Professional Documents
Culture Documents
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiff Sett Pratt ("PLAINTIFF"), an individual, alleges upon information and belief,
2 except for his own acts and knowledge, the following:
3
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Defendant Verizon California Inc. hereinafter also referred to as "VERIZON" or
6 "DEFENDANT" provides domestic wireline telecommunication services to residential and
7 business consumers. In order to support its telecommunication services, VERIZON retains call-
8 center customer service representatives who are responsible for all customer support related
9 matters, specifically, computer, phone, television and sales support. During the CLASS
10 PERIOD, VERIZON failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF Seth Pratt "PLAINTIFF" and all the
11 other Class Members wages earned for the actual number of hours worked. VERIZON
12 intentionally and unlawfully failed to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for
13 compensable work time which was spent logging onto computers, initializing software
14 applications, and preparing to take and/or make phone calls. This is due to the fact that
15 VERIZON had in place two conflicting policies and practices. On the one hand, these
16 employees were not paid until they took their first phone call at the start of their scheduled shifts
17 and on the other hand, these employees were required to work before the start of their scheduled
18 shifts preparing their computer systems because it was a requirement for the employees to
19 properly perform the functions of their jobs. VERIZON enforced this policy by penalizing all
20 employees who were not prepared to take their first call with "customer mistreat," "adherence"
21 and "tardy" violations whereby multiple violations resulted in employment termination. As a
22 result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members who performed this job duty regularly worked
23 off the clock before the start of their scheduled shifts because this preparation was indispensable
24 to performing their jobs. This additional time spent preparing computer systems before the start
25 of their scheduled shifts was work performed subject to DEFENDANT’s control and for
26 DEFENDANT’s benefit. Consequently, all time spent performing such work constitutes "hours
27 worked" and is therefore compensable. VERIZON’s uniform policy and practice to not pay
28 employees for compensable work time is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.