A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Who is entitled to overtime pay in California?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Gone are the days when factory workers are forced to work 10, 12 or more hours a day or risk losing their jobs. Most modern full-time jobs operate by the standard 40-hour work week, in which employees work eight hours a day, five days a week.

Beyond that is overtime. In California, employers must pay their workers who go beyond 40 hours in a workweek time and a half, or 150 percent of his or her regular rate of pay, for overtime hours. This is supposed to limit employers’ reliance on requiring people to work overtime, and also give workers a chance to earn extra money if they want it.

The law does create loopholes for employers by dividing employees into “nonexempt” and “exempt” status. Exempt workers are not covered by standard overtime laws. Examples include some professional drivers, cabs drivers, some airline employees and professional actors. In addition, there are exceptions which can result in nonexempt workers not being entitled to time-and-a-half, the California Department of Industrial Relations reports.

Unfortunately, even those workers who have the legal right to overtime pay do not always get what they have coming to them. Some employers claim that nonexempt workers are exempt, or that their workers are subject to an exception. Or they may simply fail to include overtime pay in employees’ paychecks.

At some point, workers may have no recourse other than to sue to get the income they earned. A successful lawsuit over wages may include the employer having to pay lawyer’s fees and court costs, and hopefully teach the employer to respect the law from then on.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.