Safelite Solutions Denies CSR Allegations Involving
Overtime Pay in Response to August Complaint
October 15, 2010
Safelite Solutions issued a response
this week to a suit
filed against it in August by three CSRs who claim that the company
failed to compensate them with overtime pay when they worked more
than 40 hours per week. In the October 13 response, Safelite details
its denial of the allegations made against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio by former CSRs Patrick W.
Heaps and Richard Ruppert and a current employee, Joshua Pursley.
In the suit, Heaps, Pursley and Ruppert allege that the company
has failed to compensate them with overtime pay when they have worked
more than 40 hours per week, and that Safelite Solutions requires
its CSRs to start their shifts each day by booting up their computer
systems, but then omit the time it takes the CSR to boot up the
system from its calculation of the hours the CSRs have worked each
week. Safelite denies each of the employees' allegations in the
suit regarding this claim. The company also denies the CSRs' allegations
that it has more than 3,000 CSRs, along with several other claims.
Safelite does confirm the salaries listed by the employees in the
response, which is between $10-$12.36 an hour; the highest listed
is for Pursley, who has been with the company since April 2008 and
currently earns "$12.36 or less per hour."
In the defense section of the response, the company says the complaint
"fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,"
that some or all of the of the plaintiffs' claims are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations, that the plaintiffs are barred
"in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel,
laches and/or unclean hands," and that the plaintiffs have
failed to mitigate their damages (if any).
"Plaintiffs and any members of the putative class were properly
compensated for all hours worked and for any hours worked over 40
in a work week," writes the company.
However, Safelite Solutions does note that those that are "entitled
are entitled to a credit for or set off against
amounts overpaid to them in the course of their employment and to
a credit for overtime and other premium payments already made to
Safelite adds, "Some or all of the disputed time for which
Plaintiffs and others with whom they are allegedly similarly situated
involve wages purportedly owed for time that is not compensable
pursuant to de minims doctrine and applicable rounding regulations."
Likewise, the company claims that the plaintiffs (and others) "are
not entitled to compensation for time they purportedly worked without
[its] actual or constructive knowledge."
Safelite Solutions is requesting that the case be dismissed. The
company is represented by Daniel J. Clark of Vorys Sater, Seymore
and Pease LLP in Columbus, Ohio.
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
HERE to subscribe to AGRR magazine.