Grocery Delivery Wage Class Action Settles for $945K
Table of Contents
Case Background
A legal battle over wage and hour practices, which had spanned several years, reached its conclusion in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The matter, Case No. 20CV361771, centered on allegations that a major grocery delivery service and its associated business services partner systematically failed to comply with state and federal labor laws concerning the compensation of their workers.
Cause
The core of the dispute originated from the employment practices of the Defendants toward their drivers, dispatchers, and other similarly situated workers. The Plaintiff, Jennifer Geierman, acting on behalf of herself and a proposed class of former and current employees, brought the action. She contended that the company had structured its operations in a way that resulted in widespread labor violations.
Injury
The alleged injuries focused on financial losses suffered by employees due to these non-compliant wage practices. This included not only unpaid wages but also statutory penalties designed to punish such violations. The Plaintiff contended that workers were routinely denied meal and rest breaks, had their working time inaccurately recorded, and did not receive proper pay statements or timely payment of final wages upon termination. These actions, the Plaintiff argued, deprived the employees of legally mandated compensation and benefits.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought a comprehensive array of financial and injunctive remedies. The complaint specifically requested recovery of unpaid wages, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, and statutory and civil penalties. They also sought declaratory relief to compel the Defendants to change their business practices moving forward, along with pre-judgment interest, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The total financial demand for the proposed class and penalties extended into the millions of dollars.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The proceedings established a framework for assessing the Defendants’ liability under California labor law. The Plaintiff's counsel worked to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that was not only unfair but also unlawful concerning employee classification and pay procedures.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jennifer Geierman, on behalf of herself and the Class
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Shaun Setareh | William M. Pao | Alex McIntosh | Nolan E Dilts | Brian Louis
Defendant(s): Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, INC | Insperity Business Services, L.P.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Derek Stanley Sachs | Joseph Richard Lordan | Mark Jarrod Jacobs
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Counsel for the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant companies consistently structured work schedules and payment systems that favored corporate efficiency over employee rights. They emphasized that time records showed numerous instances where employees worked through meal or rest periods without proper compensation, effectively extending their workday without receiving premium pay. A central argument involved the use of technology and internal policies that allegedly discouraged or actively prevented employees from accurately reporting all time worked, especially off-the-clock duties. Plaintiff's counsel had argued that this conduct constituted unfair business practices and directly violated various sections of the California Labor Code.
Defense
The defense team consistently countered the claims by arguing that their internal policies complied with all applicable laws. They maintained that the company provided the opportunity for meal and rest breaks, and it was the individual employees’ choice if they elected to work through them or did not record them correctly. Furthermore, the defense argued that the employment structure and classification of certain workers were appropriate for the fast-paced, modern logistics industry. They contended that the company’s efforts to ensure compliance were reasonable and that the Plaintiff had overstated the scale and severity of any potential labor infractions.
Settlement
Following extensive discovery and contentious pretrial motion practice, the parties engaged in mediated negotiations to resolve the class action claims before proceeding to a full jury trial. On Late 2025, the Court formally announced that the parties had reached a full and final settlement, thereby avoiding the time and expense of litigation.
The settlement provided significant financial compensation to the employees affected by the alleged wage and hour violations. The Defendants agreed to pay a total settlement fund of $945,391. This money covered all claims for unpaid wages, statutory penalties, and other monetary relief for the class members, as well as the fees and costs associated with the extensive legal proceedings.
The resolution also included provisions for mandatory changes to the company’s wage and hour practices, including clear communication policies regarding meal and rest breaks, updated timekeeping systems, and a commitment to ensuring accurate and timely wage statements in the future. The Court had previously certified the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, paving the way for the distribution of funds to the thousands of current and former employees who were members of the class. This conclusion brought closure to a significant employment dispute that highlighted the ongoing challenges of ensuring labor compliance in the rapidly evolving gig economy sector.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com