California Anheuser-Busch $2.75M Wage and Hour Settlement

Case Background

Carlos Lira initiated this class action lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch, LLC, on September 1, 2023. Lira worked for the company as a non-exempt employee from approximately October 2018 to May 2023, holding roles such as Organizer and Beer Cook. He filed the complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, representing himself and a class of current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the company in California.

The lawsuit centered on allegations that Anheuser-Busch had systematically underpaid its hourly workforce by failing to follow California’s strict wage and hour laws. Specifically, the company operated payroll systems that did not properly calculate the "regular rate of pay" when employees earned extra money, like sales incentives, on top of their base hourly wages. Because the company calculated overtime and sick pay using only the base hourly rate, it left workers short on their total earnings.

Cause

The primary cause of the legal dispute was Anheuser-Busch's policy and practice regarding non-discretionary remuneration. While the company paid employees sales incentives and other bonuses, it excluded these payments when calculating the "regular rate of pay" used for overtime, sick leave, and meal or rest period premiums. Furthermore, the company allegedly failed to monitor off-the-clock work, such as security screenings and pre-work activities, which led to unpaid minimum wages and overtime.

Injury

Plaintiff and the class members suffered financial losses in the form of unpaid wages. These injuries included underpaid overtime hours, underpaid sick leave, and missing premiums for meal and rest periods that the company either did not provide or auto-deducted from paychecks. Additionally, the workers received inaccurate wage statements that failed to show the correct hourly rates or the total hours worked, making it difficult for them to verify if they were paid correctly.

Damages Sought

Plaintiff sought to recover all underpaid wages and restitution for the class. The legal demands included liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages, statutory penalties for inaccurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties for employees who did not receive their full final pay upon leaving the company. Plaintiff also requested interest on all unpaid amounts, as well as the recovery of attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The case moved through the Court as a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and as a class action. Plaintiff argued that the company’s payroll administration systems enabled company-wide violations. By failing to include sales incentives in the regular rate calculation, the company consistently violated the California Labor Code.

Anheuser-Busch eventually entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the claims without a trial. On May 31, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes. The final hearing took place on October 11, 2024, where the Court evaluated whether the settlement was fair and reasonable for the workers involved.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Carlos Lira and the Settlement Class.

· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Nicholas J. Ferraro | Lauren N. Vega

Defendant(s): Anheuser-Busch, LLC.

· Counsel for Defendant(s):

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the settlement represented a significant recovery given the risks of litigation. They emphasized that the regular rate of pay must encompass all non-discretionary payments, a point supported by California Supreme Court precedent. Defense counsel participated in arm's-length negotiations and mediation to reach a resolution that avoided the uncertainty of a trial.

Claims

The lawsuit included several distinct legal claims under the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code:

Failure to Pay All Wages Plaintiff alleged the company failed to pay the legal minimum wage for all hours worked and failed to compensate overtime hours at the correct "regular rate of pay".

Meal and Rest Period Violations The complaint stated that Anheuser-Busch did not consistently provide duty-free 30-minute meal breaks or 10-minute rest breaks. When these breaks were missed, the company allegedly failed to pay the required premium of one additional hour of pay at the worker's regular rate.

Paid Sick Leave and Wage Statement Violations The company allegedly paid sick leave at the base hourly rate instead of the higher regular rate. Additionally, the wage statements provided to employees did not accurately list the gross wages, net wages, or the correct hourly rates for overtime and sick leave.

Waiting Time Penalties and Unfair Competition For employees who left the company, Anheuser-Busch reportedly failed to pay all earned wages immediately upon termination or within 72 hours of quitting. These actions were also characterized as unfair business practices that gave the company an unlawful advantage over law-abiding competitors.

Defense

While the motion for final approval was unopposed, the Court record indicates that the settlement was reached after the parties considered risks relating to class certification, liability, and the calculation of potential damages. The company did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the agreement.

Settlement

The Court did not reach a jury verdict because the parties settled the case. Judge Matthew C. Braner signed the Final Approval Order and Judgment on October 18, 2024, and the clerk filed it on November 18, 2024.

The Court approved a Gross Settlement Amount of $2,750,000. This amount covered the payments to the class members, as well as the following Court-approved allocations:

Attorneys' Fees: $916,666.67 (representing one-third of the total fund).
Litigation Costs: $21,567.31.
PAGA Payment: $100,000 total, with $75,000 paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
Service Award: $10,000 to the class representative, Carlos Lira.
Administration Costs: $28,000 to the settlement administrator.

Upon the company funding the settlement, it received a release from all claims that occurred during the designated class period. The Court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate for all parties involved.

Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]

Gas Mechanic Wins No Relief in Con Ed Discrimination Trial

Trevor Burke, an African-American gas troubleshooter mechanic, filed a lawsuit against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., alleging race and disability discrimination under federal, state, and local laws. After a multi-vehicle workplace accident in September 2020 left him with severe heart and knee injuries, Mr. Burke underwent emergency open-heart surgery and was placed on an extended medical leave. Under the governing collective bargaining agreement, protected disability leave was capped at one year, making September 9, 2021, his final deadline to return to work. Although cleared by his personal physician with a 25-pound lifting restriction, and initially cleared by a Con Edison doctor with a 20-pound restriction, Mr. Burke received conflicting instructions from operations management on the final day of his leave. Later that same afternoon, his union representative informed him that Con Edison had terminated his employment. Mr. Burke alleged that the company bypassed the mandatory interactive accommodation process and refused to reassign him to open light-duty roles. He also raised a claim of disparate treatment, pointing to a white comparator with a severe cardiac condition whom Con Edison accommodated with light-duty tasks, a partner, and a driver. Con Edison denied all allegations, arguing that a 50-pound lifting capacity was an essential requirement for the mechanic position and that no alternative vacancies were available. Following a full trial, a federal jury returned a complete defense verdict, clearing Con Edison of all liability.