Manager Overtime Misclassification

Aug 25, 2026 | KLF Blog

Are You a Salaried “Manager” Working Overtime Without Overtime Pay?

A proposed $7.5 million settlement involving Festival Foods department managers highlights an important wage-and-hour issue: a managerial title and a salary do not automatically make a worker exempt from overtime.

Why Worker Misclassification Matters

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), covered, nonexempt employees generally are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Fact Sheet #23 on overtime pay explains the general overtime requirements. Certain executive, administrative, and professional employees may be exempt, but exemption depends on the employee’s compensation and actual job duties—not simply a job title or the fact that the employee receives a salary. The DOL’s Fact Sheet #17B on the executive exemption states that job titles do not determine exempt status.

For the executive exemption, the DOL states that an employee’s primary duty generally must be management; the employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two full-time employees or their equivalent; and the employee must have authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s suggestions and recommendations regarding specified changes in employee status must be given particular weight, in addition to satisfying applicable salary requirements.

Festival Foods Managers Seek Approval of $7.5 Million Settlement

On August 24, 2026, Law360 reported that Festival Foods and a group of department managers asked a Wisconsin federal court to preliminarily approve a $7.5 million settlement of claims that salaried department managers were misclassified as exempt from overtime. The proposed settlement is expected to cover roughly 1,000 current and former employees.

According to Law360, the workers alleged that Festival Foods uniformly classified salaried department managers as overtime-exempt, even though they spent most of their time performing manual labor and customer service and allegedly did not perform the duties necessary to qualify for the exemption. Festival Foods has denied the allegations and maintains that the managers were properly classified.

The settlement is proposed and remains subject to court approval. Law360 reported that the parties estimated an average gross recovery of approximately $7,418 per person, with individual allocations reaching roughly $10,150.

A “Manager” Title Does Not Decide Overtime Rights

The allegations in the Festival Foods case illustrates a broader issue for workers in retail, restaurants, hospitality, warehouses, and other industries. An employee may be called a manager, assistant manager, department manager, or supervisor and still potentially be entitled to overtime if the employee does not satisfy the legal requirements for an exemption.

Questions may arise when a salaried manager regularly works more than 40 hours per week, but spends substantial time performing the same customer-service, stocking, cleaning, production, or other non-management work as hourly employees, while having limited genuine management authority. Whether a particular employee is exempt is fact-specific, and performing some non-management work does not by itself make a manager nonexempt.

Signs Your Overtime Classification May Be Worth Reviewing

  • You are paid a salary and routinely work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay.
  • Your title includes “manager” or “supervisor,” but much of your work is manual, customer-facing, stocking, cleaning, production, or other non-management work.
  • You have little authority to hire or fire employees, or your recommendations about hiring, firing, promotion, or other changes in employee status are given little weight.
  • Your schedule, staffing, policies, and important decisions are largely controlled by higher-level managers or corporate rules.
  • You perform duties similar to hourly employees, but are classified differently for overtime purposes.

These are indicators for further review—not a determination that a worker has been misclassified. Exemption status depends on the employee’s actual duties, compensation, and applicable federal and state law.

What Records Should Workers Preserve?

Workers concerned about possible overtime misclassification should consider preserving records they lawfully possess, including pay stubs, schedules, time records, job descriptions, emails or messages concerning duties, and records showing hours worked. Do not take confidential business information or materials you are not authorized to possess.

Concerned About Overtime Misclassification?

If you are a salaried manager or supervisor who regularly works more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate whether your classification and job duties may raise wage-and-hour concerns.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, 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 and consumers 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 clients are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses may 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]

Hermès, Swatch & Nikon Customers: Tariff-Related Price Increases

Aug 24, 2026 | Investigations

Did you purchase Hermès, Swatch, or Nikon products in the United States after tariff-related price increases?

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether retail customers may have claims involving tariff-related costs reflected in the prices they paid and any corresponding tariff refunds or recoveries available to importers.

The Issue for Retail Customers

During 2025, tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) increased costs on imported goods. Some companies publicly linked U.S. price increases to tariffs. In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs, and subsequent proceedings established a process through which importers may seek refunds of qualifying IEEPA duties.

The potential consumer issue is straightforward: If tariff costs were passed on to retail customers through higher prices, while the importer is later able to recover those tariff payments from the federal government, customers may have legal claims to restitution or other relief for tariff-related amounts they allegedly bore.

Whether a customer has a claim will depend on the facts, including the product purchased, purchase date, pricing, the nature of any tariff-related increase, and applicable law.

Hermès Customers

Hermès publicly stated in April 2025 that it planned U.S.-specific price increases beginning May 1, 2025 to fully offset the impact of tariffs. Customers who purchased Hermès products in the United States after those tariff-related price increases may be affected by the tariff-refund issue described above.

Swatch Customers

Swatch publicly indicated that U.S. prices would increase in response to tariffs on Swiss imports. Customers who purchased Swatch products in the United States after tariff-related price increases may be affected by the same potential consumer issue.

Nikon Customers

Nikon USA announced that, due to tariffs, it would adjust U.S. pricing effective June 23, 2025. Customers who purchased Nikon cameras, lenses, or other products after tariff-related price adjustments may be affected by the same potential consumer issue.

What Customers Should Know

The availability of government tariff refunds to an importer does not by itself establish that a retail customer is legally entitled to a refund.

Potential claims would depend on the circumstances and applicable law. Kehoe Law Firm is evaluating whether consumers who paid tariff-related price increases may have claims if the underlying tariff costs are later refunded or otherwise recovered by the relevant importer.

What Records Should Consumers Save?

If you purchased Hermès, Swatch, or Nikon products after tariff-related price increases, consider preserving records showing what you purchased and what you paid, including:

  • Receipts, invoices, order confirmations, and online order histories;
  • Credit-card or bank statements showing the purchase;
  • Checkout screens, invoices, emails, or notices referencing tariffs, duties, import charges, or tariff-related price increases; and
  • The product name or model, purchase date, seller, and amount paid.

Hermès, Swatch & Nikon Customers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

If you purchased Hermès, Swatch, or Nikon products after tariff-related price increases, contact Kehoe Law Firm to discuss your purchase and learn more about the investigation.

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 and consumers 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.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, 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]

No-Poach Agreements and Workers’ Rights

Aug 24, 2026 | KLF Blog

Could a No-Poach Agreement Be Limiting Your Job Opportunities?

Workers benefit when employers compete to hire them. Agreements between businesses not to recruit, solicit, or hire one another’s workers can restrict job opportunities, reduce bargaining leverage, and potentially suppress wages, benefits, or working conditions.

Workers may not know that a no-poach agreement or hiring restriction exists. A restriction can appear in a franchise agreement, vendor or service contract, or an informal understanding between businesses. A worker may discover it only after being told that another location or company cannot hire them.

What No-Poach Agreements Can Mean for Workers

The January 2025 DOJ/FTC Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers explain how the agencies assess business practices affecting workers under the antitrust laws. The guidelines state that antitrust law protects competition for labor and that competition among employers can benefit workers through better wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of work. The agencies also state that conduct harming competition for workers can lead to fewer job opportunities, lower wages, and worse job quality.

For no-poach conduct specifically, the guidelines state that businesses competing for workers may violate antitrust law if they agree not to recruit, solicit, or hire workers. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) may bring felony criminal charges where appropriate, and the guidelines also note that such agreements may be subject to civil liability even when criminal charges are not pursued. The DOJ and FTC further state that such agreements can violate the antitrust laws whether they are informal or formal, written or unwritten, or spoken or unspoken.

The guidelines use “no-poach” to describe agreements between businesses not to hire, solicit, or otherwise compete for current, former, or potential workers. Their examples include an agreement requiring one company to obtain another company’s permission before trying to hire an employee. The agencies also state that an agreement not to “cold call” another company’s workers is a no-solicit agreement even if workers remain free to apply on their own.

The guidelines do not say that every hiring restriction is automatically unlawful. They explain that a restraint may require a fuller analysis when it is subordinate and collateral to a broader business collaboration, such as a joint venture, and is reasonably necessary to achieve that collaboration’s procompetitive potential. The legality of a particular restraint therefore depends on its facts and context.

For workers, the practical concern is reduced competition for their labor. A hiring restraint can limit opportunities to move between employers or locations and can affect the competition that ordinarily influences wages, benefits, and other terms of work.

The agencies also explain that businesses may compete for the same workers even when they sell different products or services. For antitrust analysis, the relevant question can be whether the businesses compete to hire or retain workers in the same labor market.

Warning Signs of a Possible No-Poach or No-Hire Restriction

  • A manager says another location or business is not allowed to hire you.
  • A transfer or job application is rejected because the businesses have an agreement, policy, or understanding about employees.
  • A prospective employer must obtain your current employer’s permission or pay a penalty before hiring you.
  • Recruiters are told not to contact employees of certain companies or franchise locations.
  • Workers hear similar explanations from separate businesses that otherwise compete for labor.

Franchise Workers Can Be Affected

The guidelines address franchise systems directly. They state that no-poach clauses in franchise agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny and note that franchisors often compete with franchisees for workers. The guidelines further state that a franchisor may violate antitrust law by organizing or enforcing a no-poach agreement among franchisees that compete for workers, and that written or unwritten agreements among franchisees not to poach, hire, or solicit one another’s workers may violate federal or state law.

State law may provide additional protection. For example, Washington law prohibits a franchisor from restricting a franchisee from soliciting or hiring an employee of the franchisor or another franchisee of the same franchisor. State requirements vary.

Recent Enforcement and a Worker Case Example

Federal enforcement is not limited to franchise restaurants. In February 2026, the FTC finalized a consent order requiring building-services contractor Adamas and affiliated businesses to stop enforcing no-hire agreements that the FTC alleged restricted customers from hiring Adamas workers without a significant penalty.

In In re Papa John’s Employee and Franchisee Employee Antitrust Litigation, workers challenged franchise-agreement provisions that allegedly restricted hiring among Papa John’s locations.

Law360 reported on August 17, 2026, that a Kentucky federal court had granted final approval to a $5 million settlement. According to Law360, the settlement class covers workers employed at Papa John’s-branded restaurants in the United States from December 18, 2014 through December 31, 2021 who received more than $200 in compensation during that period.

The article also reported that Papa John’s agreed to prohibit the use of no-poach provisions in its franchise agreements for five years and that company executives would receive antitrust compliance training. The court observed that the settlement also provides “meaningful forward-looking protection.” The settlement is not a finding that Papa John’s violated the law; Papa John’s has denied the claims and has not admitted wrongdoing or liability.

What Workers Should Preserve

If you suspect a hiring restriction, preserve records lawfully. Useful materials may include job postings, applications, offers, rejection messages, transfer requests, emails or texts discussing hiring limits, pay records, and the names of managers or recruiters with relevant knowledge. Do not take trade secrets, customer information, or materials you are not authorized to possess.

Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is available to evaluate potential claims involving no-poach, no-hire, wage-fixing, worker-mobility, and related antitrust practices. A confidential consultation can help a worker understand which laws may apply and whether filing deadlines may affect potential 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 workers 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.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, 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]

Taboola Securities Class Action – TBLA

Aug 24, 2026 | Investigations

A securities class action has been filed against Taboola.com Ltd. (“Taboola” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Taboola securities between May 6, 2026 and August 4, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby.

Taboola ordinary shares trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol TBLA.

According to the complaint, Taboola operates a platform that partners with websites, devices, and mobile apps to recommend editorial content and advertisements on the open web.

What Does the Taboola Securities Class Action Allege?

The action, Fortin v. Taboola.com Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07170, was filed on August 21, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning Taboola’s business, operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges that:

  • Taboola was seeing an increase in low-quality publishers;
  • As a result, the Company would need to take an aggressive approach to exiting low-quality publisher relationships, impacting earnings;
  • As a result, the value of the Company’s publisher relationships was overstated; and
  • Defendants’ positive statements about Taboola’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The complaint further alleges that, on May 6, 2026, Taboola announced first-quarter 2026 financial results and supported its second-quarter and full-year 2026 guidance while emphasizing advertiser success, data, AI, and distribution.

What Happened to Taboola’s Stock Price?

According to the complaint, before the market opened on August 5, 2026, Taboola reported second-quarter 2026 revenue of $476.8 million, below its previously issued second-quarter revenue guidance of $492 million to $505 million. The complaint also alleges that Taboola reduced its full-year 2026 revenue guidance by $91 million at the midpoint, to $1.930 billion to $1.956 billion, and reduced expected full-year gross profit by $10 million at the midpoint, to $605 million to $615 million.

The complaint alleges that, during Taboola’s August 5, 2026 earnings call, CFO Stephen Walker stated that revenue was below guidance, in part, because the Company took a more aggressive approach to exiting publisher relationships that did not meet its standards for advertiser success. CEO Adam Singolda also discussed the Company’s decision to remove low-quality publishers that were not delivering value for advertisers.

Following these disclosures, the complaint alleges that Taboola’s share price fell $1.45, or 27.41%, to close at $3.84 per share on August 5, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Review the Taboola-Securities-Class-Action-Complaint

Taboola Investors Who Suffered Losses

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Taboola securities during the Class Period and suffered financial losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 20, 2026. Investors have until October 20, 2026, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Investors do not need to serve as lead plaintiff to be eligible to share in any potential recovery.

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

    Track all markets on TradingView

    About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

    Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers 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.

    There is no cost or obligation to speak with the firm, and there are no upfront fees or litigation costs. We handle class action matters on a contingency-fee basis. Any attorneys’ fees or expenses sought in connection with a recovery are 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]

    GoDaddy Securities Class Action – GDDY

    Aug 23, 2026 | Investigations

    A securities class action has been filed against GoDaddy Inc. (“GoDaddy” or the “Company”) and certain of its officers on behalf of all purchasers of GoDaddy common stock during the period from September 3, 2025 through February 24, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”) who were damaged thereby. 

    GoDaddy common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol GDDY.

    According to the complaint, GoDaddy is an American publicly traded internet domain registry, domain registrar, and web hosting company headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. The complaint alleges that GoDaddy primarily serves small and micro companies and targets small business owners and entrepreneurs, including customers seeking an all-in-one platform to build and manage an online presence.

    What Does the GoDaddy Securities Class Action Allege?

    The action, Johnson v. GoDaddy Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07144, was filed on August 21, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

    According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information concerning GoDaddy’s customer-acquisition and go-to-market strategy. The complaint alleges that:

    • GoDaddy introduced a heavily discounted promotional price of $4.99 for one-year dotcom domain contracts, significantly below the Company’s typical multi-year contracts, which ranged from $10 to $20 per year;
    • The promotion allegedly contradicted Defendants’ representations that GoDaddy was focused on attracting “high-intent” customers who purchased more products and spent more money, including representations that the Company had “turned off” discounting at the front of its customer funnel;
    • The shorter-term promotional contracts with smaller valuations were likely to, and allegedly did, negatively affect total bookings growth and average order size; and
    • Defendants allegedly failed to disclose the promotion and its adverse effect on bookings while continuing to represent that GoDaddy’s high-intent customer strategy was working and that total bookings growth for 2025 was expected to be in line with revenue growth.

    The complaint further alleges that, during investor presentations and earnings calls between September and December 2025, GoDaddy executives repeatedly emphasized the Company’s strategy of targeting higher-intent customers. Among other things, the complaint alleges that CFO Mark McCaffrey stated on September 3, 2025 that GoDaddy had made a “conscious decision” to “turn off discounting” because discounting attracted customers who came in for price and later churned. The complaint alleges that GoDaddy nevertheless instituted promotional discounts during the Class Period.

    What Happened to GoDaddy’s Stock Price?

    The complaint alleges that the truth was revealed after the market closed on February 24, 2026, when GoDaddy reported its fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results. According to the complaint, total bookings growth decelerated to 5% in the fourth quarter of 2025, down from 9% in the prior quarter and below analyst estimates of 7%. Full-year 2025 total bookings growth came in at 7%, below Defendants’ previously stated expectation of 8%.

    According to the complaint, during the associated earnings call, CEO Aman Bhutani disclosed that GoDaddy had introduced a promotional price for dotcom domains with a one-year term and that stronger-than-expected demand for the offer, together with the shift in contract-term mix, reduced upfront bookings and near-term revenue. The complaint further alleges that CFO Mark McCaffrey acknowledged that the annual promotional contracts affected bookings and reduced average order size at initiation.

    Following these disclosures, GoDaddy’s stock price declined $13.18 per share, or more than 14%, from a closing price of $92.30 per share on February 24, 2026 to $79.12 per share on February 25, 2026, on heavier than usual volume.

    Review the GoDaddy securities class action complaint.

    GoDaddy Investors Who Suffered Losses

    Investors who purchased GoDaddy common stock during the Class Period and suffered financial losses may complete Kehoe Law Firm’s confidential Stockholder Information Request Form or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq. for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.

    GDDY investors who wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff have until October 20, 2026 to move the Court. An investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery does not depend on serving as lead plaintiff.

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

      Track all markets on TradingView

      About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

      Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers 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.

      There is no cost or obligation to speak with the firm, and there are no upfront fees or litigation costs. We handle class action matters on a contingency-fee basis. Any attorneys’ fees or expenses sought in connection with a recovery are 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]