ProLink Staffing Services
A pattern of wage-and-hour litigation in California and Ohio — including a class action that settled for over $518,000 — alongside a withdrawn federal labor-retaliation charge and a documented pattern of unwanted recruiter contact.
5documented incidents
2019–2024date range
4lawsuits & legal actions
Items marked documented link to a primary source — a court record, filed lawsuit, or agency case page. Items marked as reported are submitted directly by travelers and haven't been independently verified.
Lawsuits & legal action
Bowers & Tidwell versus ProLink Staffing Services2021
PAGA representative action (LA Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV22188) filed on behalf of two travel nurses and other California employees. Alleges ProLink structured "per diem" housing/meal payments to shrink if a nurse missed a shift — while excluding those same payments from the regular rate used to calculate overtime — plus unpaid facility-specific training time, meal/rest breaks taken without premium pay, unreimbursed mileage and phone costs, and late final wages.
"Such 'per diem' payments were not meant to actually or reasonably reimburse these employees for such costs, but were rather a form of disguised wages which, among other things, evaded California overtime laws."
Class action (LA Superior Court, Case No. 23STCV12912) covering California healthcare professionals employed by ProLink from June 2019 forward. Alleged failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, wages due upon termination, and reimbursable expenses, plus inaccurate wage statements and breach of contract. The case settled for a gross amount of $518,338.97, with final court approval scheduled for May 13, 2024. As is standard in a settlement, ProLink did not admit wrongdoing.
Federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:24-cv-00529). Public docket records confirm the filing; the specific allegations aren't available from the docket summary alone.
Federal lawsuit (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:22-cv-00101) naming ProLink Healthcare and background-check vendor First Advantage Background Services Corp. as co-defendants — docket classification indicates a consumer-credit/background-check-related claim rather than a wage dispute. The claim against First Advantage was dismissed in March 2023; the case against ProLink is not confirmed resolved from available records.
Regulatory
An unfair labor practice charge (Case No. 25-CA-324752) alleged retaliation/discharge for protected concerted activity. The charging party withdrew the charge about three weeks after filing, and the NLRB's General Counsel approved the withdrawal. No violation was found — this is included for completeness, not as a substantiated claim.
Case documents
Traveler testimonials as reported
Angela MarkancekSays she was owed $6,826 in promised bonus and travel reimbursement in writing, then offered $1,300 and told she was "lucky to be getting anything at all"