California Wage Theft & Worker Rights

Are You a Victim of Wage Theft in California?

Wage theft occurs when employers do not pay workers according to the law. The California Labor Commissioner identifies examples including paying less than minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, denying required meal or rest breaks, requiring off-the-clock work, or taking workers’ tips.

California also restricts deductions from wages and generally requires employers to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures or losses incurred in direct consequence of performing their job duties.

If you believe you have not been paid all wages you earned, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your legal rights without cost or obligation.

What Are Common Examples of Wage Theft?

Workers may have wage-and-hour claims when an employer:

  • Pays less than the applicable minimum wage;
  • Fails to pay required overtime;
  • Requires employees to perform work before clocking in, after clocking out, or during unpaid time;
  • Fails to provide legally required meal or rest periods;
  • Improperly keeps or takes workers’ tips;
  • Makes unlawful deductions from wages;
  • Fails to reimburse required business expenses; or
  • Fails to pay promised or earned wages.

California Minimum Wage in 2026

Effective January 1, 2026, California’s statewide minimum wage is $16.90 per hour for all employers. Most California employees must be paid at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, subject to limited exceptions. Tips are separate and cannot be counted toward the minimum wage.

Some California cities and counties, as well as covered fast food restaurant employees and certain health care workers, are subject to higher minimum wage requirements. When a higher applicable minimum wage applies, workers may be entitled to that higher rate. Learn more about California minimum-wage requirements.

Off-the-Clock Work Can Result in Unpaid Wages

Employers generally must pay covered employees for compensable work they require or permit. Depending on the facts and applicable law, unpaid work may include required pre-shift or post-shift activities, meetings, training, equipment preparation, responding to work communications outside scheduled hours, or performing job duties during an unpaid meal period.

Workers who regularly perform tasks outside recorded work hours should consider whether all of that time appears on their time records and pay statements. Kehoe Law Firm discusses similar issues in its Security Guard Unpaid Wages & Break Rights resource.

California Overtime Pay

Most California workers who are covered by the general overtime rules must receive 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over eight in a workday or over 40 in a workweek, and double their regular rate for hours worked over 12 in a workday. Seventh-day overtime rules also may apply. Overtime laws do not apply the same way to every worker, and different rules or exemptions may apply.

Learn more about California overtime pay and employee rights. Federal law also generally requires covered, nonexempt employees to receive overtime at not less than one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. See Kehoe Law Firm’s FLSA overtime-pay overview.

Meal and Rest Break Rights

Most California workers covered by the applicable meal- and rest-period requirements must receive a 30-minute meal period when working more than five hours in a day and a second 30-minute meal period when working more than 10 hours in a day. California also generally requires a paid 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof. Meal-period waivers and different rules or exceptions may apply depending on the circumstances, worker, and industry.

Required work during an unpaid meal period can raise both break and unpaid-wage issues. When an employer fails to provide a required meal or rest period, additional pay may be available under California law.

Promised Wages, Deductions, and Final Pay

The California Labor Commissioner states that employers must pay promised wages whether the promise was oral or written. California law also restricts certain deductions from employees’ wages.

Final-pay rules also matter. According to the California Labor Commissioner, a worker who is fired generally must receive final wages on the last day of work. A worker who quits with at least 72 hours’ notice generally must be paid on the last day; without that notice, final wages generally are due within 72 hours. Waiting-time penalties may be available when final wages are willfully unpaid, subject to applicable law and defenses.

Can an Employer Retaliate Against a Worker for Asserting Wage Rights?

Workers may have legal protections against retaliation for asserting wage-and-hour rights. The California Labor Commissioner identifies adverse actions such as discharge, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay or hours, and certain other employment actions as potential retaliation when taken because a worker engaged in protected activity. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against employees for certain protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Are You Owed Unpaid Wages?

If you believe you were not paid for all hours worked, denied overtime pay, required to work off the clock, denied required meal or rest periods, improperly classified, or otherwise denied wages you earned, you may have legal rights. Contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your circumstances.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

 

 

SEND US A MESSAGE

Contact Us

ADDRESS

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
2001 Market Street
Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

York Space Systems Securities Class Action – YSS

A securities class action has been filed against York Space Systems Inc. (“York” or the “Company”) (NYSE: YSS) and certain officers and other defendants on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) York common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s January 2026 initial public offering; and/or (b) York securities between January 29, 2026 and May 11, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

The action, Ianelli v. York Space Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04074, was filed on August 31, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you acquired York securities in connection with the IPO or during the Class Period and suffered a financial loss, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your legal rights without cost or obligation.

What Does the York Space Systems Securities Class Action Allege?

The complaint alleges that York’s registration statement and certain public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to disclose material adverse information concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that:

  • York’s onboard mission and payload software was not fully functional before satellites were launched;
  • This alleged ongoing trend presented a risk to York’s contracts with the U.S. Space Development Agency (“SDA”); and
  • As a result, defendants’ positive statements about York’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The May 11, 2026 Report and YSS Stock Decline

According to the complaint, on May 11, 2026, Wolfpack Research published a report citing former employees who claimed, among other things, that York launched satellites before mission-critical software was fully developed. Wolfpack Research also suspected that the Pentagon’s decision to halt Tranche 3 funding may have been related to York’s alleged software and performance issues.

The complaint alleges that, on this news, YSS stock fell approximately $7 during intraday trading on May 11, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. By the commencement of the action, York’s stock was trading as low as $9.33 per share, more than 70% below the $34.00 per-share IPO price.

Review the York Space Systems Securities Class Action Complaint

York Space Systems Investors: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

Investors who acquired York common stock in connection with the January 2026 IPO and/or York securities during the Class Period and suffered financial losses are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or send us a message to discuss their legal rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 30, 2026. Investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff must do so by October 30, 2026. Investors do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to remain potential members of the proposed class or to be eligible to share in any potential recovery.

 

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

    Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    Contact Us

    ADDRESS

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
    2001 Market Street
    Suite 2500
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    PHONE

    Tel: 215-792-6676

    EMAIL

    [email protected]

    Levi Strauss Tariff Refund Class Action

    Did You Purchase Levi’s Products at Prices Allegedly Increased Because of Tariffs?

    A proposed class action has been filed against Levi Strauss & Co. (“Levi Strauss”) alleging that consumers paid higher prices for Levi’s-branded products because IEEPA tariff costs were passed through in retail prices and that consumers have not been refunded the alleged tariff-related price premiums.

    The lawsuit, Wilson v. Levi Strauss & Co., Case No. 2:26-cv-01904-JTM-MBN, was filed on August 28, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

    What Does the Levi Strauss Class Action Allege?

    According to the complaint, Levi Strauss imports products through a global supply chain and incorporated IEEPA tariff-related costs into prices charged to U.S. consumers. The plaintiff alleges that she purchased Levi’s apparel online in February 2026 and would have paid less, or would not have paid the allegedly tariff-inflated price, if those costs had not been passed on.

    The complaint further alleges that, after the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariffs, Levi Strauss became eligible to seek or receive tariff refunds while retaining the alleged tariff-related price premiums paid by consumers.

    This lawsuit is part of a broader developing issue involving tariff-related consumer prices and potential refunds. Learn more about Kehoe Law Firm’s Tariff Refund Class Action Investigation.

    Who May Be Affected?

    The complaint seeks to represent a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased goods from Levi Strauss or through its authorized distribution channels, allegedly paid higher prices because of IEEPA tariffs, and have not been refunded the alleged tariff-related price premium. It also seeks a proposed Louisiana subclass.

    No class has been certified, and the allegations have not been proven.

    What Claims and Relief Are Sought?

    The complaint asserts unjust enrichment, enrichment without cause under Louisiana law, and Louisiana consumer-protection claims. It seeks, among other relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and interest.

    Consumers concerned about tariff-related price increases involving other brands can also read about Kehoe Law Firm’s investigation of Hermès, Swatch and Nikon customers.

    Did You Pay Higher Prices Because of Tariffs?

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential claims on behalf of consumers who paid higher prices for products after companies passed tariff-related costs on to their customers.

    If you purchased Levi’s products or other consumer goods that increased in price because of tariffs, you may have legal rights. Contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the investigation and potential legal claims.

    For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

    Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
    (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

    Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

     

     

     

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    Contact Us

    ADDRESS

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
    2001 Market Street
    Suite 2500
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    PHONE

    Tel: 215-792-6676

    EMAIL

    [email protected]

    Fly-E Group Lead Plaintiff Appointment in Securities Class Action

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is pleased to announce that its client has been appointed Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action litigation pending against Fly-E Group, Inc. (“Fly-E”) (NASDAQ: FLYE) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

    The action was brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fly-E securities during the alleged class period and asserts claims under the federal securities laws arising from allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business, operations, financial condition, and prospects.

    In appointing Kehoe Law Firm’s client as Lead Plaintiff, the Court selected the investor to represent the interests of the proposed class and oversee the prosecution of the litigation. The Court also appointed Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel.

    Kehoe Law Firm is proud to represent the Lead Plaintiff in this important securities litigation and to work alongside Pomerantz LLP in pursuing the claims on behalf of Fly-E investors.

    “The appointment of our client as Lead Plaintiff is an important development in this litigation and reflects the significant role our client will have in representing the interests of the proposed investor class,” said Michael Yarnoff, a partner at Kehoe Law Firm. “We look forward to working with Lead Counsel to vigorously prosecute the case and seek a favorable result for Fly-E shareholders.”

    Investors with questions or concerns about the class action can send us a message or contact:

    Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
    (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

      About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

      Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

       

      SEND US A MESSAGE

      Contact Us

      ADDRESS

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
      2001 Market Street
      Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103

      PHONE

      Tel: 215-792-6676

      EMAIL

      [email protected]

      $17.05 Million Twist Bioscience Preliminary Settlement Approval

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., counsel to Lead Plaintiff the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, is pleased to announce that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has preliminarily approved a $17.05 million settlement in the securities class action litigation against Twist Bioscience Corporation (“Twist”) and certain of its senior executives.

      On July 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168. The Court also preliminarily certified the Settlement Class for purposes of the settlement.

      The litigation alleges that Twist and certain of its senior management made materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, the Company’s production process, product quality, customer satisfaction, accounting practices, production costs, and gross margins.

      Kehoe Law Firm’s client, the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, was appointed Lead Plaintiff to represent the interests of investors in the litigation. Kehoe Law Firm has served as counsel to the Lead Plaintiff in pursuing the claims on behalf of the proposed investor class.

      The proposed $17.05 million settlement, if granted final approval, will resolve the securities claims asserted in the litigation and provide a substantial monetary recovery for eligible Twist investors. The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for November 18, 2026.

      “Kehoe Law Firm is pleased with the Court’s preliminary approval of this significant settlement and proud to represent the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago as Lead Plaintiff,” said John Kehoe, counsel for Kehoe Law Firm. “This settlement represents an important recovery for Twist investors and reflects the Lead Plaintiff’s commitment to vigorously pursuing the interests of the class.”

      Kehoe Law Firm looks forward to continuing its work on behalf of the Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class through the final approval process.

      Investors with questions or concerns about the class action can send us a message or contact:

      John Kehoe, Esq.
      (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801
      [email protected]
      [email protected]

        About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

        Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

         

        SEND US A MESSAGE

        Contact Us

        ADDRESS

        Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
        2001 Market Street
        Suite 2500
        Philadelphia, PA 19103

        PHONE

        Tel: 215-792-6676

        EMAIL

        [email protected]