Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—W.D. Wash.: Employee’s complaint plausibly alleged employer violated state law meal, rest break requirements, (Nov 21, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

“[W]ith the pleading of more specific facts, the closer the complaint moves toward plausibility.”

An employer is not entitled to dismissal of an employee’s claims that it failed to provide meal and rest breaks or pay him for working during his breaks, ruled a federal district court in Washington. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., the court concluded that the employee’s complaint provided specific instances of how the employer allegedly violated wage and hour laws, including frequently interrupting his breaks to discuss or require him to complete work tasks. Further, the court declined to dismiss the employer’s parent company as a defendant based on a declaration from a corporate official, where the declaration was extrinsic evidence the court cannot consider at the motion to dismiss stage ( Parker v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC , No. 3:25-cv-05624-BHS (W.D. Wash. Nov. 18, 2025)).

The employee’s complaint alleged that the employer failed “at times” to provide meal and rest breaks, compensate for those missed breaks, and to pay minimum and overtime wages. He asserted that the employer’s conduct violated several Washington wage and hour laws and two Seattle municipal ordinances. The employer removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Thereafter, the employer moved to dismiss the employee’s claims.

The employer first contended that the employee’s complaint lacked sufficient detail and specificity to plausibly allege any of his wage and hour claims. Further, the employer’s parent company argued that it should be dismissed because it is a separate entity from the employer and was never the employee’s employer.

Regarding the employee’s claims against the parent company, he argued the court should consider only the pleadings and contended that there is a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether Walgreen Co. was [his] employer.” He asked the court to defer ruling on this until he can conduct discovery on the issue. Further, he asserted that he met the pleading standard for wage and hour cases.

Entitlement to relief. “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” observed the court. This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Pleading standard. The Ninth Circuit addressed the pleading standard for wage and hour claims in Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 2014). Applying Twombly and Iqbal to FLSA claims, the appeals court held that while “detailed factual allegations” are not required, “conclusory allegations that merely recite the statutory language” do not suffice. A wage and hour plaintiff’s allegations must do more than merely “raise the possibility” of a violation. “[W]ith the pleading of more specific facts, the closer the complaint moves toward plausibility.”

District courts in the Ninth Circuit read Landers to apply to state labor laws as well. Here, the employee’s complaint did more than just parrot the statutory language. He provided specific instances of how the employer allegedly violated wage and hour laws. For example, he alleged that his supervisor “frequently interrupted” his breaks to discuss or require him to complete work tasks, after which the employer would “unlawfully edit the clock in and out times... to display at least a thirty-minute off-duty meal period.” Thus, the complaint was sufficiently specific.

Accordingly, the court concluded the employee plausibly alleged that the employer violated Washington and Seattle wage and hour laws.

Parent company. Moreover, the court declined to dismiss the employer’s parent company as a defendant. The parent company relied only on a declaration of its Assistant Secretary which asserted the parent does not hire or terminate a subsidiary’s employees. On a motion to dismiss, the court’s review is “limited to the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which the Court may take judicial notice.”

Here, the declaration was filed alongside the parent company’s motion to dismiss and is extrinsic evidence the court could not consider at this stage. The court could not infer from the complaint that the parent company did not employ pharmacy assistants and technicians. Rather, the employee plausibly alleged he was an employee of both the parent company and the employer.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-05624-BHS.

Judge: Settle, B.

Attorneys: Jamie K. Serb (Crosner Legal) for Sean Parker. Christopher T. Wall (Stoel Rives) for Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest LLC.

Companies: Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC

Cases: Procedure WageHour WorkingTime ClassActions StateLawClaims EvidenceDiscovery WashingtonNews