Denied: Safelite Tech Overtime Pay Suit Continues, But Not as Class Action
August 3, 2011
A federal court of appeals has denied a Safelite technician’s appeal of a lower court’s decision not to certify a class in his suit, which relates to overtime pay, breaks and more.
Plaintiff Joseph Perez filed the original suit in California Superior Court in October 2010, and had appealed the class certification decision in May.
“The court, in its discretion, denies the petition for permission to appeal the district court’s April 22, 2011, order denying class action certification,” writes the judge in the recent decision.
Perez, a California resident, alleges in the suit that he and other associates in the state have been denied overtime wages they claim he believes they were owed for work more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. He further alleges that the company has had a consistent policy of requiring associates within the state of California “to work at least five hours without an uninterrupted meal period and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided or provided after five hours.”
Perez also makes claims related to “rest periods,” and alleges that Safelite consistently has failed to provide him and others rest periods of 10 minutes per four hours worked, “as required by California state wage and hour laws.”
The former Safelite technician further claims that the company has “had a consistent policy of not reimbursing associates for tools and uniforms purchased as a necessary condition and requirement of employment, as well as their out-of-pocket expenses to maintain uniforms (including sanitization) as a requirement of employment.”
The district court had denied the class certification as it “found it unlikely that prospective injunctive relief is more valuable to plaintiff or predominant in the action than monetary relief.”
In addition, the district court had ruled that the plaintiff must show that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”
The latest decision from the appeals court affirms the district court opinion.
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
Subscribe to AGRR Magazine.