Harris v. Startek USA Settlement
Last verified September 10, 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
Startek USA, Inc. allegedly violated wage and hour laws in its employment of hourly customer service representatives. The company has agreed to settle the lawsuit and distribute settlement funds to affected class members.
Do you qualify?
All workers who were employed by Startek USA, Inc. as hourly customer service representatives between February 18, 2019 and March 17, 2025.
How to file
Class members who received a postcard notice should confirm the information is correct and do nothing if accurate; they will automatically receive their share of settlement proceeds. If information is incorrect, return a completed Class Member Information Sheet to the settlement administrator by September 4, 2025.
Common questions
- Do I need proof of purchase for the Harris v. Startek USA Settlement?
- No. You can file without a receipt or proof of purchase. You attest that you qualify and submit basic details, though claims are still subject to review and submitting a false claim is a crime.
- Is the Harris v. Startek USA Settlement notice real, or a scam?
- Settlement Administrator is the settlement administrator for this case. Claims are filed at startekusasettlement.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 Harris v. Startek USA 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
- Stephanie St. George
- Richard Dean
- Claudine Miudo
- Lexus Ransom
- Rachel Dubose
- Matthew Pavey
- Amelia Kurtz
- Tauri Schuler-Bonner
+ 16 more
Defendants
- Startek USA, Inc.
Counsel for plaintiffs
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 terminating employees due to a mass layoff or plant closing at its Phenix City, Alabama facility between February and August 2025. Alatrade denies all allegations and liability.
Back pay consisting of 100% of wages with standard payroll taxes withheld; exact amount depends on individual employment records
Gilbert v AT&T Mobility Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement
AT&T Mobility Services LLC is accused of wage and hour violations against its non-exempt employees in California. Former and current employees filed a class action seeking back wages, unreimbursed business expenses, penalties, and other relief, plus penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for the period September 21, 2022 to September 3, 2025.
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.
Patrick Wilson v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company Employment 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. The company disputes the claims and denies any wrongdoing.
Payment based on the number of workweeks worked for Defendant from January 1, 2021 to October 23, 2025