USA 
United Kingdom
A Pittsburgh-based law firm is confronting allegations that it misclassified a senior business development leader and failed to provide the overtime compensation required under California law.
The complaint, filed on February 14 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, argues that Reed Smith employee Phoebe Medeiros, worked extensive hours at its Southern California office in a role that operated more like an employee position than a managerial post, having transferred to the office in late 2022.
She served as Senior Manager for Business Development and Operations, supporting the firm’s private equity practice. According to the filing, her responsibilities were largely task driven and directed by partner Mark Pedretti, who assigned work such as pitch preparation, meeting coordination, note taking, and managing follow up communications. Although Pedretti is described throughout the complaint as central to her daily workload, he is not named as a defendant.
Medeiros asserts that her schedule sometimes reached 90 hours per week, including seven day stretches and occasional 36 hour shifts. She alleges that timesheets were altered to show standard eight hour days and that the firm classified her as exempt to avoid paying overtime. Her lawsuit seeks at least $50,000 in unpaid wages, penalties and other damages tied to California’s wage and hour statutes.
Misclassification claims move into white collar roles
Reed Smith, a global law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh that employs more than 1,500 attorneys and staff, has not issued a public comment on the lawsuit. The complaint argues that the title of Senior Manager did not match the level of authority needed to qualify as exempt under state law. California requires employers to demonstrate that workers have meaningful discretion, independent decision making and authority over personnel decisions before they can be exempt from overtime.
The filing also states that Medeiros lacked the ability to hire, fire or make strategic decisions. Instead, it contends that she performed work consistent with non-exempt duties that should have triggered overtime for hours beyond daily and weekly limits set by state statute.
Medeiros has since left Reed Smith and now works as a Senior Business Development Manager at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
Why HR still struggles to reach Deskless Employees
Frontline employees often have the greatest need for HR support—but the least access to it. The reason is simple: most HR systems were designed for desk-based employees.
If you're investing in HR digital transformation, it's essential to ensure that every employee—whether office-based, hybrid, or deskless—has equal access to HR services, information, and support.
This guide explores the key considerations for building a consistent, accessible, and connected HR service experience for your entire workforce.
You'll learn how to:
✅ Deliver consistent HR support across every location
✅ Reduce repetitive HR requests
✅ Improve self-service adoption
✅ Connect email, mobile, AI and employee portals
✅ Create a better employee experience for frontline workers
Case raises wider white collar compliance concerns
The case highlights how misclassification disputes are expanding beyond traditional hourly roles. California’s framework requires employers to align exemption status with actual job duties rather than job titles. If the court finds that her responsibilities fell outside the requirements for exempt classification, the decision could have implications for law firms and other employers that rely on administrative or business development staff who routinely work extended hours.
The lawsuit argues that overtime protections apply even in senior sounding positions. Employees whose duties center on task execution rather than managerial authority may still qualify for overtime under California law.
