Pinkerton Settles $1.35M Wage Class Action in California

Case Background

A major labor lawsuit against the international security and risk management firm, Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations Inc., concluded in February 2025 with a Court-approved settlement. The case, which two former employees, Mario Arredondo Jr. and Miguel Rivera, originally filed, focused on wide-ranging allegations that the company had systematically failed to pay its hourly security and investigations staff correctly under California's strict labor laws. Filed in the San Diego Superior Court, the action brought claims both as a class action on behalf of all affected employees and as a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Cause

The Plaintiffs asserted that the cause of their legal action stemmed directly from Pinkerton’s company-wide labor and payroll practices. They claimed the company designed and implemented systems that consistently prevented non-exempt, hourly employees from receiving their full legal compensation. This was not a claim of isolated errors; rather, the lawsuit alleged that the violations were uniform and widespread, impacting all hourly workers across the state.

Injury

The harm, or injury, to the employees was purely financial. The Plaintiffs and the rest of the class members claimed they had suffered measurable economic losses because the company did not pay them for all hours worked, including overtime, and failed to compensate them for legally mandated breaks they either missed or took late. This conduct effectively lowered their hourly rate, leading to accumulated unpaid wages. They also sought compensation for statutory penalties that state law imposes on companies for failing to issue accurate pay records or providing late final paychecks to workers who left the company.

Damages Sought

The complaint demanded that the Court order Pinkerton to pay substantial damages to rectify the alleged violations. The key financial demands included recovering all unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay that the employees had earned. Beyond actual wages, the Plaintiffs sought premium pay for every meal and rest break the company had failed to provide or permitted late. Crucially, they also asked for civil penalties under PAGA and the California Labor Code, designed to punish violations and enforce compliance. Lastly, the Plaintiffs requested restitution of the money the company had supposedly saved by underpaying its workforce, along with all attorneys' fees and litigation costs they had incurred throughout the demanding lawsuit.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit began on June 27, 2022, when Arredondo and Rivera filed their complaint in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The case quickly moved through the initial legal hurdles, requiring the parties to analyze extensive employee data and company policies to determine the scope of the alleged labor violations. The parties ultimately reached a settlement agreement before a jury trial began, deciding that a definitive resolution was preferable to the costs and risks of continued litigation.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Mario Arredondo Jr. | Miguel Rivera

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Graham S.P. Hollis | Vilmarie Cordero | Hali M. Anderson | Nathan J. Reese | Allison E. Schubert

Defendant(s): Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Hieu T Williams | Michelle C Freeman

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The legal battle centered on interpreting and applying the rigorous standards of the California Labor Code to Pinkerton’s daily operations. The Plaintiffs’ arguments consistently maintained that the company’s policies had caused widespread, systematic failure to protect its non-exempt employees.

Claims

The Plaintiffs raised numerous claims, which they grouped into three main categories of labor code violations:

Violations Pertaining to Pay Frequency and Wage Statements The complaint alleged that Pinkerton did not always pay its employees at the legally required times during their employment, constituting a violation of payday rules. A more significant claim asserted that the company had repeatedly failed to give employees accurate and complete wage statements, or "pay stubs," which state law requires to clearly detail all earnings, deductions, and hours worked. The lawsuit sought financial penalties for every instance an employee received a non-compliant pay stub.

Violations Pertaining to Working Hours and Overtime Pay The Plaintiffs contended that Pinkerton had failed to accurately record all time that employees worked. This alleged failure included not recording short periods of work time and demanding work "off the clock," resulting in the company failing to pay both the minimum wage and the statutory overtime premium rates for all hours worked over eight hours a day or forty hours a week. The lawsuit sought to recover these underpayments for the entire class.

Violations Pertaining to Meal and Rest Periods A central and highly compensated issue in California employment law, the complaint asserted that Pinkerton did not consistently authorize and permit its hourly workers to take their required meal and rest breaks. State law mandates a paid ten-minute rest period for every four hours worked and an uninterrupted thirty-minute meal period for every five hours worked. The lawsuit claimed that the company’s schedules and practices had forced employees to forgo or cut short these breaks, triggering a requirement for the company to pay an extra hour of premium wages for each missed break.

Defense

Pinkerton’s legal team formally denied all the Plaintiffs’ allegations. The company took the position that it had always intended to comply with California labor law and had comprehensive policies in place to ensure compliance. The defense argued that if any violations did occur, they were isolated incidents and not the result of a deliberate, systematic failure. They also asserted that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring many of the claims and that any damages should be offset by any amount the company might have already paid.

Settlement

In a final resolution that concluded the two-and-a-half-year legal fight, the Honorable Gregory W. Pollack of the San Diego Superior Court formally approved a class action settlement on February 14, 2025. Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations Inc. agreed to pay a total of $1,350,000 to resolve all wage, hour, and penalty claims. This settlement money provided financial relief to the approximately 85 aggrieved employees included in the class. The amount covered the payments to the class members for their alleged lost wages and statutory penalties, funded the administrative costs of distributing the settlement, and accounted for the attorneys' fees and costs the Plaintiffs' counsel incurred. The Court’s approval finalized the agreement, ending the high-stakes class action and PAGA litigation.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com