Mejias v. Goya Foods - Truck Driver Settlement
Last verified August 21, 2026Source: atticusHow ClaimWatch verifies cases
This settlement is closed to new claims. You can still see what it was about and follow the case in court below. Looking for money you can still claim? Browse open settlements →
What happened
Goya Foods designated truck drivers working in New Jersey as independent contractors or owner operators. The drivers filed a class action lawsuit claiming they were misclassified. Goya has agreed to settle the lawsuit by providing cash payments to affected drivers.
Do you qualify?
All truck drivers who performed work for Goya in New Jersey and were designated as independent contractors or owner operators between July 18, 2013 and February 1, 2024, except those who executed arbitration agreements with Goya by that date.
How to file
Visit this website to access the Notice of Settlement and settlement documents in English and Spanish. Review the information and FAQ sections to determine your eligibility and claim process. Specific claim filing instructions and deadlines are detailed in the full Notice and settlement documents available on this website.
Common questions
- Is the Mejias v. Goya Foods - Truck Driver Settlement notice real, or a scam?
- Atticus Administration is the settlement administrator for this case. Claims are filed at newjerseygoyadriversettlement.com. Filing a class action claim is always free — no legitimate settlement charges you to claim, and no administrator will ask for payment, a gift card, or your full Social Security number by email or text. If a notice asks for any of those, it is not from the administrator. When in doubt, ignore the link you were sent and go to the official settlement website directly.
- When will payments from the Mejias v. Goya Foods - Truck Driver Settlement be sent?
- Class action payouts typically take 12 to 24 months after the claim deadline, and longer if the settlement is appealed. Payments cannot be issued until the court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved.
Who's involved
Plaintiffs
- JOSE PENA
- JERRY FULLER
- DENNIS MINTER
- ANIBAL MEJIAS
Defendants
- ABC COMPANIES 1-10
- JOHN DOES 1-10
- CONRAD COLON
- MIGUEL A. LUGO, JR.
- CARLOS G. ORITZ
- REBECCA RODRIGUEZ
- DAVID KINKELA
- PETER UNANUE
+ 4 more
Counsel for plaintiffs
Counsel for defendants
Parties and counsel from the public court docket. Listing an attorney here isn't an endorsement, and ClaimWatch isn't affiliated with any of them.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More employment settlements
View all →Perry v. Alatrade Foods WARN Act Settlement
Plaintiff alleges that Alatrade Foods violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to provide at least 60 days' advance notice before a mass layoff or plant closing at its Phenix City, Alabama facility between February and August 2025. Alatrade denies all allegations and maintains it did not violate the WARN Act.
Payments to settlement class members will be made as back pay consisting of 100% wages with standard payroll taxes withheld
Rad v. SkinSpirit Essential Settlement
SkinSpirit Essential, an employer in California, allegedly violated wage and hour laws by misclassifying employees and failing to pay required wages to non-exempt employees. The settlement includes both individual wage payments to class members and penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act.
AOCLSC INC. Wage and Hour Settlement
Former employees of AOCLSC INC. sued the company for alleged wage and hour violations. The company has agreed to settle by paying back wages to non-exempt hourly employees who worked during the class period and paying penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act.
PacBell Settlement
Pacific Bell Telephone Company allegedly violated California labor laws by treating the use of accrued kin-care and paid sick-days as unprotected absences subject to discipline, in violation of Labor Code sections 233, 234, and 246.5. The company allegedly committed unfair business practices and is liable for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Defendant denies all allegations.
A sum of money based on the number of workweeks worked from January 1, 2021 to October 23, 2025