Motion to Stay Denied and Joint Case Management Statement Filed in Safelite Overtime Pay Lawsuit
June 6, 2012

by Katie O'Mara,

Safelite’s motion to stay in the overtime pay lawsuit filed by a former technician has been denied by the courts. Demetriot Lewis, the former technician, and Safelite have filed a joint case management statement in response to an order from the court.

The joint statement confirms the facts in the case and reasserts Lewis’ request for class certification, as well as declares Safelite’s intention to challenge class certification if granted by the court.

“Plaintiff intends to file a motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. If conditional certification is granted, defendant intends to file a motion for decertification,” reads the joint statement.

The document also asserts that Safelite may file a motion for summary judgment at some point.

The company agrees to provide Lewis with responses to his “initial interrogatories and documents” by June 29. Both parties proposed a deadline for the class certification hearing of April 30, 2013.

Lewis, who says he worked as a mobile windshield repair technician from April 2010 to December 2010 in the San Francisco Bay area, alleges that he was regularly scheduled to work eight hours per day, but that the company “did not pay [him] wages for all 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.

The former technician also alleges that he often was not provided “the opportunity to take a duty-free meal period of 30 minutes,” and that his supervisors “would create or have [him] create false records purporting to reflect that plaintiff had taken a 30-minute meal period.”

Perez, alleges in his suit that he and other associates in the state had been denied overtime wages he believes they were owed for work more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. He further alleges that the company had a consistent policy of requiring associates within the state of California “to work at least five hours without an uninterrupted meal period and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided or provided after five hours.”

This story is an original story by AGRR™ magazine/™. Subscribe to AGRR™ Magazine.
Subscribe to receive the free e-newsletter.