Barrett Business Case Illustrates California Perils

It's time for another story illustrating the insanity that is California employment law. Claims that would not even be brought in most states can create millions of dollars in legal exposure in California, driving huge settlements that are contributing to the well-publicized flight of businesses to states that do not punish employers for creating jobs. High-profile recent departees include Chevron, Tesla, McKesson, Charles Schwab, CBRE, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Palantir, AECOM, FICO, SpaceX, and Oracle.

A recent filing against staffing giant Barrett Business Services and its client Natera is illustrative. Barrett provides staffing services to the medical testing firm Natera in the San Francisco area. On June 9, 2025, a single assigned Barrett worker filed a lawsuit that exposes Barrett to claims having a potential value of $46,873,920, plus attorneys' fees. How is this possible, you might wonder?

First of all, the claim is a class action on behalf of all 2,709 Barrett employees who worked at Natera over the previous four years. Then comes the magic of California's multiplier effect, where a single wrong can violate multiple regulations:

In evaluating the claim for purposes of moving the case to Federal Court ($5,000,000+ required), Barrett's defense counsel made the following calculation of the company's theoretical exposure:

Meal Period Claim:
o $15.00/hour x 2 days/week x 208 workweeks x 352 employees = $2,196,480

Rest Break Claim:
o $15.00/hour x 2,709 employees x 208 workweeks x 2 days/week = $16,904,160

Overtime Claim:
o $18.00/hour (overtime rate) x 2,709 employees x 208 workweeks = $8,452,080

Wage Statement Claim:
o $4,000 maximum penalty x 2,709 employees = $10,836,000

Waiting Time Penalties Claim:
o $15.00/hour x 8 hours/day x 30 days x 2,357 employees = $8,485,200

Subtotal (Claims Total):
o $2,196,480 + $16,904,160 + $8,452,080 + $10,836,000 + $8,485,200 = $46,873,920

That's a lot of exposure for a few missed meal and rest breaks. I see cases like this filed regularly. They are very fact-intensive and difficult to defend. California stacks the legal deck against employers so heavily that the only rational option in most situations is to settle. Firms that fight back usually find that "resistance is futile," and it only adds to the financial pain in the form of their own legal expenses.

The Golden State's war on employers is well-entrenched and shows no sign of abating. The efforts of the business community in 2024 to repeal the onerous Private Attorney General Act failed. As reported earlier in SLN, the modest statutory reforms that followed are merely a band-aid on a broken leg.