Hourly Whirlpool customer service and sales associates, including remote workers, may be covered by a proposed collective and class action alleging Whirlpool Corporation did not pay them for logging in before shifts, logging back in during meal breaks and shutting down after shifts. No collective or class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a collective and class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Whirlpool Corporation has not been found liable, no collective or class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is the Whirlpool Off-the-Clock Lawsuit?
Whirlpool Corporation, the Benton Harbor, Michigan appliance maker, faces a proposed collective and class action claiming it did not pay hourly customer-facing employees for computer work done off the clock, outside their scheduled shifts. The case, Bottoms v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-02885, was filed on October 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. It was brought by a remote Whirlpool customer-service associate in North Carolina and is represented by the Michigan law firm Sommers Schwartz, P.C.The complaint groups sales representatives, customer service representatives and similar hourly, non-exempt employees under the label “Associates.” It says they fielded inbound calls, made outbound calls, handled chats and escalated complaints, and logged those interactions in Whirlpool’s systems, either from home or at brick-and-mortar sites around the country. According to the complaint, Whirlpool paid them from the shift times recorded in its Kronos timekeeping system rather than for all the time they actually worked. Whirlpool had not responded to the complaint when this article was published, and no court has ruled on any of the allegations.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Where the Unpaid Minutes Allegedly Came From
The complaint says Whirlpool expected associates to be ready to take calls the moment a shift began, and had them clock in to Kronos only once they were phone-ready. Associates who started their setup at the scheduled start time, it claims, could not be ready on time and saw their attendance and schedule-adherence scores suffer, and the complaint says adherence problems could lead to verbal or written warnings or termination. It identifies three stretches of work it says went unrecorded:- Before the shift: waking or starting the computer, signing in, connecting to Whirlpool’s VPN, and opening Microsoft Teams, Genesys, Salesforce, ETRM, Microsoft Outlook, Zoom and Kronos before logging into the phone program. The complaint puts this at 10 to 12 minutes per shift or more, depending on how quickly the systems loaded.
- During the meal break: clocking out for a scheduled 30-minute unpaid meal period, then spending about five minutes of that period logging back into the systems so as to be available again when the break ended.
- After the shift: clocking out as soon as the last customer call ended, then closing programs, logging out, shutting down and running computer downloads, which the complaint says took 5 to 7 minutes.
Altogether, the complaint estimates associates lost about 20 to 25 minutes of pay every day. Because it says associates typically worked five days and 40 or more hours a week, it argues much of that time should have been paid at one and a half times the regular rate. In weeks under 40 hours, it seeks the straight-time pay it says went unpaid, which the complaint calls “gap time.”
The complaint leans on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #64 on call centers, which treats starting a computer to download work instructions, applications and email as the first principal activity of a call center agent’s workday. It also argues that Whirlpool had log-in data showing when each associate actually started work and could have tracked the time.
Who the Lawsuit Would Cover
The complaint proposes three groups, each tied to different claims. The definitions below are quoted from the complaint:- FLSA Collective: “All current and former hourly Associates who work or have worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years preceding the filing of this Complaint up through and including judgment.” Whirlpool’s executives, administrative and professional employees, computer professionals and outside salespersons are excluded.
- Rule 23 North Carolina Class: “All current and former hourly Representatives who work or have worked for Defendant in North Carolina at any time during the applicable statutory period.”
- Rule 23 Nationwide Class: “All current and former hourly Associates who work or have worked for Defendant at any time during the applicable statutory period.”
The complaint estimates the collective and each class at hundreds or thousands of people and says Whirlpool’s payroll records would identify them. The plaintiff reserves the right to change the definitions, and none of the three groups has been approved by the court.
How an FLSA Collective Differs From a Class
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act claim and the state-law and contract claims follow different rules. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), an employee becomes part of an FLSA collective action only by filing a written consent to join with the court. Before that happens on any scale, the court decides whether to authorize notice of the case to other workers. The plaintiff here filed her own consent with the complaint, and the complaint says consent forms from other associates will also be filed. It asks the court to order Whirlpool to produce contact information for potential members so that notice can be sent.The North Carolina and nationwide groups are proposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. If a court certifies a Rule 23 class, people who fit the definition are included automatically unless they opt out. More on the two structures is in OCA’s explainer on wage and hour class actions.
The Four Claims and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint pleads four counts:- Count I — failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the FLSA Collective. The complaint alleges the violations were willful.
- Count II — violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, which requires employers to pay all wages due on the regular payday, on behalf of the North Carolina Class. This count focuses on unpaid straight-time wages in weeks without overtime.
- Count III — breach of contract, on behalf of the Nationwide Class, alleging Whirlpool promised in offer letters and other documents to pay a set hourly rate for every hour worked and did not.
- Count IV — unjust enrichment, on behalf of the Nationwide Class, pleaded as an alternative to the contract claim.
The lawsuit asks the court to certify the collective and both classes, authorize notice, and name the plaintiff as representative and her lawyers as class counsel. It seeks declarations that Whirlpool violated the FLSA and the North Carolina law, that the FLSA violations were willful, and that Whirlpool breached its contracts and was unjustly enriched. It also asks for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and it demands a jury trial. These are the plaintiff’s requests; no amount has been awarded.
What Happens Next
Whirlpool will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint, which can include a motion to dismiss or an answer denying the allegations. In FLSA cases the plaintiff often asks the court early on to approve notice to the proposed collective, and employers frequently oppose those requests. Class certification under Rule 23 is a separate, later decision. The case could also be dismissed, go to trial or settle.There is nothing to file at this stage. If the court authorizes notice to the collective, the notice itself would describe the process and the deadline set by the court. Similar login-time suits have been filed against other employers with large customer service operations, including ADP and Cognizant and TriZetto. Other open cases are tracked on OCA’s wage and hour class actions page.
Questions
Is there a settlement or claim form in the Whirlpool off-the-clock lawsuit?
There is no settlement, no fund and no claim form. The complaint was filed October 8, 2026, no court has ruled on the allegations, and no collective or class has been certified.
Which Whirlpool workers does the lawsuit describe?
The complaint describes hourly, non-exempt employees it calls Associates, including sales representatives and customer service representatives, who worked remotely or in brick-and-mortar locations and handled customer calls, chats and complaints. It proposes a nationwide FLSA collective covering the three years before the complaint was filed, a North Carolina class and a nationwide class. Executives, administrative and professional employees, computer professionals and outside salespersons are excluded from the proposed collective.
How much unpaid time does the complaint claim?
The complaint estimates about 20 to 25 minutes of unpaid work each day: 10 to 12 minutes or more of pre-shift boot-up and login, about 5 minutes of logging back in during an unpaid 30-minute meal period, and 5 to 7 minutes of post-shift log-out and shutdown. These are the plaintiff’s estimates, not findings.
What is a consent to join in an FLSA collective action?
Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), an employee becomes a party to an FLSA collective action only by filing a written consent with the court. Before notice goes out to other workers, the court first decides whether notice should be sent. The named plaintiff in the Whirlpool case filed her consent with the complaint, and the complaint says other consent forms will be filed. Rule 23 classes work differently: if certified, they include members automatically unless they opt out.
Has Whirlpool responded to the lawsuit?
Whirlpool had not filed a response as of October 9, 2026, one day after the complaint was filed. The allegations are unproven, and Whirlpool has not been found liable for anything.
Sources
- Collective and Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand, Bottoms v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-02885 (W.D. Mich. filed Oct. 8, 2026), ECF No. 1
- CourtListener docket: Bottoms v. Whirlpool Corporation
- U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #64: Call Centers under the Fair Labor Standards Act
