KQED $895,000 Wage Theft Settlement, Check If You Qualify — Dulaney v. KQED, Inc., No. CGC-24-612506

There’s roughly $895,000 on the table for KQED hourly employees — if you worked at the San Francisco public broadcaster between August 2019 and May 2025. KQED has agreed to settle a class action accusing it of failing to pay for all hours worked, denying meal and rest breaks, and issuing inaccurate wage statements. A judge already gave the deal preliminary approval, and some employees have started receiving notices. Here’s where things stand and what happens next.

KQED Wage Theft Settlement — Key Facts

Detail	Information
Settlement Amount	Approximately $895,000 total
Claim Deadline	UNVERIFIED — this is an opt-out settlement, not a claim-form settlement; specific opt-out and objection deadlines were not stated in the source reviewed and should be confirmed against your individual notice
Who Qualifies	Hourly (non-newsroom) employees who worked at KQED between August 2019 and May 2025; a further subgroup who worked between November 2022 and May 2025 also share a separate penalty payment
Estimated Payout	Individual amount depends on hours worked during the relevant periods; no fixed per-person figure has been published
Proof Required (Yes/No)	No — this settlement is calculated from KQED’s own records, not a submitted claim form. Employees may opt out if they choose not to participate.
Settlement Status	Preliminarily approved May 4, 2026; final approval hearing scheduled for November 4, 2026
Court & Case Number	Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, No. CGC-24-612506
Law Alleged	California wage and hour law — unpaid regular and overtime wages, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to produce employment records on request
Administrator	UNVERIFIED — not named in the source reviewed
Official Claim Site	UNVERIFIED — not applicable in the traditional sense, since this is an opt-out, records-based distribution rather than a claim-form process
Last Updated	September 4, 2026

Who Is KQED and Why Is It Being Sued for This?

KQED is a San Francisco-based nonprofit public media organization operating television, radio, and digital news operations across the Bay Area. The lawsuit doesn’t involve KQED’s newsroom staff — plaintiff Dominic Dulaney worked as an hourly employee outside the newsroom, and the case centers on how KQED tracked and paid hourly, non-editorial workers rather than any editorial conduct.

What Did KQED Do to Hourly Employees Between 2019 and 2025?

Dulaney filed the lawsuit in February 2024, alleging KQED failed to pay hourly employees for all hours worked, including overtime, and didn’t provide the off-duty meal breaks and rest periods California law requires. Under California’s meal and rest break rules, hourly workers are generally entitled to an uninterrupted, off-duty break after a set number of hours — breaks that, if skipped or cut short, can themselves trigger additional pay owed to the employee.

The complaint goes further, alleging the timekeeping records themselves weren’t accurate: “Defendants would, at times, manufacture time keeping records to falsely show that [Dulaney] and the Class took meal periods when in fact they worked ‘off-the-clock,’ uncompensated.” Much of that unpaid time, the complaint alleges, should have been paid at the overtime rate rather than not at all.

KQED disputes the allegations. A spokesperson said the organization agreed to settle to protect the station, its members, and the community it serves from a longer, costlier legal fight — not as an admission of wrongdoing.

If you’re dealing with a similar situation at your own job — wages that don’t add up or breaks you never actually got — our guide to filing a wage and hour complaint walks through the process step by step.

Who Qualifies for the KQED Wage Theft Settlement?

Here’s exactly how to know if this case includes you.

• Hourly employees who worked at KQED between August 2019 and May 2025 make up the core settlement class of more than 580 people
• Those who worked at KQED between November 2022 and May 2025 also share a separate, smaller penalty fund
• Newsroom employees are not the focus of this case — Dulaney’s role was outside the newsroom, though the settlement class is defined by hourly pay status, not department
• Anyone who has already received a notice from KQED referencing this lawsuit is very likely part of the class

You do not need to file a claim form to receive a payment under this settlement. It’s calculated from KQED’s own payroll and time records, and you’re included automatically unless you actively choose to opt out.

KQED Employees Outside California — Are You Still Covered?

This case is unlikely to apply outside California. KQED is a San Francisco-based organization, and the underlying claims are built on California wage and hour law, which generally applies to hours worked within the state. If you worked for KQED remotely from another state, whether you’re covered may depend on where your work was performed — worth confirming with an attorney if your situation doesn’t clearly fit the described class.

Not sure if you qualify for the KQED wage theft settlement? A free consultation with a wage and hour attorney can help before the November 4 final approval hearing.

How Much Can KQED Wage Theft Settlement Class Members Get?

The total settlement is approximately $895,000. A little less than two-thirds of that is set aside to be distributed among the more than 580 class members, based on how many hours they worked during the relevant periods — more filers sharing the class period doesn’t shrink individual payouts here the way it does in claims-made settlements, since this is calculated directly from records rather than divided among however many people file a claim.

Beyond the payments to the class, KQED will pay $37,500 in penalties to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, plus an additional $12,500 specifically to hourly employees who worked at KQED between November 2022 and May 2025. As the class representative, Dulaney is set to receive up to $10,000 for his role bringing the case, according to court records.

Payments over $600 may appear on a 1099. Check with a tax professional once distribution details are finalized.

Payouts in wage-and-hour class actions like this one vary enormously by class size and the length of the violation period — for comparison, our coverage of the Oregon McDonald’s meal-break settlement shows how a similarly structured case played out for a much larger class.

Should KQED Class Members Opt Out or Object Before November 4?

What Opting Out of the KQED Settlement Actually Means

Opting out means you give up your share of the settlement payment but keep your right to sue KQED separately over the same claims. Most people should not opt out without talking to an attorney first, since pursuing an individual wage claim is typically more expensive and time-consuming than accepting an automatic settlement payment. The exact opt-out deadline was not specified in the source reviewed for this article — check the notice you received, or the court docket, for the precise date.

How to Object to the KQED Settlement

If you want to stay in the class but disagree with the settlement’s terms, you can file a written objection with the court before the deadline stated in your notice, generally explaining your reasons and following the format the notice specifies.

Talk to a wage and hour attorney before any opt-out or objection deadline if you’re considering either option.

KQED Wage Theft Settlement — Key Dates, 2026

Milestone	Date
Lawsuit filed	February 2024
Settlement preliminarily approved	May 4, 2026
Notices sent to some class members	Week of approximately September 1, 2026
Opt-Out Deadline	UNVERIFIED — check your individual notice
Objection Deadline	UNVERIFIED — check your individual notice
Final Approval Hearing	November 4, 2026
Expected Payment Date	UNVERIFIED — not stated pending final approval

KQED Wage Theft Settlement — Frequently Asked Questions, No. CGC-24-612506

Do I need a lawyer to receive money from the KQED wage theft settlement? 

No. Because this is a records-based, opt-out settlement rather than a claim-form process, eligible class members generally don’t need to do anything to receive payment.

Is the KQED wage theft settlement legitimate?

 Yes. It received preliminary approval from a San Francisco County Superior Court judge on May 4, 2026, and a final approval hearing is set for November 4, 2026, case No. CGC-24-612506.

When will KQED settlement payments be sent? 

UNVERIFIED. Payment timing depends on the outcome of the November 4, 2026 final approval hearing and hasn’t been separately announced.

What if I missed a notice about the KQED settlement?

 If you worked at KQED as an hourly employee between August 2019 and May 2025, you may be entitled to a payment even if you haven’t received anything yet — contact the court or a wage and hour attorney to check your status ahead of the final hearing.

Will my KQED settlement payment go on a 1099?

 Possibly. Payments over $600 may be reportable on a 1099. Check with a tax professional once your payment amount and timing are confirmed.

Does this settlement mean KQED admitted to wage theft? 

No. KQED has said it denies the claims and agreed to settle to avoid a longer, more expensive legal fight, not as an admission of wrongdoing.

Sources Used in This KQED Wage Theft Settlement Article

• Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco — Dominic Dulaney v. KQED, Inc., Case No. CGC-24-612506, civil docket record
• KQED News — “KQED Will Pay Nearly $900,000 to Settle Wage-Theft Class Action,” by Erin Baldassari, September 4, 2026

Note on Verification

The settlement administrator, opt-out deadline, objection deadline, and expected payment date were not specified in the source reviewed for this article and are marked UNVERIFIED rather than estimated. KQED’s own reporting on this case discloses that the case’s own senior editor, Erin Baldassari, was an hourly employee at KQED during part of the period the lawsuit covers — a disclosure this article is carrying forward rather than omitting, since it’s directly relevant to how the underlying source describes itself.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the San Francisco County Superior Court docket for Dulaney v. KQED, Inc., No. CGC-24-612506, and KQED’s own September 4, 2026 reporting on the settlement. Last Updated: September 4, 2026.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.