Author: Julia Hull

A federal court in the Western District of North Carolina has granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement in a wage case against HCA Healthcare and affiliated facilities.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of hourly, non-exempt employees, alleges violations related to wage and hour practices. The court’s order preliminarily certifies a settlement class consisting of current and former hourly employees who worked at certain HCA-affiliated hospitals and facilities in North Carolina between April 25, 2021, and July 27, 2025.

The proposed settlement provides for a gross settlement amount of $1,563,000. The court has appointed RG2 Claims Administration LLC as settlement administrator and approved the proposed notice plan to inform class members of their rights. A final approval hearing will be scheduled after notice has been distributed and the statutory waiting period has passed.

Preliminary approval does not resolve the case. It reflects the court’s initial determination that the proposed settlement falls within the range of possible approval and warrants notice to the class. Class members will have the opportunity to opt out or object before final approval is considered.

Lee Segui attorneys Matthew Lee, Jeremy Williams, and Katharine Batchelor were appointed as Class Counsel as part of a broader leadership group in the case.

If granted final approval, the settlement will resolve the asserted claims for participating class members.

Lee Segui has filed a lawsuit alleging that fiduciaries of a company-sponsored 401(k) plan breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known as ERISA.

ERISA imposes strict obligations on those who manage retirement plans. Fiduciaries must act prudently, monitor plan investments carefully, and remove options that consistently underperform. These duties exist to protect employees whose long-term financial security depends on responsible plan management.

The complaint alleges that plan fiduciaries failed to adequately monitor the performance of certain investment funds and kept underperforming options in the plan for extended periods. According to the filing, those decisions significantly reduced the retirement savings of plan participants.

Cases like this do not turn on short-term market fluctuations. They focus on whether fiduciaries followed a prudent process, compared investment options appropriately, and acted in the best interests of participants. The law does not require perfect results, but it does require careful oversight and informed decision-making.

When retirement accounts are affected, the consequences can last for years. Even modest underperformance, compounded over time, can materially reduce the value of a participant’s savings at retirement.

The lawsuit seeks to recover losses to the plan and to ensure that fiduciary obligations are taken seriously. As the case proceeds, the central question will be whether the process used to monitor and retain plan investments met the standards required under federal law.

Lee Segui has filed a class action lawsuit against The Boston Beer Company, Inc., alleging that the company enforced noncompetition agreements without providing the compensation required under Massachusetts law.

The complaint centers on the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, which sets strict requirements for employers seeking to restrict former employees from working in their industry. Under the statute, a valid noncompetition agreement must include either a “garden leave” provision—generally equal to at least 50 percent of the employee’s highest annualized salary over the prior two years—or other mutually agreed upon consideration.

The lawsuit alleges that Boston Beer required employees across roles and ranks to sign noncompetition agreements and then elected to enforce those agreements by paying departing employees $3,000, less taxes. According to the complaint, that amount falls far short of what the statute requires as garden leave compensation.

The case further alleges that Boston Beer aggressively enforced these agreements, including through litigation and direct communications with competitors, while failing to provide legally compliant compensation to affected employees. The complaint seeks to reform the company’s noncompetition agreements and recover unpaid garden leave amounts on behalf of former employees who were subject to enforcement.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case raises broader questions about how noncompetition agreements are structured and enforced, particularly in industries where mobility and competition shape opportunity.

As the case moves forward, the focus will remain on whether the statutory protections enacted by the Massachusetts legislature were honored—and what remedy is appropriate if they were not.