UTB Enterprises and Goldenband LLC—McDonald’s franchise operators in Oregon—agreed to pay $3.55 million to settle a class action alleging they didn’t pay hourly workers for “short meal breaks,” meaning meal periods under 30 minutes during six-hour shifts. The case (South, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., Multnomah County Circuit Court) covers employees dating back to March 8, 2014, and offers payments tied to eligible workweeks, with some workers potentially receiving hundreds of dollars depending on how often the unpaid short meal break occurred. The lawsuit was filed because Oregon wage-and-hour rules generally treat short meal periods as compensable time, reflecting the idea that a break that’s too brief may not be a true, uninterrupted meal period. Plaintiffs claimed the franchisees violated these requirements by recording or treating sub-30-minute meal periods as unpaid, allegedly resulting in systematic underpayment across shifts. While the defendants deny wrongdoing, the settlement is significant because it converts disputed timekeeping and payroll practices into concrete relief for a large group of workers and signals to other franchise operators that break-length compliance can carry major financial exposure. More broadly, the case fits into a steady stream of fast-food and retail litigation over meal-and-rest breaks, off-the-clock work, and timekeeping systems—areas where high turnover and standardized scheduling can amplify small per-shift errors into large, classwide damages. It also highlights a recurring industry dynamic: franchisees, not the brand parent, are typically the direct employer responsible for complying with state labor regulations, but operational pressure to move customers quickly can conflict with strict break and pay rules, making accurate policies, training, and punch/attestation controls especially important in quick-service restaurants.