`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A.
`11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
`Phoenix, Arizona 85028-6037
`(602) 254-6071
`
`Richard P. Traulsen – State Bar #016050
`rtraulsen@BMT-law.com
`Local Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
`DEMAND
`
`Andrea Wilkerson, individually and on
`behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC d/b/a
`AllianceRX Walgreens Prime and
`Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc.
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff, ANDREA WILKERSON (“Wilkerson”) by and through her undersigned
`
`attorneys, hereby brings this Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendants,
`
`WALGREENS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC (“AllianceRx”) and HEALTHCARE
`
`SUPPORT STAFFING, INC. (“Healthcare Staffing”) (collectively “Defendants”) and
`
`states as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class and collective action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself
`
`and all similarly situated current and/or former Call Center Representative employees of
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`Defendants to recover for Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the Arizona Wage Act, A.R.S. §§ 23-350, et seq., and
`
`A.R.S. §§ 23-364 (the “Arizona Wage Act”), and alleged contractual obligations (or unjust
`
`enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and
`
`ordinances.
`
`2.
`
`The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recognizes that call center jobs, like
`
`those held by Plaintiff in Defendants’ call center locations, are homogenous and issued
`
`guidance to alert and condemn an employer’s non-payment of an employee’s necessary
`
`preliminary and postliminary activities. See DOL Fact Sheet #64, attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A at 2 (“An example of the first principal activity of the day for
`
`agents/specialists/representatives working in call centers includes starting the computer to
`
`download work
`
`instructions, computer applications and work-related emails.”)
`
`Additionally, the FLSA requires that “[a] daily or weekly record of all hours worked,
`
`including time spent in pre-shift and post-shift job-related activities must be kept.” Id.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to Defendants’
`
`policy and practice of failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary
`
`pre-shift time, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under
`
`applicable federal and state laws.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, the rights of the FLSA Collective
`
`Class, and the rights of the Rule 23 Classes were violated and seeks to recover an award of
`
`unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other
`
`remedies to which they may be entitled.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 201, et seq.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FLSA claim
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which provides that suits under the FLSA “may be
`
`maintained against any employer . . . in any Federal or State court of competent
`
`jurisdiction.”
`
`7.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims arise from a common set of operative
`
`facts and are so related to the claims within this Court’s original jurisdiction that they form
`
`a part of the same case or controversy.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ annual sales exceed $500,000 and
`
`they have more than two employees, so the FLSA applies in this case on an enterprise
`
`basis. See 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
`
`9.
`
`Defendants’ employees,
`
`including Plaintiff, engage
`
`in
`
`interstate
`
`commerce—including, but not limited to utilizing telephone lines and Internet—and
`
`therefore, they are also covered by the FLSA on an individual basis.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant AllianceRx because it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`maintains offices in the State of Arizona.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Healthcare Staffing
`
`because the company does business within the State of Arizona, is registered with the State
`
`of Arizona, and avails itself of business with companies located within the State of Arizona.
`
`12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
`
`Defendants conduct substantial business within this District, and because a substantial
`
`portion of the events that give rise to the claims pled in this Complaint occurred in this
`
`District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Wilkerson is an individual who resides in the County of Maricopa,
`
`City of Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Call Center Representative
`
`from September 2020 to May 2021. Plaintiff executed her Consent to Sue form, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`14. Defendant AllianceRx is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Deerfield,
`
`Illinois. AllianceRx operates customer service call center locations in Tempe, Arizona;
`
`Dallas, Texas; Canton, Michigan; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. See “Locations”
`
`https://www.alliancerxwp.com/about-us (last visited July 8, 2021).
`
`15. AllianceRx is a joint venture between one of the largest retail drugstores,
`
`Walgreens, and pharmacy benefit manager Prime Therapeutics that provides pharmacy
`
`services to consumers. See generally, https://www.alliancerxwp.com/ (last visited July 8,
`
`2021).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`16. AllianceRx may accept service via its registered agent Illinois Corporation
`
`Service at 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield, IL 62703. AllianceRx does not maintain
`
`a foreign corporation registration with the Arizona Corporation Commission.
`
`17. Defendant Healthcare Staffing is a Florida corporation headquartered in
`
`Maitland, Florida that provides labor staffing for its clients, including AllianceRx.
`
`18. Healthcare Staffing specializes in labor staffing for the health care industry,
`
`including customer service representatives for pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers.
`
`See “Customer Service Reps,” https://www.healthcaresupport.com/customer-service-reps-
`
`2/ (last visited July 9, 2021).
`
`19. Healthcare Staffing may accept service via its registered agent Cogency
`
`Global, Inc. at 300 W Clarendon Avenue, Suite 240, Phoenix, Arizona 85013.
`
`20. At all relevant times, Defendants were members of, and engaged in, a joint
`
`venture, partnership, and common enterprise, and were acting within the course and scope
`
`of, and in pursuant of said joint venture, partnership, or common enterprise.
`
`21. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing screened employees for
`
`AllianceRx. After Healthcare Staffing offered these joint employees employment at
`
`AllianceRx, the joint employees began working for Defendants at AllianceRx’s call center
`
`located in Tempe, Arizona.
`
`22. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing was compensated at the
`
`time joint employees began work for AllianceRx, and Healthcare Staffing continued to be
`
`compensated on an ongoing basis while joint employees remained working at AllianceRx’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`Tempe, Arizona call center.
`
`23. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing and AllianceRx jointly had
`
`the ability to hire and fire employees, and jointly had the authority to set and/or
`
`communicate conditions of employment for joint employees, including the compensation
`
`and work hours of the joint employees, and both maintained records for the joint
`
`employees.
`
`24.
`
`For all potential Class members who were not hired through Healthcare
`
`Staffing and were instead hired directly by AllianceRx, AllianceRx alone had the ability to
`
`hire and fire these employees, alone had the authority to set conditions of employment,
`
`including the compensation and work hours of the employees, and alone maintained
`
`records for the employees they directly hired.
`
`25. At all relevant times and based on information and belief, AllianceRx and
`
`Healthcare Staffing were joint employers of Plaintiff as it is defined in the FLSA. See 29
`
`C.F.R. § 791.2.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`26. Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly call center Call Center
`
`Representative (“CCR”). Defendants assign CCRs, like Plaintiff, to answer customer calls
`
`from Defendant AllianceRx’s clients.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff’s primary job duties included answering calls from Defendant
`
`Alliance Rx’s customers regarding their prescriptions, helping clients with their online
`
`profiles, verifying patient information, performing data entry, and resolving other customer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`issues.
`
`28.
`
`Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly
`
`worked at least 40 hours per workweek.
`
`29. Regardless of whether Defendants scheduled Plaintiff to work a workweek
`
`totaling under 40 hours, scheduled to work a workweek totaling 40 hours, or scheduled to
`
`work a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial
`
`amount of time off-the-clock as part of her job duties as a CCR. Defendants never
`
`compensated Plaintiff for this time worked off-the-clock.
`
`30.
`
`29 C.F.R. § 553.221 provides:
`
`Compensable hours of work generally include all of the time during which
`an employee is on duty on the employer’s premises or at a prescribed
`workplace, as well as all other time during which the employee is suffered or
`permitted to work for the employer. Such time includes all pre-shift and post-
`shift activities which are an integral part of the employee’s principal activity
`or which are closely related to the performance of the principal activity, such
`as attending roll call, writing up and completing tickets or reports, and
`washing and re-racking fire hoses.
`
`31.
`
`29 C.F.R. § 790.8 states “[a]mong activities included as an integral part of a
`
`principal activity are those closely related activities which are indispensable to its
`
`performance.”
`
`A.
`
`Pre-Shift Off-the-Clock Work.
`
`
`32. Defendants tasked Plaintiff with providing customer service to Defendant
`
`AllianceRx’s clients by use of Defendants’ telephones, Defendants’ computers, and the
`
`programs accessible from Defendants’ computers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`33. Upon information and belief, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants
`
`tasked Plaintiff with working from home using Defendants’ telephones, computers, and
`
`programs accessible from Defendants’ computers.
`
`34.
`
`To access Defendants’ systems, Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former
`
`CCRs, must boot up their computers and log in to the various computer programs, servers,
`
`and applications, and log in to Defendants’ phone systems in order to take their first call at
`
`their scheduled shift start time prior to being paid. This pre-shift procedure regularly takes
`
`30 minutes per shift, or more if technical issues arise. Defendants did not compensate
`
`Plaintiff for this time.
`
`35. Regardless of how long the boot up and login process takes, Defendants did
`
`not allow Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former CCRs, to clock in before the start of
`
`their scheduled shift—and only after they completed the boot up and login process.
`
`36.
`
`The pre-shift boot up procedure Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former
`
`CCRs, must complete before they begin being compensated is the same regardless of which
`
`call center location they worked at or whether they worked from home. The pre-shift boot
`
`up and login procedure is integral and indispensable to the performance of Plaintiff’s
`
`principal job duties and integral and indispensable to Defendants’ business.
`
`37.
`
`Thus, the unpaid, pre-shift, off-the-clock work performed by Plaintiff, and
`
`all other current and/or former CCRs, directly benefits Defendants.
`
`B.
`
`Post-Shift Off-the-Clock Work.
`
`
`38. Defendants required Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former hourly
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`CCRs, to first clock out of the timekeeping system, then spend time logging out of the
`
`necessary programs, servers, and applications, and shutting down their computer off-the-
`
`clock. This boot-down process regularly took 3 to 5 minutes per shift.
`
`39.
`
`This post-shift off-the-clock boot-down work performed by Plaintiff, and all
`
`other current and/or former hourly CCRs, was integral and indispensable to the primary
`
`job duties of Defendants’ CCRs and directly benefited Defendants.
`
`C.
`
`Defendant’s Policy and Practice of Off-the-Clock Work Violates Federal
`and State Laws.
`
`40. At all times relevant, Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff, and all other
`
`current and/or former CCRs, to routinely perform off-the-clock, pre-shift work by not
`
`compensating its employees until after they completed the pre-shift boot up and log in
`
`procedure.
`
`41. At all times relevant, Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff, and all other
`
`current and/or former CCRs, to routinely perform off-the-clock, post-shift work by not
`
`compensating its employees for the post-shift boot down and log out procedure
`
`42. Defendants knew or should have known that they must pay their employees
`
`for all compensable time throughout the workweek. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.221, 790.8,
`
`785.19(a).
`
`43. Despite this, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff, and all other current
`
`and/or former CSRs, for their off-the-clock pre-shift and post-shift compensable work
`
`performed in any amount.
`
`44. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207,
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`requires Defendants to compensate non-exempt employees who work in excess of forty
`
`(40) hours in a workweek at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay—
`
`including the compensable off-the-clock, pre-shift and post-shift work performed.
`
`45. Despite this, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff, and all other current
`
`and/or former CCRs, for their off-the-clock pre-shift and post-shift compensable work
`
`performed in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek at one and one-half times their
`
`regular rates of pay.
`
`46. Defendants knew or should have known that Arizona wage and hour laws
`
`require an employer to pay employees wages for each hour worked. See A.R.S. § 23-351.
`
`47. Despite this, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff Wilkerson, and all
`
`other current and/or former hourly CCRs working in Defendants’ call center locations in
`
`Arizona for their off-the-clock pre-shift and post-shift compensable work performed in
`
`workweeks totaling less than 40 hours and in workweeks totaling in excess of 40 hours at
`
`the proper legal rates, including overtime premiums.
`
`48. Defendants knew or should have known that Arizona wage and hour laws
`
`require an employer to promptly pay employees for their earned wages. See A.R.S. §§ 23-
`
`351 and 23-353.
`
`49.
`
`In reckless disregard of the FLSA and Arizona wage and hour laws,
`
`Defendants adopted and then adhered to its policy, plan, or practice of employing Plaintiff,
`
`and all other current and/or former CCRs, to perform pre-shift and post-shift compensable
`
`work off-the-clock. This illegal policy, plan, or practice caused incorrect payments for all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`straight time and overtime performed by Plaintiff, and all other current and/or former
`
`CCRs, in violation of the FLSA and Arizona wage and hour laws.
`
`D.
`
`Recordkeeping.
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The Arizona wage and hour laws require that “[e]mployers shall maintain
`
`payroll records showing the hours worked for each day worked, and the wages and earned
`
`paid sick time paid to all employees for a period of four years.” See A.R.S. § 23-364.
`
`51.
`
`Further, 29 C.F.R § 516.1 subjects “every employer subject to any provisions
`
`of the Fair Labor Standards Act” to maintain employee records.
`
`52.
`
`Federal regulations mandate each employer to maintain and preserve payroll
`
`or other records containing, without limitation, the total hours worked by each employee
`
`each workday and total hours worked by each employee each workweek. See 29 C.F.R §
`
`516.2.
`
`53. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to establish, maintain, and
`
`preserve accurate timesheet and payroll records for all hours worked by Plaintiff as
`
`required by the FLSA and Arizona wage and hour laws.
`
`54. When the employer fails to keep accurate records of the hours worked by its
`
`employees, the rule in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687–88 (1946)
`
`controls. That rule states:
`
`[w]here the employer’s records are inaccurate or inadequate . . . an employee
`has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for
`which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence
`to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable
`inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to
`negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s
`evidence. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then
`award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.
`
`
`55.
`
`The Supreme Court set forth this test to avoid placing a premium on an
`
`employer’s failure to keep proper records in conformity with its statutory duty, thereby
`
`allowing the employer to reap the benefits of the employees’ labors without proper
`
`compensation as required by the FLSA. Where damages are awarded pursuant to this test,
`
`“[t]he employer cannot be heard to complain that the damages lack the exactness and
`
`precision of measurement that would be possible had he kept records in accordance with .
`
`. . the Act.” Id.
`
`E.
`
`Joint Employer.
`
`
`56. Where joint employment exists, each employer has a duty to ensure that the
`
`rights provided by the FLSA are enforced as to each employee affected by the joint
`
`employment. 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
`
`57.
`
`The FLSA defines “employer” broadly as “any person acting directly or
`
`indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d);
`
`see Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633, 639 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing “that the concept
`
`of joint employment should be defined expansively under the FLSA”); see also Fausch v.
`
`Tuesday Morning, Inc., 808 F.3d 208, 214 (3d Cir. 2015) (noting “[t]he definition of
`
`‘employee’ in the FLSA is of ‘striking breadth’ and ‘cover[s] some parties who might not
`
`qualify as such under a strict application of traditional agency law principles”). “Where the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular
`
`employee and may be deemed to share control with the employee, directly or indirectly” a
`
`joint employment relationship may be found to exist. 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
`
`58.
`
`The Ninth Circuit has generally focused on whether the alleged employer:
`
`(1) had the power to hire and fire the employee, (2) supervised and controlled employee
`
`work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of
`
`payment, and (4) maintained employment records. Gillard v. Good Earth Power AZ LLC,
`
`No. CV-17-01368-PHX-DLR, 2019 WL 1280946, *9 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2019) (citing
`
`Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1983)).
`
`“All of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor
`
`being decisive.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 324 (1992).
`
`59. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing facilitated the screening
`
`and hiring of some employees for AllianceRx (their “joint employees”), and Healthcare
`
`Staffing and AllianceRx together determined the compensation, benefits, and work hours
`
`for the joint employees.
`
`60.
`
`In and around September 2020, Plaintiff discussed potential employment at
`
`AllianceRx with a representative for Healthcare Staffing.
`
`61.
`
`In and around September 2020, Healthcare Staffing ran a background check
`
`for Plaintiff related to potential employment at AllianceRx.
`
`62.
`
`In and around September 2020 a representative for Healthcare Staffing
`
`communicated to Plaintiff the hourly wage she would be paid for work performed for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`AllianceRx.
`
`63. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing was paid a lump sum by
`
`AllianceRx at the time of Plaintiff’s hiring which was payment for Plaintiff’s placement at
`
`AllianceRx.
`
`64. Upon information and belief, AllianceRx continued to receive money from
`
`Healthcare Staffing related to Plaintiff’s continued employment at AllianceRx.
`
`65. Upon information and belief, AllianceRx controlled a significant part of the
`
`terms of Plaintiff’s employment, including Plaintiff’s scheduling, supervision, oversight,
`
`directives, initiatives, and/or expectations of Plaintiff while she worked at AllianceRx’s
`
`Tempe, Arizona facility.
`
`66. AllianceRx’s employees were responsible for supervising Plaintiff while she
`
`worked at AllianceRx’s Tempe, Arizona facility.
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiff clocked in and clocked out at AllianceRx’s Tempe, Arizona facility.
`
`68. A record of Plaintiff’s working hours was regularly transmitted by
`
`AllianceRx to Healthcare Staffing.
`
`69. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing was responsible for
`
`issuing, and did issue, Plaintiff’s paychecks to Plaintiff.
`
`70. On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff was laid off from her work with Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff was told by a representative of Healthcare Staffing that AllianceRx “had too many
`
`people and not enough work.”
`
`71. Upon information and belief, AllianceRx participated in the decision to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`terminate Plaintiff.
`
`72. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing participated in the decision
`
`to terminate Plaintiff.
`
`73. Upon information and belief, AllianceRx maintained records related to
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`74. Upon information and belief, Healthcare Staffing maintained records related
`
`to Plaintiff.
`
`75. Upon information and belief, both AllianceRx and Healthcare Staffing
`
`maintained records related to the employment of their joint employees.
`
`76. Upon information and belief, AllianceRx and Healthcare Staffing were
`
`members of, and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership, and common enterprise, and were
`
`acting within the course and scope of, and in furtherance of, said joint venture, partnership,
`
`or common enterprise in employing Plaintiff.
`
`77. Upon information and belief, the same or similar procedures for hiring,
`
`firing, supervision, and payment alleged above existed for all other joint employees.
`
`78. Defendants knew or should have known that, as joint employers, each of the
`
`Defendants had a duty to comply with the provisions of the FLSA.
`
`79.
`
`Together, Defendants willfully, or in reckless disregard, furthered policies
`
`and practices with respect to off-the-clock pre-shift boot up and post-shift boot down time
`
`to evade paying employees, including Plaintiff, at the overtime rate of one and one-half
`
`times their standard pay, in violation of the FLSA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 16 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`80.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
`
`individually and on behalf of:
`
`All current and former Call Center Representative employees, and/or other
`job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked for
`Defendants and/or each of them, at any time in the last three years, while
`working at Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC.
`
`
`
`(hereinafter referred to as the “FLSA Collective”). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this
`
`definition as necessary.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff does not bring this action on behalf of any executive, administrative,
`
`or professional employees exempt from coverage under the FLSA.
`
`82.
`
`29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification “Similarly Situated” Standard:
`
`With respect to the claims set forth in this action, a collective action under the FLSA is
`
`appropriate because, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the call center employees described are
`
`“similarly situated” to Plaintiff. The class of employees on behalf of whom Plaintiff brings
`
`this collective action are similarly situated because (a) they have been or are employed in
`
`the same or similar positions; (b) they were or are subject to the same or similar unlawful
`
`practices, policies, or plan (namely, Defendant’s practices, policies, or plan of not paying
`
`their CCR employees for their pre-shift, compensable work performed in excess of forty
`
`(40) hours per workweek at an overtime premium of at least one and one-half times their
`
`regular rates of pay); (c) their claims are based upon the same legal theories; and (d) the
`
`employment relationship between Defendants and every putative FLSA Collective
`
`member is exactly the same, and differs only by name, location, and rate of pay.
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`83. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff estimate the FLSA Collective,
`
`including both current and former call center employees over the relevant period, will
`
`include several hundred members who would benefit from the issuance of court-supervised
`
`notice of this action and the opportunity to join it. The precise number of the FLSA
`
`Collective members should be readily available from a review of Defendants’ personnel,
`
`scheduling, time, and payroll records; and from input received from the FLSA Collective
`
`members as part of the notice and “opt-in” process provided by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff shares the same interests as the FLSA Collective members in that
`
`the outcome of this action will determine whether they are entitled to unpaid overtime
`
`compensation, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs owed under the FLSA. Because the facts
`
`in this case are similar, if not altogether identical, and the factual assessment and legal
`
`standards lend themselves to a collective action.
`
`THE ARIZONA WAGE AND HOUR LAW CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff Wilkerson brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf
`
`85.
`
`of a putative Class defined to include:
`
`All current and former Call Center Representative employees in Arizona,
`and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked
`for Defendants and/or each of them, at any time in the last one year, while
`working at Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC.
`
`
`
`(hereinafter referred to as the “Arizona Class”). Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this
`
`definition as necessary.
`
`86. Numerosity: The members of the Arizona Class are so numerous that joinder
`
`of all members in the case would be impracticable, and the disposition of their claims as a
`
`[18995-000/418697/1]
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:21-cv-01427-JAT Document 1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 18 of 32
`
`
`
`Class will benefit the parties and the Court. The precise number of Class members should
`
`be readily available from a review of Defendants’ personnel and payroll records.
`
`87. Commonality/Predominance: There is a well-defined community of interest
`
`among Arizona Class members and common questions of both law and fact predominate
`
`in the action over any questions affecting individual members. These common legal and
`
`factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`a. Whether Defendants violated A.R.S. §§ 23-350 et seq. by failing to
`pay current and former employees for all wages earned;
`
`b.
`
`The proper measure of damages sustained by the proposed Arizona
`Class; and
`
`c. Whether Defendants violated the A.R.S. by failing to make, keep, and
`preserve true and accurate payroll records.
`
`
`
`88.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Arizona Class in that
`
`Plaintiff and all other members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendants’ common and systemic payroll policies and practices. Plaintiff’s claims arise
`
`from Defendants’ same policies, practices, and course of conduct as all other Arizona
`
`members’ claims and Plaintiff’s legal theories are based on the same legal theories as all
`
`other Arizona Class members: whether all Arizona Class members were employed by
`
`Defendants on an hourly basis without receiving compensation for all wages earned.
`
`89.
`
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the i