District Court Denies Recent Safelite Motion
in CSR Suit
January 25, 2011
A U.S. District Court has denied Safelite Solutions recent
motion in an ongoing suit filed by two former and one current CSR
who allege the company failed to compensate them overtime pay when
they worked more than 40 hours a week. Safelite had motioned in
mid-January to strike the plaintiffs reply memorandum
in support of their motion for conditional [class] certification
and the exhibits that accompanied it. In that motion,
the plaintiffs had alleged that the company had changed its CSR
policyin which it is alleged to have required CSRs to boot
up their computers prior to starting their official shiftsafter
the suit was filed.
Safelite had motioned that the memo be struck on the grounds that
company officials believed it contained new evidence in support
of new arguments that Plaintiffs were required to have submitted,
if at all, in their motion.
Plaintiffs may not introduce new arguments or offer new evidence
in a reply memorandum, wrote Daniel Clark of Vorys, Sater,
Seymour and Pease LLP, the law firm representing Safelite in the
However, the plaintiffs argued in their January
18 response to the motion that Safelite had mischaracterize[ed
their] primary argument or focus in this collective
Safelite would reduce this action to a misunderstanding about
whether for payroll purposes the daily hours of CSRs are commenced
via telephone or computer, write the plaintiffs.
They continue, Plaintiffs have not based this action on such
a trivial distinction. Instead, they have consistently asserted
that Safelite has not paid them for time spent booting up, training
during breaks, and signing off. Safelite opposed the collective
action motion by arguing and submitting through affidavit testimony
that it was indeed paying CSRs for all their time, and plaintiffs
responded by rebutting that argument with their own and other CSRs
In the courts denial,
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frost writes, The court does not
agree that plaintiffs have changed the theory of their case. Plaintiffs
filed this action alleging that defendant Safelite failed to compensate
its CSRs for overtime pay as mandated by Ohio and federal law.
He continues, Plaintiffs still contend that defendant Safelite
failed to compensate its CSRs for overtime pay as mandated by Ohio
and federal law. Defendants argument goes to how Safelite
accomplished its failure to pay CSRs for their time spent booting
up their computersnot whether Safelite failed to pay the CSRs
for time spent booting up their computers. That is, whether Safelite
omitted time integral to the job duties of CSRs is now and has always
been the primary liability issue.
Stay tuned to glassBYTEs.com for more on the case as it becomes
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
Subscribe to AGRR Magazine.