Matthews v. Lusk Quality Machine: $365K Wage Theft Settlement
Table of Contents
Case Background
Daniel Matthews, a former non-exempt employee at Lusk Quality Machine Products, filed a class action lawsuit against the California-based manufacturer in May 2022. The complaint alleged widespread violations of California labor laws affecting Matthews and similarly situated current and former employees.
The Cause
Matthews worked at Lusk Quality Machine Products from June 2019 to February 2021. The company manufactures CNC turning and screw machining custom parts. According to the complaint, the Defendant engaged in systematic labor violations that affected all non-exempt hourly workers at the facility.
The Plaintiff claimed the company required employees to work off the clock during meal breaks, before shifts started, and after shifts ended. Workers allegedly performed unpaid tasks including donning and doffing mandatory protective equipment such as oil-resistant shoes, uniforms, safety glasses, gloves, face masks, and ear plugs. The complaint also stated employees waited in line for COVID-19 temperature screenings before clocking in, time for which they received no compensation.
The Injury
Matthews and class members suffered financial harm through unpaid wages, missed meal and rest periods, and inaccurate wage statements. The complaint described how the company's timekeeping system allowed managers to alter employee time records and insert fictitious thirty-minute meal breaks when workers never received actual breaks.
Workers faced demanding schedules that prevented them from taking legally required meal periods of thirty minutes for every five hours worked. Employees who worked more than ten hours often did not receive their second meal break. Rest periods of ten minutes for every four hours worked were also denied. When breaks occurred, workers allegedly remained on call and could not leave the premises.
The Plaintiff further claimed the company underpaid sick pay by calculating it at base rates rather than the regular rate of pay, which should include incentives, shift differentials, and bonuses. Employees also used personal cell phones for work tasks and purchased their own uniforms without reimbursement.
Damages Sought
The complaint sought unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, meal and rest period premiums of one hour of pay for each violation, accurate wage statements, expense reimbursement, waiting time penalties for terminated employees, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The aggregate claim for class members remained under five million dollars.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Daniel Matthews, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Nicole Barvié
Defendant: Lusk Quality Machine Products | Does 1-50
· Counsel for Defendant: Jamie L. Gross | Eheart Steven Douglas
Claims Presented
The lawsuit presented nine causes of action against the Defendant.
Unfair Competition Claim
The first cause of action alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Matthews argued the company's practices constituted unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business conduct that gave Lusk an unfair competitive advantage over employers who followed the law.
Minimum Wage and Overtime Violations
The second and third causes of action addressed failures to pay minimum wages under Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1, and failures to pay overtime under Sections 204, 510, 1194, and 1198. The company allegedly did not compensate employees for all hours worked, including time before and after shifts and during meal breaks when employees continued working.
Meal and Rest Period Violations
The fourth and fifth causes of action targeted the company's meal and rest period practices under Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512. The complaint detailed how rigorous work schedules prevented employees from receiving uninterrupted thirty-minute meals and ten-minute rest breaks. When employees missed these breaks, the company allegedly failed to pay the required one-hour premium.
Wage Statement and Expense Reimbursement Claims
The sixth cause of action alleged the Defendant provided inaccurate itemized wage statements that did not show correct gross wages, hours worked, or applicable pay rates as required by Labor Code Section 226. The seventh cause of action claimed the company violated Labor Code Section 2802 by not reimbursing employees for business expenses including uniform costs and personal cell phone use for work purposes.
Final Pay and PAGA Claims
The eighth cause of action addressed the Defendant's alleged failure to pay all wages due upon termination under Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203. The ninth cause of action brought claims under the Private Attorneys General Act, seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for all alleged Labor Code violations.
Defense Position
The Defendant contested the allegations throughout the proceedings. Defense counsel argued the company maintained lawful employment practices and proper timekeeping procedures.
Procedural History
Matthews filed a notice with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on February 4, 2022, as required to pursue PAGA claims. After the statutory waiting period expired, the Plaintiff filed the class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 9, 2022. The case was assigned to Judge Kenneth Freeman at the Spring Street Courthouse.
The complaint defined two classes. The California Class included all non-exempt employees from four years before the filing date. The California Labor Sub-Class covered non-exempt employees from three years before filing for the direct Labor Code violation claims.
Settlement Resolution
The parties reached a settlement agreement that resolved all claims in the lawsuit. Lusk Quality Machine Products agreed to pay $365,000 to settle the class action.
The settlement amount covered compensation for the class members, including unpaid wages, meal and rest period premiums, wage statement penalties, expense reimbursement, and waiting time penalties for employees who left the company. A portion of the settlement also addressed the PAGA claims, with the required seventy-five percent of civil penalties designated for the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the remaining twenty-five percent distributed to aggrieved employees.
Class members who worked at the company during the relevant time periods became eligible to receive their share of the net settlement fund based on the number of pay periods they worked. The settlement resolved all nine causes of action and released the Defendant from further liability related to the alleged violations.
This resolution allowed both parties to avoid the uncertainty and expense of continued litigation while providing compensation to affected workers for the alleged labor law violations during their employment at the manufacturing facility.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com