ILNews

AT&T technicians file lawsuit over lunch policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eleven AT&T technicians have filed a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status to collect unpaid wages and overtime, alleging the company compels them to work during unpaid lunch breaks.

The suit seeks to represent 1,300 AT&T technicians in Indiana.

The suit filed Aug. 10 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana also alleges technicians face discipline if they drive their GPS-monitored company vehicles more than a half-mile from their routes to take a break.

“The company’s productivity-based performance ranking system puts the technicians under significant pressure to work through the unpaid lunch breaks in order to complete as many jobs as possible in each work shift,” alleges the suit.

These include technicians who install AT&T’s U-verse service, a collection of Internet, phone and television offerings.

The technicians allege that by not paying for time allocated “to the technicians’ so-called meal breaks, AT&T Midwest has failed to pay the technicians’ time-and-half-for all such hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week.”

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and violations of Indiana’s wage and record-keeping laws.

Technicians seek time-and-a-half pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week and damages, but do not specify a dollar amount.

AT&T has to yet to file a formal response to the complaint.

Company spokesman Marty Richter said:  “AT&T is committed to full compliance with all federal and state laws, including the wage and hour laws, and has received numerous awards for being an employer of choice.”

Plaintiffs are Deborah Sturgeon, Sara Gail Mercer, Michelle Ballard, Angie Nelson, John Stewart Jr., Rickey Hays, Levi Haynes, Jason Hampton, Jonathan Julian, Victor Sparks and Tamika Liebhart.

The suit also contends that under rules “designed and enforced to preserve the company’s public image” that employees on unpaid lunch break may not use personal laptops or read books or newspapers while in an AT&T vehicle.

Restrictions on movement or activity during breaks “substantially” interfere with the technicians’ ability to use the unpaid lunch break for eating lunch or other personal business, the complaint states.

It also alleges employees while on unpaid break may not use the vehicle’s air conditioning or heating, regardless of the weather.

Plaintiffs are represented by Indianapolis attorney Kimberly Jeselskis.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Ah ha, so the architect of the ISC Commission to advance racial preferences and gender warfare, a commission that has no place at the inn for any suffering religious discrimination, see details http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 ..... this grand architect of that institutionalized 14th amendment violation just cannot bring himself to utter the word religious discrimination, now can he: "Shepard noted two questions rise immediately from the decision. The first is how will trial courts handle allegations of racism during jury deliberations? The second is does this exception apply only to race? Shepard believes the exception to Rule 606 could also be applied to sexual orientation and gender." Thus barks the Shepard: "Race, gender, sexual orientation". But not religion, oh no, not that. YET CONSIDER ... http://www.pewforum.org/topics/restrictions-on-religion/

  2. my sister hit a horse that ran in the highway the horse belonged to an amish man she is now in a nurseing home for life. The family the horse belonged to has paid some but more needs to be paid she also has kids still at home...can we sue in the state f Indiana

  3. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  4. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  5. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

ADVERTISEMENT