Pennsylvania Cargill Workers Win Preliminary Approval of Unpaid Overtime Settlement

by Emily Aikens and Johanna C. Richter

U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani of the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently granted preliminary approval to a class settlement of more than $4.9 million in Villa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., as case involving workers at Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. This decision resolves unpaid overtime claims brought by workers who alleged that Cargill failed to pay them for extra hours spent walking to and from time clocks on the company’s premises and time spent undergoing COVID-19 health screenings. Workers within the class, which Judge Mariani certified in 2024, were granted a 63-day window to exclude themselves from the settlement or object to the terms of the settlement.

This article will explain the effect of a grant of preliminary approval to a class settlement.  It will also explain the concept of compensable hours and how the conduct alleged in the Cargill case  falls within the concept of compensable hours worked, as well as  what other Pennsylvania industries involve similar off-the-clock exposure.

What does preliminary approval entail?

Judge Mariani recently granted preliminary approval to a class settlement resolving unpaid overtime claims for Cargill Meat Solutions workers. Preliminary approval occurs after the parties have negotiated a settlement and submitted their proposed settlement to the court. The court then reviews the proposed settlement and evaluates whether it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” The court will also review the proposed settlement for signs of collusion, which occurs when the settlement benefits the lead plaintiff or counsel at the expense of the other class members.

Once a judge grants preliminary approval, notice of the settlement is typically sent out to class members, and a settlement webpage may be made available for individuals to learn about the litigation and submit a claim if applicable. In Villa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., the class period is from June 12, 2019 to March 28, 2026. Thus, anyone who was not paid for compensable work during this period may be eligible to file a claim. Workers can also exclude themselves from the class, a path some individuals may take if they do not wish to participate in the lawsuit. Workers can also object to the settlement if they disagree with its terms.

What are compensable hours worked?

Section 6 of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that a covered, nonexempt employee who is “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” receives a specified minimum wage. Relatedly, Section 7 requires employers to pay at least time-and-a-half to covered, nonexempt employees who work more than 40 hours a week at a given job. This time worked is considered compensatory time. Failing to include overtime work in the calculation of an employee’s compensatory hours is a violation of the FLSA.

On a federal level, the Portal-to-Portal Act generally excludes certain travel, walking, and other “preliminary” or “postliminary” activities performed from compensable hours. Accordingly, federal law identifies the commencement of the “principal activities” for which an employee was hired as the starting point of the workday. However, Pennsylvania state law differs from federal law on this point. In Davis v. Target Corp., 767 F. Supp.3d 185 (E.D.Pa 2025), Judge John F. Murphy of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) mandated that hourly workers be compensated for time spent walking from their employer’s entrance to their workstations. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in In re Amazon.com, Inc., 667 Pa. 16 (2021), that “time spent on an employer’s premises waiting to undergo, and undergoing, mandatory security screenings” qualifies as “hours worked” under the PMWA. This is because, according to the Court, “hours worked . . . includes time during which an employee is required by the employer to be on the premises of the employer.” This ruling also held that, unlike the federal FLSA, Pennsylvania law provides no exception for de minimis activities, or tasks that take an “insignificant” period before or after shifts.

How does the conduct alleged in Villa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. fall within the concept of compensable hours worked?

Under both Pennsyvlania Supreme Court precedent and Judge Murphy’s ruling, the time Cargill workers spent walking to and from time clocks and undergoing COVID-19 health screenings constitutes compensable work time because employees were required to be on the employer’s premises during these activities. This time, therefore, should have counted toward the 40-hour workweek threshold, and Cargill’s failure to include it in employees’ total hours could have resulted in violations of employees’ entitlement to time-and-a-half overtime pay.

What other Pennsylvania industries involve similar off-the-clock exposure?

Pursuant to Pennsylvania state law,  employers that fail to compensate employees for time that they are required to be on the premises could be held liable. This time can include security screenings, health screenings, waiting time, or preparatory tasks.

Individuals who feel they have not received the required compensation may consider speaking with counsel.