Enterprise Rent-A-Car and its parent, Enterprise Mobility, have been named in class action lawsuits covering age discrimination in hiring, unpaid overtime and missed breaks, biometric fingerprint collection, mass layoffs during the COVID-19 pandemic, and improper damage charges billed to renters. Payouts on the resolved cases have ranged from a $50,000 state enforcement penalty to a $7.75 million federal wage settlement, and a new wage-and-hour class action filed in Washington in 2026 seeks more than $17 million. Here is what each of the major Enterprise class action lawsuits alleged, how it ended, and which are still moving.
$1.8 Million Age Discrimination Settlement in Florida
The largest recent resolution involves hiring, not renting. In September 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida in the Southern District of Florida (Civil Action No. 0:23-cv-61744), alleging the company refused to hire applicants aged 40 and older for management trainee positions between January 2019 and December 2023.1EEOC Enterprise Settlement. Settlement Information
According to the EEOC, applicants 40 and older made up roughly 15 percent of the applicant pool but under 3 percent of hires. The agency said it identified more than 125 witnesses who reported being asked their age or graduation year, told candidates were “fresh out of college,” or otherwise discouraged from applying, in what the EEOC alleged was a pattern violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.2EEOC. Enterprise Leasing to Pay $1.8 Million in Florida EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit
Enterprise denied the allegations but agreed in September 2025 to pay $1.8 million and enter a three-year consent decree. The decree requires new ADEA-compliant hiring policies, mandatory annual training, posted notices about the lawsuit, investigation of all age discrimination complaints, an ethics hotline, and semiannual reports to the EEOC drawn from a new applicant tracking system.2EEOC. Enterprise Leasing to Pay $1.8 Million in Florida EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit
Eligible claimants are applicants aged 40 or older who were denied Florida management trainee positions during the covered period. The deadline to submit questionnaires to the settlement administrator is June 8, 2026.1EEOC Enterprise Settlement. Settlement Information
Unpaid Overtime and Wage-and-Hour Cases
Wage claims are the most persistent category of class action against Enterprise. Several have settled; one is active.
Hickton FLSA Settlement: $7.75 Million
Former employee Nikolas Hickton brought a nationwide class action accusing Enterprise of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by denying overtime pay. The case settled for $7.75 million.3Top Class Actions. Car Rental Companies Accused of Unpaid Overtime Violations
Call Center Boot-Up Time
A 2010 suit against Enterprise Holdings covered roughly 3,100 current and former call center representatives who alleged the company violated the FLSA and Missouri law by not paying them for time spent booting up and shutting down computers around their shifts. The case was certified in 2011 and settled, though the settlement amount was not publicly disclosed.4Riggan Law Firm. Enterprise Agrees to Settle Class Action Overtime Case
Gomez v. Enterprise: California Management Trainees
Jose Gomez, a former management trainee and assistant in San Diego, filed a class action for current and former California management assistants and trainees. The complaint alleged Enterprise miscalculated overtime, denied meal and rest breaks, and required unpaid “working interviews” framed as on-the-job training.5Scribd. Gomez v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Complaint
Anderson v. EAN Holdings: Active $17 Million Case
The most recent wage case, Anderson v. EAN Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in the Western District of Washington in June 2026 (Case No. 2:26-cv-02052). It accuses Enterprise of shorting overtime and denying breaks to hourly employees. In its notice of removal, the company estimated the claims exceed $17 million.6Law360. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Sued Over Wage, Break Claims
Canadian Managers: Certification Denied
A proposed Canadian class action on behalf of branch rental managers, assistant branch rental managers, and station managers across Enterprise, National, and Alamo failed to gain certification. Justice Morgan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied certification in July 2022, a majority of the Divisional Court upheld that ruling in June 2023, and in January 2024 the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for leave to appeal. Former class members were told to pursue individual claims before limitation periods ran out.7Koskie Minsky LLP. Enterprise, National and Alamo Rent-A-Car Class Action
Illinois Fingerprint Scan Settlement
In Wordlaw v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-03200, Northern District of Illinois), plaintiff Dawon A. Wordlaw alleged that starting in 2016, Enterprise required employees at a Cook County facility to scan their fingerprints to clock in and out, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint said the company never provided written notice that biometric data was being collected, never disclosed the purpose, never obtained written consent, and never published a retention-and-destruction policy. It also alleged Enterprise shared the fingerprint data with third parties including other subsidiaries, data storage vendors, and payroll providers.8CaseMine. Wordlaw v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago
Enterprise agreed to a roughly $505,000 settlement fund. Judge Manish S. Shah granted final approval on May 8, 2023. The class covered 715 current and former employees who performed finger scans for timekeeping at Illinois Enterprise facilities between April 3, 2015, and January 3, 2023, with individual payments expected between $400 and $500.9Bloomberg Law. Enterprise to Pay $505K to Settle Biometric Privacy Class Action
Pandemic Layoff Class Action Under the WARN Act
Former employee Elva Benson filed a nationwide class action after Enterprise laid off a large number of employees on or around April 24, 2020. The suit, Benson v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. et al. (Case No. 6:20-cv-00891, Middle District of Florida), alleged the company violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by cutting the required 60 days’ advance notice to zero and failing to provide the legally required justification.10ClassAction.org. Enterprise Violated WARN Act With Mass Layoff During Pandemic, Class Action Claims
The case was certified as a nationwide class in May 2021. Enterprise appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing the pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” under the WARN Act exception, which would excuse the notice requirement. The U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief opposing that reading, saying the exception applies only when layoffs are a “direct result” of the disaster, not an indirect consequence of reduced travel demand.11U.S. Department of Labor. Amicus Brief in Benson v. Enterprise Holdings The Eleventh Circuit denied Enterprise’s challenge to class certification but allowed the interlocutory appeal on the natural disaster question to proceed.12Bloomberg Tax. Enterprise Denied Appeal on Second Question in COVID Layoff Suit
At the district court, U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. granted preliminary approval of a $175,000 class settlement in January 2022. It covered approximately 964 affected employees who had not signed severance agreements and had not opted out. More than 320 filed claims.10ClassAction.org. Enterprise Violated WARN Act With Mass Layoff During Pandemic, Class Action Claims
Damage Charges Billed to Renters
A Pennsylvania class action alleged that when rental damage exceeded $500, Enterprise improperly charged customers for both the repair cost and the vehicle’s “diminished value.” The suit argued that laws in Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and California require the consumer to pay only the lesser of the two amounts. It further alleged the rental agreement did not clearly disclose the double charge and was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. One plaintiff reported being billed $153.11 for diminished value on top of $1,531.10 in repair costs.13ClassAction.org. Damaged Rental Cars
New Jersey State Settlement
In October 2021, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs settled its investigation into Enterprise’s damage-billing practices. The agency had received complaints that Enterprise failed to give customers a chance to inspect vehicles for pre-existing damage, told customers they would not be held responsible for prior damage and then billed them anyway, and charged customers for damage that did not happen during their rental.14New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Agrees to $50,000 Penalty and New Measures to Protect Consumers
Enterprise agreed to pay $50,000, comprising $20,015 in civil penalties, $11,285 in investigative costs, and $18,700 in attorneys’ fees. It also agreed to document pre-existing damage with customer signatures at every New Jersey location, notify customers of observable damage within five business days of a vehicle’s return, provide copies of damage inspection forms at check-in, and enter binding arbitration on complaints received by the Division for the next two years. A senior manager was required to monitor compliance during that period.14New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Agrees to $50,000 Penalty and New Measures to Protect Consumers
Arbitration Clauses in the Enterprise Plus Program
One boundary matters for anyone thinking about joining a future case as a customer. Enterprise Plus loyalty program terms include a mandatory arbitration agreement and class action waiver for U.S. and Canadian members. Members agree to arbitrate disputes rather than sue, waive participation in class or representative actions, and waive jury trial where permitted. Residents of Quebec and British Columbia are excluded because of local consumer protection statutes.15Enterprise. Enterprise Plus Terms and Conditions
Those clauses have not blocked the employment-side class actions above, which arise from different legal frameworks and contractual relationships. They can, however, complicate consumer-side class litigation by Enterprise Plus members who agreed to the terms.