Here are some of the major employment law and unpaid wage announcements and settlements for October, November, and December 2025. 

In October 2025, the California Attorney General’s Office announced a $10 million judgement for workers misclassified as independent contractors in California.  Over in New Jersey, state officials are alleging that Amazon also has an issue with improper classification of employees, claiming Amazon has delivery drivers classified as independent contractors that should be receiving normal wages and benefits as employees.   

In November 2025, the NCAA agreed to settle a class action regarding more than 7,000 volunteer college coaches alleging wage fixing for $303 million.  Also in November, the nations largest coffee chain announced a $39M New York city labor settlement for allegations of local rules between 2021 and 2024. The D.C. Attorney General also announced $725,000 for a construction company allegedly failing to pay “prevailing wages”. 

Beyond misclassification, California has also recently worked to generate settlements for workers for a broad variety of issues:  No-poach agreements where companies collude to not hire each other workers and suppress wages and salaries, worker loan repayments, and additional misclassification by employers.   

In December 2025, The New York Attorney General settles allegations of underpayment to home health aides under the New York Wage Parity Law, resulting in $45 million to home health aid workers in the state, and the D.C. Attorney General announces a $1.5 settlement with a construction company regarding allegations their subcontractors misclassified hundreds of workers. 

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim is national law firm with offices in Los Angeles and the Bay Area of California, and can assist with issues of misclassification and unpaid wages, and handles antitrust issues including no poach agreements.     

California – Misclassification   

The October 2025 press release by the CA AG office noted that Los Angeles County Superior Court entered a $10 million judgement, including a permanent injunction, against a home care company who misclassified workers as independent contractors.     

California has strict rules against misclassification, utilizing an “ABC” test under Labor Code § 2775. The 3 prongs must all be met for an employee to be considered an independent contractor versus an employee:   

A: The worker is free from the companies control and direction, and   

B: The work performed is outside the usual course of the companies business, and   

C: The worker is engaged in independent trade or business of the same nature.   

Misclassified workers are eligible for all their unpaid benefits lost.  Workers without rest breaks earn one hour per shift in which rest breaks were not provided in full, uninterrupted and on-time. Workers without meal breaks before the 5th hour earn one extra hour of pay per shift if not provided on-time and complete without interruption. Workers earn overtime and double time per standard California law. Waiting time penalties for pay not having been made in full and on time apply to missing pay due to misclassification. Improperly labeled independent contractors who should be employees may also have missing reimbursement of expenses. Workers earn double back pay for unpaid wages (liquidated damages). Additional penalties can apply to the employers, and workers can hire private attorneys and have all costs and fees also covered in a verdict against an employer.   

Prior in the year, the CA attorney general announced another settlement with a janitorial franchisor and several franchisees, after allegations their business model involved misclassification of custodian employees as independent contractors. They agreed to a $2m settlement and agreed to make changes to their business model.   

California – No-Poach Agreements   

No-poach agreements between competitors in a market are designed to limit employee options, and ultimately result in reduced employee compensation. When two or more competitors implicitly or expressly agree to stop competing with one another, they are creating a “no-poach agreement”, also called “anti-poaching” or “non-poaching”.    

California announced a settlement earlier in 2025, for a case filed in the San Diego Superior Court, regarding an alleged no-poach agreement that violated the Unfair Competition Law and affected workers in the sanitation industry. The CA AG alleged a company was adding unnecessary and unfair no-poach agreements to contracts with its customers, making it impossible for workers at the sanitation company from leaving to work for contracted customers.  This denied workers their most direct path to new employment over the course of their work and careers.  While sometimes it is lawful for a company working with a second company on a joint venture to enact agreements to not hire each others workers  collaborating in a joint venture, the business needs that qualify are limited and workers should not be restrained from engaging in normal activities in the labor market.   

To read more on no poach agreements, see our website here.   

California – Worker Loans or Training Repayment Agreements (TRAPs)   

A training repayment agreement provision (TRAP) is an employment contract that has workers repaying their employer for training if workers leave the job before a set period of time has passed.  TRAPs can limit worker mobility by tying a large penalty payment to changing jobs, including changing jobs for more pay.   

Currently these contracts can be seen as unlawful and unfair under the California UCL, or Unfair Competition Law, as well as consumer finance laws. As of 2026, a new law AB 692 will make it further unlawful to engage in any such contract where 1) repayment of debt is required if an employment ends, including resuming a collection of a debt/repayment and 2) disallows any fee, penalty or cost tied to an employee leaving a job or company (with some exceptions).   

Earlier this year, the CA AG office announced a $1.53 million settlement on behalf of health care workers who were being required to repay mandatory training if they left the company within two years. The hospital required entry level nurses to complete a training program they offered, offered as a way for nurses to gain training and certification despite not training them to become RNs. This program was enacted in multiple states including California, and the company agreed to pay penalties to Colorado and Nevada in addition to California.   

New Jersey Misclassification   

The New Jersey Attorney General and the Department of Labor are alleging the nations largest online ecommerce store,  and its delivery logistics network, of misclassifying Flex drivers as independent contractors. New Jersey, like California, uses the ABC test to classify workers.   

The complaint, filed in Essex County, seeks injunctive relief, back wages and penalties, and unpaid contributions on behalf of the alleged misclassified workers. The state alleges in its complaint that the supposed independent contractors are controlled by background checks, training, placed in app-directed routes, are monitored, are placed in capped shifts, and have unilateral pay terms. These working conditions do not satisfy the ABC test used by New Jersey, per the complaint.   

Antitrust Wage Fixing  

Federal, and many state, antitrust laws disallow employers from engaging in wage fixing practices between competitors.  Examples include no-poach agreements between competitors, or collusion to set prices for labor. In the news in November, the NCAA announced an agreement to offer $303 million to settle allegations that volunteer coaches from 1992 to 2023 had their labor market affected by an alleged agreement to limit the number of paid coaches.  The complaints allege that “volunteer” coaches would work for free in the hopes of furthering their careers as a result, without pay or benefits.  

When an agreement suppresses wages, it can violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. A prior settlement for similar allegations, for a class containing only baseball coaches, was reached earlier in 2025. The new potential settlement awaits approval in the Eastern District of California.  

New York Fair Workweek Laws  

The world’s largest coffee chain signed a consent order agreeing to pay $38,929,900.00 to settle allegations by workers through the City of New York Department of Consumer and Worker Protection that they violated multiple New York city labor laws during a period of 2020 through 2024.  

The New York Fair Workweek law establishes rules around scheduling of fast food and other retail workers, requiring advanced notice of scheduling changes, visible posting of schedules, and premium or bonus payment to workers when schedules are changed near the date of scheduled work.  New York is not alone in this, other cities maintain these laws as does the state of Oregon.  

The consent degree lists these alleged violations:  

• FWW Law § 20-1221(a): Failure to provide regular schedules to fast food employees.  

• FWW Law § 20-1272(a): Discharging fast food employees by reducing their hours of work by more than 15 percent without just cause or a bona fide economic reason.  

• FWW Law § 20-1241(a): Failure to offer and award available shifts to current or discharged fast food employees before hiring new employees.  

New York Wage Parity Law 

In December 2025, the New York Attorney General announced a $55 million settlement with a large home care services agency, in large part on allegations of underpaying thousands of health aides. The home health aides will receive up to $45 million of the settlement as unpaid wages for the periods of 2014 to 2020. 

The New York Wage Parity Act establishes minimum wage and benefit requirements, as of 2012, for home care aids who are being paid using Medicaid funds in New York City, Nassau county, Suffolk county, and Westchester County.  The allegations include that the home health care agency was listing salaries and benefits that were not given full to workers, and workers were earning in total below what the Wage Act requires. 

Prevailing Wages  

Public projects, or projects receiving local, state or federal funds to develop or build, commonly can contain requires for a “prevailing wage”.  This prevailing wage is a minimum amount of pay and benefits that workers on the project must earn.  These wage floors are requirements on employers using public funds, such as funds set for the development of public housing.  

In November in the District of Columbia, the Attorney General for D.C. announced a settlement with a construction contractor to pay $725,000 to resolve allegations the company managed three publicly funded housing projects while not paying all prevailing wages. The $725,000 payment includes both payment to workers and penalties to be paid to D.C.  

In December, the Attorney General announced another settlement regarding subcontractor misclassification, for $1.5 million. The $1,500,000 includes both $500,000 to workers and $1m in penalties to the District. 

California and National Employment Law Firm   

If you believe you are not being paid for all of the time you have worked, or are not being paid the overtime due to you, are misclassified, or have other wage and hour or employment law issues, we invite you to schedule a consultation with an employment law attorney in our California, Texas or Washington, D.C. offices. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP is a national law firm that represents employees in a wide range of employment law cases, including class action lawsuits involving the failure to pay wages, overtime pay and commissions. Contact us at 1-800-689-0024.