Harris v. Watermark Services IV, LLC - Wage & Hour Settlement
This settlement is closed to new claims — the deadline was May 8, 2026. 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
Watermark Services IV, LLC allegedly violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay required wages to hourly, non-exempt employees. The settlement requires the company to pay back wages to affected employees and penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act.
Do you qualify?
All persons employed by Watermark Services IV, LLC in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee who worked during the Class Period (June 1, 2022 to March 31, 2025) and/or PAGA Period (June 6, 2022 to March 31, 2025).
How to file
You do not need to do anything to participate and receive an Individual Class Payment and Individual PAGA Payment. If you worked for the company during the class period, you are automatically eligible. You can challenge your workweeks or pay periods by submitting a written challenge to the Administrator by May 8, 2026.
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 →80/20 ERISA Settlement
The 80/20 Employee Stock Ownership Plan was allegedly administered and terminated by the Defendants in violation of ERISA (the federal law regulating private retirement plans). The lawsuit also involved claims that certain other defendants knowingly participated in these ERISA violations. Defendants deny all claims and admit no fault or liability.
Dallas BBQ ESOP Settlement
This settlement resolves a class action lawsuit concerning the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) sponsored by W BBQ Holdings, Inc., which operates Dallas BBQ restaurants. The defendants have agreed to settle without admitting wrongdoing.
EEOC v. Meathead Movers Age Discrimination Settlement
The EEOC alleged that Meathead Movers, Inc. violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by engaging in age discrimination in hiring and recruitment since at least 2017. The company was accused of discriminating against job applicants based on their age. Meathead Movers agreed to settle these claims through a court-approved Consent Decree on October 14, 2025.
Up to $2 million total to be distributed among eligible class members
Petzing v. The Seven Motor Corporation Employment Application Settlement
The Seven Motor Corporation allegedly failed to disclose the wage scale or salary range in its job postings for open positions in Washington. The defendant disputes the claims and contends it has not violated any law.
Up to $2,172.30