Panera Bread has been accused of withholding overtime wages, failing to reimburse employees for using personal vehicles and cell phones for work, and falsifying records to inaccurately reflect break times, allegedly violating California labor law in a lawsuit filed last month in Los Angeles County.

The plaintiff, Selene Ramirez, a catering lead at Panera since 2017, brought the lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Ramirez claims Panera violated numerous California labor codes by not paying overtime wages and requiring nonexempt employees to work through their meal and rest breaks.[i]

Ramirez’s suit seeks civil penalties under PAGA, asserting Panera knowingly and intentionally violated California labor laws. She is asking the court to certify the class of aggrieved employees, appoint her attorneys as class counsel, and designate her as the PAGA representative.[ii] The complaint also requests Panera be ordered to forfeit profits earned from these alleged violations and to pay compensatory damages, penalties, interest, litigation costs, and attorney fees.[iii]

According to the complaint, Ramirez’s records reveal instances where her meal breaks began late but were not compensated at the premium rate required under California law.[iv] For example, on April 12, 2024, Ramirez took her meal break more than five hours after starting her shift but did not receive the appropriate meal premium pay.[v] The lawsuit also alleges that Panera manipulated her records to reflect 30-minute breaks on days when she didn’t take any meal breaks.[vi]

Additionally, the complaint states Panera requires Ramirez and other employees to use their personal mobile devices to communicate with management and colleagues, as well as for GPS navigation during catering shifts, without reimbursement.[vii] Ramirez also alleges that the company failed to inform nonexempt employees about rest period requirements, and she has been unable to take a single rest break due to the demands of her job.[viii]

Ramirez’s duties as a catering lead include preparing and delivering food for catering events, setting up and cleaning after the events, and transporting equipment back to the restaurant.[ix] She claims these responsibilities led to personal expenses, such as mobile phone and internet costs, as well as travel expenses from using her own vehicle.[x] While Panera partially reimbursed mileage at a rate of 45–46 cents per mile, this was significantly lower than the IRS’s standard mileage rate of 67 cents.[xi] The company reportedly did not reimburse employees for using their mobile devices at all.[xii]

The lawsuit also accuses Panera of failing to properly calculate wages.[xiii] Ramirez cites several examples where her recorded hours worked were slightly reduced, resulting in underpayment.[xiv] For instance, she worked a shift from 4:55 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., totaling 3.866 hours, but was paid for only 3.859 hours.[xv] In another instance, she worked a 4.183-hour shift but was compensated for just 4.140056 hours.[xvi]

The allegations against Panera Bread in this lawsuit are a stark reminder for employers establish clear policies and maintain accurate records to comply with California labor laws regarding overtime pay, reimbursement for work-related use of personal vehicles and cell phones, and accurate recording of work hours and break times.

In California, non-exempt employees are entitled to daily, weekly, and double overtime pay. These regulations are enforced in the California Labor Code and enforced by the California Department of Industrial Relations. Regarding daily overtime, employees must receive one and a half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over eight in a single workday.[xvii] Regarding weekly overtime, employees are entitled to one and a half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.[xviii] Employees must be compensated at twice their regular rate for hours worked over 12 in a single workday and for hours worked over eight on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.[xix]

Additionally, under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to reimburse employees for all necessary expenses incurred in the course of their duties.[xx] This includes costs associated with using personal vehicles and cell phones for work purposes.[xxi]

California law mandates that employers maintain precise records of employees’ work hours, including meal and rest breaks.[xxii] Falsifying records to inaccurately reflect break times is a violation of the law.[xxiii] Regarding meal breaks, employees who work more than five hours in a day are entitled to a 30-minute unpaid meal break.[xxiv] If an employee works more than 10 hours, they are entitled to a second 30-minute meal break. Regarding rest breaks, employees are entitled to a 10-minute paid rest break for every four hours worked or a major fraction thereof.[xxv] Employers are prohibited from requiring employees to work during these breaks and must accurately record when breaks are taken.[xxvi]

Each of these laws are designed to protect employees from bearing the costs of business expenses and to ensure fair compensation for all hours worked, which goes to the heart of the Selene Ramirez’s complaint against Panera Bread.

Keep Reading

Ask Atty: William Johnson Privacy vs. Relevance: How Deep Can Discovery Go in Colorado Lien Cases? Civil Procedure Updates to Know in New York for 2025 Third Time Was Not the Charm Will Arbitration Be a Slam Dunk for LA Clippers? Off the App, Off the Hook: Defeating Vicarious Liability California: Key Laws and Regulations to Watch in 2025 Delivering Justice in a Florida UM/UIM Case Do Insurance Companies Owe a Duty to Notify Adult Children Residing with Their Parents?

More by this author

Stale Bread: Workers Accuse Panera of Wage Theft Red Hot Water: Former Chili Pepper Guitarist Sued in Wrongful Death Action A Seat at the Table: Supreme Court Rules Insurers Have a Right to Be “Heard on Any Issue” in Chapter 11 Cases To Speak or Not to Speak: Appellate Court Rules on Doctors’ Defamation Lawsuit Modern Headache: Actress Sofia Vergara is Sued for $1.7 Million by Former Contractor A League of Their Own: Sports Leagues’ Novel Argument Fails to Persuade California Appellate Court Up In Smoke: Insurer Sues Landlord For Failure to Obtain Liability Insurance from Tenant  The Truck Stops Here: Dispute Over Trucking Company’s Liability Makes Its Final Stop at the Ninth Circuit You’re It: California Federal Court Tags Insurer to Defend in Habitability Case

Sources

[i] Selene Ramirez v. Panera LLC, case number unknown, (Los Angeles Co. Super. Ct. Jan. 2025.)

[ii] Id.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id.

[x] Id.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Id.

[xvi] Id.

[xvii] Cal. Lab. Code § 510.

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Id.

[xx] Cal. Lab. Code § 2802.

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] Cal. Lab. Code § 522.

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] Id.

[xxv] Id.

[xxvi] Id.