As of July 12, 2026, court records show a related update in the Bitchin Sauce legal saga. The second employment lawsuit against Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, filed by former employee Dariana Perez in July 2023 and referenced above as still active, has since closed. San Diego County Superior Court records updated April 23, 2026 list the case status as dismissed with prejudice, with a request for dismissal filed by Perez herself. No settlement terms or additional case details have been made public. The Sarah Freeman verdict discussed in this article remains the headline outcome in the Bitchin Sauce litigation history.
Last updated: July 2026
The Bitchin Sauce lawsuit ended on November 27, 2024, when a California jury awarded former employee Sarah Freeman $9,102,108 in one of the largest employment verdicts in San Diego County history. The jury found that Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, and Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC had sexually harassed Freeman, retaliated against her for complaining, and stolen nearly 18 months of wages.
This wasn’t a close call. The jury used words like malice, fraud, and oppression to describe how the companies behaved.
What you’ll learn here: who filed the lawsuit, what happened at the beach club in Carlsbad, why the verdict was so large, what Freeman actually walked away with, and how this case connects to the brand’s messy family history.
One fact most people don’t know: Freeman initially offered to settle for $1 million. The company said no. That decision cost them everything.
Bitchin Sauce Lawsuit: What Is This Case About?
The Bitchin Sauce lawsuit is a California employment case in which a former employee alleged sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, and wage theft against the company and its CEO.
In November 2024, plaintiff Sarah Freeman went to trial against her former employers, Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC and their CEO Starr Edwards, after being hired in late 2020 to work at a beach club in Carlsbad as a recreational program lead.
Freeman claimed she was mistreated and mistreated systematically over roughly 18 months. She reported misconduct. Then she was fired.
The jury verdict was in favour of Sarah Freeman, determining that the company had violated the law. The jury decided that Sarah should receive more than $4 million for unpaid wages and emotional distress, along with over $5 million in punitive damages, stating that the company’s conduct was of malicious intent. The total settlement exceeded $9.1 million, ranking among the largest California workplace law verdicts of 2024.
| Case at a Glance | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sarah Freeman |
| Defendants | Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC, Starr Edwards |
| Court | San Diego County Superior Court, Vista CA |
| Case Number | 37-2022-00033240 |
| Judge | Hon. Cynthia A. Freeland |
| Trial Duration | 12 days, November 2024 |
| Total Verdict | $9,102,108 |
The Bitchin Sauce Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: What Happened at the Beach Club
The sexual harassment allegations are at the heart of why this case went viral. What Freeman described was not ambiguous.
Freeman alleged that her direct supervisor, Drew Keefer, repeatedly subjected her to sexual harassment. He made explicit and inappropriate comments, including claims of ejaculating in her coffee and degrading references involving her family members.
That is not the kind of thing a co-worker brushes off. It’s the kind of thing that makes a workplace impossible.
When Freeman complained about her supervisor’s workplace conduct, her complaint was immediately relayed to the supervisor, causing the supervisor to get angry with her and instruct to never go over his head to report him.
The company’s response was not to investigate. It was to tell the supervisor who had complained. That decision destroyed Freeman’s ability to work safely and set the stage for everything that followed.
- Freeman’s complaints were relayed back to the harasser
- Keefer instructed her never to go above him again
- Harassment continued after the complaint
- The jury confirmed she endured workplace harassment due to her gender
Sarah Freeman and the Bitchin Sauce Lawsuit: Who Filed and Why
Sarah Freeman is a California woman hired by Bitchin’ Inc. in late 2020 to run recreational programs for children at a Carlsbad beach club connected to the Bitchin’ Sauce brand.
On March 24, 2022, plaintiff Sarah Freeman, 44, who was hired by Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC and their CEO Starr Edwards to work at a beach club in Carlsbad as a recreational program lead, was terminated from her position. Freeman claimed her termination occurred just days after she reported that a supervisor had sexually harassed her and that she had been forced to work off the clock.
Think about the timing. She reported the harassment. Days later, she was gone.
Freeman filed claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. She alleged violations of California employment law, including misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and denial of meal and rest breaks.
Freeman filed her lawsuit on August 16, 2022, roughly five months after her termination. Her attorneys were Golnar Fozi and Jeremy Dwork of Fozi Dwork & Modafferi LLP in Carlsbad, California.
Key Takeaway: Sarah Freeman was fired within days of reporting sexual harassment and forced overtime, and her lawsuit covers both the harassment itself and the systematic wage violations that ran throughout her 18-month employment.
The Bitchin Sauce $9.1 Million Verdict: What the Jury Decided
The $9,102,108 verdict is one of the largest labor and employment verdicts in California in 2024. The jury reached it after 12 days of testimony.
After 12 days of trial, the jury found that defendants were liable to Freeman for the sexual harassment by her supervisor, that defendants retaliated against her for participating in a workplace investigation and for complaining of being forced to work off the clock, and that defendants owed her for nearly a year and a half of unpaid overtime, rest break and meal break violations.
The award came in two parts. First, the jury delivered compensatory damages for actual harm. Then, after additional evidence, it returned punitive damages on top.
The jury awarded Freeman $4,054,108 in compensatory damages. The jury further found that Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC and Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC acted with malice, oppression and fraud, and awarded punitive damages of $5,048,000, for a total verdict of $9,102,108.
| Verdict Breakdown | Amount |
|---|---|
| Compensatory damages | $4,054,108 |
| Punitive damages: Bitchin’ Inc. | $2,500,000 |
| Punitive damages: Bitchin’ Sauce LLC | $2,500,000 |
| Punitive damages: Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC | $48,000 |
| Total verdict | $9,102,108 |
Starr Edwards Lawsuit: What Role Did the CEO Play?
Starr Edwards is the CEO and sole owner of Bitchin’ Inc. and its affiliated entities. She was named as an individual defendant in Freeman’s lawsuit.
The jury identified meal break violations spanning 237 workdays, with Starr Edwards personally involved in these violations.
That finding is legally significant. It’s not just that the company failed to give Freeman breaks. The jury found that Edwards personally participated in the violation of those break requirements. That puts her name directly in the verdict findings.
Edwards was represented at trial by Brook Barnes and Clint Engleson of Snell & Wilmer in San Diego.
Defendants denied that plaintiff was misclassified, denied she was subjected to sexual harassment, denied she was wrongfully terminated and denied that she sustained any damages.
The defense argued the investigation was fair, that Keefer’s conduct was not harassment, and that Freeman’s termination was lawful. The jury disagreed on all counts.
- Edwards named as individual defendant
- Jury found Edwards personally involved in meal break violations across 237 workdays
- Company denial of all claims rejected by jury
- Defense represented by Snell & Wilmer
Drew Keefer: The Supervisor at the Center of the Bitchin Sauce Case
Drew Keefer is the direct supervisor whose conduct triggered the entire chain of events in this lawsuit.
Freeman confided in a co-worker, who in turn reported Freeman’s complaint to ownership. Ownership decided to fire Keefer for other misconduct. In firing him, however, ownership told him he was being fired in part due to complaints by Freeman of sexual harassment. After being fired, Keefer alleged, for the very first time, that Freeman had sexually harassed him.
This is the reversal that defined the trial. Once Keefer was fired, he suddenly accused Freeman. The company then investigated her rather than standing behind their own termination decision.
The fired supervisor testified at trial that he made the allegations against plaintiff because he was sad that he had been terminated, and that plaintiff was not telling the entire story. The supervisor testified that the conduct between himself and plaintiff was friendly and joking, and that at the time he did not believe it was sexual harassment.
The jury did not believe that characterization. They found the company liable for his original conduct toward Freeman, regardless of his post-termination pivot.
Key Takeaway: The decision to tell Drew Keefer who had complained about him, and then to investigate the complainant after he turned accuser, was the sequence of events the jury found constituted retaliation and a failure to prevent harassment.
The Bitchin Sauce Wrongful Termination Lawsuit: How Freeman Lost Her Job
The wrongful termination claim is about the specific timing and circumstances of Freeman’s firing in March 2022.
Freeman was fired in March 2022. Her termination came within days of Freeman reporting to ownership her supervisor’s sexually harassing behavior and the fact that she was being forced to clock out and continue to work.
California law prohibits retaliatory termination. Firing someone days after they report harassment and wage violations is textbook retaliation under California Labor Code and FEHA.
The defense argued Freeman was an at-will employee who could be terminated for any reason. California courts recognize that even at-will employees cannot be fired for exercising protected legal rights. Reporting harassment is a protected legal right.
Freeman also accused the company of retaliatory termination after exercising her legal rights, such as participating in a harassment investigation and taking protected sick leave.
The jury found the termination was retaliatory. It did not find the termination was gender-based discrimination, which is a meaningful legal distinction, but it confirmed the retaliation theory.
| Wrongful Termination Timeline | Date/Event |
|---|---|
| Freeman hired | Late 2020 |
| Harassment begins | Ongoing through employment |
| Freeman reports work-off-clock violations | Early 2022 |
| Freeman reports sexual harassment | March 2022 |
| Keefer fired | March 2022 |
| Keefer falsely accuses Freeman | After his termination |
| Freeman fired | March 24, 2022 |
The Bitchin Sauce Retaliation Lawsuit: What the Jury Found
Retaliation is one of the most important findings in this verdict. It’s the legal conclusion that the company punished Freeman specifically because she spoke up.
The jury found that defendants were liable to Freeman for retaliation against her for participating in a workplace investigation and for complaining of being forced to work off the clock.
There are two separate retaliation findings here. First, she was retaliated against for participating in the harassment investigation. Second, she was retaliated against for complaining about off-the-clock forced labor. Both are protected activities under California law.
Expert testimony alleged that defendants’ supposed investigation into sexual harassment by plaintiff was incomplete, biased, and motivated by defendants’ desire to protect themselves against potential liability, not to determine the truth.
The expert testimony on investigation quality was a turning point. Plaintiff’s experts said the investigation was designed to get to a predetermined answer, not an honest one. That finding fed directly into the jury’s conclusion of malice.
- Retaliation for: participating in a harassment investigation
- Retaliation for: reporting forced off-the-clock work
- Investigation found: biased, incomplete, self-protective per expert testimony
- Result: jury finding of malice, oppression, and fraud
Bitchin Sauce Employee Misclassification Lawsuit: Why Job Title Mattered
Misclassification sounds like a technical HR issue. In this case it was worth real money.
Freeman was misclassified, denied meal and rest breaks, denied overtime and subjected to sexual harassment by her direct supervisor.
California law divides employees into exempt and non-exempt categories. Non-exempt employees must receive overtime pay, meal breaks, and rest breaks. Exempt employees do not.
Freeman claimed that the company purposely gave her the wrong job title to avoid paying her overtime and giving her a fair break.
If you label someone a “manager” or give them an impressive-sounding title but their actual job duties are not managerial, you cannot use that label to avoid paying them overtime. California courts look at the real nature of the work, not the title on the org chart.
Freeman worked as a recreational program lead. The jury found that did not qualify for exempt status. Every hour she worked over eight per day without overtime pay was a violation.
Key Takeaway: Misclassifying an employee as exempt when their actual job duties are non-managerial is wage theft under California law, and the jury found Bitchin Sauce used that tactic to avoid paying Freeman properly for nearly 18 months.
Bitchin Sauce Wage Theft Lawsuit: Unpaid Overtime and Break Violations
The wage theft portion of this case covered the full span of Freeman’s employment from late 2020 to March 2022.
The jury identified meal break violations spanning 237 workdays, with Starr Edwards personally involved in those violations.
Two hundred and thirty-seven workdays is essentially every day Freeman worked. That is not a few missed breaks. That is a company-wide, CEO-level decision to deny an employee her legally mandated rest time every single shift.
Defendants owed Freeman for nearly a year and a half of unpaid overtime, rest break and meal break violations.
Under California law, each missed meal break or rest break generates a separate penalty. When you multiply that across 237 days of violations for two categories of breaks, plus 18 months of unpaid overtime, the numbers compound fast.
| Wage Violation Category | Period/Details |
|---|---|
| Unpaid overtime | Nearly 18 months of employment |
| Meal break violations | 237 workdays |
| Rest break violations | Covered under compensatory award |
| Starr Edwards personal involvement | Jury found direct involvement in break violations |
| Total compensatory damages awarded | $4,054,108 |
The Bitchin Sauce Workplace Investigation: Why It Backfired on the Company
The way Bitchin’ Sauce handled its internal investigation became a key piece of evidence against it at trial.
Freeman reported Keefer’s tardiness and absenteeism to Human Resources. Instead of addressing her concerns, the company informed Keefer about her complaints, which led to retaliatory behavior.
That decision, telling a supervisor about the employee who complained about him, is a textbook breakdown of workplace investigation protocol. Any HR professional will tell you that confidentiality in the complaint process is not optional. It’s a fundamental protection.
Expert testimony alleged that defendants’ investigation into the sexual harassment allegations by the plaintiff was incomplete, biased, and motivated by defendants’ desire to protect themselves against potential liability, not to determine the truth.
The plaintiff’s expert on workplace investigation standards was Duane Bennett. The defense hired their own expert, Kym LeGolvan. The jury sided with Bennett’s conclusions.
The investigation failure also connected to the retaliation finding. Launching an investigation against the victim of harassment, using claims made by her fired harasser, was what the jury identified as the company protecting itself rather than its workers.
Bitchin Sauce Punitive Damages: What Malice, Fraud, and Oppression Mean
The $5,048,000 in punitive damages are the most important part of this verdict from a legal standpoint. California courts don’t award punitive damages unless the bar is met.
Under California Civil Code Section 3294, punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. This is a higher standard than ordinary negligence.
The jury further found that Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC and Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC acted with malice, oppression and fraud, such that the defendants were liable to Freeman for punitive damages.
“Malice” means the defendants knew what they were doing and did it with conscious disregard for Freeman’s rights. “Oppression” means they used their power position to grind her down. “Fraud” means they made misrepresentations about the employment relationship.
All three findings. Against all three Bitchin’ entities.
Although the employee initially sought to settle for $1 million, the case went to trial, and the jury ruled unanimously against the company and its leadership, awarding $9.1 million in damages.
The company had a chance to end this for $1 million. Every dollar above that is a consequence of that decision.
Key Takeaway: The punitive damages finding is not just about money. It is a jury declaring that Bitchin Sauce and its entities acted with active malice toward a worker who tried to protect herself, making this one of the most serious employment verdicts in California in 2024.
Bitchin Sauce Lawsuit Settlement Amount: What Freeman Actually Received
The $9,102,108 jury verdict is the headline number. But what Freeman actually received may be different, and the reason matters.
Both sides negotiated a deal for a smaller, undisclosed sum before the punitive phase ended, with Freeman agreeing to forgo additional damages. That put an end to the case legally.
The parties reached a settlement during the punitive damages presentation phase. The exact amount of that settlement has not been publicly disclosed. The $9.1 million is the jury’s formal verdict figure, but the final payment to Freeman was agreed separately.
This is common in high-stakes California employment trials. Once a jury signals it will award punitive damages, both sides often negotiate a final payment rather than risk an even larger punitive award or a lengthy appeals process.
- Jury verdict: $9,102,108
- Settlement timing: During punitive damages presentation phase
- Settlement amount: Undisclosed
- Freeman agreed to forgo additional punitive damages in exchange
- Case fully resolved as of the settlement date
Bitchin Sauce Lawsuit Outcome: Who Won and What It Means
Sarah Freeman won. Comprehensively. On every major claim she brought.
The jury found defendants were liable to Freeman for the sexual harassment by her supervisor, and identified meal break violations spanning 237 workdays with Starr Edwards personally involved. The jury awarded Freeman a total of $9,102,108, highlighting the severe consequences of workplace harassment and violations of California employment law.
The verdict is ranked as a Top 20 Labor and Employment Verdict in the United States in 2024 and the highest verdict in San Diego County for that year per the plaintiff’s law firm.
The case sends a clear message to California employers. Misclassify your workers, let supervisors harass them, tell them they’ll get fired if they speak up, then fire them when they do anyway, and a California jury will find the words “malice, fraud, and oppression” for you.
Defendants found liable for: the sexual harassment by her supervisor; retaliation for participating in a workplace investigation; retaliation for complaining about forced off-the-clock work; and for nearly a year and a half of unpaid overtime, rest break and meal break violations.
The one claim Freeman did not win: the jury did not find her discharge was substantially motivated by her gender specifically. That nuance did not change the bottom line. The retaliation and harassment findings were more than sufficient.
The Bitchin Sauce Family Feud Lawsuit: The Background Behind the Brand
To understand the Bitchin Sauce lawsuit fully, you need to understand that this company has never been a drama-free operation. It started as a family business and split apart violently in 2015.
A dispute over financial and operational control within the outspokenly Christian family led to a legal showdown in 2015, resulting in Edwards taking full ownership of Bitchin’ Sauce. Her brothers Ryan and Porter Smith found themselves ousted from the business they helped build.
Ryan Smith described that period as going from a six-figure salary to nothing overnight. The brothers chose not to sue, citing their Christian faith, and walked away.
Despite the inherently limiting nature of their signature product, Bitchin’ Sauce under Edwards’ leadership has seen remarkable growth, now boasting annual sales of $55 million and a recent deal with Starbucks, showcasing its chipotle flavor in over 10,000 stores.
The company is enormous now. But size didn’t fix the internal culture that produced a 12-day harassment trial. That context matters when reading the jury’s “malice, fraud, and oppression” finding.
| Bitchin Sauce Company Timeline | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010 | Founded by Starr Edwards and siblings at San Diego farmers markets |
| 2015 | Company reaches $2M revenue; family dispute erupts; brothers ousted |
| 2015 | Starr Edwards takes sole ownership; brothers walk away |
| 2016 | Ryan and Porter Smith found Good Lovin’ Foods |
| 2020 | Sarah Freeman hired at Carlsbad beach club |
| 2022 | Freeman fired, lawsuit filed |
| 2023 | Dariana Perez files separate wrongful termination lawsuit against Bitchin Sauce LLC |
| 2024 | Freeman wins $9.1M verdict; Bitchin Sauce reaches annual sales of $55M |
Ryan Smith, Porter Smith, and JeeSauce: What They Said About the Verdict
Ryan and Porter Smith are Starr Edwards’s brothers and the co-founders of competing brand JeeSauce. They have been publicly critical of Bitchin Sauce for years. The $9.1 million verdict gave them something new to say.
The Smitty Bros, co-founders of Bitchin’ Sauce before they walked away from the business, make it clear that this moment is a public confirmation of what they’ve experienced behind the scenes for years. Throughout the episode, the brothers repeatedly stress that their decision to step away from the company was guided by their values. They speak candidly about the inner conflict of watching their former brand succeed financially despite what they saw as serious ethical compromises.
The brothers addressed the verdict in Episode 10 of their SauceCast podcast in June 2025. They framed it as validation of the character they had described for years.
Although the employee initially sought to settle for $1 million, the case went to trial, and the jury ruled unanimously against the company and its leadership, awarding $9.1 million in damages. Terms like malice, fraud, and oppression were used in the reporting articles about the jury’s findings.
Luke Edwards, Starr’s husband and co-founder of Bitchin’ Sauce and Bitchin’ Music Group, pushed back on the narrative shared by the Smith brothers, providing private correspondence from within the divided family, and noting that Starr has made a concerted effort not to publicly or privately disparage or incriminate her brothers over events that happened over 10 years ago.
Both sides have their story. The jury’s verdict is the one that has legal weight.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Bitchin Sauce lawsuit about?
The Bitchin Sauce lawsuit was a California employment case in which former employee Sarah Freeman alleged sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, and wage theft against Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC, and CEO Starr Edwards.
Freeman was hired in late 2020, complained about her supervisor’s harassment and being forced to work off the clock, and was fired in March 2022 within days of reporting the misconduct.
A 12-day jury trial in November 2024 ended in a $9,102,108 verdict in her favor.
How much did Sarah Freeman win in her lawsuit against Bitchin Sauce?
The jury awarded Sarah Freeman a total of $9,102,108 in its November 27, 2024 verdict, including $4,054,108 in compensatory damages and $5,048,000 in punitive damages.
The parties reportedly settled for an undisclosed amount before the punitive damages phase fully concluded, so Freeman’s actual payment may differ from the headline figure.
The verdict was ranked a Top 20 Labor and Employment Verdict in the United States for 2024.
Was Starr Edwards personally found liable in the Bitchin Sauce lawsuit?
Starr Edwards was named as an individual defendant. The jury specifically found her personally involved in meal break violations spanning 237 workdays.
The punitive damages of $5,048,000 were assessed against the corporate entities, Bitchin’ Inc., Bitchin’ Sauce LLC, and Bitchin’ Beach Club LLC, rather than against Edwards individually.
However, as CEO and sole owner, the liability findings against those companies directly affect her.
What is misclassification and why did it matter in the Bitchin Sauce case?
Employee misclassification means labeling a non-exempt hourly worker as an exempt salaried employee to avoid paying overtime and break time required by California law.
Freeman alleged she was given a management-sounding title, recreational program lead, without managerial duties, specifically to deny her overtime pay and mandatory meal and rest breaks.
The jury found the misclassification was real, with meal break violations covering 237 workdays throughout her entire employment.
Is Bitchin Sauce still in business after the lawsuit?
Yes. Bitchin’ Sauce continues to operate as of 2026, with annual sales of approximately $55 million and products sold in Costco, Whole Foods, and over 10,000 Starbucks locations nationwide.
The lawsuit has not prompted a public company shutdown, product recall, or regulatory action against the brand.
Bitchin Sauce remains a consumer product company. The legal action was an employment dispute between the company and a former worker.
What This Verdict Tells You
A California jury spent 12 days hearing this case and came back with the harshest legal language available: malice, fraud, and oppression. That is not a finding courts make casually.
If you are an employee in California, know your rights. Reporting harassment is protected. Being forced to work off the clock is illegal. Being fired for speaking up is actionable.
Stay current with the San Diego County Superior Court docket. A second Bitchin Sauce employment lawsuit filed by Dariana Perez in July 2023 remains active. This story is not fully written yet.
