A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge approved a recent $450,000 class-action settlement reached between the Santa Clarita Valley Senior Center and an employee, according to court records obtained by The Signal.
Jose Vasquez, the named plaintiff in the class-action suit, filed on behalf of drivers like himself who have worked for the center’s home-delivered meals program since November 2021, packing meals, loading trucks with food and then delivering to seniors throughout the region, as well as performing wellness checks.
Now the center is being required to pay a “gross settlement amount” of $450,000 to address the wage claims, according to a tentative agreement reached.
Kevin MacDonald, executive director of the SCV Senior Center at Bella Vida, said he considered the lawsuit an “administrative matter,” and the lawsuit was not in any way an indictment on the center’s programming, which helps thousands of seniors.
“We’re proud of the care we take in managing our workplace,” but that said, he added, “litigation is uncertain.”
He said after consultation with the center’s attorneys at the Koegle Law Group, he was advised that this would be the best course of action for the center.
The terms require reimbursement to employees who are considered members of the impacted class.
“The administrator will disburse the entire gross settlement amount without asking or requiring participating class members or aggrieved employees to submit any claim as a condition of payment. None of the gross settlement amount will revert to (the) defendant,” according to the terms of the settlement.
Vasquez’s suit contended he and others were: unpaid for hours they worked; not allowed to take required breaks; and required to use their cellphones without compensation.
An attorney for the Haines Law Group, which represents Vasquez, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
“Specifically, defendants required plaintiff and other non-exempt employees to clock out for their meal periods before the end of their fifth hour of work (which is in accordance with state law), but to continue working and making deliveries while off the clock,” according to the initial complaint, which was filed in March 2025.
The lawsuit also alleged that through the center’s workplace practices, which included requiring employees to answer their personal cells for work calls during their breaks, workers were habitually denied their legally required breaks. This included a “10-minute, duty-free” rest period for every four hours.
MacDonald said since such lawsuits are not covered by insurance, one of the things the center was working on now was how to pay the costs.
Attorneys for the senior center initially denied the claims in a June filing.
Brian Koegle, an attorney with Koegle Law, said he was limited in what could be said at this time pending the court’s final approval of the settlement, in referring comment to MacDonald.
The April 13 motion also granted conditional certification of the “settlement class,” or those impacted by the tentative agreement, which is scheduled for final approval at a hearing in August. That class includes all “current and former nonexempt employees of the defendant who worked in California at any time between March 4, 2021, through Feb. 13, 2026.”
That further includes all of the center’s nonexempt employees subject to the center’s policies up to four years prior to the suit’s filing, including anyone who worked at least one shift more than 3.5 hours.
The reimbursement class includes all current and former employees required to use their cellphone for work-related purposes without reimbursement.
The number of people expected to be impacted is greater than 100, according to a court filing.
The deadline for any parties to dispute or object to the settlement terms is July 10.
“The final approval of whether the settlement agreement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate is scheduled on Aug. 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.,” at a hearing in Downtown L.A., according to court records.
