San Francisco-based HR software company Rippling is seeking to move a sweeping labor lawsuit into arbitration, according to an Aug. 25 court filing in San Francisco Superior Court.
Rippling, founded in 2016 and valued at nearly $17 billion, has built its reputation on a highly automated platform for managing payroll, benefits, IT provisioning and more.
In its motion, Rippling asks the court to compel arbitration of former employee Darlene Bereznicki’s individual claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and to stay the broader representative action she filed on behalf of other sales staff.
Bereznicki, who worked as an Account Manager at Rippling from August 2022 to April 2024, filed her complaint on March 19, 2025. The case — Bereznicki v. People Center Inc. (DBA Rippling Inc.), Case No. CGC-25-623441 — accuses Rippling of systematically violating California wage and hour laws by misclassifying sales representatives as exempt from overtime.
The complaint, filed by San Francisco-based law firm Outten & Golden LLP, alleges that sales employees frequently worked more than 40 hours per week and 8 hours per day without overtime compensation, even though their job duties—such as calling and emailing potential customers and selling Rippling’s services—did not qualify them as exempt under California law.
Bereznicki claims these practices were not isolated, but part of a broader “common policy and plan” that also affected Sales Development Representatives, Business Development Representatives, Account Executives, and Customer Success Managers.
The lawsuit states that Rippling imposed strict sales quotas on these employees and disciplined those who failed to meet them. It also accuses the company of failing to pay final wages upon separation, provide accurate wage statements, reimburse employees for work-related expenses, and offer legally required meal and rest breaks.
Bereznicki alleges that Rippling knew or should have known that these employees were entitled to overtime and other legal protections. The suit claims the company failed to keep accurate time records, which led to misleading wage statements and concealed underpayment. It also alleges that Rippling required remote employees to use personal internet service for business purposes without proper reimbursement, in violation of Labor Code § 2802.
The complaint says Rippling’s policies incentivized continuous work, making it common for employees to work more than five hours without a meal break or more than three and a half hours without a rest break. It argues this failure was structural, not incidental, and rooted in the company’s misclassification of workers.
“Rippling’s unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent,” the lawsuit reads.
Bereznicki is seeking civil penalties for each alleged violation, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, a service award for acting as a PAGA representative, and injunctive relief to bring Rippling’s practices into compliance with California labor law.
The state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency has not intervened, allowing Bereznicki to proceed with the case, which is pending in San Francisco Superior Court. A jury trial has been requested.
Bereznicki’s suit is one of several recent cases filed against Rippling.
In February 2025, former employee Cristian Hernandez filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Rippling failed to pay hourly workers for off-the-clock work and denied them legally required sick leave. That case — Cristian Hernandez v. People Center Inc., Case No. CGC-25-622335 — is also pending in San Francisco.
A separate discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by former employee Fu Zhou in Washington was also ordered into arbitration at Rippling’s request.
Zhou claims she was unlawfully terminated after taking medical leave for IVF treatment and raising concerns about pay inequality. Her complaint states she had no prior performance issues before going on unpaid leave in March 2022.
