The Hidden Cost Of Safety In The Manufacturing Industry

November 24, 2025. A federal lawsuit arrived in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, focusing on the small, critical pieces of time that often slip unnoticed through the machinery of industry. Filed by former employee Fareed Mayes, the action names American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc., suggesting an imperfect measurement of the working day for thousands of hourly staff across the country.

It is a story about the unseen seconds required for transformation, the quiet ritual of preparing the body for the rigorous duties of manufacturing.

American Honda, a company focused on creating things that move—automobiles, specialized EV batteries, powerful engines—relies heavily on its production workforce. Adecco, meanwhile, functions as the precise filter, an employment staffing company providing the necessary personnel flow.

The lawsuit describes this relationship as one of joint employment for non-exempt roles such as assembler, material handler, and casting associate. These workers, essential to the rhythm of production, found themselves operating within corporate policies that allegedly excluded certain mandatory minutes from their recorded hours.

Time, a commodity always moving forward, does not wait for the clock-in punch.

The Ritual of Protection

The central point of contention revolves around the mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The work environment demands layers of protection; safety is not optional, yet the preparation for safety was allegedly unpaid.

To perform the necessary welding or assembly, an employee first had to become protected. This transformation involved donning a required uniform and specialized gear.

According to the filing, employees were required to affix safety items—the specific weight of steel-toed boots, the necessary enclosure of protective goggles, the essential shield of a hard hat—all within the physical bounds of the worksite, but prior to clocking in.

Similarly, the removal of this gear at the end of the shift allegedly occurred after the official clock-out. The seconds accumulated, shifting the cost of preparation onto the shoulders of the workforce.

Legal Dimensions of Compensation

The filing asserts that these payroll practices were administered centrally, affecting thousands of current and former hourly employees.

The lawsuit aims to rectify the alleged systematic underpayment of wages, specifically focusing on the time spent donning and doffing PPE, which, by extension, led to improper calculation of overtime compensation.

The case proceeds as a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), focusing on the federal claims regarding compensation for necessary work time.

Alongside the FLSA claims, the case also includes a proposed Rule 23 class action citing breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims related to state law. The pursuit is straightforward: that every minute required by the job must find its proper reflection in the paycheck.

***

Key Allegations and Claims

The lawsuit identifies specific areas where hourly compensation was allegedly mismanaged for production staff:

• Unpaid Donning and Doffing Time Employees were allegedly required to put on (don) and take off (doff) mandatory company-issued personal protective equipment (PPE) before clocking in and after clocking out, respectively.
• Mandatory PPE Examples The required gear included steel-toed boots, protective gloves, safety goggles, hard hats, and specialized ear protection.
• Improper Overtime Calculation The failure to include the time spent handling PPE in the total hours worked allegedly resulted in an inaccurate calculation of the employees' regular rates of pay, thereby leading to improper overtime compensation.
• Joint Employment The lawsuit asserts that both American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (manufacturer of automobiles, transmissions, and EV batteries) and Adecco USA, Inc. (staffing company) jointly employed the affected non-exempt workers.
• Scope of Impact The filing asserts that the affected class includes "thousands" of current and former hourly employees subject to these centralized payroll practices.

Like a solitary train whistle piercing the night air, the echoes of an unpaid work time lawsuit reverberate through the corridors of justice, leaving in its wake a trail of discontent and disillusionment. At its core, the case revolves around the fundamental question of what constitutes work and, by extension, what constitutes fair compensation for that work.

The plaintiff, a diligent and dedicated employee, alleges that they were required to perform tasks outside of their regular working hours without adequate remuneration, thereby blurring the lines between work and personal ---. As the lawsuit winds its way through the legal system, it raises important questions about the nature of work in the modern era.

With the proliferation of technology and the rise of remote work, the boundaries between work and personal --- have become increasingly fluid.

The plaintiff's case serves as a microcosm for the struggles of countless workers who find themselves torn between their professional and personal responsibilities. The outcome of this lawsuit has far-reaching implications, not only for the parties involved but also for the broader workforce, as it seeks to redefine the parameters of fair compensation and the value of unpaid work.

In navigating the complexities of this case, it is essential to consider the nuances of labor laws and the evolving landscape of work.

●●● ●●●

Honda and Adecco are facing a new lawsuit accusing them of unpaid PPE time and improper overtime pay for hourly workers across the United States.

Related perspectives: Check here