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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT