Home > News > Company News > Safelite Technician to File Motion to Stay in Overtime Pay Suit

Safelite Technician to File Motion to Stay in Overtime Pay Suit

Post Time:Mar 21,2012Classify:Company NewsView:209

 

A California auto glass technician, Demetriot Lewis, who worked for Safelite for approximately eight months in 2010 intends to file a joint motion to stay in his class action suit against the company alleging that he is owed overtime pay for hours not counted in his work day. 

According to court documents the, “defendant intends to file a motion to stay and coordinate this matter with Perez v. Safelite Group, Inc.”

Joseph Perez, a California Safelite technician, had voluntarily dismissed his claims last week of denial of overtime wages by Safelite and was previously denied class certification. However, Perez did retain his personal stake in the class claims as a representative of the class.

”Plaintiff Perez’s individual claims have been dismissed with prejudice and Perez’s counsel has informed Safelite’s counsel that Perez intends to appeal the denial of class certification,” read the Lewis’ court documents. “Defendant contends that, depending upon the outcome of the appeal in Perez, coordination of these matters might be necessary to avoid conflicts, conserve resources and promote an efficient determination of the action. Defendant intends to file a motion to stay to address the manner in which this case can be coordinated with the Perez case.”

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.”

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.”

Perez, alleges in his suit that he and other associates in the state had been denied overtime wages he believes they were owed for work more than eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. He further alleges that the company 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.”

 

Source: http://www.glassbytes.comAuthor: shangyi

Related News

Hot News

返回顶部