regular rate,” and why does it matter for overtime?

A: Overtime is generally calculated based on an employee’s regular rate of pay. Certain forms of compensation must be included in that regular rate, which can increase overtime owed.

Q: Do nondiscretionary bonuses affect overtime calculations?

A: Often, yes. The U.S. Department of Labor explains that nondiscretionary bonuses are generally included in the regular rate unless a specific exclusion applies.

Q: Has the court decided whether Honda or Adecco did anything wrong here?

A: No. The case was filed on November 24, 2025, and at this stage the public record reflects initial filings. Allegations are not findings.

If you believe you were required to perform off-the-clock work, were not paid for all time worked, or your overtime rate didn’t reflect all required compensation, 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.

$1.2 Million Settlement Resolves Betacom Wage and Hour Allegations

A recent class action settlement against telecommunications companies Betacom Holdings Inc. and Betacom Inc. brings closure to a multi-year wage and hour dispute involving more than 600 field employees. The lawsuit claimed Betacom failed to pay overtime wages in compliance with state and federal labor laws. The companies have now agreed to a $1.2 million settlement that resolves those allegations without admitting liability.

Case: Lmar Lay v. Betacom Holdings, Inc. and Betacom Incorporated

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle

Case No.: 2:24-cv-01195

The Plaintiff: Lmar Lay

Lmar Lay, a former field employee, brought the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of Betacom field workers who were allegedly denied full overtime pay. The complaint claimed that Betacom required field employees to work long hours—including through unpaid meal periods—without properly compensating them for overtime. Lay alleged that the company failed to include certain earnings and bonuses in employees’ “regular rate of pay,” resulting in lower overtime rates than the law allows. The lawsuit also alleged violations of both federal and state labor laws.

The Defendants: Betacom Holdings, Inc. and Betacom Incorporated

The defendants in the case are Betacom Holdings Inc. and Betacom Inc., telecommunications infrastructure companies providing construction, installation, and maintenance for major wireless network towers. The lawsuit centered on allegations that Betacom’s field employees, who perform demanding on-site technical and maintenance work, were improperly compensated for overtime hours worked. Betacom denied all wrongdoing, but in order to avoid further litigation, the company did agree to settle. The class includes Betacom employees (for either defendant) between August 6, 2021 through August 8, 2025.

A History of the Case: Overtime Claims and Settlement Approval

After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a $1.2 million settlement to resolve the wage and hour claims. According to the settlement agreement, Betacom’s payroll records identified 617 eligible class members who may claim payments.

The total settlement fund covers:

• Settlement administration costs: Up to $15,000

• Attorneys’ fees: $480,000

• Attorneys’ expenses: Up to $19,000

• Service award to lead plaintiff: Up to $10,000

• Net settlement available to class members: Approximately $676,000

Each class member’s share will be determined pro rata, based on the number of overtime workweeks and their individual pay rate. On average, payouts are expected to range between several hundred and several thousand dollars.

Under the agreement, half of each payment will be treated as W-2 wages (subject to payroll taxes) and half as 1099 income. Eligible employees must file a claim with the settlement administrator by December 17, 2025, to receive payment. Uncashed checks after 120 days will be turned over to the Washington Unclaimed Property Fund. The settlement resolves all claims under federal and state wage laws (including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Massachusetts Wage Act). It also provides Betacom with a full release moving forward.

The Main Question Being Considered: Were Overtime Hours Fully Compensated?

At the heart of Lay v. Betacom was a common problem in wage and hour litigation—whether field employees were fully paid for all hours worked, including time spent working through meal periods or performing tasks outside scheduled shifts. Federal and state laws require overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week (and daily overtime in some states) at 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay. Employers must also include bonuses, incentives, and other forms of pay when calculating that rate.

According to the lawsuit, Betacom's pay practices under-reported employee overtime hours and excluded some forms of compensation from the calculation used to determine the employee's "standard rate of pay", which both reduced the employees' total wage payment. Betacom denied these allegations, but in agreeing to the settlement, will provide direct compensation for affected workers and reaffirms the importance of accurate timekeeping and wage calculations going forward.

Why This Case Matters to California and Washington Workers

Although the Lay v. Betacom case was filed in Washington, its implications extend across state lines. Both Washington and California impose strict wage and hour standards designed to protect employees from unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work. Field technicians, installers, and other employees who travel or work irregular hours are especially vulnerable to wage errors when companies rely on automated time systems or classify meal breaks as unpaid; even when work continues during those periods. This settlement reinforces that overtime compliance is not optional. Employers must track all hours worked, compensate for all required overtime, and ensure pay rates reflect every form of compensation earned.

FAQ: Lay v. Betacom Holdings, Inc. and Betacom Incorporated

Q: What laws were at issue in this case?

A: The lawsuit alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state wage laws, claiming Betacom failed to pay employees for all overtime hours worked and miscalculated overtime rates.

Q: Who is included in the class settlement?

A: The class covers 617 field employees who worked for Betacom Holdings Inc. or Betacom Inc. between August 6, 2021, and August 8, 2025.

Q: How much will Betacome employees with eligible wage and hour claims get from the settlement?

A: The total settlement in the case is $1.2 million, with approximately $676,000 allocated to class members after fees and costs. Average payments are expected to be around $1,000–$5,000 per class member. The exact amount depends on each person’s overtime hours and pay rate.

Q: What is the deadline to file a claim?

A: Eligible employees must submit a claim by December 17, 2025. Claims can be filed online or by mail through the settlement administrator, CPT Group Inc.

If your employer fails to provide accurate overtime pay or properly include all forms of compensation in your pay calculations, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our experienced employment law attorneys at our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about how labor laws protect your rights on the job.