World Financial Group Insurance Agency agreed in March 2025 to pay $65 million to settle a California class action lawsuit alleging it misclassified tens of thousands of its sales agents as independent contractors rather than employees. The case, Tricia Yeomans, et al. v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., et al., was filed in San Francisco Superior Court in December 2018 and is one of the largest misclassification settlements to come out of the California insurance industry.1CABIA. Tricia Yeomans, et al. v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
Lead plaintiff Tricia Yeomans and six other named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and other people who sold or trained to sell financial and insurance products for WFG in California.2A&O Shearman. Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc. WFG calls these salespeople “Associates” and classifies them as independent contractors. They earn commissions on the products they sell and can recruit other agents into the network.
The core allegation was that WFG used the independent contractor label to avoid the obligations California places on employers, while in practice keeping “strict control” over its Associates and requiring them to sign non-negotiable Associate Membership Agreements that pushed business costs onto the agents.2A&O Shearman. Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc. Because they were commission-only, Associates received no pay for mandatory training and other non-sales work.
The complaint laid out specific violations of the California Labor Code, the Business and Professions Code, and California Wage Orders:
- Unpaid minimum wage and overtime, because Associates were paid only commissions with no guaranteed hourly floor, including for mandatory training and administrative work.
- Meal and rest break violations, with no breaks provided and no premium wages paid.
- Unreimbursed business expenses, including mandatory monthly platform fees that ranged from $25 to $180.
- Inaccurate wage statements under Labor Code Section 226, which requires itemized statements showing gross wages, hours, and pay rates.
- Unlawful application fees, specifically a $100 fee charged to prospective Associates that the plaintiffs said violated Labor Code Section 450.
The complaint also brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and under the Private Attorneys General Act, which lets employees sue to recover civil penalties on the state’s behalf for labor code violations.3Midpage. Yeomans v. World Financial Group4vLex. Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc.
Who Is Covered by the Settlement
The class consists of people who sold or trained to sell financial and insurance products for WFG in California during the covered period. The named plaintiffs representing the class were Tricia Yeomans, Ismail Chraibi, Adrian Rodriguez, Robert Jenkins, Dorothy Jenkins, Cameron Bradford, and Fatemeh Abtahi.5CourtListener. Yeomans v. World Financial Group The settlement resolves the California-based claims. WFG’s agent network extends well beyond the state, but the Yeomans case is specific to California labor law, and non-California agents are not part of this class.
How the $65 Million Is Divided
The settlement is a gross fund of $65 million, not a net payment to class members. Court-approved deductions come off the top before any individual share is calculated. According to settlement records, the breakdown is:
- $21,666,667 in attorney fees, roughly one-third of the fund.
- $3,250,000 in PAGA penalties.
- $260,000 in service awards shared among the named plaintiffs.
- $900,000 in settlement administration costs.
- $400,000 in litigation expenses.
The remainder is available for distribution to class members.1CABIA. Tricia Yeomans, et al. v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.
How the PAGA Portion Works
Under PAGA, penalties recovered through settlement are split by statute: 75 percent goes to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 25 percent is distributed to the aggrieved employees. Every PAGA settlement requires court approval.6Plaintiff Magazine. Settlement of PAGA Cases Applied to the $3.25 million PAGA allocation in this case, roughly $2.4 million goes to the state and about $812,500 is spread among the class. The individual payment amount per class member was listed in settlement records as not yet available.1CABIA. Tricia Yeomans, et al. v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.
Why the Case Reached a Settlement at All
The case nearly didn’t survive long enough to settle. WFG moved to compel arbitration under its Associate Membership Agreement, which would have forced each Associate to pursue individual claims instead of litigating as a class. For commission-only agents, that typically ends the matter.
WFG removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen.5CourtListener. Yeomans v. World Financial Group On September 11, 2020, Judge Chen denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court found WFG had not shown the plaintiffs had actual or constructive notice of the arbitration clause. Many Associates had been handed only a signature page from a seven-page application packet and never received or had ready access to the full 17-page agreement containing the arbitration terms. The court held the clause had not been presented in a way that let Associates “fully and clearly comprehend” they were agreeing to arbitrate.2A&O Shearman. Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc.
A parallel state court case in San Diego reached the same result in March 2021, finding WFG’s arbitration provision both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. That court flagged clauses that let WFG bypass arbitration for its own claims while binding Associates to it, and a prevailing-party fee-shifting clause that required no showing of bad faith. The court concluded unconscionability “permeates the agreement” and declined to rewrite it. California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed in June 2022.7FearNotLaw. Sellers v. World Financial Group
With class-wide litigation preserved, the case returned to San Francisco Superior Court under case number CGC-18-572397, where the $65 million settlement was reached. The federal case was formally terminated in July 2024.5CourtListener. Yeomans v. World Financial Group
What This Settlement Does Not Cover
The Yeomans settlement resolves the California misclassification and wage claims against WFG and nothing else. It is separate from WFG’s 2024 federal lawsuit against former agents Eric and Sandra Olson over their competing firm Global Financial Impact,8Midpage. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, LLC v. Olson and separate from the April 2023 regulatory action by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario against WFG’s Canadian subsidiary, which was resolved with a $50,000 fine and compliance commitments.9FSRA. World Financial Group Insurance Agency of Canada Inc. Agrees to Compliance Measures Neither of those matters involves class members from the Yeomans case.