Suit says Honda, Adecco shorted hourly staff on PPE time and OT
Honda and Adecco are facing a new lawsuit accusing them of unpaid PPE time and improper overtime pay for hourly workers across the United States.
On November 24, 2025, former employee Fareed Mayes filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc. The case focuses on how the companies allegedly handled timekeeping and overtime pay for hourly workers in manufacturing and related roles.
According to the filing, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and produces automobiles, engines, transmissions, EV batteries and powersports products, while Adecco USA, Inc. is described as an employment staffing company providing temporary staffing and related services. The lawsuit says both companies jointly employed hourly workers in positions such as production associate, assembler, welder, production worker, casting associate and material handler, all classified as non-exempt.
The core allegation is that hourly employees were required to wear company-issued personal protective equipment but were not paid for the time it took to put it on and take it off.
The filing states that employees had to don a company-issued uniform and other PPE, including steel-toed boots, protective gloves, safety goggles or eye protection, a hard hat and ear protection, at the worksite before clocking in. At the end of the shift, they allegedly had to remove that gear after clocking out.
Mayes claims the pre-shift donning process and post-shift doffing process each took about 10 to 15 minutes per shift, leading to roughly 20 to 30 minutes of unpaid off-the-clock work each day. The lawsuit says this time was integral to the job because employees could not safely perform their work without the PPE, and therefore it should have been treated as paid work time.
The filing also says the companies used attendance and adherence policies in a way that pressured employees to complete this PPE-related work off the clock. Because employees allegedly worked full-time schedules of forty hours or more per week, the lawsuit contends that this unpaid time should have been compensated at regular or overtime rates, depending on when it occurred within the workweek.
Beyond PPE, the lawsuit challenges how overtime pay was calculated. It alleges that the companies failed to include non-discretionary compensation, including Shutdown and Monthly Attendance bonus pay, in calculating the regular rate of pay, and then used an overtime multiplier of less than one and one-half times that regular rate. As one example, the filing points to a pay period from August 4, 2025, through August 10, 2025, where Mayes allegedly worked 44.77 hours at a base hourly rate of $24.40, received an overtime rate of $34.95 and gross earnings of $1,288.91, including $125.00 in Monthly Attendance bonus pay, but with overtime that, according to the lawsuit, did not account for the bonus.
The case is brought as a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a Rule 23 class action on related breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The filing asserts that “thousands” of current and former hourly employees were affected and that centralized payroll practices and corporate policies were applied.
Mayes is seeking back pay, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and court declarations that the challenged pay practices were unlawful and that the companies were unjustly enriched. The case is at an early stage, based solely on the allegations in the filing, and the court has not made any findings or granted any of the requested relief.
