Case Overview | Vertical: Workplace & Employment | Article Type: Roundup | Cases: 3 | Last Updated: May 2026

3 Employment and Labor Class Actions to Watch Right Now

From unpaid overtime at a major health insurer to gender discrimination allegations at one of Silicon Valley's most prominent nonprofits, a wave of workplace class actions filed in 2025 and 2026 is drawing attention to alleged labor violations across industries. A recent class action filing involving California high school athletes and NIL rights adds an unconventional dimension to the employment law landscape — one that intersects antitrust law with questions of fair compensation.

Here is a look at three active cases that workers and advocates may want to follow.

1. Calhoun v. California Interscholastic Federation — High School Athletes and NIL Rights

Filed: May 30, 2025

Court: Federal (California)

Who May Be Affected: Current and former California high school student-athletes whose name, image, and likeness rights were allegedly restricted under CIF rules

Former high school football player Dominik Calhoun filed a class action lawsuit against the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), alleging that its Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rules constitute unlawful restraints of trade. According to the complaint, CIF rules prevented student-athletes from monetizing their own identities — a restriction Calhoun argues violates both federal and California antitrust law.

The lawsuit's emphasis on fair compensation for athletes draws on themes familiar from broader labor and wage disputes, even though it is rooted in antitrust claims rather than traditional employment law. The complaint frames NIL restrictions as a systemic policy that denied athletes economic opportunities tied directly to their labor and performance.

No settlement has been announced. The case is in early stages, and class certification has not yet been granted.

Learn more: Coverage of this case is available through LawyersAndSettlements.com's emerging issues reporting.

2. Landis v. Elevance Health — Nurses Allege Misclassification and Unpaid Overtime

Filed: 2023 (ongoing as of 2026)

Jurisdiction: North Carolina (federal, FLSA collective action)

Who May Be Affected: Elevance Health utilization review nurses in North Carolina classified as salaried employees who worked more than 40 hours per week

Plaintiff Kathy Landis brought this collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that she and similarly situated nurses at Elevance Health were misclassified as exempt salaried employees — a classification the lawsuit claims unlawfully denied them overtime pay they were legally owed.

According to the complaint, when Landis raised the issue internally, supervisors told her nothing could be done because of her salaried status. The lawsuit alleges this response reflects a broader, systemic practice of misclassifying utilization review nurses to avoid overtime obligations under federal law.

Under the FLSA, workers whose exemptions are incorrectly applied may be entitled to back pay for unpaid overtime, calculated at one-and-a-half times their regular rate for all hours worked beyond 40 in a week. In cases where violations are found to be willful, courts may award liquidated damages that could double the recovery amount — though any such outcome would depend on the facts established at trial or in settlement.

Because FLSA collective actions are opt-in rather than opt-out, nurses who believe they may have been similarly affected would need to affirmatively join the case if it proceeds to that stage. Only an attorney can evaluate whether a particular worker's circumstances meet the legal standard for participation.

Status: Active litigation; no settlement has been announced.

3. Doe v. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative — Female Employees Allege Gender Discrimination

Filed: March 18, 2026

Jurisdiction: California

Who May Be Affected: Female employees of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) who allege they were subjected to discriminatory pay, promotion, or workplace practices

Female employees of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative filed a California labor lawsuit against the philanthropic organization co-founded by Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, alleging gender discrimination in the workplace. According to the complaint, female employees experienced unequal treatment in compensation, advancement opportunities, or working conditions relative to their male counterparts.

The lawsuit comes at a notable moment for the organization. CZI, long associated with progressive advocacy, has reportedly scaled back its public-facing equity commitments in recent months, including eliminating internal diversity, equity, and inclusion teams, according to reporting on the case. The plaintiffs allege that female workers bore the burden of those institutional shifts.

Gender discrimination claims filed in California can proceed under both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and, depending on the circumstances, federal Title VII protections. The remedies potentially available in such cases may include back pay, compensatory damages, and injunctive relief — though the specific outcome of this case would depend on findings of fact and applicable law.

The case is in early litigation stages. No settlement has been reached.

Status: Active litigation; class certification has not been determined.

Key Takeaways

• Misclassification remains a high-stakes issue. The Elevance case illustrates how salaried designations can strip workers of overtime protections they may legally be entitled to under the FLSA — even in licensed professional roles.
• Antitrust law is expanding into labor territory. The CIF NIL lawsuit signals that restrictions on how workers (including student-athletes) can benefit from their own labor may face legal challenges beyond traditional employment frameworks.
• Well-known organizations are not immune. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative case is a reminder that discrimination claims can emerge at organizations with public commitments to equity — and that those claims are evaluated on workplace evidence, not public reputation.
• FLSA collective actions require you to opt in. Unlike most class actions, workers in FLSA cases must actively join the lawsuit. Following case developments is important for anyone who believes they may be affected.
• All three cases are in active litigation. No settlements have been reached, and outcomes remain uncertain. Workers who believe they have been affected by similar practices should consult a qualified employment attorney.

Are you following any of these cases — or have you experienced similar workplace issues? Share your perspective in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on litigation developments for informational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or lawsuit is determined by attorneys and courts, not by this publication.