Skip to main content

Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.

N.D. Cal.April 21, 2022No. 3:18-cv-05813
SettlementCushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.$3,876,130.59 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
710 Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
consent decree

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftWrongful Termination

Outcome

Parties reached a global settlement resolving three combined wage-and-hour cases involving misclassification of appraisers as exempt employees. The court granted final approval of the class and collective settlement, awarding a common fund of $3,876,130.59 to be distributed to class members, with an additional $107,203.12 for payroll taxes.

What This Ruling Means

Dixon v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.

What Happened

Multiple employees sued Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc., claiming the company misclassified appraisers as "exempt" workers—a status that typically means employers don't have to pay overtime. The workers argued they should have received overtime pay and other wage protections but were wrongfully denied these benefits.

What the Court Decided

The parties reached a settlement in April 2022 without going to trial. The court approved a deal awarding nearly $3.9 million to affected workers, plus an additional $107,000 for payroll taxes.

Why This Matters for Workers

This case shows that workers can successfully challenge misclassification. Many employers incorrectly label workers as "exempt" to avoid paying overtime. This settlement demonstrates that courts take wage theft seriously and will hold companies accountable. If you believe you've been wrongly classified and denied overtime pay, this case illustrates you have legal options to recover lost wages.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Dixon from the same court.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.