Marathon Petroleum has agreed to pay $9 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by 748 current and former workers at its Los Angeles refinery over unpaid on-call compensation. The workers, operators and laboratory employees, claim the company failed to pay them for two-hour “on-call” windows where they were required to remain available and arrive at the facility within 90 minutes if called in. Under California labor law, on-call time that significantly restricts an employee’s personal activities must be compensated as hours worked, a requirement Marathon allegedly ignored for workers from May 2020 through November 2025. After accounting for attorney fees, administrative costs, service awards, and California PAGA penalties, the 748 class members will receive $6,588,750 in net compensation, which works out to approximately $8,808 per worker on average. The settlement was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 23, 2026, and is awaiting final approval from Judge Dale Fischer at a hearing scheduled for April 27, 2026. What stands out about this case is its unanimity: zero workers objected to the settlement and zero opted out, suggesting both strong merit in the underlying claims and satisfaction with the negotiated resolution. The Marathon Los Angeles Refinery is the largest refinery on the West Coast, processing 365,000 barrels of crude oil per calendar day. The site employs hundreds of skilled workers whose expertise is essential to continuous operations. The settlement highlights a growing legal scrutiny of how large industrial employers classify and compensate on-call work, particularly in sectors where immediate response capabilities are critical to safety and production.
Table of Contents
- What Are On-Call Pay Requirements Under California Labor Law?
- The Marathon Los Angeles Refinery Settlement: Breaking Down the Numbers
- Why Was There No Worker Resistance to This Settlement?
- How to File a Claim in This Settlement
- Common Pitfalls in On-Call Pay Disputes
- Trends in Refinery Worker Compensation Cases
- What Happens Next and Industry Implications
- Conclusion
What Are On-Call Pay Requirements Under California Labor Law?
On-call pay is a frequently misunderstood area of California employment law. The state does not automatically require compensation for all on-call time; instead, the law distinguishes between on-call arrangements that restrict an employee’s personal freedom substantially and those that do not. If an employee is required to remain so close to the workplace, or under such restrictive conditions, that they cannot effectively use the on-call time for personal purposes, that time must be paid. The U.S. Department of Labor and California courts have established that factors like travel time to the workplace, the frequency of calls, and whether the employee can pursue other activities during the on-call window all matter.
In marathon‘s case, the two-hour on-call windows with a 90-minute response requirement created a scenario where workers could not realistically leave the area or engage in meaningful personal activities. Unlike a doctor on-call who may be able to stay at home and pursue leisure while waiting for a call, refinery workers at Marathon could not responsibly be more than 90 minutes away given the critical nature of refinery operations. This distinction is crucial: Marathon’s own operational requirements effectively confined workers during these periods, triggering compensation obligations under California law. The state has seen several landmark cases establishing this principle. For example, in Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., the court found that security guards required to remain on-call at a grocery store location must be paid because the employer’s requirements prevented them from truly being “off the clock.” Marathon’s case follows a similar legal logic—the company’s operational needs necessitated that workers remain effectively available and nearby, converting on-call time into compensable work time.
The Marathon Los Angeles Refinery Settlement: Breaking Down the Numbers
The $9 million gross settlement is divided among several categories of deductions before workers receive their checks. Attorney fees, which typically consume 25 to 33 percent of class action settlements, account for a significant portion. Administrative costs—the expenses of identifying class members, sending notices, processing claims, and managing the settlement—come next. Service awards, paid to named plaintiffs for their role in bringing the lawsuit, represent another deduction. Additionally, the settlement includes a PAGA payment, which refers to California’s Private Attorneys General Act provision that allows employees to recover penalties on behalf of the state itself, with a portion of those penalties going to the state. After all these deductions, the $6.59 million that reaches workers translates to roughly $8,808 per person across the 748-member class.
This is a solid recovery for a settlement involving a focused wage-and-hour violation rather than a case with systemic discrimination or major health claims. For workers who spent two to five years subject to these unpaid on-call requirements, $8,808 represents meaningful compensation—though it is important to note that this is gross recovery before any individual tax considerations or those with higher claim values due to longer tenures or greater exposure. One important limitation to understand: not all 748 workers will receive identical amounts. The settlement likely includes a distribution formula that accounts for variables such as how long each individual worked for Marathon during the class period, how many on-call shifts they worked, and their salary level. Workers with more extensive on-call exposure will receive higher individual settlements. This tiered approach is common in wage-and-hour settlements because it more accurately reflects the actual harm experienced by different class members.
Why Was There No Worker Resistance to This Settlement?
The fact that zero class members objected and zero opted out is striking and reveals something important about the settlement’s quality and the strength of the underlying claims. In many class actions, at least a handful of class members either object (asking the court to reject the settlement and continue the litigation) or opt out (choosing to pursue their own individual lawsuits). The complete absence of both objections and opt-outs here suggests that the settlement was perceived as fair by workers themselves, and that Marathon’s legal liability was likely quite strong. Strong liability is often precisely what prompts such unified acceptance. Workers and their attorneys apparently concluded that accepting a certain, immediate $9 million recovery was preferable to the risks and delays of continuing litigation.
Refinery operations involve complexity and technical expertise; proving widespread wage violations across hundreds of workers over a five-year period would have required detailed records, expert testimony on industry standards, and years of court proceedings. A settlement that delivers compensation within months is attractive when the alternative is a multi-year legal battle with no guarantee of victory, even if the underlying claims are solid. Additionally, class counsel likely conducted thorough due diligence to demonstrate to class members that the settlement was reasonable compared to the value of their claims. When workers see detailed calculations showing their individual claim value and the recovery rate (in this case, the net payout of $6.59 million against a much larger claim value), they understand the settlement’s reasonableness. The unanimous acceptance here also reflects that Marathon’s Los Angeles Refinery workers, many of whom are skilled professionals with stable employment, were satisfied that their legitimate grievance was being addressed adequately.
How to File a Claim in This Settlement
Once the settlement receives final approval from Judge Dale Fischer on April 27, 2026, a claims administrator will be appointed to manage distribution. Class members will typically receive a detailed claim form and instructions, usually by mail to their last known address. The claims process for a settlement of this size typically runs for several months, with a claims deadline (usually six to twelve months after final approval) by which workers must submit documentation to receive their payment. To file a claim, a worker generally must submit proof of class membership, which in this case means demonstrating that they worked as an operator or lab employee at Marathon’s Los Angeles Refinery at some point between May 2020 and November 2025. Documentation might include W-2 forms, pay stubs, employment letters, or other HR records.
Workers who no longer have such documents can usually request copies from Marathon’s HR department or contact the claims administrator, which will help locate records. The claims process is designed to be accessible, and the administrator’s role includes helping class members gather necessary information. One practical consideration: if a class member has moved or changed contact information since leaving Marathon, they should watch for settlement notices. Many settlements post notices on dedicated website portals and in local advertising. Missing the claims deadline means forfeiting the right to payment, as settlement funds are typically returned to the defendant or, in some cases, distributed to cy pres recipients (organizations related to the subject matter). Workers who believe they should be part of this class should document their employment period and be prepared to provide proof when the claims period opens.
Common Pitfalls in On-Call Pay Disputes
On-call pay disputes are frequently mishandled by employers, often unintentionally, because on-call arrangements are genuinely complex. One common mistake is assuming that because an employee is not physically at the workplace, the time is not compensable. Many employers believe that if a worker is home on standby with no guaranteed call-in, they need not be paid. California law rejects this reasoning when the employer’s operational requirements make it impossible for the employee to truly enjoy their personal time. Marathon’s situation—with a 90-minute response requirement at an industrial facility 24/7 operation—clearly falls into the compensable category. Another pitfall is misclassifying on-call workers or failing to track on-call time altogether.
If a company does not formally record on-call shifts or does not include them in calculating work hours, proving violations years later becomes difficult for both the employer and the worker. Marathon apparently did not compensate on-call time during the relevant period, which left a clear evidentiary trail. Had the company at least tracked the time and paid something for it, even if disputed as inadequate, the settlement negotiations might have proceeded differently. A third mistake is assuming that because workers did not complain, the on-call arrangement was lawful. Workers often do not challenge employer practices immediately, especially in unionized environments or where raising concerns might affect job security. The Marathon settlement demonstrates that even a large, sophisticated employer operating a major industrial facility can face significant liability for on-call practices that, in retrospect, clearly violated the law. Employers should regularly audit their on-call policies against current California law rather than assuming past practice equals legal compliance.
Trends in Refinery Worker Compensation Cases
Refinery workers have increasingly turned to class action litigation to address compensation issues. The petrochemical and refining sectors employ thousands of workers in specialized roles—operators, lab technicians, maintenance personnel—and compensation disputes in these industries are not rare. Beyond on-call pay, refinery workers have pursued cases involving meal period violations, overtime miscalculation, and failure to provide required breaks. The Marathon settlement fits a broader pattern of wage-and-hour accountability in heavy industrial settings.
The Marathon case is also notable for its scale. With 748 class members at a single facility, the case involves a substantial workforce and a multi-year exposure period. This combination often makes settlements more attractive because the legal liability becomes too significant for even large companies to ignore. Marathon, a major petrochemical company, likely chose settlement to avoid the reputational and operational disruption of prolonged litigation. For workers at similar facilities nationwide, the Marathon settlement serves as evidence that on-call wage violations are increasingly expensive for employers to defend.
What Happens Next and Industry Implications
As of April 8, 2026, the case awaits final approval at the April 27 hearing. Judge Dale Fischer will review the settlement one last time to ensure it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. This is typically a formality if no substantial objections have been filed, and approval is expected. Once approved, the claims administrator will be appointed and will begin outreach to class members with payment information.
The Marathon settlement may influence practices at other large refineries and industrial facilities. Employers facing pending on-call wage disputes are likely to examine this outcome and consider settlement more seriously. The settlement sends a clear message to refineries and petrochemical plants that on-call arrangements requiring 90-minute response times in a 24/7 operational environment trigger wage obligations under California law. In coming years, expect to see more refineries, power plants, and similar facilities revise their on-call policies or seek to come into compliance proactively rather than face class action exposure. The near-complete acceptance by Marathon’s workers—zero opt-outs, zero objections—also signals that such settlements can be implemented without major workforce resistance when workers perceive them as fair.
Conclusion
The $9 million Marathon settlement demonstrates that large industrial employers cannot ignore on-call compensation obligations under California law, even when their operations are complex and their workforce is specialized. With a net recovery of $6.59 million for 748 workers and a remarkable absence of objections or opt-outs, the settlement reflects both strong legal merit in the underlying claims and a reasonable resolution. Workers will receive approximately $8,808 on average, with individual amounts varying based on tenure and on-call exposure.
For workers in similar industries or situations, the Marathon case provides a roadmap: if your employer has required you to remain on-call under conditions that restrict your personal time without compensation, you may have a legitimate wage-and-hour claim. Watch for settlement notices after April 27, 2026, and file your claim promptly when the administrator opens the claims period. For employers, the settlement underscores the importance of reviewing on-call policies now rather than facing litigation later. The cost of compliance today is far less than the cost of a multi-year lawsuit and a settlement that affects hundreds of workers.