Exel, INC.

Exel, INC. (d/b/a DHL Supply Chain)

SERVING THE GREATER PHILADELPHIA AREA AND BEYOND

This class action lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for hourly logistics services employees at the Procter & Gamble facility in Mehoopany, PA.  The lawsuit alleges that the company violated Pennsylvania wage and overtime law by failing to pay the workers for certain activities they performed before and after the paid shift, including time associated with the COVID screening process and walking time.

This lawsuit is pending, and the company denies liability.  Please contact us if you have any questions about the lawsuit.  We would be happy to answer your questions and provide you with additional information.

Explore Our Cases

Client Testimonials

  • "Winebrake & Santillo has a considerable record in employment matters."
    Winebrake & Santillo has a considerable record in employment matters.
    - Ricci v. Newrez LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186727, at *23 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2023)
  • "Significant experience"

    Attorney Andy Santillo and his co-counsel are “patently qualified” attorneys who “have significant experience with wage payment and collections cases, knowledge of wage-and-hour law, and have clearly done significant work already in this case throughout discovery and the preparation of the motions and opposition papers now before the Court."

    - MARTINEZ V. AMAZON.COM SERVS. LLC, 2024 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 209566, *28, *42-43 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2024)
  • "An established record"

    W&S and its co-counsel "have an established record of competent and successful prosecution of large wage and hour class actions."

    - Lapan v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169508, *7 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2015)
  • "Experienced wage and hour class action litigators"

    W&S and its co-counsel "are experienced wage and hour class action litigators with decades of accomplished complex class action between them and that the Class Members have benefited tremendously from able counsel’s representation."

    - Craig v. Rite Aid Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658, *45 (M.D. Pa. Jan 7, 2013)