Former Safelite Tech Seeks Class Action Suit Against Company for Overtime Pay
November 28, 2011

A California auto glass technician who worked for Safelite for approximately eight months in 2010 has filed a class action suit against the company alleging that he is owed overtime pay for hours not counted in his work day. The suit was filed on November 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Demetriot 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.”

“Defendant required plaintiff to clock in for work at a specified time, but regularly suffered or permitted [him] to work prior to the specified time for clocking in,” alleges Lewis. “Tasks that defendant knowingly allowed or required plaintiff to perform prior to the specified time for clocking in included calling customers; retrieving paperwork, supplies or equipment from defendant’s warehouse; attending meetings or taking tests at defendant’s warehouse; and driving to customer locations from defendant’s warehouse.”

Lewis further alleges that he was not paid for all of 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.”

Lewis goes on to allege that Safelite also required him to purchase a GPS unit for use in his work, but did not reimburse him for the unit.

He says that his employment was terminated on January 7, 2010, but does not note the reasoning for the termination.

Lewis says he’s brought the suit against the company on behalf of himself and “others similarly situated” in California. He suggests there are three potential classes involved—a California on-site technician class that includes all mobile technicians who were employed by Safelite in California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint; a wage statement subclass that includes all those employed by Safelite as mobile technicians in California one year before the filing of the complaint; and a final wages subclass that includes all mobile technicians in California whose employment was terminated by the company within the three years before the complaint was filed.

Lewis is seeking damages, restitution, pre-judgment interest, civil penalties, and court costs and attorneys’ fees.

A similar suit was filed earlier this year against the company by another California technician, Joseph Perez . While U.S. District Court for Central California denied that a class should be certified in Perez’s suit in August, the court has scheduled a jury trial to hear the case in May 2012.

Safelite officials declined to comment on the suit.

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