San Diego files lawsuit against Campbell’s, alleging snack distributors were illegally treated as independent contractors
Lawsuit targets distribution model for Pepperidge Farm and Snyder’s-Lance snack products
The City of San Diego has filed a civil lawsuit against The Campbell’s Company and two subsidiaries, alleging the companies unlawfully classified certain snack-distribution workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The complaint names Snyder’s-Lance Inc. and Pepperidge Farm Inc., brands tied to snack and bakery products distributed to retailers across the region.
The suit alleges that the classification structure led to wage-and-hour violations under California law, including claims involving unpaid minimum wage and overtime. The city is seeking court orders and monetary remedies tied to the alleged misclassification and related labor-law violations.
What the city alleges happened in day-to-day distribution work
At the center of the case is how distributors performed work delivering and servicing products at retail locations. Misclassification cases typically turn on the degree of control a company exercises over workers and whether the work is integral to the company’s business. The city’s complaint alleges that the distributors’ jobs functioned like employee roles in practice, while being labeled as contractor work on paper.
The suit’s claims focus on compensation protections that apply to employees, including overtime and minimum wage obligations. The city’s filing also seeks remedies that would address the alleged financial impact on workers and enforce compliance going forward.
Defendants named: The Campbell’s Company, Snyder’s-Lance Inc., and Pepperidge Farm Inc.
Core allegation: snack-distribution workers were treated as contractors despite performing employee-like work.
Alleged consequences: wage-and-hour violations, including unpaid minimum wage and overtime.
How California worker-classification rules shape the dispute
California has tightened worker-classification standards in recent years, increasing litigation over whether businesses can use contractor models for roles that resemble traditional employment. Under state law, classification disputes often hinge on multiple factors, including whether the worker is free from the hiring entity’s control, whether the work falls outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and whether the worker is engaged in an independent trade or business of the same nature.
Distribution and route-based sales roles have been a recurring flashpoint in these legal fights, because workers may operate vehicles and manage schedules while still being subject to detailed requirements tied to retailer delivery windows, product stocking expectations, and performance standards.
The lawsuit frames the alleged contractor model as a mechanism that shifted costs and legal obligations away from the companies while keeping control over how distribution work was performed.
What happens next
The case will proceed in California state court, where the companies will have the opportunity to respond to the complaint and contest the allegations. Early litigation is expected to focus on the legal classification test, the practical realities of distributor work, and the scope of any alleged wage-and-hour shortfalls.
If the city prevails, potential outcomes include court-ordered changes to distribution practices, civil penalties and restitution, and requirements aimed at preventing future misclassification. If the defendants prevail, the contractor-based model at issue could remain in place, subject to any separate regulatory or private litigation challenges.