California Refinery Workers’ Unpaid On-Call Lawsuit Settles for $9M

The case stems from Marathon’s use of “Primary Relief” assignments—two-hour standby windows during which workers had to remain available to report to the refinery within 90 minutes if called. Employees were required to stay sober, well-rested and ready to work a full 12-hour shift, with potential discipline for failing to respond.

The lawsuit was originally filed on May 4, 2023, by Louis Butel, an operator at the refinery since 2005, and Pam Mocherniak, who worked there from 2001 to 2023, reported Law360. They alleged these conditions placed workers under the company’s control even when they were off-duty.

Here is the crux of the dispute: employees who were called in during these standby windows were paid their normal rate for a full 12-hour shift, but those who remained on standby and were never called in allegedly received no compensation. Plaintiffs argued that the level of control over their time made the standby hours compensable under California’s reporting time pay rules. Marathon countered that merely being scheduled for a Primary Relief shift did not constitute reporting to work and did not trigger pay obligations unless employees were actually called in.

After nearly three years of litigation—including motions to dismiss, a contested class certification battle, and summary judgment briefing—the parties reached a settlement covering approximately 748 current and former operators and lab workers at Marathon’s Los Angeles refinery. The class period spans from May 2020 through late 2025.

Under the proposed deal, the $9 million gross settlement fund will result in about $6.6 million in net payments to workers after fees and costs. Individual recoveries will vary based on how often workers were assigned Primary Relief shifts, but the average payout is estimated at roughly $8,800 per person. The settlement represents about 37% of the plaintiffs’ estimated $24 million maximum recovery—within a range courts often approve given litigation risks.

Class response to the settlement has been minimal. No workers opted out or objected, though a small number disputed their individual workweek calculations, most successfully. That lack of opposition may may reflect both the uncertainty surrounding on-call compensation claims and the risks of continued litigation. The case also raised unresolved legal questions, including whether federal labor law pre-empts certain state wage claims (Marathon’s defence) in unionized workplaces.

More broadly, the lawsuit fits into a pattern of wage and hour complaints targeting on-call scheduling practices in California’s refining and industrial sectors. Similar cases have been brought against other major employers, reflecting ongoing disputes over when employer-imposed restrictions on off-duty time become compensable work.

According to Bloomberg Law, Marathon and related companies in 2025 also agreed to a $7.2 million settlement resolving claims from more than 2,200 workers who alleged they were shorted on pay and rest breaks across multiple facilities, underscoring the sustained litigation pressure facing the industry.

For employers, the case underscores the legal exposure tied to policies that limit how workers can use their personal time—even outside traditional working hours. For employees, it highlights a growing willingness to challenge those practices, particularly where the constraints resemble active work obligations. The Marathon settlement offers a reminder that the line between “off duty” and “on the clock” is not always clear—and that ambiguity can carry a substantial price tag.