Law Firm Seeks California Home Depot Hourly Workers Over Overtime, Break Allegations

Capstone Law APC is seeking current and former non-exempt hourly employees of Home Depot’s California stores for a federal case that alleges widespread pay and break violations. The firm’s informational page identifies the matter as Chiarito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., N.D. Cal., Case No. 5:22-CV-01796-YGR, and outlines claims that include unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, missed or untimely meal and rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses under California law.

The outreach effort makes clear the litigation is focused on non-exempt hourly staff, the workers who clock in and out and who typically perform stocking, cashiering, customer service and other floor duties. By inviting affected employees to contact the firm to learn about participation, the page signals the case may be recruiting additional plaintiffs or preparing to pursue broader relief on behalf of a group of workers.

Allegations such as unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work strike at basic workplace practices that affect payroll accuracy, scheduling and store-level management. For employees, the practical consequences range from missed pay for overtime hours to penalty pay for missed meal and rest breaks. Wage statement and expense reimbursement claims raise additional legal exposure for employers: inaccurate pay stubs and unpaid business expenses can trigger statutory penalties under California labor law in addition to any back pay ordered by a court.

For Home Depot managers and corporate HR teams, the lawsuit and the firm’s public outreach page are reminder signals to audit break policies, timekeeping systems and reimbursement procedures. Worker complaints filed as collective or class-type actions can prompt internal investigations, operational changes at retail locations and negotiations that affect company-wide policies. Past litigation against large retailers demonstrates that these disputes can lead to settlements, consent decrees or court orders that change payroll practices and require remedial training for supervisors and timekeeping staff.

The case is ongoing and the firm’s page functions as both a recruitment and informational tool. That outreach matters because it can indicate active or expanding litigation that may affect payroll and compliance practices across multiple stores. Workers who believe they were not paid for all hours worked, were required to perform off-the-clock tasks, experienced missed meal or rest breaks, received inaccurate wage statements, or paid unreimbursed business expenses may have legal options through participation in this case.

What happens next will hinge on whether the litigation proceeds as a collective or class matter and on any filings or rulings in the Northern District of California. In the short term, affected employees should preserve time records, pay stubs and expense receipts and consider consulting counsel or human resources to understand their rights. For workers and managers alike, the dispute highlights how timekeeping, break enforcement and expense reimbursement remain central to frontline retail labor relations.