The U.S. District Court of California’s Central District has granted in part and denied in part Safelite’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit where the company stood accused of nine violations of California’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA.)
In September 2015, former technician Yadir Ontiveros filed an amended class action lawsuit against Safelite Fulfillment, Safelite Group and Safelite Glass Corp. He alleged that the company did not fairly compensate him and other FLSA employees for time spent cleaning, attending meetings, traveling from worksites and performing administrative tasks.
Safelite denied all claims, stating that there is not enough evidence to file a class action against them.
Ontiveros claim was dismissed in November 2016, after his attorneys from both sides filed a joint stipulation requesting the court dismiss the claim in October.
In January 2017, Safelite motioned for summary judgment or summary adjudication of claims, while Ontiveros motioned for partial summary judgment. The following month, the court released their ruling.
“By inflating the number of hours worked, Safelite made it seem as though the employee’s ‘regular rate’ was lower than it actually was. As a result, Plaintiff may have been denied overtime pay to which he was entitled,” the court said.
“The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to these issues: (1) the PPP does not ensure that an employee will receive minimum wage for each additional hour worked; (2) the PPP does not ensure that employees will receive overtime pay; the PPP does not ensure that employees will be separately compensated for rest periods; (4) Plaintiff is entitled to penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1) for each wage statement issued during the time when he was enrolled in the PPP that failed to include the required piece rate information; and (5) to the extent it is not duplicative of item no. 4, supra, Plaintiff is entitled to penalties under section 226(e)(1) for each wage statement issued during the time he was enrolled in the installation bonus program that failed to indicate the effect of the bonus program on the regular rate,” the court ruled.
“The Court grants Safelite’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s unlawful deduction claim, and as to all claims released in the Lewis settlement. The Court also grants summary adjudication for Safelite on the issue of whether its meal period policy is compliant with California law. 3. The parties’ motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment are otherwise denied,” the court ruled.