Elon Musk’s American PAC and several other defendants, including the re-election campaign of Rep. Michelle Steel, a Republican from California, are accused of violating California labor law in one class action lawsuit filed in Orange County on October 30, according to court documents obtained by WIRED.
According to the suit, the named plaintiffs, Tamiko Anderson and Patricia Kelly, were movers for Steel in October of this year, alleging that they were not paid their agreed salaries. America PAC is named because it provides advocacy services to Steel.
The plaintiffs are also suing over alleged failure to reimburse business expenses and allegedly providing inaccurate salary reports. The lawsuit seeks class certification for “All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California who were employed as advocates and advocates for Michelle Steel at any time since October 30, 2023 until present.”
Steel campaign spokesperson: “The Steel campaign has no knowledge of these individuals, they did not and do not work for the Steel campaign, and the campaign will not comment on individuals associated with Super PACs which we do not participate in.” said in a statement.
These charges are different from the charges WIRED reported earlier this week, when campaigners in Michigan said they were deceived and threatened as part of Elon Musk and America PAC’s Donald Trump get-out-the-vote effort. The door knockers, who worked for an America PAC subcontractor, were flown to Michigan, loaded in the back of a U-Haul and told they would have to pay their hotel bill unless they responded. meet unrealistic quotas. Much to one’s surprise, when they came to Michigan, they were trying to elect Donald Trump.
The Blair Group, a North Carolina company that the complaint claims is a political consulting firm, and Liberty HR Servicesa Florida company that recruits and pays canvassers and other W2 employees of political campaigns, are the other named defendants. A request for comment was not immediately responded to. The lawsuit also lists an unidentified Johns Doe as a defendant.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are owed money.
“Like other members of the Class, Plaintiff is guaranteed an agreed upon hourly wage [sic] when starting their job. However, Plaintiffs were informed and believed that Defendants did not pay them the correct hourly rate but instead paid them based on the amount of housing they had collected. To date, Plaintiffs have not received their underpaid wages,” the lawsuit states.
