Handy℠ Cleaner and Repairman Lawsuit

In November 2018, Gibbs Mura filed a lawsuit against Handy, on behalf of cleaners and repairmen who allege that Handy underpaid them. According to the lawsuit,  Handy allegedly failed to pay its cleaners and repairmen for off-the-clock work, including travel time to and between jobs and any hours worked beyond what was ‘scheduled.’ In addition, the lawsuit states that Handy failed to pay workers full overtime pay, and reimbursement of business expenses, including mileage and cleaning supplies, all of which is required under California labor law.

How do I know if I’m eligible for the Handy Settlement? 

You are eligible to receive potential compensation in the The Pote v. Handy lawsuit settlement if you’re a Handy Pro who performed a home-services booking in California through Handy’s platform from September 14, 2017, through March 31, 2023. 

My address has changed since I did work with Handy—how do I update it? 

If you need to update any contact information, please contact the settlement administrator, Atticus Administration, at (800) 335-4145 or  HandyTechnologiesSettlement@AtticusAdmin.com 

This lawsuit is a PAGA action; what does that mean?  

Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), an “aggrieved employee” (someone who believes their employer has violated California labor laws), may bring a civil action on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees to seek civil penalties. Sometimes, the State of California prosecutes employers who violate California labor laws. PAGA allows aggrieved employees to essentially “step in” for the state in order to recover civil penalties on the state’s behalf. 

In our PAGA Action against Handy, our client sought civil penalties on behalf of current and former Handy employees who affected by Handy’s alleged violations of the California labor code. 

After we filed this lawsuit, Handy argued that we could not proceed with the lawsuit in court, and subsequently tried to move our case into arbitration, which is a form of private dispute resolution that takes place outside of the courts. The court rejected Handy’s arguments and decided that our case could remain in court. However, Handy appealed the court’s ruling in 2019, and tried to argue again that the case should be resolved through arbitration. On August 16, 2021, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the original trial court ruling, meaning that the case could remain in court.  After the case returned to the trial court, the parties agreed to a settlement. On December 12, 2024, Judge Sarah J. Heidel of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval of this PAGA action settlement.