We are excited to announce a major victory for our client and 101 other sales associates in our battle against FreedomRoads, LLC and its celebrity owner, Marcus Lemonis, for unpaid overtime and Sunday premium pay.
On January 22, 2025, an arbitrator ruled that our case – which is pending in arbitration – can proceed as a class action, thanks to our use of California case law to interpret an odd phrase in the company’s arbitration agreement. This decision could pave the way for these workers to recover overtime and Sunday pay we contend they are due under Massachusetts law. Here is the Arbitration Order.
First Things First: What’s Arbitration?
Arbitration is a private, out-of-court process where a neutral third party – called an arbitrator – hears disputes between two parties and makes a binding decision. Employers often force employees to sign arbitration agreements requiring them to file claims against the company in arbitration instead of court. These arbitration agreements also usually contain class action waivers which prohibit the employee from suing on behalf of their coworkers.
While arbitration is often billed as a cheaper and faster alternative to court, the reality is that employers push arbitration agreements because they think they fare better in arbitration than in court. Employers also include class action waivers to prevent workers from joining together to sue. Why? It is a lot cheaper to face a claim by one employee instead of dozens or hundreds.
Arbitration is also shrouded in darkness – unlike court, precious few decisions made in arbitration see the light of day. This allows repeat offenders to continue abusing employees’ rights with minimal social and judicial accountability. It also undermines the development of case law (judge’s decisions that interpret and shape the law).
The Case: Fighting for Fair Pay
FreedomRoads, LLC sells RVs at a variety of locations across the country. The company is owned by celebrity Marcus Lemonis – best known for his time hosting The Profit, a CNBC reality TV show. The company is a subsidiary of Camping World, a publicly-traded company where Mr. Lemonis serves as chairman and CEO.
In our arbitration demand, we alleged that our client – James Meglio, a senior citizen – and other sales associates at FreedomRoads’ were paid draw pay (an advance against future commissions) and commissions but were not separately compensated for overtime and Sunday premium in violation of the Massachusetts wage laws. A 2019 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision (Sullivan v. Sleepy’s) declared such practices unlawful, yet FreedomRoads continued them until December 2023—only after Mr. Meglio filed his claims.
The Challenge: A Tricky Arbitration Clause
FreedomRoads required employees to sign arbitration agreements limiting claims to individual actions unless a class action was the “only effective way to halt and redress the alleged violations.” Odd language, huh? Not so much.
As we argued to the arbitrator, the phrase “halt and redress” isn’t random—the language first appeared in a 1976 class action case in which a California Supreme Court justice opined, in a concurring decision:
“A company which wrongfully exacts a dollar from each of millions of customers will reap a handsome profit; the class action is often the only effective way to halt and redress such exploitation. […] the problems which arise in the management of a class action involving numerous small claims do not justify a judicial policy that would permit the defendant to retain the benefits of its wrongful conduct and to continue that conduct with impunity.”
See Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court, 556 P.2d 755, 759 (Cal. 1976) (Tobrin, J., concurring)
Put differently, if an employer unlawfully takes $100 from 1,000 employees, it makes a tidy profit. Employees generally cannot afford to sue over $100 (or find a lawyer willing to do so), allowing the wrongdoing to continue. The only effective way to stop the employer’s illegal practice is to allow these 1,000 employees to band together in a class action: now facing a $100,000 lawsuit, it is much harder for the employer to justify business as usual; and relying on the strength of their numbers, the employees can effectively recover the relatively small amounts owed to each of them.
In the years that followed, California courts – including in Discover Bank v. Superior Court (2005) and Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) – developed a standard for when class actions are essential to address wage and consumer violations. These cases held that class actions are the “only effective way to halt and redress” wrongs when:
- Individual recoveries are small, discouraging solo claims;
- Workers may fear employer retaliation;
- Employees are unaware of their rights; and
- Practical barriers, like finding affordable legal help, block individual actions.
When those circumstances are present, those courts concluded that a class action waiver is unenforceable and the workers must be permitted to proceed on a class-wide basis.
We argued that the arbitration agreement’s use of “halt and redress” deliberately echoed this California standard, reflecting FreedomRoads’ intent to allow class actions under these conditions.
The Arbitrator’s Ruling: A Nod to Legal History
The arbitrator sided with us, finding our approach “more reasonable than assuming FreedomRoads’ then counsel plucked the language out of thin air.” The decision (here’s a copy) recognized that the “halt and redress” language likely drew from California case law, suggesting FreedomRoads’ agreement was drafted to survive legal scrutiny by allowing class actions in specific cases.
And on the facts of our case, the arbitrator agreed that a class action was uniquely effective because: (i) sales associates were owed modest amounts, making individual claims unlikely; (ii) employees could fear retaliation if they brought their own claims; (iii) FreedomRoads misled workers by claiming a “change in the law” when it began paying overtime wages in 2023, hiding the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2019 ruling and their potential right to back pay; and (iv) individual arbitrations would be costly, inefficient, and leave many workers without relief. The arbitrator also noted that FreedomRoads only started paying overtime after our class action threat, proving the power of collective action to halt violations.
What’s Next and Why It Matters
This ruling allows the case to move forward as a putative class action, pending a future decision from the arbitrator on class certification. In the meantime, FreedomRoads and Mr. Lemonis continue to fight to avoid a ruling that would require them to pay these employees the overtime and Sunday wages we believe they are indisputably owed. Most recently, they filed a motion attempting to vacate the arbitrator’s order allowing class proceedings. We have filed an opposition and are optimistic that the court will deny their request.
This case is a testament to how creative legal strategies—like using California case law to interpret a Massachusetts contract—can level the playing field for workers. By tapping into the historical meaning of “halt and redress,” we turned a restrictive clause into an opportunity for justice. We look forward to continuing to fight to recover wages for all 102 sales associates impacted by FreedomRoads’ pay practices.
At Ortiz & Moeslinger, P.C. we’re proud to fight for workers’ rights with bold, thoughtful advocacy. If you suspect your employer is violating wage laws, reach out to us to explore your options.