A proposed amended complaint in a class action lawsuit accuses HelloFresh and several staffing agencies of subjecting mostly Hispanic temporary workers at a New Jersey facility to physical abuse, sexual harassment and tightly restricted bathroom access, with one former Newark worker saying he later needed treatment for incontinence. A New Jersey state court judge is scheduled to review the amended complaint on Friday, October 23.
The case traces back to a class action first filed in August 2024 against HelloFresh and the staffing agencies that supplied its temporary workforce, according to The Guardian. The lawsuit alleges that HelloFresh and temp staffing managers subjected primarily Hispanic temporary workers to physical and verbal abuse, sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of New Jersey anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiff Luis Penafiel worked as a temporary employee at HelloFresh's Newark distribution center from November 2021 through August 2023.
Timed Bathroom Breaks and a Baseball Bat
According to the complaint, Hispanic workers were required to use a sign-out system just to use the bathroom, while management monitored how long they spent there. The lawsuit claims non-Hispanic workers could use the bathroom whenever they wanted and for as long as they wanted, and that temporary workers were expected to cover production lines when direct hires took longer breaks or stepped away themselves.
Penafiel said he held his urine for hours because his bathroom visits were timed, and that he eventually sought care from a urologist. “I had to go to the clinic to a urologist because I started experiencing incontinence,” he said, describing infections that followed. The complaint further alleges that a HelloFresh manager menaced Hispanic workers with a baseball bat to limit their bathroom time and force them back to the production line, and that several Hispanic workers were denied bathroom permission entirely and forced to urinate on themselves while continuing to work. One Hispanic female worker reportedly began bringing multiple pairs of underwear and fresh clothes to work after that happened to her, according to the complaint.
Allegations of Assault, Harassment and Racist Remarks
The lawsuit describes supervisors who consistently made racist, abusive remarks and berated workers for speaking Spanish, while also enforcing a no-cellphone policy against Hispanic workers that was not applied to others. It alleges supervisors physically assaulted and battered several Hispanic employees in ways the complaint describes as beating workers, putting hands around their necks and screaming in their ears — conduct the suit claims was carried out in view of Hispanic coworkers to instill fear of disobeying supervisors. Workers were allegedly denied medical treatment for the resulting injuries.
The complaint also alleges sexual misconduct, including managers grabbing female workers' body parts, showing pornography and photos of their genitalia, and regularly propositioning women for sex. It further claims workers were made to use loaves of bread and cucumbers to simulate sex acts. HelloFresh and the staffing agencies were also accused of confiscating temporary workers' ID badges, which were required to leave the facility, and of threatening to call ICE and immigration authorities on workers.
Attorneys Point to Fear of Retaliation
Penafiel said Latino workers were assigned duties because of their ethnicity and that he recognized the pattern as discrimination, adding that workers feared punishment for speaking up. Lauren Herman, an attorney with Make the Road New Jersey representing the plaintiffs, and Michael Scimone, a partner at Outten and Golden also representing the workers, are part of the legal team pressing the case. Scimone said immigration enforcement can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers.
HelloFresh and Staffing Agencies Push Back
A HelloFresh spokesperson denied all allegations in the lawsuit. The company said it conducted a thorough internal investigation after learning of allegations dating from 2023 and earlier and found the claims entirely without merit. HelloFresh said its frontline workforce is the company's foundation and that workplace safety, fairness and respect are its highest priority, pointing to anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies set out in its employee handbook and global code of ethics, along with mandatory training and multiple reporting channels, including a 24/7 confidential hotline for anonymous complaints. HelloFresh filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in April 2025.
Three staffing agencies named in the case — Action Staffing, On Target Staffing and ProStaff Workforce Solutions — have also moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and the companies claimed HelloFresh offered direct employment to all workers, a characterization the plaintiffs dispute. Attorneys for Target Staffing argued that workers falsified immigration documents and would have failed HelloFresh's verification system, and claimed no workers complained about the company's work environment. None of the three staffing agencies responded to multiple requests for comment, the report noted.
A Separate Investigation in Illinois
The Newark allegations are not the only workforce controversy tied to HelloFresh's staffing practices. In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor announced an investigation into a different staffing agency at a HelloFresh facility in Illinois over allegations that migrant children worked there. HelloFresh said it terminated its relationship with that staffing agency after learning of the allegations.
Federal workplace-safety guidance offers some context for the bathroom-access claims at the center of the Newark case. According to OSHA, employers must allow employees prompt access to sanitary facilities, and any restrictions must be reasonable and cannot cause extended delays. OSHA's sanitation standards exist specifically to prevent the kind of adverse health effects that can result when toilets are unsanitary or unavailable when needed.
Friday's hearing in New Jersey state court will determine whether the amended complaint moves forward, though the court's eventual ruling on the specifics remains to be seen.
