Wage & Hour Defense Attorneys in Saratoga, CA
Defending California employers against overtime, meal break, and classification claims.
Request a Compliance Audit →Defending Your Business in Wage and Hour Disputes
McLellan Law Group LLP defends California employers in wage and hour matters, including exempt and independent contractor misclassification, meal and rest break claims, overtime calculation, wage statement penalties, Labor Commissioner proceedings, and wage claims carrying a PAGA or class component. The firm is based in Saratoga and works with businesses throughout Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. Compliance audits are available on a flat fee.
California's wage and hour laws are strictly enforced, and even well-intentioned employers commonly face exposure.
Common triggers include:
- Misclassifying employees as exempt from overtime.
- Misclassifying workers as independent contractors under the ABC test.
- Calculating overtime incorrectly under California's daily-overtime rules.
- Failing to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks.
- Wage statement errors that are themselves independently penalized.
A single systemic wage and hour issue can expose a business across its entire workforce.
A timekeeping practice that doesn't capture off-the-clock work, or a job classification applied uniformly across a role that doesn't actually meet exemption requirements, frequently escalates into a PAGA claim or class action rather than a single-employee dispute.
McLellan Law Group helps Silicon Valley employers respond to individual wage claims and Labor Commissioner investigations.
Just as importantly, McLellan Law Group helps identify and correct systemic issues before they generate broader exposure.
Common Misclassification Risks
| Common misclassification | What it exposes you to | What an audit checks |
|---|---|---|
| Non-exempt employee treated as exempt | Unpaid overtime going back three years, or four under the Unfair Competition Law. One additional hour of pay for each workday a meal period was not provided, and a separate hour for each workday a rest period was not provided. Wage statement damages under Labor Code section 226, subdivision (e), of $50 for the initial pay period and $100 per employee for each subsequent pay period, capped at $4,000, plus mandatory attorney fees and costs. Waiting time penalties of up to 30 days of wages under section 203 for anyone who has already separated. | Salary level against the statutory threshold, and whether exempt duties actually occupy more than half the working time |
| Employee treated as an independent contractor | Everything above, plus a civil penalty of $5,000 to $15,000 per violation for willful misclassification under Labor Code section 226.8, rising to $10,000 to $25,000 per violation where there is a pattern or practice. The penalty requires a determination by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or a court, and "willful" means the misclassification was voluntary and knowing, a good-faith classification that turns out to be wrong is a wage exposure problem, not a section 226.8 problem. | Each prong of the ABC test, and whether any codified exemption genuinely applies |
| Overtime calculated on the federal 40-hour rule | Unpaid daily overtime and double time across everyone in the role | Whether the payroll system applies California's daily thresholds, not just the weekly one |
| Meal and rest break policy that is compliant on paper only | One additional hour of pay at the regular rate for each workday a meal period was not provided, and a separate hour for each workday a rest period was not provided, so up to two hours per employee per day. Courts have read the statute to allow one premium of each type per day rather than one premium total. | Timekeeping records against the policy, and whether breaks are genuinely available rather than nominally offered |
| Wage statement missing required items | The section 226, subdivision (e) damages described above, plus mandatory attorney fees and costs. The employee has to show the failure was knowing and intentional, which is the primary defense available. Separately, the Labor Commissioner can cite an employer $250 per employee for an initial violation and $1,000 per employee for each subsequent violation under section 226.3, which is not subject to the $4,000 cap. | Every required element on a live statement, item by item |
Penalty amounts stated here are current as of September 2026 and are subject to legislative change.
What Our Wage & Hour Defense Attorneys Do
Wage & Hour Defense FAQs
The most common and costly risks are misclassifying non-exempt employees as exempt, misclassifying workers as independent contractors, failing to provide compliant meal and rest breaks, and calculating overtime under federal rather than California's more generous daily-overtime standard. Because these issues are typically applied uniformly across a job title or department, a single classification error can create liability for every employee who held that role, not just one.
California uses the ABC test to determine whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor. Under this test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the hiring business proves all three of the following: (A) the worker is free from the company's control and direction in performing the work, (B) the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring business, and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature. Failing to satisfy even one prong means the worker should be classified as an employee, with all the associated wage and hour obligations. Those three conditions are the ABC test, and the burden sits on the business: a worker providing labor or services for pay is presumed an employee unless the hiring entity establishes all three. California has since codified a long list of occupational and industry exemptions from that test, and whether a particular arrangement falls inside one of them is usually the question that actually matters. It is worth resolving before an audit or a claim forces the answer.
A Labor Commissioner (DLSE) investigation typically begins with a wage claim filed by a current or former employee and can expand into a broader audit of your pay practices. You will generally be asked to produce payroll records, time records, and personnel files, and a hearing (called a Berman hearing) may be scheduled. Legal representation at this stage matters, an unfavorable Berman hearing decision can be appealed only by posting a bond for the full amount awarded, which makes early, well-prepared participation important.
Yes, and this is one of the most significant risks of a systemic wage and hour issue. Because violations like a misclassification or a defective meal break policy typically apply to an entire job category rather than one individual, a single employee's claim can expose the business to civil penalties for every similarly situated current and former employee under PAGA, or support a class action seeking damages on behalf of the entire group.
A periodic wage and hour compliance audit, reviewing job classifications, timekeeping systems, meal and rest break practices, and wage statement formatting against current California requirements, is the most effective way to catch issues before they become claims. California's wage and hour rules change frequently, so a classification or policy that was compliant several years ago may no longer be.
This is an obligation rather than a recommendation. California requires employers to keep itemized wage statement copies and the record of deductions for at least three years, and to keep accurate time and payroll records. Four years is the safer practice given overlapping limitations periods, and the practical reason is evidentiary: contemporaneous time punches and meal break records are usually the single most important evidence in defending a wage claim, and where records are incomplete the burden can shift to the employer to disprove the employee's account.
Results-Driven. Personally Invested.
What Our Clients Say
Results depend on the specific facts and law of each matter. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other case.