Former Safelite Tech Claims Overtime Pay Suits are “Materially Different”
February 6, 2012
by Katie Hodge O'Mara, firstname.lastname@example.org
A former California Safelite technician has filed court documents alleging that his case and another pending case against the company related to overtime pay “are materially different,” according to court documents.
The filing by counsel for Demetriot Lewis, a former San Francisco-based technician, was made in response to a notice filed by Safelite claiming that, “depending upon the outcome of the Perez matter (including the outcome of any appeal of the denial of class certification), some coordination of these matters might be necessary to avoid conflicts, conserve resources and promote an efficient determination of the actions.”
However, Lewis claims that the, “district court’s denial of class certification in Perez has no bearing on Plaintiff’s right to seek or ability to obtain certification of his class action claims in this case.”
Among other differences, Lewis cites his claim that technicians are required to have and are not reimbursed for GPS units. Lewis goes on to cite his claims that “the workload of technicians effectively prevented them from taking a duty free meal period of 30 minutes” and that “supervisors created or forced employees to create records purporting to reflect that employees had taken a 30-minute meal period.”
According to Lewis, this differs from Perez’s claims that employees were automatically clocked out for one hour on every shift whether or not they actually took a meal period.
The court has not yet ruled on Safelite’s request.
Lewis, an auto glass technician who worked for Safelite for approximately eight months in 2012, filed a class action suit against the company alleging that he is owed overtime pay for hours not counted in his work day. The suit was filed on November 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Lewis alleges that he was not paid for all of the hours he worked. He says that though the company sometimes paid him time and a half based on his $12 hourly rate of pay, the company did not factor the repair incentives that he sometimes received into the time-and-a-half rate.
This story is an original story by AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™. Subscribe to AGRR™ Magazine.
Subscribe to receive the free e-newsletter.