The latest employment law update highlights a trio of lawsuits spanning Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Florida. The cases underscore the legal scrutiny employers are facing as 2025 draws to a close, delving into concerns over pay practices, deficient COVID-19 vaccine accommodations, and race-based workplace policies. Read the latest updates here.
Pennsylvania Class Action Targets Ritter Foods Over Alleged Unpaid Pre- and Post-Shift Work
A proposed class action filed in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas alleges that Ritter Foods LLC, a Philadelphia-based food distribution company, violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate employees for mandatory work performed before and after their scheduled shifts. The lawsuit was brought by Hector Jara, a former employee, who claims that Ritter Foods did not pay wages or overtime for time spent on required pre-shift and post-shift activities.
According to the complaint, employees were required to enter the facility early to walk to a uniform distribution area, wait in line, change into work attire, and then proceed to time clocks and job assignments. In some cases, workers were also forced to wait unpaid while company inspections were conducted. After their shifts ended, employees had to reverse the process by returning uniforms and exiting the facility, again without compensation.
Jara argues that this time qualifies as compensable work under Pennsylvania law, citing the state Supreme Court’s decision in Heimbach v. Amazon.com Inc., which held that time employees are required to be on-site can be compensable even if they are not actively performing job duties. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, overtime pay, interest, and attorney’s fees for employees dating back to December 2021.
The case is Hector Jara v. Ritter Foods LLC, case number 2512-00689, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
University of Colorado Medical School to Pay $10.3M to Settle Vaccine Mandate Religious Exemption Lawsuit
The University of Colorado’s Anschutz School of Medicine has agreed to pay $10.3 million to resolve a federal lawsuit brought by employees and students who alleged their religious exemption requests from the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate were unlawfully denied. The settlement will cover damages, tuition, and legal fees, bringing the long-running case to a close.
The lawsuit, filed in September 2021 by a Catholic doctor and a Buddhist student, claimed the university violated the First Amendment and federal civil rights laws by rejecting religious exemption requests while allowing certain secular exemptions. Eighteen employees and students ultimately joined the case, proceeding anonymously.
The settlement follows a significant May 2024 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which found that the lower court erred in denying a preliminary injunction against the university’s policies. The appellate court said the initial exemption policy showed evidence of “religious animus” by requiring the university to scrutinize whether objections to vaccination were rooted in formal religious teachings rather than sincerely held beliefs.
The court also found that the university’s revised policy improperly favored secular exemptions over religious ones. While a partial dissent disagreed on the revised policy, the decision paved the way for the settlement, marking a notable resolution in pandemic-era religious rights litigation.
The case is Doe et al. v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado et al., case number 1:21-cv-02637, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Florida Attorney General Sues Starbucks Over Alleged Race-Based DEI Employment Practices
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has filed a state lawsuit accusing Starbucks Corp. of violating Florida’s civil rights laws through its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, alleging the company implemented race-based hiring, promotion and compensation practices. The 21-page complaint claims Starbucks’ DEI policies go beyond lawful inclusion efforts and amount to illegal racial discrimination.
According to Uthmeier, Starbucks set numerical racial targets for its workforce and tied executive bonuses to meeting those goals, effectively creating what he described as race-based quotas. The lawsuit alleges the company excluded or disadvantaged nonminority employees – identified in parts of the complaint as white, multiracial and Asian workers – in hiring, mentorship, networking and pay decisions. Florida argues these practices violate the state’s 1992 Civil Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination based on race.
The state also points to Starbucks’ supplier diversity spending goals and its membership in the Board Diversity Action Alliance as evidence of race-conscious decision-making. Florida is seeking $10,000 for each alleged instance of discrimination, potentially totaling tens of millions of dollars, along with a court order barring Starbucks from future race-based employment practices.
Starbucks has denied the allegations, saying its programs are lawful and open to all employees. The lawsuit follows similar claims brought by Missouri’s attorney general earlier this year challenging the employer’s goals of filling 30% of corporate roles with Black and Indigenous people and people of color by 2025, among other policies, and underscoring growing legal challenges to corporate DEI policies nationwide.
The case is Office of the Florida Attorney General v. Starbucks Coffee Co., case number 2025-CA-000653, in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida.
Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.
Leave a Reply