Safelite Fulfillment, Safelite Group and Safelite Glass Corp. have denied a former technician’s allegations that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) through its pay-per-piece program. The complaint “fails to state sufficient facts,” according to Safelite’s attorney.
Former technician Yadir Ontiveros filed a state class action lawsuit against Safelite Fulfillment, Safelite Group and Safelite Glass Corp. in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, in early September.
“At all times while employed as a technician, plaintiff has been paid on a piece-rate basis, whereby plaintiff is paid a certain rate per installation or repair completed,” Ontiveros’ attorney alleged in the court documents. “Despite the fact that plaintiff records his actual hours worked pursuant to company policy, wages earned for these hours worked are treated as an advance against plaintiff’s piece-rate earnings, as only those piece-rate earnings in excess of the hourly wages are paid out as piece-rate earnings.
“However, plaintiff and other technicians are pressured and encouraged through various productivity rankings to be highly productive, which results from having a high number of installs per day,” the attorney alleged. “As a result, plaintiff and technicians almost never have piece-rate earnings that do not exceed their hourly wages, and their wages are almost always equal to their piece-rate earnings.”
In addition to denying the allegations, Safelite’s attorney alleges that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to certify a class action.
“Plaintiff is not a proper representative of the class he purports to represent and this action is not properly brought as a class or collective action,” Safelite’s attorney contends.
The attorney also alleges that Ontiveros “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or prerequisites before filing a suit.”
“[S]afelite authorized and permitted plaintiff to take all rest breaks required by law, provided plaintiff the opportunity to take all meal periods required by law, and breached no duty owed to plaintiff,” the company’s attorney alleges.
Safelite’s attorney asks the court to dismiss the complaint and for the company to be awarded the costs for the lawsuit, including attorney’s fees.
To read Safelite’s response, click here.
