$229 Million Wage-and-Hour Class Action Verdict Affirmed: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services
Executive Summary
Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services
Court: King County Superior Court, Washington (Case No. 21-2-13058-1 SEA)
Judge: Hon. Averil Rothrock
Verdict Date: April 18, 2024
Matter: Class action (approximately 33,000 members) alleging systematic wage-and-hour violations under Washington state labor laws, including failure to provide second meal breaks and unlawful timeclock rounding practices.
Counsel
Plaintiff's Counsel:
• HKM Employment Attorneys LLP — Jason Rittereiser, Donald Heyrich, Rachel Emens, Henry Brudney, Joseph Wright
• Stutheit Kalin LLC — Peter Stutheit
Defendant's Counsel:
• Arnold & Porter (Seattle)
• Summit Law Group PLLC (Seattle)
Key Findings and Verdict
Liability: In January 2024, Judge Rothrock granted partial summary judgment finding Providence liable as a matter of law on both claims. The court determined that Providence's timeclock rounding policy was unlawful because it was not neutral in practice and consistently shortchanged employees' pay. The court further found that Providence failed to ensure second meal breaks for shifts exceeding 10 hours as required by WAC 296-126-092. Critically, the court ruled the violations were "willful" under the Wage Rebate Act (RCW 49.52.050-.070), mandating doubled damages.
Jury Verdict — Damages Breakdown:
• $90.3 million — Second meal break violations
• $9.3 million — Timeclock rounding violations
• ($1.3 million) — Reduction for verified meal break waivers
• Net Jury Award: $98.3 million
Final Judgment: Under Washington's Wage Rebate Act, the willfulness finding mandated doubling of damages to approximately $196.6 million. With pre-judgment interest calculated from the dates wages should have been paid, the total judgment exceeded $229 million—one of the largest wage-and-hour awards in Washington state history.
Case Timeline: Bennett v. Providence
Factual Background
In September 2021, Naomi Bennett filed a class-action lawsuit against Providence Health & Services, later joined by co-plaintiff Janet Hughes, on behalf of all hourly Providence employees in Washington. The lawsuit alleged that Providence maintained company-wide policies that systematically denied employees required compensation through two distinct mechanisms.
Missed Second Meal Breaks
Washington regulations require employers to provide a second 30-minute unpaid meal break for shifts exceeding 10 hours. The plaintiffs alleged that Providence employees routinely worked 10-12+ hour shifts without receiving this second meal period. Despite employees working through these breaks, Providence's timekeeping system automatically deducted meal periods from paychecks. Evidence presented at trial showed that over 3.6 million second meal breaks were missed yet deducted from wages during the class period. Hospital staff were often too busy or short-staffed to take breaks, but their pay was docked as if they had.
Unlawful Timeclock Rounding
Providence used a Kronos timekeeping system that rounded employee clock-in and clock-out times to the nearest 15-minute increment. While rounding policies can be lawful if they average out neutrally over time, plaintiffs alleged Providence's specific implementation consistently favored the employer. For example, clocking in 7 minutes early would round forward (losing those minutes), while clocking out 7 minutes late would round back (erasing that time). Statistical analysis revealed the rounding policy resulted in lost pay on approximately 71% of affected shifts. Providence's own records showed employees worked over 234,000 hours that went uncompensated due to the rounding policy and missed breaks over the five-year class period.
Providence denied wrongdoing, maintaining that its policies complied with Washington law and that employees were given breaks or voluntarily agreed to skip them. The health system argued some employees preferred to waive second meal breaks to leave earlier, and that the rounding practice was an administrative convenience rather than an intentional scheme to underpay workers.
Pre-Trial Proceedings
Class Certification
In May 2023, the court certified the lawsuit as a class action, dividing it into two subclasses: a "Rounding Class" and a "Second Meal Break Class." The court found that common questions predominated—every hourly worker was subject to the same rounding policy and same break policy—making class treatment appropriate.
Discovery and Expert Analysis
Plaintiffs obtained Providence's electronic time records, written policies, internal emails, and deposition testimony from management. Labor economist Dr. Brian Kriegler analyzed the timeclock data, finding that the rounding policy overwhelmingly deprived employees of compensable time (approximately 71% of affected shifts resulted in lost minutes) and that employees missed second meal breaks on over 90% of long shifts without any record of waived breaks.
Withdrawal of Good Faith Defense
During discovery, Providence initially asserted a "good faith" defense, claiming it reasonably believed its practices were lawful. However, when plaintiffs sought evidence supporting this defense—such as legal opinions or guidance justifying the rounding system—Providence withdrew the defense rather than disclose privileged communications. This withdrawal prevented Providence from later arguing the violations were an innocent mistake.
Summary Judgment on Liability
In January 2024, Judge Rothrock issued a partial summary judgment ruling that Providence had violated Washington law. The court concluded that Providence's rounding policy was unlawful because it was not neutral in practice and consistently shortchanged employees. The court also found Providence failed to ensure second meal breaks—notably, Providence could produce only approximately 300 written waivers from employees agreeing to skip breaks, out of tens of thousands of shifts where no break was taken. The court found the violations "willful" as a matter of law, setting the stage for mandatory damages doubling under the Wage Rebate Act.
Trial
The eight-day trial in April 2024 focused primarily on damages, as liability had already been established. The jury heard testimony from class members, expert witnesses, and Providence management.
Employee Testimony
Naomi Bennett testified about regularly working 12-hour shifts without a second meal break due to patient needs, yet still having 30 minutes' pay deducted each time. Other employees described clocking in minutes early to relieve colleagues or staying late to finish charting, and noticing those extra minutes never appeared on their paystubs. Some acknowledged occasionally skipping breaks voluntarily but attributed this to workload pressures and a workplace culture that normalized working through breaks.
Expert Damages Analysis
Dr. Brian Kriegler presented his analysis of Providence's punch data, computing that from September 2018 to May 2023, employees worked over 234,000 unpaid hours due to the rounding policy and missed meal breaks. His damages model tallied approximately $99.6 million in gross unpaid wages. Providence did not offer an alternative calculation but challenged the assumptions, suggesting some recorded time might include non-work activities. Dr. Kriegler maintained that time on the clock is compensable time unless employees formally clock out or waive payment.
Meal Break Waivers
Providence introduced approximately 300 meal-break waiver forms signed by employees. Given the 33,000-person class and millions of affected shifts, this represented less than 1% of instances where breaks were missed. The jury ultimately deducted $1.3 million for verified waivers from the total damages—implying over 99% of missed breaks were not validly waived.
Providence's Defense
Providence witnesses, including managers and HR personnel, testified the company believed it complied with the law. They referenced an on-duty meal policy allowing paid breaks when staff couldn't leave their posts. However, witnesses admitted there was no systematic documentation of who took on-duty breaks or who waived breaks. On the rounding issue, a supervisor testified employees were told not to start work before their scheduled time, but acknowledged no one actually tracked or enforced this rule—and patient care often began immediately when nurses arrived on the floor.
Internal Documents
Evidence showed Providence executives were aware of meal break requirements, with internal memos reminding managers about providing breaks. Yet Providence never implemented a mechanism to ensure second breaks were taken or to pay a premium when breaks were missed. Notably, Providence ended its rounding policy in late 2023, mid-litigation—plaintiffs argued this demonstrated the company recognized the policy was problematic.
Post-Verdict Developments
Providence announced its intent to appeal immediately after the verdict, expressing disappointment and characterizing the case as presenting "new and complex" wage-and-hour issues. On appeal, Providence argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on liability and that class certification was improper given variations in union contracts and individual circumstances.
In October 2025, the Washington Court of Appeals (Division I) affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. The appellate court agreed that Providence's rounding policy violated Washington law and that sufficient evidence supported the willfulness finding. Class certification and trial procedures were upheld. While the unpublished decision is not binding precedent, it leaves the $229+ million judgment intact.
Providence may petition the Washington Supreme Court for review, but as of late 2025, the judgment remains in effect and continues accruing interest. The health system has not indicated interest in settlement. Distribution to class members remains on hold pending final resolution of appeals.
In terms of business practices, Providence ended its rounding policy in late 2023, switching to minute-by-minute timekeeping. The health system has reportedly implemented changes to break compliance monitoring, including scheduling relief staff to ensure meal breaks can be taken.