Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC has agreed to pay $9 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by current and former operators and lab workers at its Los Angeles Refinery over unpaid compensation for on-call shifts. The settlement, which covers 748 workers assigned to primary relief shifts since May 2020, represents approximately $9,400 per affected employee and resolves claims that the company failed to pay workers adequately for time spent on mandatory on-call status. Louis Butel, an operator who has worked at the refinery since 2005, and Pam Mocherniak, who worked there from 2001 to 2023, served as the named plaintiffs in the case.
The on-call arrangements at the refinery required employees to remain available during two-hour on-call windows and to reach the facility within 90 minutes if called in to work. Workers claimed these restrictions severely limited their personal freedom—they couldn’t travel far from home, make firm plans, or pursue other activities—yet Marathon provided little or no compensation for this burden. This type of dispute has become increasingly common as refineries and industrial facilities rely on on-call staffing models, and the Marathon settlement offers important insights into how courts and companies are handling compensation disputes in the energy sector.
Table of Contents
- What Were the On-Call Requirements at Marathon’s Los Angeles Refinery?
- How Much Were Workers Originally Claiming, and Why Did the Settlement Amount Differ?
- Who Qualifies as Part of the Settlement Class, and How Are Payments Determined?
- How Can Affected Employees File a Claim or Receive Their Settlement Payment?
- What Is the Timeline for Settlement Approval and Payment Distribution?
- What Legal Standards Apply to On-Call Pay in Refinery and Energy Sector Work?
- What Does This Settlement Mean for Energy Sector Workers and Future Labor Disputes?
What Were the On-Call Requirements at Marathon’s Los Angeles Refinery?
Marathon operates the largest refinery on the West Coast, processing 365,000 barrels per calendar day. The refinery assigned operators and lab workers to primary relief shifts on an on-call basis, requiring them to remain available during designated two-hour windows. When called in during these periods, employees had to arrive at the facility within 90 minutes—a tight window that essentially confined workers to their homes or immediate surrounding areas during on-call time.
The problem for workers was that these on-call assignments came with significant restrictions on their daily life but minimal or no compensation for the inconvenience. A worker scheduled for an on-call shift couldn’t attend a movie, visit friends in another city, or even take a long dinner out without risk of violating the 90-minute response requirement. Many workers reported that they essentially had to plan their entire personal lives around the on-call schedule, yet paychecks often reflected only hours actually worked, not the “standby” time they spent confined and available. The settlement specifically addresses compensation gaps from May 2020 forward, suggesting that this was when the workers’ concerns about unpaid on-call time became most acute or when Marathon’s policies shifted in a way that prompted the claim.
How Much Were Workers Originally Claiming, and Why Did the Settlement Amount Differ?
The original claims asserted by the plaintiff class estimated total unpaid compensation at approximately $24 million. This figure represented what workers believed they were owed for on-call time based on various wage calculations and legal standards for when standby time constitutes compensable work. However, the final $9 million settlement represents about 37 percent of those alleged damages—a significant reduction that reflects the typical outcome when cases settle rather than proceed to trial. Several factors likely influenced the settlement discount. First, litigation carries risk for both sides.
Marathon faced the possibility of losing at trial and owing the full $24 million plus attorney’s fees and court costs, but it also had legitimate legal defenses to explore. Second, the actual wages and on-call hours varied widely across the 748 employees in the class, making it difficult to calculate precise damages for each person. Third, federal law on what constitutes compensable on-call time is complex and varies by jurisdiction and industry, meaning the outcome at trial was genuinely uncertain. The $9 million figure represents both a real recovery for workers and a meaningful compromise that allowed both sides to avoid the costs and risks of extended litigation. For eligible employees, the $9,400 average per-person recovery can be substantial—equivalent to weeks or months of wages for many refinery workers—even if it falls short of the highest theoretical claims.
Who Qualifies as Part of the Settlement Class, and How Are Payments Determined?
The settlement class is narrowly defined: current and former operators and lab workers employed by Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC at the Los Angeles Refinery who were assigned to primary relief shifts at any point since May 2020. This specificity matters because not every employee at the refinery would qualify. Workers in different roles—supervisors, maintenance staff, clerical workers, or others not assigned to primary relief shifts—would not be part of this settlement, even if they had on-call experience of their own. Individual payment amounts within the settlement will likely vary based on factors such as how long each person was assigned to on-call shifts, the specific pay grade they held, and how many on-call shifts they actually worked.
Rather than a flat $9,400 for everyone, more detailed calculations typically account for each employee’s contribution to the total compensable hours. For instance, an operator who held primary relief shifts for the full six-year period from May 2020 through 2026 would likely receive more than an operator assigned to those shifts for only one year. This variation is standard in class action settlements and helps ensure that the recovery aligns more closely with individual harm. The settlement was filed on March 23, 2026, with a final approval hearing scheduled for April 27, 2026, before U.S. District court Judge Dale Fischer in the Central District of California.
How Can Affected Employees File a Claim or Receive Their Settlement Payment?
Although the settlement was filed in March 2026 with a final approval hearing set for April 27, 2026, the claims process and payment distribution timeline will be established once the court approves the settlement. Eligible workers typically receive notice by mail or email with instructions on how to submit a claim form, which often requires proof of employment during the relevant period (May 2020 to the present or termination date). The claims process usually includes a deadline—commonly 60 to 120 days from the initial notice—by which workers must respond or be excluded from the settlement. Employees who receive notice should act promptly if they believe they qualify.
Claims processors will verify employment records against Marathon’s payroll data, and disputes about eligibility sometimes arise when workers lack documentation or when company records are incomplete. Once the settlement is approved, the claims administrator will calculate individual payments and issue checks or direct deposits. Workers should avoid deleting any emails or documents related to their employment at the refinery, as these may be needed to substantiate a claim. It’s also wise to note the claim deadline on a calendar and file well before the cutoff to avoid being barred by late submission.
What Is the Timeline for Settlement Approval and Payment Distribution?
The settlement process follows a structured legal timeline. The settlement agreement was filed on March 23, 2026, initiating the court review period. The final approval hearing before Judge Dale Fischer is scheduled for April 27, 2026, at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. At this hearing, the judge will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class.
The judge must determine whether the settlement terms properly account for the merits of the case, the risks of continued litigation, and the interests of the affected workers. If approved at the April 27 hearing, a new timeline begins for notice to class members and the claims submission period. Settlement distributions typically occur within several months after final approval, though this varies depending on how many claims are filed and how quickly disputes are resolved. Workers should not expect payments immediately after the approval hearing; instead, plan for several months of additional processing. A common delay during this phase involves incomplete claim forms or disputes about whether a particular individual should be included in the settlement class. Staying organized and responsive during the claims process—providing documents promptly if the claims administrator requests verification—can help ensure timely payment.
What Legal Standards Apply to On-Call Pay in Refinery and Energy Sector Work?
On-call compensation is governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and varies significantly based on the nature and restrictiveness of the on-call requirements. In general, standby time that is primarily for the employer’s benefit and not for personal pursuits of the employee may constitute compensable work time. A worker confined to a small geographic area with a 90-minute response requirement—as Marathon’s employees were—has a strong legal argument that the on-call time restricted their freedom to pursue personal activities and therefore should be compensated. The energy and refinery sectors have seen increasing scrutiny around on-call pay practices.
Companies typically argue that brief on-call periods, especially if workers are only “on standby” and not necessarily called in, should not be fully compensated at regular wage rates. Workers counter that the restriction itself—the inability to leave the area or make firm personal plans—has real value that should be paid. The Marathon settlement suggests that courts are increasingly receptive to worker arguments in cases where on-call requirements are restrictive and geographically limiting. However, it’s important to understand that this settlement is not binding legal precedent; other courts or juries in other jurisdictions might reach different conclusions. Energy companies that operate under similar on-call systems should view this settlement as a signal that their practices may face legal challenges.
What Does This Settlement Mean for Energy Sector Workers and Future Labor Disputes?
The Marathon settlement is significant within the energy and refining industry because it establishes that major corporations operating large industrial facilities cannot ignore on-call compensation claims indefinitely. A $9 million settlement from one of the nation’s largest refineries signals to other companies and to workers that on-call wage disputes deserve serious attention. Other refineries and energy facilities with similar on-call structures are likely now re-evaluating their compensation practices or risk facing comparable lawsuits.
For workers in the refining, petrochemical, and related industrial sectors, the Marathon case demonstrates that class action litigation can be an effective tool for addressing systemic compensation issues affecting hundreds of employees. Rather than waiting years for overtime claims or wage disputes to resolve through individual grievances, organized legal action can produce meaningful settlements that recover millions for entire groups of affected workers. As companies increasingly rely on flexible, on-call staffing arrangements, this legal landscape is likely to become more contentious, with workers and employers disagreeing about what constitutes compensable work time and how much on-call restrictions are worth in dollars and cents.
You Might Also Like
- The Computer Merchant Settles Data Breach Class Action for $610K
- TCPA Class Action Settlement of $4.75 Million Sends $1.67 Million to Plaintiff Attorneys
- Nvidia Hit With Certified Class Action Over Crypto Revenue Concealment
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: