Strength in numbers
California employee class actions
When an employer shorts one worker, that is a dispute. When it shorts everyone the same way, California law lets workers bring the claim together. This page explains the class and representative actions California employees actually bring, and tracks current cases worth knowing about.
Updated Sep 17, 2026 · Maintained by the Law Offices of Justin Silverman, APC from public records
Filings and cases we are tracking
Public records worth a California worker's attention: WARN filings with short notice gaps in the state's own data, and lawsuits on file with the courts. Each page shows exactly what the record says and what the law requires.
Settlement preliminarily approved
Cambrian Homecare settlement: the opt-out decision
The Los Angeles Superior Court has preliminarily approved a $2,950,000 settlement of wage and hour claims brought on behalf of hourly and nonexempt employees of Cambrian Homecare in California. The complaint alleges unpaid overtime and minimum wages, missed meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, and PAGA penalties. Workers who do nothing stay in the class, receive a payment, and release the class claims. A worker who wants to keep an individual claim has to mail a signed request for exclusion postmarked by November 30, 2026. The PAGA portion cannot be opted out of.
What the record shows →
Settlement preliminarily approved
Revolve settlement: the opt-out decision
The Los Angeles Superior Court has preliminarily approved a $2,100,000 settlement of wage and hour claims brought on behalf of current and former nonexempt employees of Eminent, Inc., doing business as Revolve, and Revolve Group, Inc. in California. The complaint alleges unpaid overtime and minimum wages, missed meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to reimburse expenses, and PAGA penalties. Workers who do nothing stay in the class, receive a check without filing a claim form, and release the class claims. A worker who wants to keep an individual claim has to send a written request for exclusion postmarked by November 9, 2026. The PAGA portion cannot be opted out of.
What the record shows →
Settlement preliminarily approved
Pier 39 settlement: the opt-out decision
The San Francisco Superior Court has preliminarily approved a $640,000 settlement of wage and hour claims brought on behalf of nonexempt, hourly employees of Pier 39, LP in California. Pier 39 denies all of the allegations and denies violating any law. Workers who do nothing stay in the class, receive a check without filing a claim form, and release the class claims. A worker who wants to keep an individual claim has to send a signed request for exclusion, postmarked or emailed by October 29, 2026. The PAGA portion cannot be opted out of. Whether the trade is worth making depends on your own pay records, which is what a review before the deadline is for.
What the record shows →
Settlement preliminarily approved
Scale AI settlement: the opt-out decision
The San Francisco Superior Court has preliminarily approved a $12,500,000 settlement of wage and misclassification claims brought on behalf of California workers who performed contributor work for Scale AI or Smart Ecosystem, including workers placed by HireArt and workers who knew the work through the Outlier or Remotasks platforms. Defendants strongly deny violating any law. Workers who do nothing stay in the class and release the class claims. A worker who wants to keep an individual claim has to send a signed exclusion request to the settlement administrator by September 3, 2026, and the notice says no one else can do it for them. Whether that trade is worth making depends on your own pay records, which is what a review before the deadline is for.
What the record shows →
27 days' notice on record
Cisco Systems June 2026 WARN filings
EDD records show Cisco's June 2026 WARN filings for San Jose and Milpitas left 27 days between the notice date and the effective date. California law requires 60 days of notice before a mass layoff, with almost no exceptions.
What the record shows →
Lawsuit filed
SKIMS wage and hour class action
A proposed wage and hour class action was filed against SKIMS Retail LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court in May 2026, alleging unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed expenses, and untimely final pay. SKIMS has denied the allegations.
What the record shows →
46 days' notice on record
Meta Platforms May 2026 WARN filing
EDD records show Meta's May 2026 San Francisco WARN filing left 46 days between the notice date and the effective date, against the 60 days California requires. It is one of 21 Meta filings in the state since late 2025.
What the record shows →
Got a settlement notice?
Should you opt out of a class action settlement?
A class settlement notice gives you three choices and one deadline. Staying in pays you a share of the fund and releases the covered claims, including claims the case never pleaded. Opting out keeps your own claim and forfeits the payment. PAGA penalties cannot be opted out of at all, because they belong to the state. The notice in your hand sets the procedure, and the court sets the date.
What each choice means under California law →The claims California workers bring together
Most employee class actions are wage cases, because pay practices apply to everyone at once. Here is each claim type, what the law requires, and what workers may recover.
Unpaid overtime and minimum wage
A wage class action recovers unpaid overtime or below-minimum wages for a group of workers subjected to the same pay practice. California requires overtime after 8 hours in a day, not just 40 in a week.
California Labor Code section 510 requires time and a half after 8 hours in a workday and double time after 12. Federal law only counts the 40-hour week. That daily rule is the single most common source of California wage class actions, because a payroll system configured for federal rules underpays every affected worker the same way, every pay period.
The same-mistake-for-everyone pattern is what makes these cases work as class actions. The California Supreme Court held in Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319 that workers with a common claim can proceed together even though each person's damages differ.
Labor Code section 1194 gives you a private right of action for unpaid minimum wage and overtime, with interest and attorney fees. For minimum wage violations, section 1194.2 can double the recovery through liquidated damages unless the employer proves it acted in good faith.
What workers may recover: Depending on the facts, workers may recover the unpaid wages themselves, interest, liquidated damages on minimum wage claims under Labor Code section 1194.2, and attorney fees under section 1194. Waiting time penalties under section 203 can add up to 30 days of wages for workers who already left.
Wage and hour practiceOvertime calculatorBack pay calculator
Meal and rest break violations
A break class action recovers premium pay for workers denied the off-duty meal or rest periods California requires. The remedy is one extra hour of pay for each day a break was not provided.
Labor Code section 512 requires a 30-minute off-duty meal period before the end of your fifth hour of work, and section 226.7 requires one additional hour of pay at your regular rate for each workday a required meal or rest period was not provided. The California Supreme Court defined the employer's duty in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. Your employer must relieve you of all duty for the full period. It does not have to police what you do with the time.
Brinker also confirmed the class-action point. When a company applies one break policy to everyone, whether that policy is lawful is a question a court can answer once, for the whole group. Understaffed shifts, auto-deducted lunches you actually worked through, and on-duty meal agreements workers never truly consented to are the patterns we see most.
What workers may recover: One additional hour of pay at the regular rate for each workday a meal or rest period was not provided, going back as far as the limitations period allows, plus derivative penalties where the premiums never showed up on wage statements or final paychecks.
Wage and hour practiceMeal and rest penalty calculatorWaiting time penalty calculator
Wage statement and final pay violations
These claims attach statutory penalties to paperwork and timing failures. Inaccurate pay stubs violate Labor Code section 226, and a late final paycheck triggers waiting time penalties of up to 30 days of wages under section 203.
Labor Code section 226 requires nine specific items on every wage statement, including total hours and every applicable rate. A knowing and intentional failure carries penalties of $50 for the first pay period and $100 for each one after, up to $4,000 per employee, plus attorney fees.
Section 203 is the one workers feel directly. If an employer willfully fails to pay everything owed when you are fired or quit, your wages continue as a penalty for up to 30 days. In a layoff, that failure usually hits everyone on the same schedule, which is why these claims travel with layoff and break cases rather than alone.
That said, these are rarely the lead claim anymore. The 2024 PAGA reforms let employers cure wage statement defects after receiving notice, so the strongest cases pair them with the underlying wage violation instead of standing on the paperwork alone.
What workers may recover: Statutory penalties up to $4,000 per employee for wage statement violations, up to 30 days of continued wages per worker for willful late final pay, and attorney fees. Exact exposure depends on how many pay periods and workers the practice touched.
Independent contractor misclassification
Misclassification class actions recover everything employee status would have provided for workers labeled contractors. Under California's ABC test, you are an employee unless the company proves all three prongs, including that your work is outside its usual business.
Labor Code section 2775 codifies the ABC test from Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. The company must prove you were free from its control, doing work outside its usual course of business, and running an independently established trade. Fail any one prong and you were an employee all along.
The B prong decides most cases. A delivery company calling its drivers contractors is the classic example, because driving is the business. And because classification is a company-level decision applied to everyone with the same contract, a single prong can support certification for the whole group, as in Salinas v. Cornwell Quality Tools (C.D. Cal. 2022).
When misclassification is established, every employee protection the label denied comes due at once. Overtime, minimum wage, break premiums, expense reimbursement under section 2802, and wage statement penalties all flow from the reclassification.
What workers may recover: The full stack of employee entitlements for the class period. That can include unpaid overtime and minimum wages, meal and rest premiums, reimbursement of work expenses such as mileage and equipment under Labor Code section 2802, wage statement penalties, and attorney fees.
PAGA representative actions
PAGA, the Private Attorneys General Act, lets one aggrieved employee sue for Labor Code civil penalties on behalf of the state and other workers. No class certification is required, and 35 percent of penalties go to the affected employees.
Labor Code sections 2698 through 2699.3 deputize workers to enforce the Labor Code when the state cannot. You file notice with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency first, and if the agency does not act, you may sue for civil penalties on behalf of every affected employee. Penalties split 65 percent to the state and 35 percent to workers.
PAGA matters most when an arbitration agreement blocks a class action. Courts can send your individual claims to arbitration, but the California Supreme Court held in Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 that you keep standing to pursue penalties for other workers in court. This area of law is moving, with more change likely, so how it applies to any one agreement is a conversation rather than a rule of thumb.
The Legislature reformed PAGA in 2024. Employers can now cure a broader range of violations after notice, and courts gained discretion over penalty amounts and case manageability. The reforms reward early, well-built cases and punish boilerplate ones.
What workers may recover: Civil penalties per employee per pay period, with 35 percent distributed to affected workers, plus attorney fees. Penalty amounts depend on the violations, the period, and the court's discretion under the 2024 reforms.
Mass layoff and WARN Act claims
WARN class actions recover up to 60 days of pay and benefits for workers laid off without the 60 days of written notice California requires. The California WARN Act's only exception is a physical calamity or act of war.
Labor Code sections 1400 through 1408 require covered employers to give 60 days of advance written notice before a mass layoff, relocation, or termination. California's version reaches smaller employers than federal law and allows almost no excuses. The Legislature deliberately declined the federal unforeseeable business circumstances exception, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in the NASSCO case (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1105.
Section 1402 makes an employer that skips the notice liable to each worker for back pay and benefits for each day of the violation, up to 60 days. Section 1404 authorizes class actions and fee awards, which is why WARN claims are usually brought for the whole layoff at once. Wages you earn at a new job during the notice window do not reduce what the old employer owes.
We track every California WARN filing and the gap each employer left between notice and the last day. If your employer appears in our layoff tracker with a short gap, that is a fact worth a conversation.
What workers may recover: Up to 60 days of back pay at your average or final rate, whichever is higher, plus the value of lost benefits including medical coverage, capped at half the days you were employed if shorter, plus attorney fees under Labor Code section 1404.
California layoff trackerWARN Act rights guideBack pay calculator
Discrimination class actions
Discrimination class actions challenge a company-wide policy or practice that harms workers who share a protected characteristic. They are harder to certify than wage cases and turn on proof of a common policy.
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12940, bars discrimination based on race, sex, age, disability, and other protected characteristics, and it reaches employers federal law misses. FEHA also has no cap on compensatory or punitive damages, where federal law caps both.
The honest caveat is certification. Since Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes (2011) 564 U.S. 338, courts require significant proof of a general policy of discrimination before letting a class proceed. Individual discrimination cases remain the far more common path, and a strong individual case is often worth more to you than a weak class one. If what happened to you was personal rather than policy, start with our discrimination practice instead.
What workers may recover: Back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees under FEHA, without the federal damage caps. What a class can recover depends on the policy proven and the group it touched.
Harassment and discrimination practiceWrongful termination practice