Nordstrom, PetSmart and Nike Face Class Action Lawsuits Over Alleged Unpaid Wages

Nordstrom, PetSmart, and companies involved in a Nike advertising production face separate lawsuits accusing them of failing to fully compensate hourly workers for time spent working and, in some cases, denying required meal or rest breaks. Filed in Washington, Colorado and California, the cases raise a common wage question over work performed outside scheduled hours or during periods that employees say should have been protected breaks.

In Washington, Nordstrom employee Kayden LaBrake claims the retailer's staffing and timekeeping practices caused hourly workers to miss, delay, or shorten meal and rest periods without receiving all compensation allegedly owed. She is seeking to represent hourly, non-exempt Nordstrom employees who worked in Washington at any time since July 21, 2023.

Four former PetSmart employees make related claims in a lawsuit filed in Denver District Court. They allege scheduling practices left workers performing duties before and after their scheduled shifts without pay and caused them to miss meal periods and rest breaks.

Two of the former employees also claim they paid for dog grooming tools and sharpening services themselves without reimbursement. The proposed class covers hourly or otherwise non-exempt PetSmart employees who worked for the retailer in Colorado.

Claims involving work before or after a scheduled shift often turn on whether the activity counts as compensable time. The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires covered employees to be paid for all hours an employer requires or permits them to work, even when the time falls outside an official schedule. Preparing equipment, completing paperwork, or finishing assigned duties after clocking out can qualify as paid working time depending on the circumstances.

State law can add protections beyond the federal wage and overtime rules. Washington requires paid rest periods for covered workers and generally requires a meal period when a shift exceeds five hours. A meal period may be unpaid when an employee is fully relieved of work duties, while time spent working through the break can count as paid time. Colorado also has its own meal and rest requirements, which are part of the claims brought by the former PetSmart workers.

A separate lawsuit filed in federal court in California raises similar questions over unpaid work on a Nike commercial, along with another issue over which companies may be legally responsible for the workers involved.

Production assistant Noah Rumenapp says he worked on a commercial produced by Iconoclast Content and claims production crew members performed unpaid work before their call times and after production wrapped. The alleged tasks included checking in, gathering equipment and completing paperwork. He also claims wages owed after his employment ended were paid later than required.

Rumenapp sued Iconoclast, Nike USA, advertising agency Wieden + Kennedy and Charles-Marie Anthonioz. His complaint identifies Iconoclast as his controlling employer but argues Nike and Wieden + Kennedy exercised enough control over the production to also share responsibility for the alleged wage violations.

That allegation raises what is known as the joint employer issue. Wage law can sometimes treat more than one business as an employer of the same worker when multiple companies exercise sufficient control over the employment relationship. Courts can consider who supervised the work, controlled working conditions, and had authority over important parts of the job rather than relying only on the company listed on a paycheck.

Rumenapp is seeking to represent a nationwide group of certain production workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, along with workers covered by his California claims. His allegations that Nike and Wieden + Kennedy exercised enough control to share liability have not been decided by the court.

The three lawsuits involve different employers and state laws, but each depends in part on how working time was recorded and paid. Federal law provides the baseline for minimum wage, overtime, and compensable work, while states may impose additional requirements governing breaks, wage payments, and other workplace protections.

The Nordstrom case is before King County Superior Court, while the PetSmart lawsuit was filed in Denver District Court. Rumenapp's action is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. None of the three cases has reached a final ruling on the workers' claims.