Skincare Brand Settles $8M Worker Misclassification Lawsuit

Case Background

Rodan + Fields, a major skincare brand founded by dermatologists Dr. Katie Rodan and Dr. Kathy Fields, built a massive empire by utilizing a workforce of "Independent Consultants" to market its products online. Starting in 2007, the company moved away from department store sales and shifted entirely to an online model that relied on these consultants to drive brand awareness and handle sales via social media. By 2018, the company reached a $4 billion valuation with over 411,000 consultants. However, beneath this success, a legal battle brewed regarding how the company treated these workers.

Lauren Dann, a former consultant, led a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company had spent years exploiting its California salesforce. The lawsuit claimed that while Rodan + Fields called these workers "independent contractors," it actually treated them like employees—exerting strict control over their work while failing to provide basic labor protections like minimum wage or expense reimbursements.

Cause

The primary cause of the legal action was the alleged misclassification of workers under California law. The Plaintiffs argued that under the state’s "ABC Test," which determines employment status, the consultants were legally employees. They claimed the company willfully ignored these legal standards to secure hundreds of thousands of hours of free or below-market labor.

Injury

The consultants suffered financial losses because they performed extensive marketing, training, and customer service work without receiving a base salary. Many consultants earned virtually nothing; in 2022, roughly 33% did not receive a single commission check. Furthermore, workers had to pay a monthly fee of $24.95 just to access the company's sales tools, and they frequently incurred personal expenses for marketing materials that the company never reimbursed.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and reimbursement for business expenses. They also requested penalties for the company’s failure to provide accurate wage statements, meal and rest periods, and timely final paychecks upon termination.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The legal proceedings focused on the level of "pervasive control" Rodan + Fields exercised over its consultants. The Plaintiffs highlighted a 100-page "Policies and Procedures" manual that dictated exactly how consultants had to market products, what they could say on social media, and how they had to handle customers.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Lauren Dann, Kathryn Cude, and Mary Yoon represented the class of consultants.

· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Glenn A. Danas | Kristen Simplicio | Maxim Gorbunov | Andrea Gold | Shana Khader

Defendant(s): The Rodan + Fields Company, its LLC, and several top executives, including the founders and CEO Dimitri Haloulos.

· Counsel for Defendant(s): David Carroll | Eric M. George | Christopher T. Berg

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

The Plaintiffs argued that selling skincare products was the "usual course of business" for Rodan + Fields, and since the consultants performed this exact task, they could not be independent contractors. They contended that the company’s modern online model did not qualify for the "direct sales" exemption, which was originally intended for door-to-door or "Tupperware party" style sales. Counsel emphasized that because the company controlled the websites, set the prices, and fulfilled the orders, the consultants were merely a low-cost, uncompensated marketing arm.

Defense

Rodan + Fields maintained that their consultants were independent entrepreneurs who chose to build their own businesses. They argued that the flexibility of the role and the commission-based pay structure aligned with independent contractor status. The defense sought to protect the multi-level marketing (MLM) business model, claiming it provided legitimate opportunities for "brand ambassadors" to earn income through commissions

Settlement

This is the final approval order in Dann v. The Rodan + Fields Company, et al. (San Francisco County Superior Court, a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA case brought by former Rodan + Fields Consultants Lauren Dann, Kathryn Cude, and Mary Yoon. The Plaintiffs alleged that Rodan + Fields misclassified its California Consultants as independent contractors rather than employees, and as a result failed to pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, furnish accurate wage statements, and timely pay wages, among other California Labor Code violations. They also asserted civil penalty claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). On December 23, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. Ross granted final approval of the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Under the settlement, Rodan + Fields agreed to pay a non-reversionary Maximum Settlement Amount of $8,000,000 to resolve the claims of two certified classes: a Settlement Class covering all California Consultants classified as independent contractors from March 1, 2020 through June 20, 2025, and a narrower PAGA Aggrieved Employees class covering the period from March 1, 2023 through June 20, 2025. From that fund, the Court approved deductions for attorney's fees, litigation costs, settlement administration expenses to Verita Global LLC, PAGA penalties (allocated between the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and PAGA claimants), and service awards to the named Plaintiffs and other contributing individuals.

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.