[Update] Former Employee Sues Coast Central Credit Union, Seeks Class Action Over Alleged Wage and Break Violations
A former employee of Coast Central Credit Union has filed a lawsuit in Humboldt County Superior Court alleging the credit union violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code and is seeking to have the case certified as a class action.
The complaint, filed January 8, 2026, names Jackson Crockett as the plaintiff and lists Coast Central Credit Union as the defendant. Crockett brings the case on behalf of himself and other current and former non-exempt employees in California who allegedly experienced similar workplace practices.
According to the complaint, Crockett worked for Coast Central from July 2024 to August 2025 as a non-exempt hourly employee. The lawsuit defines a proposed “California Class” that would include non-exempt employees who worked for the credit union during the four years prior to the filing of the complaint through a date to be determined by the court. The complaint alleges the amount in controversy for the class exceeds $5 million.
The lawsuit alleges Coast Central failed to properly compensate employees for all hours worked, including time allegedly worked during meal periods or while off the clock. It claims employees were at times required to perform work during what should have been off-duty meal breaks and that meal period time was rounded in a manner that benefitted the employer. The complaint also alleges the credit union did not consistently provide legally required 30-minute meal periods and 10-minute rest breaks depending on shift length.
Beyond break-related claims, the lawsuit alleges Coast Central failed to properly calculate overtime and premium pay by excluding non-discretionary incentive compensation from the regular rate of pay. It further claims the credit union issued inaccurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay sick leave at the correct rate, did not reimburse certain business expenses such as personal cell phone use for work purposes, and failed to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The complaint also includes a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Although filed by a single former employee, the lawsuit is not limited to Crockett alone. It is structured as a proposed class action, meaning the plaintiff is asking the court for permission to represent a broader group of employees who may have been affected by the same alleged practices. If the court certifies the class, the case would proceed on behalf of all employees who fit the class definition, unless they choose to opt out. If the court declines to certify the class, the case could continue as an individual lawsuit.
Crockett is seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and a jury trial.
Redheaded Blackbelt reached out to Coast Central Credit Union for comment, however, their representative was unavailable for comment on short notice prior to publication. We will update or provide follow-up reporting if/when additional information becomes available.
Update: In response to our request for comment, Christian Hill, Public Affairs Officer for Coast Central Credit Union emailed us this response:
We are aware of the lawsuit that has been filed. As this is active litigation, it is our policy not to comment on the matter.
What we can say is that we take great pride in being the premier employer in our market, a distinction we have earned and upheld throughout our 75-year history. Our employees are critical to our success, and we remain deeply committed to supporting them and fostering a respectful, compliant, and positive workplace.
Note: This author is a Coast Central Credit Union member and Coast Central Credit Union advertises on this news site.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Worked there for 1 yr and suing for $5M. 😂
Pure money grab. Hope the judge tosses the case out.
It’s a class action, so it includes ALL non-exempt workers of the credit union for the duration of their employment.
No, they are asking for it to be a class action, but the judge has to allow that.
Sad but true. I worked for a small chain of retail outlets here in the county and we were sued for something similar. They settled rather than fight because fighting requires a lot of money. Going forward they created a system in their time clock that if you had a lunch violation, they would pay you 1.5x the amount of the 30 minutes in order to cover their bases. A lawsuit like this will create a forensic audit for all of the people in the class, looking at their breaks.
It can be a real hardship for companies to give 30 minute breaks when customer service needs need to be covered. Part of our onboarding paperwork explained exactly that, and people signed off on the fact that they may have to work through their lunch, but will be paid 1.5x the amount. People get so sue happy and lawyers will take the case just because it’s a money tree.
BS
So, if an employee is required to skip breaks and lunches and work overtime, that is obviously for the economic benefit of the employer. Not paying or compensating for that time is a theft of labor. I don’t know if it applies here, but it’s the same idea of a store forcing people to “clock off” but keep working so shareholders are happy.
Unions allow that but meal penalty and wages for that period. Why isn’t it a labor board issue first?
I can only speak for the places that I’ve worked, but it’s always been a hard and fast rule that you’re not allowed to work off the clock. I think that comes down to liability because if you get hurt and you’re not on the clock, then there’s real problems. Both this small chain that I speak of and Humboldt State University would pay 1.5 X if you were after five hours for your lunch break because if there is an audit they’ve already paid upfront.
When you can get in trouble is if your people work over five hours and don’t take their 30. You owe them 30 min x 1.5 of compensation. The idea of being that people need to take their 30 minute lunch within a reasonable amount of time which, in the state’s eye is four hours and 59 minutes.
It was also a set rule that you absolutely had to be off the clock before the fifth hour for your lunch, unless you were working a six hour shift. Then you only get one 10 minute break but you have to be off the clock before five hours and 59 minutes. That’s why most places only schedule six hour shifts and not seven hour shifts or 7 1/2 hour shifts because they can set themselves up for unfair workplace regarding the second 10 minute break.
Actually they have multiple people joining the lawsuit. as an employee there of 15 years I can say it is absolutely prime for a law suit!
Likely to be settled out of court. Lawyers are expensive.
Pure money grab by the plaintiff, who is looking for a way out of actually being a productive member of society.
And when he does need a job, good luck with that. Employers google names of applicants. He will end up screwing himself.
Slow to do their work, but fast at filing claims. I sure hope he does not get that huge sum!
I actually heard about this from one of their current employees when I was doing my banking. She was bewildered as to why any of their former employees would be suing for anything, which tells me that she has no such complaints about working conditions there. I’ve always noticed that their employees take scheduled breaks (they have a little white board with names in order of break time that they hand off to the next person when they return to work) and I’ve seen the employees leaving and arriving from lunch so they aren’t even on the premises during their lunch break.I don’t know who this Jackson person is, but I’m thinking that this is more about some perceived slight rather than an actual case.
“…some perceived slight rather than an actual case.”
Does that remind you of anyone else who just happens to be in the national spotlight?🤔🤔🤔 🥳🥳🥳
Sounds like a whiner to me…
It seems to me that this ex-employee should have filed his claim with the Labor Board, not Superior Court.
Who are the attorneys taking employment cases in this county?