|
On May 16, 2008, a group
of current and former Teleperformance employees filed a collective
action lawsuit alleging that Teleperformance did not pay employees
for overtime and other non-overtime work. These employees hope to
recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime wages. The lawsuit by
these employees seeks collective and class action treatment, but, as
of this time, the Court has not certified a collective or class
action. These employees allege and believe that Teleperformance,
including CallTech Communications, LLC, a Teleperformance company,
unlawfully denied them wages to which they were legally entitled.
These employees filed this lawsuit on their own behalf, and also as
a collective/class action1 on behalf of other former and
current Teleperformance employees.
This lawsuit involves
certain employees who are currently or were previously employed by
Teleperformance at its “Contact Centers" or “Call Centers,” and also
in the work-at-home program ("WAHA") as Customer Service Agents or
Representatives (“CSRs”) or other hourly-paid employees who
claim to have performed any off-the-clock work.
Plaintiffs believe
and allege that Teleperformance and its subsidiaries such as
CallTech Communications failed to pay employees their rightfully due overtime
wages, and Plaintiffs allege and charge that this failure was
deliberate. Plaintiffs believe and allege that these actions of
Teleperformance violate provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Additionally,
Plaintiffs also seek to have the District Court certify this lawsuit
as a "class action" under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.2 Plaintiffs also allege damages under laws of the states
of Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, where Teleperformance
(and CallTech Communications)
operates its call centers. This lawsuit relies on several causes of
state action, including alleged breach of contract, both
express and implied, as well as alleged unjust enrichment.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege and seek damages under the wage and hour laws
of the various states where Teleperformance (and CallTech) operates its call
centers.
Please note: Due
to time limits (statute of limitations) associated with this type of
lawsuit, it is important that you protect your rights. We urge you
that you take prompt legal action, either by pursuing legal action
on your own, or by joining this
lawsuit. You under no obligation to join this lawsuit, and you
are free to pursue legal action of your own. The statute of
limitations is triggered by the date you initiate legal action, either by filing a
Consent To Join this lawsuit, or by pursuing legal action on
your own. If you would like, you can call us at 801-269-9541 to
discuss your personal situation. Of course, you are also free to
consult with another attorney of your choice.
If you have worked as
a full-time employee, your claim might possibly involve unpaid
overtime if the District Court finds that Teleperformance did not
pay overtime wages as due. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
requires that an employer pay overtime wages where overtime work is
involved. Under FLSA, overtime must be paid at a rate of
time-and-a-half of wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per
week. Therefore, if you worked as a full-time hourly employee, you
might have a potential claim if the Court finds that Teleperformance
did not properly pay for overtime wages.
The Fair Labor
Standards Act allows recovery for unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs in
this lawsuit contend and allege that Customer Service
Representatives and Agents may have a claim for unpaid overtime.
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have alleged that they worked more
than 40 hours per week but Teleperformance failed to pay them the
proper overtime for all the hours worked over 40 hours in a week. Therefore, if you were not paid for your work above 40 hours
per week, you might have a claim for unpaid overtime. Of course, the
Court or a jury is the final and ultimate arbiter of whether Teleperformance
is at fault and whether your claims have validity.
To explain, here a
few examples of violations of FLSA. Of course, it is up to a court
to render a decision and judgment of whether an employee would have
a valid claim for overtime under FLSA.
-
Jane Doe, a
full-time employee, is scheduled to work an eight-hour day (40
hours per week). However, she shows up earlier than her
scheduled shift every
day in order to start her work and spends this pre-shift time on obtain a functioning work station and log into
the system. Her employer considers that work time begins only
when she is fully logged in to her station. Jane may have a
claim to overtime wages for the extra time spend on work-related
activities each day. A
court or a jury might consider the extra pre-shift time to be overtime
work and thus subject to FLSA’s overtime pay requirement.
-
Jane Doe is
scheduled to work a 40-hour week. But she has to stick around
after her eight hours per day in order to log off, clean up,
turn in paperwork, talk to supervisors, and perform similar
activities which might be considered work-related. Under FLSA,
Jane may have a claim to unpaid overtime because a court or a
jury might
consider the extra activities to be overtime and thus subject to FLSA’s requirement to pay overtime wages.
-
Jane Doe is a full-time
employee scheduled to work a 40-hour week. But Jane finds that
in order to amass the 40 hours, she has to work during lunch, or
come in early or leave late. Why? Because Jane’s employer
deducts work time from Jane’s time card for various reasons,
such as toilet breaks, computer malfunctions, or delays logging
back into the system. Under FLSA, Jane might have a claim for
unpaid overtime wages, and a court or a jury might find this extra time to
be covered as compensable under FLSA.
The above are only
illustrative and hypothetical examples designed to show some of the
claims that could be made and might be covered under FLSA by
full-time hourly workers. FLSA requires that an
employer pay an employee for all the time that an employee "works," even if the employee did not expect to get paid for it.
If you have specific
questions about your situation and would like to talk to us, please
feel free to contact us at any
time.
Plaintiffs in this
lawsuit have alleged the following:
Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance did not pay employees for pre- and
post-shift activities, such as logging in and out of the
company’s computer system both before and after receiving calls.
Plaintiffs
allege that they had to wait from 10 to 20 minutes for an
available work station, and that Teleperformance did not pay
them until they were actually logged into a work station.
Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance deducted minutes from employees’
pay for short periods during the workday when employees were
logged out of the Teleperformance computer system, such as when
they took a break to use the restrooms.
Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance gave employees a specific and
limited amount of time between customer service calls, for
example, 40 seconds. Teleperformance’s supervisors referred to
this time as "after call work time," or "ACW" time. Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance did not pay employees for any ACW
time that exceeded the specified time limit, even when employees
performed work-related activities, such as talking to
supervisors, and the like.
Plaintiffs
allege that supervisors of Teleperformance deducted minutes
from employees’ pay for any routine error which required
employees to log back into the system.
Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance deducted time from employees’ work
day for periods in which Teleperformance’s equipment was
malfunctioning through no fault of employees.
Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance did not pay Work-at-home (WAHA) employees for time
spent during scheduled shifts for travelling to meetings, and/or taking Teleperformance’s equipment
back to the call centers for repair or troubleshooting.
Plaintiffs
allege that Teleperformance deducted time from employees’ pay
for other periods during which employees were logged out of the
system for any reason, including, but not limited to, talking to
supervisors, turning in paperwork, and other routine
work-related matters.
This lawsuit involves
certain employees who are currently or were previously employed by
Teleperformance at its "Contact Centers" or "Call Centers" and also
in the work-at-home program (WAHA) as Customer Service
Representatives (CSR) or Agents. If you were employed by
Teleperformance in one of these hourly positions, and if you believe
that you might have suffered any of the allegations mentioned above,
you may be entitled to recover wages and/or overtime owed to you under the law,
if a court or a jury finds this extra time to be covered as compensable work
under FLSA. Of
course, ultimately the court or a jury will decide the validity of any of
your claims and allegations.
1.
Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act a lawsuit for
unpaid wages or overtime compensation is called a “collective
action” which is similar to but not identical to a “class action”
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. One of the
important differences between these two types of cases is that only
people who actually opt in to a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action (file a Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff Form) are
affected by any settlement of or judgment/decisions in the lawsuit.
2. Although the Plaintiffs have filed this
action as a collective action, the Court has not certified this
lawsuit as a collective action or a class action as of this time.
If you have any
questions or need further information about this lawsuit, please
contact Plaintiffs counsel.
|
