Case Background
The legal action originated on October 12, 2022, when Damien Hendricks filed a class action lawsuit against his employer, BGDS LLC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Mr. Hendricks brought the suit not only for himself but also on behalf of hundreds of other current and former hourly employees who had worked for the company across California.
The core of the dispute centered on the Defendant’s alleged systematic failure to follow California’s stringent laws governing hourly compensation. The employees claimed the company’s internal operations and policies forced them to work off-the-clock and denied them their required meal and rest breaks, creating a widespread pattern of labor code violations that had spanned several years.
Cause
The Plaintiffs asserted that BGDS LLC had violated several sections of the California Labor Code. They contended that the company had implemented operational demands and scheduling practices that effectively pressured or required employees to forego legally mandated time off. Specifically, the employees alleged that the pressure to complete work before the end of a shift, or to remain available during breaks, meant they routinely missed or took interrupted meal and rest periods. This led to multiple, cumulative violations over the class period, forming the basis for the subsequent premium pay and penalty claims.
Injury
The employees suffered multiple financial injuries. The main damage involved the loss of premium wages, which the law requires employers to pay when a worker misses a required meal or rest break. Additionally, Plaintiffs sought compensation for overtime hours they claimed they had worked but for which the company never issued proper payment. A further injury involved waiting time penalties, accruing from the date employees left the company without receiving all final wages due, and they claimed that the company failed to furnish accurate itemized pay stubs detailing their earned wages and hours.
Damages Sought
Mr. Hendricks and the class of affected employees demanded full restitution for all unpaid overtime wages and premium payments they had lost over the years. They sought payment for all statutory penalties, including the significant waiting time penalties imposed when an employer does not promptly pay a separated employee. Finally, the lawsuit asked the Court to award the employees pre-judgment interest on all owed amounts, ensuring they received full economic compensation. The Plaintiffs also sought recovery of all legal costs and attorneys’ fees they had incurred fighting the company.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation quickly progressed toward the critical stage of class certification, where the Court determines if the entire group of workers shares sufficiently common claims to proceed as a single lawsuit. In the meantime, the legal teams initiated the discovery phase, exchanging evidence and preparing their arguments. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys collected payroll records, time clock data, and internal emails that they argued proved the violations were a common, recurring feature of the work environment. The defense, in contrast, focused on its official, written policies, asserting that they had met all legal requirements and that any deviation was an employee’s individual choice rather than a company-mandated practice.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Damien Hendricks
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Douglas Han | Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh | Chancellor D. Nobles
Defendant(s): BGDS LLC, a California limited liability company.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Christopher F. Wohl | Kevin S. Sran
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Meal and Rest Period Violations
Counsel for the employees built their case around the concept of "functional denial." They argued that while the company's employee handbook may have mentioned breaks, the demanding pace of the work and the inadequate staffing levels meant that hourly workers could not, in reality, take a full thirty-minute meal period or a ten-minute rest period without constant interruption or the fear of disciplinary action. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers had contended that this operational reality amounted to the company actively denying the breaks, making it liable for premium pay for every single violation.
Unpaid Overtime and Record Keeping Failures
The Plaintiffs’ team also pursued penalties related to unpaid working time. They asserted that company policies often required employees to perform pre-shift or post-shift duties—such as logging into software or cleaning up work areas—while clocked out, leading to unpaid overtime. They coupled this with the claim that the resulting pay stubs did not accurately record the total number of hours worked or the applicable rates of pay, thereby creating independent violations of the state's stringent record-keeping requirements.
Defense
Defense counsel for BGDS LLC firmly maintained a general denial of the central allegations. They asserted that the company had provided written policies that fully complied with California wage and hour laws, explicitly granting all employees the right to take their breaks. They argued that the company had a clear procedure for employees to report any missed or interrupted breaks and that the employees had failed to utilize these mechanisms. The defense position held that the company bore no legal responsibility for breaks an employee may have voluntarily chosen to skip.
Settlement
As the litigation matured and both sides completed significant evidence exchanges, the mounting costs and the uncertainty of a jury trial encouraged a resolution. The parties engaged in intense mediation discussions to find a middle ground that would avoid further litigation expense and risk. After protracted negotiations, the Defendant, BGDS LLC, agreed to settle the class action. The company agreed to pay a total of $350,000 to resolve all claims asserted by Mr. Hendricks and the class of current and former employees. This settlement amount covered the claimed unpaid wages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. The final payment brought a comprehensive end to the wage and hour dispute, ensuring that the affected employees received compensation for the alleged past labor violations and officially closing the chapter on the Sacramento County lawsuit.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
