A class action lawsuit was filed by Sandy Bell and Martin Gama against Home Depot U.S.A. in 2012 in California state court. The lawsuit alleged that Home Depot violated California labor laws by designing its workday to evade overtime obligations, specifically for employees working overnight shifts.

The plaintiffs claimed Home Depot structured its workday (defined as 12 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.) to avoid paying proper overtime wages for shifts crossing midnight. California law requires overtime pay (1.5 times the regular rate) for hours worked beyond 8 in a single workday or 40 in a workweek, and double time for hours exceeding 12 in a workday. By splitting overnight shifts across two calendar days, Home Depot allegedly avoided paying overtime for hours worked past midnight, even if part of a single shift.

The case is cited as Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD, originally filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and later moved to federal court. It was consolidated with Henry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04858. The class currently includes 20,000 individual Class Members who worked more than eight hours and past midnight.

The Bell portion of this action covers the following certified class: All persons who worked for Home Depot in California as a non- exempt, hourly-paid supervisor during the period from August 14, 2009 through June 1, 2016, who worked at least one overnight shift that crossed midnight of more than eight hours, and who, as a result, was not paid overtime for the hours worked over eight hours during such overnight shift.

The Henry portion of the action covers the following certified class: All persons employed by Home Depot in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the period from September 18, 2010 through May 3, 2016, who worked a shift past midnight in which the total aggregate number of hours for that shift exceeded eight hours.

After several rounds of summary judgment, the claims remaining for both the Bell and Henry classes were violations of California Labor Code sections 203 and 226, as well as claims under the UCL and FLSA, and PAGA claims. Plaintiffs’ claims were predicated on allegations that they did not receive adequate compensation for overnight overtime shifts.

Judge Tigar emphasized that Home Depot’s liability hinged on whether its workday designation had a legitimate business purpose or was intended to evade overtime pay. The court noted Home Depot’s detailed employee records in its Kronos time-tracking system could help determine class membership and assess claims.

Plaintiffs have now filed an unopposed motion in which they request preliminary approval of the class and PAGA settlements, approval of the Class Notice, and appointment of the Settlement Administrator.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to settle Plaintiffs’ claims for a Gross Settlement Amount of $3,350,000. This is a non-reversionary settlement in which no portion of the Settlement can revert to Defendant. After review of the factors outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement was granted.

The Bell v. Home Depot case is distinct from other Home Depot wage and hour lawsuits, such as Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., which addressed off-the-clock work and rounding practices and settled for $72.5 million in 2023, covering over 272,000 employees since March 2012. The Bell case is explicitly excluded from the Utne settlement’s scope.

California’s labor laws are among the strictest in the U.S., requiring precise compliance with overtime, meal, and rest break provisions. The Bell case highlights how workday definitions can impact overtime calculations, a tactic plaintiffs argued was exploitative.